Earlier quoted context omitted.
if no one paid, there would be no more kidnappings for ransom
The kidnappers can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
Marvelous.
Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation
61–70 of 78 posts
Re: Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you have a prisoner's dilemma, no? To the individual gang, wouldn't it be safer to 'defect'? Edit or would it be more a tragedy-of-the-commons?
Don't you think that a big chunk, say a majority, of kidnappers would rather not kill anyone and also hold themselves in rather high regard, like "a man of my word" and such things. Maybe we could call "honor" a built-in game theory heuristic we humans have? After all, we are hardwired to be social.
> kidnappers would rather not kill anyone and also hold themselves in rather high regard, like "a man of my word" and such
You're assuming a certain value-set here. If instead their highest value is to appear ruthless to their peers (think prison, or for that matter the Dothraki), then no.
Re: Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation
#63When I lived/worked in a high-risk kidnapping environment, I ever got K&R insurance. What I wanted was "retribution insurance" -- some plan which would guarantee some people would investigate and kill everyone in any substantial way affiliated with the kidnapping -- and to loudly communicate the existence of this policy in advance. Being recovered would be great, but having kidnappings deterred entirely would be even…
> some plan which would guarantee some people would investigate and kill everyone in any substantial way affiliated with the kidnapping -- and to loudly communicate the existence of this policy in advance. [...] US citizenship largely serves this purpose
I'd like to call this the "little madman theory".
Re: Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation
#64One thing I don't quite get... Say I've kidnapped someone and the ransom has been paid. I could release the hostage but then there would be someone with knowledge of my operation out there walking about. If I killed the hostage instead, I'll have eliminated that risk and I can keep the ransom. It's not like anyone is going to sue me for not keeping my side of the contract. Maybe I'm going to get a reputation for kill…
Why would dropping an identity be easier than dropping a physical location? If you change your identity but hang out at the same places you are going to get caught.
Wouldn’t it be much much easier to use a new location for every kidnapping than to do the Hollywood ending?
Re: Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's probably why some of the insurance policies require things like curfews and private security.
The war zone policies often mandated inherently unsafe things (movement only in high-profile armored vehicles, with light security, concentration of protected persons in specific places) when those things were actually by that time less safe than alternatives (low profile vehicles, dispersion).
Presumably these companies would be at a competitive disadvantage to insurance companies that are better at mitigating risk. How are they able to stay in business while requiring unsafe behavior?
Re: Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation
#66Most places, where kidnappings happen often, have the same result: victims end up dead regardless of a paid ransom and not notifying police. The only place where most victims end up alive and unscathed once the victims' families pay the ransoms is the Philippines. Not totally sure why. Maybe it's because most of the kidnappers are professional soldiers instead of random gangs?
the article states the opposite: 9% of those who don't have K&R insurance come to some form of grief vs. 2% of those with K&R insurance (worldwide stats, assumably?)
Maybe they also group this together with kidnappings by relatives for a financial scam? That would explain better treatment in the stats. (imo this should also be treated separately, though not sure when we don't have access to the data.) On a related note, kidnappings in the West will also probably skew the data since most of it is done by divorced parents who don't custody. Rape also has a much larger stigma outside of the West. That aspect of the kidnapping may be hidden due to culture.
I'm also very unfamiliar with kidnappings in India and the surrounding regions.
I just know that the Philippines is special place when it comes to kidnapping; victims were rarely harmed in any way as long as the ransom demands were met - after negotiation of course. The exception happens when terrorists in the southern most region are the kidnappers.
Re: Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
The war zone policies often mandated inherently unsafe things (movement only in high-profile armored vehicles, with light security, concentration of protected persons in specific places) when those things were actually by that time less safe than alternatives (low profile vehicles, dispersion).
Presumably these companies would be at a competitive disadvantage to insurance companies that are better at mitigating risk. How are they able to stay in business while requiring unsafe behavior?
Unsafe practice is probably cheaper and clients do not know any better - to them show of security is better than actual security.
That said, some unsafe practices as mentioned become the only choice - when you're high profile enough, obscurity will not work.
Re: Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if the insurance companies are limited to a % of paid claims... then they are incentivised to increase the payout and/or # kidnappings. That's a recipe for disaster just like the medical market.
The insurers have been paid in advance. They pay the ransom from their coffers, so are incentivised to reduce the cost as well as keep customers (not fuck to the recovery).
But then interests aren’t aligned. What if the insurance company denies your claim?
Re: Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation
#69Where there is kidnapping insurance, the kidnappers are going to know this in advance, and everyone involved will be the same players over and over. It’s a racket.
Given that K&R insurance actually lowers the ransom amount, wouldn't kidnappers be incentivized to go after people who don't have insurance rather than people who do?
Why go for an unknown amount of money when you can kidnap someone with a guarnteed payout.
Re: Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation
#70When I lived/worked in a high-risk kidnapping environment, I ever got K&R insurance. What I wanted was "retribution insurance" -- some plan which would guarantee some people would investigate and kill everyone in any substantial way affiliated with the kidnapping -- and to loudly communicate the existence of this policy in advance. Being recovered would be great, but having kidnappings deterred entirely would be even…
> US citizenship largely serves this purpose
Yes. In fact this sort of service has traditionally been one of the main features of any decently functioning tribe.
It is less true nation states. At best aristocrats got such a deal. Which is unfair, but is probably why nation states are more peaceful than small tribes.