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
It is virtue signaling, especially considering the fact that doing the hard to swallow thing of paying the ransom would probably be the best outcome from a customer perspective.

Yes there are negative externalities in funding ransomware operations, not paying is still much more likely to hurt your customers than paying.

>>wallet+R8
Doing the positive externality thing at expense of your bottom line is to be praised. It is not ‘virtue signaling’ - it is actually doing a virtuous thing.

>>whimsi+L81
Very small positive externality at the expense of their customers. Probably doesn’t even come close to balancing out.

Besides, if they were genuinely interested in positive externalities they would be spending the money lobbying for a ransomware payments ban and not donating to universities.