Ransomware gang preys on cancer centers, triggers alert
scmagazine.com
scmagazine.com
I was there for one and pretended to be very confused, and they immediately went to "we're the hospital and just need your insurance and financial information": what is your full name, address, SSN, bank name. Now you need to set up a password and answer some security questions.
After that, I unplugged the phone with a note affixed about the scams. Administration knew about the calls, but wasn't doing anything (like screening). Phone numbers for the rooms didn't ever change.
After seeing that, nothing really surprised me as far as someone's willingness to prey on another.
I'm talking of supposedly legal companies, not thieves.
"Legal companies" here do that too, there are a couple of bank that are mandatory for lots of people and are all the time making random charges to clients, I've tried to get in touch with the Central Bank here but they don't care.
scamming is not okay, no matter who does it for ANY reason, and NO MATTER TO WHOM
If the scammers knew that the punishment would be extremely severe, they'd think twice. If we dedicate even more resources to finding them and punishng them, they will think thrice.
then you may say: "But what about when they come out? they'll just do more crime!!". Well... I can think of an adjustment to this premise that solves the problem.
Deterrents do have an effect but only to a point, with further escalation beyond that point also escalating the severity of associated offences.
Eg - if you have a death sentence for minor theft then those who are desperate will still steal but instead of giving up peacefully when caught they will murder as many as the need to get away.
Deterrents and punishment schemes can most definitely, and many currently do, cause more harms than benefits.
My dad got out of IC, but was readmitted about a week later. I got a call from the same company again. This time I got it.
I had more pressing things to deal with at the time (including an actual funeral, unfortunately) but I do wish those who prey on people at their lowest a very long and very unhappy life.
Morality is a luxury. When you're living in the slums of some godforsaken city and have a family to feed, empathy and morality kind of fall lower in the list of importance.
My point - every organization should assume worst actors possible. "No way anyone would scam sick people" is just projecting your own moral standards onto others who have no reason to share them, and that attitude may even make them more vulnerable as targets.
What's your point, am I not allowed to share my thoughts unless they directly challange the comment I'm replying to?
>My point - every organization should assume worst actors possible. "No way anyone would scam sick people" is just projecting your own moral standards onto others who have no reason to share them, and that attitude may even make them more vulnerable as targets.
Which is something he never said or suggested, and not any moral projecting he did at all.
Where I live bank employees usually target old people to sell them services for things they don't need.
I'd also argue that anyone with enough sophistication to pull off a ransomware attack has enough marketable skills that they're probably not hungry or desperate, just psychopathic.
The hackers don’t do it to feed their family, they do it because of greed.
In my younger days I did spend a few uncomfortable weeks as a telemarketer (doing product surveys for market research) but even that bothered me, I can't imagine scamming the sick and elderly. You can have morals and dignity even in poverty. I'll concede that some countries provide more options for their people than others, but there are always other options.