Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Royal Mail dismisses ‘absurd’ $80M ransom demand

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 108 posts

Re: Royal Mail dismisses ‘absurd’ $80M ransom demand

#81

Post by krisoft »

ricardobayes wrote: post #78
clnq wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not your problem. The seller is legally responsible for the delivery. Chat with Amazon again and remind them. Or consult with Citizens Advice if you need help. Amazon support eventually refunds basically anything if you are persistent enough.

Maybe, but in one specific occasion I know of, the client was told not to contact support anymore for a refund. I think it's a different retail landscape now to what it was in 2020-2022.

Sounds like they were not persistent enough.

Re: Royal Mail dismisses ‘absurd’ $80M ransom demand

#82

Post by pc_edwin »

ukoki wrote: post #11

How is it even legal to pay ransoms? Surely this is transferring money to criminal enterprises. If it is not illegal it needs to be made illegal.

The prospect of a world in which victims are transformed into criminals is profoundly dystopian.

Such laws run the risk of fostering a climate in which individuals frequently transgress established legal boundaries, with the authorities given free rein to target anyone they please on a whim.

This would inevitably lead to a breakdown of the rule of law and a culture of lawlessness that would imperil the rights and liberties of all citizens.

Re: Royal Mail dismisses ‘absurd’ $80M ransom demand

#83

Post by pc86 »

pc_edwin wrote: post #82
ukoki wrote: post #11

How is it even legal to pay ransoms? Surely this is transferring money to criminal enterprises. If it is not illegal it needs to be made illegal.

The prospect of a world in which victims are transformed into criminals is profoundly dystopian. Such laws run the risk of fostering a climate in which individuals frequently transgress established legal boundaries, with the authorities given free rein to target anyone they please on a whim. This would inevitably lead to a breakdown of the rule of law and a culture of lawlessness that would imperil the rights and lib…

"Preventing large monetary transfers to organized crime inevitably leads to a culture of lawlessness and imperils all citizens" is certainly an interesting take, I'll give you that.

Re: Royal Mail dismisses ‘absurd’ $80M ransom demand

#84

Post by unxdfa »

Our_Benefactors wrote: post #20

I bought some candy from Amazon that was shipped by Royal Mail, and it never arrived. Amazon told me to take up the refund with Royal Mail, with no instructions how to do so. Anyone know how I can get a refund from Amazon/Royal Mail for the candy they never sent?

Unsurprised. Just work your way through Amazon support and get to a human. If they tell you no, just do it again. Eventually you'll get to someone who will just refund it. Also only ever buy crap on a credit card. Just waving "chargeback" gets you a refund most of the time anywhere.

Re: Royal Mail dismisses ‘absurd’ $80M ransom demand

#85

Post by bsder »

clnq wrote: post #44

Why is ransomware still a problem? Is it that difficult to make off-site backups every hour? Storage is cheap. There are many air gapping options for backups, too. It sounds like a case of normalized deviance, for which the management should be held accountable. As much as I don’t like victim blaming, I think it’s beyond incompetent to still not backup your data in 2023 as a government org.

> Why is ransomware still a problem? Is it that difficult to make off-site backups every hour?

Because unless you actually restore your system from backups regularly, you don't actually have backups.

Setting up a system wherein you restore from backups regularly requires, time, effort and money. None of which you are likely to receive for a "mere backup system".

Re: Royal Mail dismisses ‘absurd’ $80M ransom demand

#86

Post by pc_edwin »

pc86 wrote: post #83
pc_edwin wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prospect of a world in which victims are transformed into criminals is profoundly dystopian. Such laws run the risk of fostering a climate in which individuals frequently transgress established legal boundaries, with the authorities given free rein to target anyone they please on a whim. This would inevitably lead to a breakdown of the rule of law and a culture of lawlessness that would imperil the rights and lib…

"Preventing large monetary transfers to organized crime inevitably leads to a culture of lawlessness and imperils all citizens" is certainly an interesting take, I'll give you that.

The alternative is a moral/philosophical claim that there are no situations where dealing with organised crime is acceptable.

This is patently absurd, as there exists not only situations where its reasonable but an imperative to deal with organised crime.

Re: Royal Mail dismisses ‘absurd’ $80M ransom demand

#87

Post by bdcravens »

agilob wrote: post #16
bdcravens wrote: post #8

I live in a small suburb north of Houston, and they were hit with a ransomware attack in late December. They still aren't fully operational.

https://techmonitor.ai/technology/cybersecurity/ransomware-r... Council was hit with ransomware, they went back to pen and paper for everything. They lost track of who lives there and when moved out. They kept resending overdue bills to addresses threatening debt collects to people who moved out. The council said they will still collect council tax once they are operational and it's your responsibility to have money…

Fortunately the city quickly said there would be no late fees for utilities, but they haven't said much since then - I suspect they thought it would be a much quicker turnaround than it has been.

https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2023/01/05/tomball-...

Re: Royal Mail dismisses ‘absurd’ $80M ransom demand

#88

Post by tshaddox »

bee_rider wrote: post #72
tshaddox wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's weird. It's like saying it should be illegal to give your wallet to a mugger.

It is not very similar I think — in a mugging the “don’t pay” downside is violence, possible death. In a ransomware situation, the victim is basically making an economic decision — is the cost of losing their files greater than the cost of the ransom. The cost of dying is basically infinite, the cost of paying the ransom can be shifted up and down with fines until it is high enough to disincentivize paying.

I don’t know. A mugger could make other threats too that aren’t direct bodily injury or death. It could be “pay me money or I’ll burn down your restaurant” (that’s more like a protection racket than a “mugging”). That’s pretty similar to the threat to one’s livelihood that many of these ransomware attacks constitute.

Re: Royal Mail dismisses ‘absurd’ $80M ransom demand

#89

Post by sublinear »

hyperman1 wrote: post #24
ukoki wrote: post #11

How is it even legal to pay ransoms? Surely this is transferring money to criminal enterprises. If it is not illegal it needs to be made illegal.

As I understand it, it is indeed illegal in most countries. What happens in practice is the victim hires a 'data recovery specialist' company, provides them the encrypted files, and ask them to decrypt them with their magic algorithms. The data recovery specialist coincidentally is paid a little bit more than the ransom. The specialist then contacts the hackers, pays the ransom, decrypts the files, and provides them…

So the data recovery specialists are providing money laundering as a service (MLaaS)? ;)

Re: Royal Mail dismisses ‘absurd’ $80M ransom demand

#90

Post by bee_rider »

tshaddox wrote: post #88
bee_rider wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not very similar I think — in a mugging the “don’t pay” downside is violence, possible death. In a ransomware situation, the victim is basically making an economic decision — is the cost of losing their files greater than the cost of the ransom. The cost of dying is basically infinite, the cost of paying the ransom can be shifted up and down with fines until it is high enough to disincentivize paying.

I don’t know. A mugger could make other threats too that aren’t direct bodily injury or death. It could be “pay me money or I’ll burn down your restaurant” (that’s more like a protection racket than a “mugging”). That’s pretty similar to the threat to one’s livelihood that many of these ransomware attacks constitute.

Yeah, that’s more of a protection racket. Mugging is essentially by definition backed by the threat of violence I’m pretty sure. Possibly a bluff of course!
Post reply on HN