> Sometimes it is the only way to get things back running. I understand its the organization's fault for not having backups. It would destroy some businesses, hospitals, schools if they weren't able to pay the ransom.

That doesn't change the game theory dynamics that I pointed out above.

I bet you'd be singing a different tune if the life of someone you loved was at stake.

If someone I loved was in a hospital that might get targeted by ransomware, I'd prefer we adopt the policies that reduce the prevalence of ransomware.

This is assuming you can time travel. In reality, you have no idea what hospital your loved ones will end up at, nor whether they will (chances are they will not), nor what systems to protect in advance. On top of that, you would have to convince others that the investment is worth making.

They surely would. However we generally try to treat being too close to a topic emotionally as a reason to distance someone from it, not to value their opinion more.

Judges don't recuse themselves because someone they know wasn't involved in the case.

sure, most people would. but the things a private individual would be willing to do under extreme leverage don't make a good basis for policy.