3 ms·
It seems reasonable to suggest that the number of profit-driven ransomware endeavors and the number of for-fun ransomware endeavors can both be non-zero and con
by modernpacifist 2y ago
It seems reasonable to suggest that the number of profit-driven ransomware endeavors and the number of for-fun ransomware endeavors can both be non-zero and contain some overlap and some non-overlap. Therefore it seems that to make it unprofitable would at least eliminate the former reason which under all by the worst case scenario where those numbers are perfectly equal and overlapping would result in fewer ransomware endeavors.
To say we shouldn't do X because it doesn't perfectly eliminate/solve Y is akin to saying we should do nothing because by that standard, we'll never do anything about Y.
- kazinator 2y agoNot only might X (= banning payments) not eliminate ransomware, it could make the problem worse! Those ransomware perpetrators who are motivated by profit could multiply their activities, if the yield is reduced: have more heists going on.
- modernpacifist 2y agoI don't see how banning payments would inherently create more opportunity for ransomware attacks. Assuming that the operators are already attacking as much as they can (why wouldn't they be - its more profit that way since its business after all) the only way to maintain profitability with lower per-attack yields would be to ask for more ransom per-attack which would likely drive the yields down even further. Reminds me of https://youtu.be/9pOiOhxujsE?si=GG6X16c8efr0I3Ey&t=213 https://youtu.be/9pOiOhxujsE?si=GG6X16c8efr0I3Ey&t=213
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]