The Wall Street Journal, in an article about ransomware being used to hack city (and other) computer systems, asked the question Should Cities Pay?
Not only no, cities (and others) should not pay, but no2.
Aside from paying the ransom being an act of cowardice, it aids and abets the criminals—which is amoral, if not yet a felony.
Sure, it costs more in the moment to refuse and rebuild, but what costs are saved by not telling the hacker world that the city will gladly pay the ransom and so be hacked repeatedly? What’s the cost to other, similarly situated, cities and towns (and public libraries) when one gladly aids and abets?
What’s the excuse, today, with ransomware so well known, for cities not hardening their systems against this hack (and other hacks) before the hack occurs?