zlacker

>>Strang+(OP)
The donation is more or less virtue signaling rather than actual insight.

The problem can not be helped by research research against cybercrime. Proper practices for protections are well established and known, they just need to be implemented.

The amount donated should've rather be invested into better protections / hiring a person responsible in the company.

(Context: The hack happened on a not properly decomissioned legacy system.)

>>lexlam+65
> The donation is more or less virtue signalling rather than actual insight.

I see it more as a middle finger to the perps: “look, we can afford to pay, here, see us pay that amount elsewhere, but you aren't getting it”. It isn't signalling virtue as much as it is signalling “fuck you and your ransom demands” in the hope that this will mark them as not an easy target for that sort of thing in future.

>>dspill+6c
It also serves as a proxy for a punishment. They are, from one perspective, paying a voluntary fine based on their own assessment of their security failings.

For customers it signals sincerity and may help dampen outrage in their follow up dealings.