Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation • Hacker News Board

Re: Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation

#51

Post by richjdsmith » Wed, May 30, 2018, 11:26 AM UTC

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #38

verytrivial wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a game theorist, but this is probably the same reason "ransomware" actually does unlock your data if your provide the BTC -- if it didn't, people would not pay. It's market forces at play and is what distinguishes organised criminals from garden variety criminals. (Sorry if that is stated in the article, but there is a pay-wall.)

But that assumes the kidnappers have a long-term game to play, and need to worry about their reputation, no? That will be the case at least some of the time, I suppose. Also, some 'ransomware' never unlocks, even on payment. 'NotPetya' is the famous one, perhaps there are others. A sufficiently spooked victim might behave irrationally and fail to research the ransomware's track record before paying up.

It's not so much as worrying about their personal (gang, group, person) reputation, but rather the reputation of kidnappers in general.

Kidnapping is a business. I would assume people who kidnap others do it more than once. If you want your industry (kidnapping) to continue to exist/be profitable, then would-be-payers must know that they are likely going to get the person(s) back.

Re: Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation

#52

Post by cm2187 » Wed, May 30, 2018, 11:29 AM UTC

ca98am79 wrote: post #13

steve19 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before K&R insurers got together, firms and wealthy families were paying badly negotiated sky high ransoms. Now professionals negotiators with ice running through their veins negotiate much better "deals" and also reduce the risk of death by two thirds. Much lower ransoms should mean kidnapping is less profitable and so supply should decrease (of kidnappings).

if no one paid, there would be no more kidnappings for ransom

I believe that's the policy that Israel applied with success.

Re: Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation

#53

Post by underwater » Wed, May 30, 2018, 11:31 AM UTC

kurthr wrote: post #8

matte_black wrote: post #4

Aw great, this is only going to cause MORE kidnappings since thieves will know they can get insurance money.

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).

Re: Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation

#54

Post by MaxBarraclough » Wed, May 30, 2018, 11:38 AM UTC

richjdsmith wrote: post #51

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that assumes the kidnappers have a long-term game to play, and need to worry about their reputation, no? That will be the case at least some of the time, I suppose. Also, some 'ransomware' never unlocks, even on payment. 'NotPetya' is the famous one, perhaps there are others. A sufficiently spooked victim might behave irrationally and fail to research the ransomware's track record before paying up.

It's not so much as worrying about their personal (gang, group, person) reputation, but rather the reputation of kidnappers in general. Kidnapping is a business. I would assume people who kidnap others do it more than once. If you want your industry (kidnapping) to continue to exist/be profitable, then would-be-payers must know that they are likely going to get the person(s) back.

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?

Re: Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation

#55

Post by sah2ed » Wed, May 30, 2018, 11:42 AM UTC

billpg wrote: post #36

One 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…

Well, that's because you are not thinking criminal enough :)

The modus operandis of commercial kidnappers is to always blindfold the victim in transit to and/or from the hideout, and after a ransom has been collected.

Then of course the victim enjoys very limited freedom to go outdoors while in captivity. Depending on the gang's methods, the hold house could be in the middle of nowhere, or if they are sophisticated enough to buy off the police, in the middle of a busy town.

The key to not getting unravelled is to use multiple hold houses and to routinely transport the victim to a different location by bundling him/her inside the trunk of a vehichle at night.

Re: Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation

#56

Post by vertex-four » Wed, May 30, 2018, 12:46 PM UTC

baud147258 wrote: post #40

jerguismi wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a great way to get the hostages killed at the same time. Maybe it would work _after_ the kidnappers have been paid.

But if the hostage takers are dead and other potential hostage taker know this, it would reduce the risk?

Which is great and all, except now your family member is dead, which I’m sure matters more to you than some game theory.

Re: Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation

#57

Post by DmenshunlAnlsis » Wed, May 30, 2018, 12:51 PM UTC

vertex-four wrote: post #56

baud147258 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if the hostage takers are dead and other potential hostage taker know this, it would reduce the risk?

Which is great and all, except now your family member is dead, which I’m sure matters more to you than some game theory.

The result of which is everyone is at more risk, including your family in the future.

Re: Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation

#58

Post by jacobush » Wed, May 30, 2018, 1:00 PM UTC

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #54

richjdsmith wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much as worrying about their personal (gang, group, person) reputation, but rather the reputation of kidnappers in general. Kidnapping is a business. I would assume people who kidnap others do it more than once. If you want your industry (kidnapping) to continue to exist/be profitable, then would-be-payers must know that they are likely going to get the person(s) back.

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.

Re: Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation

#59

Post by baud147258 » Wed, May 30, 2018, 1:25 PM UTC

vertex-four wrote: post #56

baud147258 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if the hostage takers are dead and other potential hostage taker know this, it would reduce the risk?

Which is great and all, except now your family member is dead, which I’m sure matters more to you than some game theory.

To the family members, it matters. From the viewpoint of the governement, I'd say it makes sense.

Re: Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation

#60

Post by conanbatt » Wed, May 30, 2018, 1:41 PM UTC

billpg wrote: post #36

One 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…

An actor involved in the kidnappings is the police, that actually does create a 'relationship' with the kidnappers in the long run. This means that killing the hostages reduces the future chances of successful kidnappings.

Kidnapping is a repeat business also.

Second, killing the hostage could make the pursuit a lot more intense: releasing the hostage might put it dead on its tracks . Police has limited resources, and successfully resolved kidnappings are way below murders.

And then, there is actually a human decision of not killing someone. Criminality is not a switch that turns you into a sociopath.