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

UCSF admits it paid NetWalker more than $1M ransom

databreaches.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: UCSF admits it paid NetWalker more than $1M ransom

#61

Post by logicallee »

ineedasername wrote: post #57
logicallee wrote: post #46

Why isn't paying ransom illegal? Points: * Anytime any ransom is paid it is in the most literal sense funding ransom, even more directly than funding terror in the most direct way possible: when you send a check to ISIS that may or may not actually fund terror. Maybe whoever you sent it to is just good at making an ISIS recruitment page and doesn't do much real terror, just marketing. * But paying a ransom by definit…

>The world becomes free of bribery. This proves that making paying bribes illegal works. Have I misunderstood your tone here, or do you actually believe this? Because bribery is illegal, and happens all of the time. The few who get caught get in trouble. Heck, Goldman Sachs does it when it's needed to land deals! [0] I imagine the same would happen if ransom for ransomware was made illegal. Thieves would wouldn't car…

I don't think there are any countries left where international companies can't operate at all without paying bribes. Maybe they won't get their permits as fast, but they can still operate.

The fact that GS acts criminally is on GS. The fact that you can do business without being criminal like GS proves that this works.

See how I just shifted the conversation to the fact that GS is criminal? That's what we want. Not some routine transaction.

Re: UCSF admits it paid NetWalker more than $1M ransom

#62

Post by paulcole »

perl4ever wrote: post #49
Ghjklov wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't even joke. Think of how many SEs you just shook out of their sleeveless jackets.

I thought that was a stereotype of "wall street bros" and/or billionaires.

Who do you think the engs wish they were and want to emulate?

Re: UCSF admits it paid NetWalker more than $1M ransom

#63

Post by perl4ever »

paulcole wrote: post #62
perl4ever wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that was a stereotype of "wall street bros" and/or billionaires.

Who do you think the engs wish they were and want to emulate?

I've never met anyone like that, but then I've never been to the bay area, nor have I worked in finance or in NYC.

But my point is that I'm unaware of the stereotype. Saying "don't you think it's true" is a digression once removed from that.

It was in the news that Patagonia or someone was refusing to provide vests to financial companies that they were putting their own brands on. So it seems like that is in the category of "everybody knows" that is a thing. Also, I think I've seen a few pictures of Jeff Bezos in one.

Re: UCSF admits it paid NetWalker more than $1M ransom

#64

Post by paulcole »

perl4ever wrote: post #63
paulcole wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who do you think the engs wish they were and want to emulate?

I've never met anyone like that, but then I've never been to the bay area, nor have I worked in finance or in NYC. But my point is that I'm unaware of the stereotype . Saying "don't you think it's true" is a digression once removed from that. It was in the news that Patagonia or someone was refusing to provide vests to financial companies that they were putting their own brands on. So it seems like that is in the cat…

> But my point is that I'm unaware of the stereotype

My point is that you being unaware of something doesn’t make it untrue. Especially something you admit to having no knowledge of the context of.

Re: UCSF admits it paid NetWalker more than $1M ransom

#65

Post by cheriot »

cj wrote: post #23
cheriot wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's insurance that negotiates and pays ransom. How is that not comparable?

One has to do with a human life. The other has to do with ones and zeroes on a hard drive.

Ones and zeros affect human lives.

Maybe a prohibition on paying off ransomware is needed, but it's not sufficient and I don't think it's the low hanging fruit. John Dillinger once made headlines because he was better armed than the locals. Then he ran across state boundaries because law enforcement didn't coordinate well. It took a federal response specialized to that type of crime to bring it under control.

Re: UCSF admits it paid NetWalker more than $1M ransom

#66

Post by perl4ever »

paulcole wrote: post #64
perl4ever wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never met anyone like that, but then I've never been to the bay area, nor have I worked in finance or in NYC. But my point is that I'm unaware of the stereotype . Saying "don't you think it's true" is a digression once removed from that. It was in the news that Patagonia or someone was refusing to provide vests to financial companies that they were putting their own brands on. So it seems like that is in the cat…

> But my point is that I'm unaware of the stereotype My point is that you being unaware of something doesn’t make it untrue. Especially something you admit to having no knowledge of the context of.

You're trying to change the subject again, to whether it's true. What I was wondering is whether the stereotype is a thing, not whether it's true. I already said that and I guess you're ignoring what I write?

Why are you wasting your time being argumentative instead of raising my awareness?

I was originally curious if you are "trying to make fetch happen" or whether it's a stereotype that is widespread.

Re: UCSF admits it paid NetWalker more than $1M ransom

#67

Post by ineedasername »

logicallee wrote: post #61
ineedasername wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The world becomes free of bribery. This proves that making paying bribes illegal works. Have I misunderstood your tone here, or do you actually believe this? Because bribery is illegal, and happens all of the time. The few who get caught get in trouble. Heck, Goldman Sachs does it when it's needed to land deals! [0] I imagine the same would happen if ransom for ransomware was made illegal. Thieves would wouldn't car…

I don't think there are any countries left where international companies can't operate at all without paying bribes. Maybe they won't get their permits as fast, but they can still operate. The fact that GS acts criminally is on GS. The fact that you can do business without being criminal like GS proves that this works. See how I just shifted the conversation to the fact that GS is criminal? That's what we want. Not s…

Sure, yes, bribes are criminal. But making them criminal didn't make them go away. Now you are shifting your claim from saying the world id bribe-free to simply saying it's not necessary. Which is also not true anyway:

I know someone, in the US, who was unable to get a health-inspection sign off without making a separate "gift" to the inspector. The permit languished for months , with no apparent progress or response. Money was being lost. Finally the inspector showed up and made a reference to this "gift". The person I know said he might take his issue to the head of the health department. The inspector said "that's fine, you can do that. When you speak to him, tell my father that I said hello." Other areas of the same business were unable to get a certain supplier to either show up, or when they did, to provide usable product, until a kickback was given. Why not choose a different supplier? Because the type of supplier had to have a specific license to distribute the product, and suppliers had divide up territory so there was only one supplier in any area.

Bribery is alive & well. All making it criminal has done is ensure that when it's discovered, it is punished.

Re: UCSF admits it paid NetWalker more than $1M ransom

#68

Post by logicallee »

ineedasername wrote: post #67
logicallee wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there are any countries left where international companies can't operate at all without paying bribes. Maybe they won't get their permits as fast, but they can still operate. The fact that GS acts criminally is on GS. The fact that you can do business without being criminal like GS proves that this works. See how I just shifted the conversation to the fact that GS is criminal? That's what we want. Not s…

Sure, yes, bribes are criminal. But making them criminal didn't make them go away. Now you are shifting your claim from saying the world id bribe-free to simply saying it's not necessary. Which is also not true anyway: I know someone, in the US, who was unable to get a health-inspection sign off without making a separate "gift" to the inspector. The permit languished for months , with no apparent progress or response…

So I have a different perspective on what you just wrote. To me a world where you have to pay a bribe is very different to one where it is possible to do business without one. If anyone is doing business in a country without paying a bribe, then everyone can. It's like the difference between being able to run a restaurant without paying the mob and basically ignoring them, and not being to run that restaurant because they will come and beat you up until you do. That is a huge difference. The mob might still sell heroin or do other stuff the city doesn't want them to do but they are not beating up business people who refuse to pay them. That is a huge difference. When it is illegal for you to pay a bribe you can always say that you are not able to, because it's illegal and you're law-abiding. It's that simple.

Regarding your example: to me "that's fine, you can do that. When you speak to him, tell my father that I said hello" sounds like a scared bluff. After all the father in this situation has even more to lose than the son does! (Because of the father's higher rank.)

So the conversation is totally shifted. It might not even be his father in this case. It is always easy to be on the side of lawfulness. When there's a law behind you.

Without that law, it is just you and the ransom seeker, making a private arrangement. No, that's not the way the world should work.

I think making paying bribes illegal is fantastic, and the same thing should be done for paying any ransom. People respond to incentives. The government has to destroy that business model.

Let me paint you a picture: imagine if you were scared to go on the Internet right now, from any of your devices, because it is similar to going to a gang-infested part of the city where you will get beaten up. That's the world you think is okay: one in which you are being cyber attacked and forced to pay a ransom for "protection". No.

Actually that's not the world we live in: when I connect a device to the Internet, I don't feel like I'm about to get beaten up, and neither do you. This works. When someone pays $1 million to change that world, they're doing something very wrong, and it must be strongly illegal.

Post reply on HN