To Pay or Not To Pay Ransomware, That Is the Question …
Compliance is the driver in cybersecurity, and it will be compliance with some standard, regulation, or law that will put ransomware out of business.
December 14, 2020 at 02:33 PM
9 minute read
I'm beginning to think we should ban ransom payments to criminals or at least disallow insurance to cover them. I know that sounds extreme, but hear me out. It's very worth exploring at this time, as the scope of the problem is exponentially growing in the wake of COVID-19. According to a new report by Emisoft, ransomware demand costs could reach new highs this year exceeding $1.4 billion in the United States in 2020.
|Ransomware Has Evolved and the Stakes Are Getting Higher
Ransomware attacks have changed over the course of their notoriety. While some might think that because the typical target is no longer individuals, but rather larger organizations, that they are personally safe, the truth is actually that the risks have only gone up for both individuals and organizations. Whereas before, an individual would know if their data had been taken ransom, it is more likely now that data they've entrusted to a third party (often entrusted to yet another third party), is being taken, leaked or sold, and the individual is not made aware until the larger organization notifies them, always long after the fact, usually only announcing incidents when obligated to, meaning you are just as at risk, without the knowledge or agency to protect yourself.
|We Need To Starve the Cyber Crime Industry
The ransomware problem, however, is not likely something that can be challenged by any individual. It will take a collective effort, with the entire ecosystem cooperating to starve the ransomware "industry" and the cybercriminals behind it so that it is no longer a profitable scam. It is often seemingly the path of least resistance to pay ransoms, but this practice actually perpetuates the problem. A voluntary embargo of ransom payments is unlikely, so it will fall to social and political pressure to prevent people from negotiating with cybercriminals. We could make it illegal to pay a ransomware demand, or to otherwise discourage it. Or, we could look at the effect cyber insurance (and the fact that it covers ransomware payments) has on ransomware attacks. If regulation disallowed insurance from covering these payments to criminals, and instead refused to cover entities that did not engage in the minimal cybersecurity measures needed to protect private data, it's possible we could snuff out ransomware as a practice.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Corporate Confidentiality Unlocked: Leveraging Common Interest Privilege for Effective Collaboration
11 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250