2 ms·
This would never work. The assumption is that the bad guys would stop doing ransoms because they think they won't ever get paid since the victim would face lega
by cirrus3 3y ago
This would never work. The assumption is that the bad guys would stop doing ransoms because they think they won't ever get paid since the victim would face legal consequences if they paid.
The problem is the assumption that finding a victim for a ransom request is a more expensive task than the potential payoff in the in the long-run.
As long as the ransoms are still a net win for the bad guys in the end, it won't stop.
- jszymborski 3y agoThe assumption is that victims will be less likely to payout, increasing the cost of attacks for criminals since they'll need to expend resources on an attack with a lower chance of payout. Ransoms are not a net win when victims don't payout.
- cirrus3 3y agoYes, it is all based on assumptions of the dynamics of the cost/benefit calculations of the ransoming-business which I am not familiar with. I did not see anything in the article that took that into account. I fear the lawmakers may not familiar with those dynamics either. My personal assumption is that the cost is very low for the bad guys. This may make a dent in their profit margin. But is that really worth it for the position we'd be putting victims in? If my assumption is correct, it just going to shift the ransoms to those victims more willing pay without being caught and I'm not sure that is the a desired outcome (or maybe it is). The big companies may be targeted less if they don't pay, but is that really solving the problem?