Colonial paid $5 million ransom to hackers
Bloomberg reports that CNA Financial paid $𝟒𝟎 𝐌𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐎𝐍 to hackers demanding a ransom
this is insane.................it looks like the black hats are smarter than the white hats
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-20/cna-financial-paid-40-million-in-ransom-after-march-cyberattack
*
There should be a law forbidding ransom payments.Quote: lilredrooster.....................
Bloomberg reports that CNA Financial paid $𝟒𝟎 𝐌𝐈𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐎𝐍 to hackers demanding a ransom
this is insane.................it looks like he black hats are smarter than the white hats
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-20/cna-financial-paid-40-million-in-ransom-after-march-cyberattack
*
Quote: AxelWolfThere should be a law forbidding ransom payments.
Ive thought that too! If it was a law with teeth, it would then dissuade further hacks.
Quote: AxelWolfThere should be a law forbidding ransom payments.
I disagree. Why shouldn't each person get to decide on their own? If someone hijacked all of your financial assets except for the $20 cash in your pocket, wouldn't you pay the $20 to get it all back immediately? I would pay the $20 to not have to wait potentially 2 years to get it back or to never get it back. I wouldn't know how to live my life without my financial assets so I would gladly pay $20 to get it back and over with.
Quote: DRichI disagree. Why shouldn't each person get to decide on their own? If someone hijacked all of your financial assets except for the $20 cash in your pocket, wouldn't you pay the $20 to get it all back immediately? I would pay the $20 to not have to wait potentially 2 years to get it back or to never get it back. I wouldn't know how to live my life without my financial assets so I would gladly pay $20 to get it back and over with.
I am of mixed feelings. Of course given the scenario you present it clearly makes sense to take the action you suggest. What if the next day they do the same but ask for $30? And the next day they ask for $100....? Etc..... I think it is in societys best interests to not allow you to pay. If NO ONE was EVER allowed to pay, the activity would decrease substantially.
There are so many things society (the government) prevents me from doing.... I cant freely give a friend $20k. I cant park near my favorite restaurant without a handicapped sticker. I cant drive 35mph on Delaware Avenue in Tonawanda despite any reasonable person feeling 45mph is safe on that road.
Im ok if the gubmint decided to ban paying those ransoms.
Quote: SOOPOOI am of mixed feelings. Of course given the scenario you present it clearly makes sense to take the action you suggest. What if the next day they do the same but ask for $30? And the next day they ask for $100....? Etc..... I think it is in societys best interests to not allow you to pay. If NO ONE was EVER allowed to pay, the activity would decrease substantially.
You are using the terms cant and not allowed to rather than discouraged from or choose not to.
How would you prevent someone from being EVER allowed to pay with a law?
And then when it is inevitably broken, presumably you would want to punish the original victim with a significant criminal penalty to effectively discourage the behavior? The penalty would have to be quite severe to be effective given the incentive to break it some situations, and a severe penalty seems unjust.
.Quote: mcallister3200You are using the terms cant and not allowed to rather than discouraged from or choose not to.
How would you prevent someone from being EVER allowed to pay with a law?
And then when it is inevitably broken, presumably you would want to punish the original victim with a significant criminal penalty to effectively discourage the behavior? The penalty would have to be quite severe to be effective given the incentive to break it some situations, and a severe penalty seems unjust.
Correct. Make it illegal punishable by jail time. If someone you know swindles you, you are already prevented by law from blowing their brains out.
If society decides that to severely discourage these hacks requires a firm law preventing paying the criminal, Im ok with that.
Anyways, I just think in this specific situation there is no reasonable punishment that would both fit the action and be severe enough to be effective. Anything severe enough to be effective in a situation where someone might not feel like they have a better option would be extreme overkill in comparison to the action.
.Quote: mcallister3200Discouraged, not prevented. The existence of a law discourages me from breaking that law it does not prevent me from doing so. Its an option thats there. Semantics I know.
Anyways, I just think in this specific situation there is no reasonable punishment that would both fit the action and be severe enough to be effective. Anything severe enough to be effective in a situation where someone might not feel like they have a better option would be extreme overkill in comparison to the action.
Then I guess we should have no laws and no punishments because no law is 100% effective at stopping criminal behavior, and no punishment enough of a dissuasion?
I truly believe, if, say, armed robbery resulted in a minimum 20 year prison sentence, no out early for good behavior, no pre trial plea bargain, then there would be substantially less armed robberies.
If it was KNOWN that if you paid the ransom youd be in JAIL for 7 years, then there would be far fewer ransoms paid.
Quote: SOOPOOI am of mixed feelings. Of course given the scenario you present it clearly makes sense to take the action you suggest. What if the next day they do the same but ask for $30? And the next day they ask for $100....? Etc.....
Simple, protect your assets better or expect it to happen again.
In my example if they got all my money from Wells Fargo, ETrade, and Fidelity. I would probably withdraw from each of those institutions and find safer places to keep my assets.
