Kidnapping insurance keeps a lid on ransom inflation

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 30, 2018, 10:39 PM 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.

Post by adrianratnapala » Wed, May 30, 2018, 10:43 PM UTC

sah2ed wrote: post #55

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 e…

Post by rdl » Thu, May 31, 2018, 8:17 AM UTC

AstralStorm wrote: post #67

daveFNbuck wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by verytrivial » Thu, May 31, 2018, 9:55 AM UTC

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #62

jacobush wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.