Hacker News Reader

Comment by nradov | Hacker News Reader

That is an acceptable outcome. Let the victims suffer. That protects the rest of us, and serves as an object lesson in proper cyber security.

View on HN

So let people who aren’t experts at physical security suffer break-ins, and physically weak people get beaten up?

We have law enforcement so everyone can be free to focus on their own value-add in life without having to learn 1000 skills to cover their own ass. I love security but 99% of people don’t, and shouldn’t

> So let people who aren’t experts at physical security suffer break-ins, and physically weak people get beaten up?

First, in many jurisdictions, paying protection money for physical security is illegal.

Second, Colonial Pipeline has an operating revenue of $1.32 billion. I suppose in the USA it's technically a person, but... it's not actually a person.

> We have law enforcement so everyone can be free to focus on their own value-add in life without having to learn 1000 skills to cover their own ass. I love security but 99% of people don’t, and shouldn’t

I submit that oil pipeline operators, hospitals, and large corps are part of that 1%.

You have a point. They should do minimum due diligence to harden their networks.

However... how much do you want to bet that the CEO of a pipeline company has the knowledge to make this happen? One has to be an intelligent customer to make something like this happen.

Well then, perhaps there should be minimum requirements to become CEO of a large corporation in regulated areas like pipelines? If the alternative is large harm to the public, this seems like a no-brainer to me for future legislation.

It’s probably cleaner and easier to run this if the spooks set up a bureau of cyber security standards and fine strategically important companies for non-compliance. The gov can do security audits on these corps.

So should the president of the United States be an expert on tactical jet engines? And also have a PHD in economics? And also be an expert in immunology? And power plant operations? How about the national airspace system?

People are quick to conclude that Colonial’s security was “bad.” But do we know that to be true? A sophisticated, potentially state-sponsored organization initiated this attack. The best security in the world is not 100% secure. It might be wise to get the facts before rushing to judgement.

He's a CEO. His job is to ask others to find him the experts needed and manage them. He doesn't need to know any actual security engineering.

He needs to know the basics. How does he know someone is a real expert?

So, you are saying that there are jurisdictions where home security systems are illegal? Night watchmen/security guards and body guards are illegal? Where would these jurisdictions be located?

I don't think that's even close to what I'm saying. I'm not even really sure what you are trying to communicate here; are you insinuating that ADT or Ring hire roving bands of bandits who break into houses that aren't protected by their security systems? If not, I genuinely don't know what you're trying to say here.

That's a non sequitur. Certainly law enforcement should aggressively pursue criminals who engage in assault, burglary, and extortion. But that has nothing to do with paying off ransomware gangs.

Yes it does, it’s a crime, in this case a class of crime perpetrated, prosecuted, and prevented by experts. It falls under law enforcement

> We have law enforcement so everyone can be free to focus on their own value-add in life without having to learn 1000 skills to cover their own ass.

No, that's why we have division of labor. Law enforcement is just another brick in the wall. If a company is already making massive profits from the public by running critical services, why should tax payers fund their lack of diligence? Should we just fund their entire payroll while we're at it?

This would only protect those without proper cyber security. Why is it acceptable to let random targets suffer as opposed to everyone without proper security?

That's pretty easy to say when it's not e.g. your child being held for ransom.

I don't think people here are considering all forms of ransoms, but you hit on an interesting aspect of it all the same.

It's why, I think, such a law wouldn't pass Constitutional review.

If your person is threatened with imminent danger, you have a right to self-defense, we'll even let you commit intentional homicide if the threat is serious enough.

And self-defense also covers your property and livelihood to a lesser extent.

I think it'd be extremely hard to convince courts that this right to self-defense doesn't include negotiating with an attacker. Imagine if it were a crime to toss some money at a mugger and run away, for instance.

The US Constitution contains no explicit right to self defense. There are a variety of state and federal laws covering justifiable use of force but none of them are even remotely applicable to paying ransoms. If you disagree then please cite a specific legal case.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/us-government-warns-com...

US law derived from common law, which recognized a right to self defense. All 50 states, DC, and federal jurisdictions then codified that right as law. While the 2A is not directly about self-defense, it plainly guarantees an individual right to maintain the means for self-defense, which implies a right to self-defense.

There are cases covering a justifiable use of force because intentionally killing or harming a person is illegal, and self-defense is a defense against those charges.

It's normally perfectly legal to pay someone whatever you want. You don't need a defense against something that's not a crime. There's no conflict in paying a ransom, so there's no case law.

Regarding OFAC, as your link points out:

> One issue is that victim organizations are required to check the list of sanctioned entities; however, many times the true identity of the cybercriminals are not known.

I'm guessing there's no case law regarding paying ransoms to SDNs because nobody has an identity they can check.

But do we need case law when OFAC says:

> OFAC will consider a company’s self-initiated, timely and complete report of a ransomware attack to law enforcement to be a significant mitigating factor in determining the enforcement outcome if the situation is determined to have a sanctions nexus.

If someone wanted to make a law against paying ransom, it would be quite novel and courts would have to look for applicable doctrine. I think the doctrine of self-defense would be a roadblock.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com