There are thousands of things that are illegal, but in practice are rarely or ever prosecuted, even in cases where people are violating those laws at pretty significant scales.

In my case that's not a risk I'd be willing to take, but I can see why other people would. The reason it's not prosecuted though isn't because of companies, it's because there are lots of wealthy people who travel overseas and then get kidnapped, and the government isn't going to prosecute their families for paying to not have their kids dismembered and the videos posted on YouTube. The reason companies aren't prosecuted is mainly because once you decide not to prosecute families for doing this, then anyone else can make an equal protection argument.

Perhaps things like your age, gender, and wealth may be insulating you, allowing you to think, "these laws don't actually apply to me", and if they did, you could most likely hire a lawyer and fight it.

Many people in this world cannot. Think about how many people are incarcerated for weed-related "crimes". Just because no one is going to go after YOU for them, doesn't mean that these laws don't serve a purpose to screw over others not so fortunate.

Anyways, not to pick on you specifically - I obviously don't know a whole lot about you, but your reply irked me a bit. Cheers.

The rest seemed spot on: This law is almost exclusively broken by rich folks, so it will never be an enforcement priority.

Objectively neither activity is probably super high risk, but I still wouldn't be willing to take on either of those risks myself.

There are thousands of things that are illegal, but in practice are rarely or ever prosecuted, even in cases where people are violating those laws at pretty significant scales.

"rarely or ever prosecuted" for you. You are on the advantageous side of a system that isn't that way on happenstance. Let's take your startup. How easy would it be for a black-owned startup in the US to raise VC funds in comparison to a white-owned startup? How easy is it to get... well any sort of loan if you're a black person, compared to a white person? How many black-owned banks are there that cater specifically to black businesses of any size?

Name three black CEOs.

Now, why is that?

In Germany, the barrier to getting a drivers' license is much higher. More training, more stringent tests. But the effect of that is that drivers are (mostly) assumed to be able to adapt their driving to road conditions; as a consequence, you get unlimited legal driving speeds on part of the German road system. In good weather, traffic permitting.

Of course, there are confounding facts: in my experience the average physical state of a car is much better in Germany than the US, and highways are better maintained. But still, the contrast is interesting. In the US, lifting speed limits on even straight roads through the desert would have poor outcomes.

> "Maybe in places where code law is mostly binding, there’s a lot more pressure on the legislature to keep the law books up to date with the current norms of society."

In the US, where everything is so entwined with politics, there's a lot unenforceable laws still on the books.

For example, the US Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in 2003. Last I checked, Texas still has a law on the books criminalizing sodomy. Sure Texas can't enforce it, but the conservative majority in the legislature won't actually repeal the law because politics. Similarly, when the US Supreme Court ruled that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, Texas had to recognize same-sex marriage. But there was no law allowing same-sex couples to divorce. So there was this weird limbo wherein you couldn't get divorced if you were in a same-sex marriage.

America is weird.

For all intents and purposes sodomy was made legal by the 2003 precedent; that those laws are still technically in black-and-white doesn't mean they're in force.

But there are lots of laws that are still in force but aren't actually picked up and used much. They're still there, though. For instance, hardly anyone was prosecuted for Espionage Act violations for decades, but nobody disputes that the DoJ can dust that law off and start using it again, subject to the current jurisprudence on free speech etc.

Just saying, there's plenty of laws here that aren't prosecuted either.

Also there are laws that reference other country's laws. An example is that is (or was) illegal to buy/posses a type of meat in the US that is illegal in other jurisdictions. This was made to protect endangered animals but can easily apply to everything as there are lot of jurisdictions and who really knows if any one of them currently doesn't allow pork or beef for whatever reason.

More details here a few minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

It's definitely my perception in Berlin. There is almost no police, prosecutors and courts are completely understaffed.

Federally. The states have made this all higgledy-piggledy. And since there's money (legit retail income and state sales tax) involved, I'm surprised we don't have more federal troops kicking down more retail establishment doors.

A company I worked at once had a meeting with such a firm, and it all sounded pretty reasonable to me. Obviously, one would hope the company has backups (which are stored in a place that can't itself become encrypted), but if they don't, sometimes the cost of paying the ransom is far, far lower than the cost of staying down. These middle-man firms have probably saved companies from enormous amounts of damage. Another commenter claimed these companies are often in cahoots with the ransomers, which maybe is sometimes true, but I highly doubt it in the case of the company we dealt with, or other US-based companies with physical locations that meet on-site.

Of course in an ideal world no one wants to reward criminals, but just to give an extreme example, if someone kidnapped one of your children and held them hostage, you'd probably pay anything to get them back, and that's not far off from the situation some ransomware-affected companies end up in.

That's an appeal to emotion though while a company can do a cost-benefit analysis. Also, if you pay for your children that means you signal that the kidnapping business model is viable and thus endanger more children. If the government keeps you at gunpoint from paying for your children then yes, in the worst case a bunch of children might die, but the business model would die with them.

And yes, paying the ransom signals that hostage-taking can be profitable, but not paying it signals that you value crime prevention over the lives of your children, which isn't necessarily a reputation or circumstance you want, especially when they'll very likely end up brutally murdered.

A company that decided principle-based crime deterrence was more important than granting customers access to any of their funds for 6 months would probably go out of business quickly. Also, try using that argument when talking to people who live in areas largely run by organized crime.

Ransom works when the target is capable and has sufficient incentive to pay out, if you make it so that you’ll face jail time as a CEO who orders a ransom to be paid out it’s quite likely might reduce acts of ransom.

I know that there is grey area that is common in the energy and global construction sectors where companies might not be able to pay ransom legally essentially have a ransom insurance so when 3 of your workers get kidnapped in Djibouti you have your “insurance company” which also often facilitates negotiations, extraction and repatriation handle the case.

(This is also common for other reasons, especially liability reduction if something goes wrong the company can wash their hands of the case and send the families after the “insurance provider”.)

There is also the grey area of “private emergency services” which range from private medevac on standby to assault teams capable of executing asset recovery missions some even take pride of being able and willing to perform prison breaks.

If I was going to take a job doing something that is illegal, I think I might prefer one where the government has prosecuted people. Then I could look at those cases and see what people got off with just probation, which got light sentences, which got harsh sentences, what kind of plea deals were offered. Then I could at least have a decent chance of figuring out if the pay and benefits are worth the risk.

If they haven't prosecuted anyone (and this is not a line of work that has been around for a very long time), I'd worry that they just haven't gotten around to it yet, and I could end up being the first. Being first could be very bad, because they might be pushing for a harsh sentence to discourage others or encourage people prosecuted later to take plea bargains.

Funny enough, back when ransomware was simpler and used the same encryption key, we managed to recover one place by using Memory Forensics on a fucked machine.

I wonder if extracting the key, decrypting the files to not pay $100,000 in BTC would be illegal in some way.

The TLDR is that these middleman companies allow ransomware victims to both pay the fine and save face, by acting as if they didn't pay the fine. The perpetrators prefer to deal with the middlemen as they know how to pay in crypto, and are predictable - the middleman and the hackers are closer to partners than adversaries.

https://features.propublica.org/ransomware/ransomware-attack...

Edit: Or were the ransomware payments at hand not even malware related, but more "traditional" ransoms?

Now, if Garmin obtained the decryption keys, as is alleged in the article, it is clear that they paid. Note that the 'anonymous sources' cited did not even deny payment but only used a weasel turn of phrase 'did not directly make a payment', which is quite different from 'did not pay'. My best guess, if a payment was made, is that they hired people experts in dealing with these situations who arranged everything and who will bill for 'consulting services'...

I mean I’m pretty sure you’re not allowed to go wire money to Al Qaeda, or to conspire to evade anti money laundering controls in order to do so.

Money laundering is another issue. In general I think people are still free to spend their legitimate money (it's not money laundering to begin with).

Then again, the acceptability of a gotcha seems to correlate more with the amount of money spent on lawyers than on the rationality of the gotcha, so as long as they have a large enough legal department the worse they'll have is a fine that they likely already included in the cost of the attack.