No, it doesn't, at least not to me. I can disagree with a law while also agreeing to obey it and that those who break it should have consequences. I can hold these two opposing ideas because that is the basis by which governments function. If everybody gets to decide for themselves what should be/not be a crime, then we don't have a society. Society is about compromise. What I'm seeing is not compromise. What I'm seeing is people dismissing the whole of law because there's one they don't agree with, or an application or even abuse of the law that offends them. It's an abandonment of balance and a dismissing of rational conversation.
replySure, but do you consider this specific case a real crime?
reply> largely going after
>organizations with more than
>$100 million in annual revenues
>and fat new cyber insurance
>policies that were known to
>payout
replyNo people were harmed so I am leaning towards no crime committed.
Insurance money doesn't grow on trees. The economy is highly connected, so increased costs impact most consumers.
replyRansomware is a scourge enabled by crypto. We should do whatever we can to eliminate it.
Wrong. "No people I agree with were harmed," perhaps. This is no different than cronyism.
replybusinesses are not people
replyIf a business is destroyed by ransomware, all its employees lose their jobs. The business's customers lose the services the business was providing. The families supported by these jobs are now all at risk.
replyAll that money goes somewhere. Much of it goes towards clothing, feeding, and housing people. Also, in most places it's a crime to rob anyone, even selfish assholes.