The other has to do with ones and zeroes on a hard drive.
Imagine there was a cyber attack on Juicero and software engs throughout SF couldn’t make their Soylent-Bitcoin shakes.
But my point is that I'm unaware of the stereotype. Saying "don't you think it's true" is a digression once removed from that.
It was in the news that Patagonia or someone was refusing to provide vests to financial companies that they were putting their own brands on. So it seems like that is in the category of "everybody knows" that is a thing. Also, I think I've seen a few pictures of Jeff Bezos in one.
My point is that you being unaware of something doesn’t make it untrue. Especially something you admit to having no knowledge of the context of.
Why are you wasting your time being argumentative instead of raising my awareness?
I was originally curious if you are "trying to make fetch happen" or whether it's a stereotype that is widespread.
I don't get this alternate point of view outside of perhaps a belief in god and god may control things without a soul like a hard drive and can't control things with a soul.
Maybe a prohibition on paying off ransomware is needed, but it's not sufficient and I don't think it's the low hanging fruit. John Dillinger once made headlines because he was better armed than the locals. Then he ran across state boundaries because law enforcement didn't coordinate well. It took a federal response specialized to that type of crime to bring it under control.
I guess theoretically kidnapping insurance might be spent on things besides a ransom as well, such as hiring mercenaries to recover the kidnapped person. But I doubt that's very likely.
Organizations that try to pinch pennies year after year by avoiding paying for the basics are harming IT in general and they're further harming society by sending money out to criminals that will go on to spend that money on attacking other people and organizations.
But if it was illegal to pay a ransom, the frequency of the crime would go down.