Want educational insights in your inbox? Sign up for our weekly newsletters to get only what matters to your organization. Subscribe Now
Ransomware remains one of the most damaging cyber threats, with attacks targeting hospitals, municipalities, schools, and private businesses worldwide. In response, several governments are considering or implementing bans on ransomware payments, hoping to cut off the financial incentive that drives these attacks.
But here’s the question security leaders are grappling with: Will banning payments actually reduce ransomware incidents—or could it make things worse?
In this article, we explore the potential unintended consequences of prohibiting ransomware payments, examine real-world cases, and propose alternative strategies for a more resilient approach to cyber defense.
Why Governments Are Considering Bans
The logic behind banning ransomware payments is simple:
-
Attackers are profit-motivated. If victims can’t pay, ransomware becomes unprofitable.
-
Reducing payouts should theoretically decrease the frequency of attacks over time.
-
Preventing funding of criminal enterprises also disrupts the cybercrime economy.
For example, in 2023, North Carolina and Florida became the first U.S. states to prohibit state agencies and local governments from paying ransoms (Source: StateTech Magazine).
The goal is to stop taxpayer money from fueling ransomware operations. But this approach may not be as straightforward as it seems.
The Unintended Consequences of Payment Bans
1. Increased Operational Downtime
If organizations can’t pay, recovery might take weeks—or months—leading to devastating operational consequences.
Example:
The city of Atlanta’s 2018 ransomware attack resulted in $17 million in recovery costs after refusing to pay a $51,000 ransom. While morally justified, the incident caused court case backlogs, halted police reporting systems, and disrupted city services for months. (Source: CNN)
2. Higher Collateral Damage
Critical infrastructure and healthcare organizations are particularly vulnerable. A no-payment stance could risk lives.
Example:
In 2021, Ireland’s Health Service Executive (HSE) was hit by ransomware and refused to pay, resulting in weeks of disruption to patient care and delayed medical services nationwide (Source: BBC).
3. Shift to Data Destruction
When attackers know payment is off the table, they may stop negotiating altogether and focus on data destruction or public leaks.
This could result in permanent data loss and regulatory penalties under privacy laws like GDPR.
Alternative Approaches
Instead of blanket bans, experts recommend a layered approach:
-
Mandate Incident Reporting: Require organizations to report ransomware incidents within a specific timeframe.
-
Encourage Secure Backups: Promote immutable, offline backups that make recovery possible without paying.
-
Facilitate Information Sharing: Strengthen public-private partnerships to share threat intelligence quickly.
-
Support Victims: Provide government-funded recovery assistance for critical sectors like healthcare and education.
Conclusion
While banning ransomware payments might seem like a strong deterrent, it risks punishing victims more than attackers.
A smarter strategy combines resilience, transparency, and preparedness—empowering organizations to recover without needing to pay in the first place.
Bottom line: Instead of focusing solely on prohibiting payments, we must invest in prevention, response automation, and cyber resilience to truly disrupt the ransomware economy.
References
-
StateTech Magazine – What You Need to Know About Ransomware Payment Bans
-
IBM Security – Cost of a Data Breach Report 2023
#RansomwarePolicy #CyberPolicy #SecurityRegulation #RansomwareEthics #CyberLaw
