Being threatened with hacking is not the same thing as being mugged.
With an extortion attempt, if you don't pay up and you get hacked, you get to keep the ransom, even though damages may well exceed it.
If you get mugged, the cash is going to be taken away from you no matter what you do. Either you pay up and escape with your life, or you get shot and the mugger pries the cash out of your cold dead hands anyway, leaving you deprived both of your money AND your life, contrary to the stereotypical call of the highwayman. And unless the mugger has something to lose by killing you, they may just kill you anyway to cover their own ass, or simply for the thrill.
So with extortion, refusal to pay can prove to be a disincentive if the hacker incurs a net loss in the time and effort it takes to hack you without getting paid off for not doing it.
Whereas with mugging, since the guy with the gun always wins anyway, there is no such disincentive.
Comparing hacking to mugging is not proper anyway.
For one, getting hacked, unless you are a hospital, or possibly a crucial utility, is not a life and death matter.
Secondly, if you are mugged, you have already lost control over the situation, since the mugger is going to take your money whether you hand it over willingly or they have to pry it from your cold dead hands after shooting you for resisting.
Since your money is as good as gone either way, the rational thing to do is fork it over. You gain nothing for you or for society at large if you resist.
It is better to lose your money and keep your life than it is to lose your life but lose your money anyway.
Better proprietary stuff attracts more business, development dollars add polish, proprietary stuff keeps improvements locked in and won't play ball with open source, open source left out in the cold and rusts, etc etc etc...
If nothing else, the hot news of malware deliberately targeting bitcoins, ya know, something "money-like" that those techless muggles can relate to, may encourage people to become more educated about computer security.
That is probably the most valuable side effect of all.
Being given an order that requires you to break the law or expose yourself to significant liability, and being threatened with termination for disobeying said order, can often qualify as constructive dismissal that would entitle you to vacate the position and still claim unemployment benefits.
In theory anyway. Hopefully the clerk at the UE office isn't as much of a jackass as your soon to be ex boss was.
The beginning of the first trial should have been a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
While Spamhaus may have been foolish to thumb their nose at the imperialism of a US court trying to long arm them without proper power, the court never should have put them in such a position in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, arrest the feds for doing their job?
That'll work really well :P.
The next move will be several cops landing on the no fly list.
It's more like consent by contract.
You buy an airline ticket and agree to bend over.
Maybe "vetting" the post is all she *could* have done, if you get my drift...
Being threatened with hacking is not the same thing as being mugged.
With an extortion attempt, if you don't pay up and you get hacked, you get to keep the ransom, even though damages may well exceed it.
If you get mugged, the cash is going to be taken away from you no matter what you do. Either you pay up and escape with your life, or you get shot and the mugger pries the cash out of your cold dead hands anyway, leaving you deprived both of your money AND your life, contrary to the stereotypical call of the highwayman. And unless the mugger has something to lose by killing you, they may just kill you anyway to cover their own ass, or simply for the thrill.
So with extortion, refusal to pay can prove to be a disincentive if the hacker incurs a net loss in the time and effort it takes to hack you without getting paid off for not doing it.
Whereas with mugging, since the guy with the gun always wins anyway, there is no such disincentive.
It's extortion, not blackmail.
"Pay up or we'll hurt you" - extortion.
"Pay up or we'll embarrass you by revealing something you want kept secret." - blackmail.
Comparing hacking to mugging is not proper anyway.
For one, getting hacked, unless you are a hospital, or possibly a crucial utility, is not a life and death matter.
Secondly, if you are mugged, you have already lost control over the situation, since the mugger is going to take your money whether you hand it over willingly or they have to pry it from your cold dead hands after shooting you for resisting.
Since your money is as good as gone either way, the rational thing to do is fork it over. You gain nothing for you or for society at large if you resist.
It is better to lose your money and keep your life than it is to lose your life but lose your money anyway.
Paying the check-in clerk for access to a flight back sounds more like paying a ransom than a bribe.
Interstate Commerce, as always.
It could also be said that air quality falls under general welfare since we have to breathe the stuff.
"If you're innocent the prosecutor/plaintiff will insist on a jury they can hoodwink"
Not quite.
You do have to violate every part of one claim.
There could also be a gentleman's agreement in place.
Blizzard may well also be on the take with whatever proceeds come out of this lawsuit.
It's easy to keep the proprietary stuff at a higher quality when you shut open source out in the cold by not playing ball.
It's also easier to stay rich when you don't share the wealth.
It's a vicious circle.
Better proprietary stuff attracts more business, development dollars add polish, proprietary stuff keeps improvements locked in and won't play ball with open source, open source left out in the cold and rusts, etc etc etc...
If nothing else, the hot news of malware deliberately targeting bitcoins, ya know, something "money-like" that those techless muggles can relate to, may encourage people to become more educated about computer security.
That is probably the most valuable side effect of all.
The .05 extra you owe the bank will be paid as profit to a shareholder or wages to a teller.
Neither is any debt, either.
Being given an order that requires you to break the law or expose yourself to significant liability, and being threatened with termination for disobeying said order, can often qualify as constructive dismissal that would entitle you to vacate the position and still claim unemployment benefits.
In theory anyway. Hopefully the clerk at the UE office isn't as much of a jackass as your soon to be ex boss was.
The beginning of the first trial should have been a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
While Spamhaus may have been foolish to thumb their nose at the imperialism of a US court trying to long arm them without proper power, the court never should have put them in such a position in the first place.
That last part is why we have a problem.
You're only paying attention to demand.
Supply is also a part of the economic equation.
*points a gun at you*
Your money or your life, and make with the decryption keys.
Funny thing about robbers...they say "or" when everyone knows damn well they're going to take the money either way.
For one thing, cows don't have armies and can't fight back.
For the same reason the farmer loses out when he lets the fox into the hen house.
Think about why kobe beef is renowned for its flavor. In japan, they treat their cattle like royalty.
My guess is that stressing the animals is bad simply because it makes the meat taste worse.
Farmers should be humane to the livestock out of simple self interest.
The farms don't want the cruelty investigations to stop.
They just want it restricted to bona fide undercover police agents whose political bosses are easier to bribe.