Most backups would be erased or encrypted by the ransomware.
How? A proper backup system has offline copies that aren't connected to anything and it also has versioning of backups so if somehow the last backup is messed up, the one before that or the one before that works.
Windows encourages bad practices. Did you ever see a ready build PC with all the data on a separate derive or partition? No, they make it so a re-install makes you lose all your data.
This hasn't been true for awhile...
I recently reinstalled Windows 8 on a machine that someone brought to me that had been messed up.
Easy peasy, do a "clean install" on the existing partition, it moves everything from Windows and Program Files to Windows.Old, gives you a clean install without wiping data, you pick out what you need then delete the
Works like a champ...
So if they caught these asshats the total surveillance state they (the NSA) built is justifiable? The ends justify the means... I can't say I agree with you.
I didn't say it was justifiable, I said I wouldn't mind so much...
While I still would be against it, at least there would be something positive about it. Not everything is black and white.
- Finding these criminals may not help make the computers run again.
No, but it would prevent them from doing it again.
- Finding these criminals may be beyond the abilities of the US Government. The NSA is not all powerful, the simple fact that Snowden's leaks exist prove it.
True, but I'd be shocked if finding THESE SPECIFIC criminals was beyond the US Government.
- If the criminals are not in the US, this greatly limits the abilities of the US justice.
If they are US citizens, then they deserve their rights and day in court. If they are not and can be reached by US Justice, then follow that path. If they are beyond the US Justice system, then they are enemies of the state and attacking US citizens is an act of war and the military should deal with them.
- Solving the problem probably involves first paying the ransom.
I'd rather spend triple the money to NOT pay the ransom and reformat and reinstall all the computers, and restore from the last good backups.
- If the NSA actually helps finding the criminals, I seriously doubt it will be public.
Maybe it should be, it would help their image. Catching the criminals should at least be made public, to let everyone know that crime doesn't pay.
After all, if you can do this without getting caught, what is to stop 10 more people from doing it?
Fair enough.... My next question is... if the FBI called the NSA and said, "we want to catch these guys, can you help?", would they?
Should the CIA/NSA/FBI be different agencies, or should they be one with the single goal of protecting Americans against crimes committed while respecting the US Constitution in the process?
...they went after these criminals.
If our government actually did something about stuff like this, I think people would believe in their government a bit more, but as it stands, it seems like the NSA and such only want to either spy on us or topple governments that don't tow the line for the US.
I cannot imagine that finding these criminals is beyond the abilities of the US Government, it just seems like they don't even try.
Again, at enormous cost in human life. You're not listening. Could the US defeat Iran, even without nukes? Of course, that's obvious. But the only realistic option (read: without too much bloodshed on the American side) is nukes.
I still don't agree... Our tanks sucked against Nazi Germany, the Panzer Mk V (Panther) was the best all around tank of WWII, the M-4 Sherman couldn't hold a candle to it...
That doesn't exist today... Today we have the best tank in the world (or close to it anyway), we have a modern air force, etc.
If we went in actually prepared (not like the crappy invasion of Iraq that was poorly done without enough planning), I think we'd walk it.
Of course, if we decided to attack tomorrow and took the military we have today, we'd lose a lot and it would be rough.
It is all about being prepared.
---
Side note: Neither of us are professional Generals, so who really knows, we could both be out of our minds.
Many states, including my home state of WV, have "stand your ground" laws where the bar to use deadly force is very low. In WV all that is required is a notice posted "Private property. No trespassing. Violators will be shot" notice. It is quite silly really. Our stand your ground law puts Florida's to shame!
If I saw a sign that actually said THAT, I'd be pretty STUPID to trespass, now wouldn't I?
In many areas of the USA, a threat to your property is a threat to your person.
Yes it is, and I'm as pro-gun as you'll find, owning... well, more than one gun.
That being said, would I shoot someone over a modest amount of property? What if I had $500 in my wallet, would I shoot someone over that?
No, never...
It is not worth taking a life over that. Likewise, I wouldn't shoot if someone stole my truck, I have insurance and my deductible is $500, I'm not going to kill someone over that.
I have spoken to people who have actually shot someone in real life, it is not fun, it isn't pleasant, and it sucks. Every single person I've ever met (including a police officer) who has had to shoot someone says that it sucks.
So I personally would choose retreat if I can, the only real exception is my home. It is not being a coward to flee a fight if you can, unless it is your home. Where my children sleep is the only exception.
Sounds like something highly dependent upon a particular state or jurisdiction. Basically it sounds as if the "Castle Doctrine" protection of the home itself has been enlarged to the entire homestead land that the home resides upon.
Even so I would expect certain caveats. Is the stranger trespassing on the property armed for example. Bad news for a lost hunter, perhaps not for a lost hiker.
I can only speak for the laws of Texas, however I do have a concealed carry permit and I have been to the classes to learn about the rules, so I can share what I know...
In Texas, you are allowed to use deadly force for three reasons:
1. To defend yourself against what you perceive to be a deadly threat to your life. If you are in fear for your life, you may shoot someone to stop them from being a threat. This doesn't mean your intent can be to kill them, you NEVER shoot to kill, you only shoot to stop. One the person is on the ground and not a threat, you cannot shoot them again.
2. To defend a third party who has a threat to their life. If you see someone being attacked and you feel their life in danger, you may use deadly force to stop the threat.
3. To defend your uninsured property. For example, if someone were to grab your purse and it had $5,000 in cash in it, that is likely not insured. You can shoot the person to stop them from getting away with your stuff. This has been extended by the courts to include the deductible on some insured property such as cars, but I personally wouldn't chance it. The example held up in concealed carry class was a guy was stealing a tractor trailer rig from a man's home. That is an expensive item and while it is insured, it also has a large deductible and it is the source of this man's living, so he would be without an income without it. The guy picked up his AR-15 rifle and went outside and saw another man inside his truck hotwiring it and starting to drive it away. He shot the thief several times through the front window of the truck and he ended up dying. It was ruled a justified shooting due to him defending his property.
---
Note that trespassing on LAND is not on that list, that topic has been brought up in class before and the instructors made it pretty clear that someone JUST WALKING ON YOUR LAND is NOT enough of a reason to shoot them. If you are not being directly threatened or they are not actually taking your property, then NO, you cannot shoot them for being on your land.
If they break into your physical home, then yes, the courts have ruled that can be, by itself, taken as a direct threat to your safety and the use of deadly force is normally acceptable. Not all states and countries agree with this, some states actually expect you to retreat from your home if possible, leaving it to the burglar. I think this is nuts, but that is what it is.
He could have shot you and claimed you were reaching for your gun.
I have never, ever seen a security guard at a retail store with a gun.
Not Walmart, not Best Buy... nothing...
I HAVE seen guards with guns at the bank, but I'm still not convinced they would shoot you if you grabbed money and ran away. The issues of private security actually shooting people are such that I'd only think they would do it to protect human life, not material items that are easy to replace.
I disagree, it would not take nuclear weapons...
We invaded and defeated Nazi Germany and Japan and those were MUCH tougher enemies...
What we CANNOT do is just go attack tomorrow without preparing.
If we decided to prepare and gave ourselves 3 years to build up our military and produce weapons and train soldiers, we'd win hands down.
The real trick to winning wars is not just having the best tanks and bombers, it is winning the war of supply. Amateur Generals talk battlefield tactics, professional Generals talk logistics and supply. Wars are often won or lost in the supply chain, not the actual battlefield.
4: Iran is no "shit-o-stan". Attacking Iran would be like attacking Germany or France, with retaliation that a First World government would return with. Tehran's jubes are now fully working buried sewers.
Stop smoking... whatever it is you're smoking...
All other issues aside, attacking Iran is nothing like attacking France or Germany would be...
France actually HAS nuclear weapons, and Germany has a first class military with modern weapons. Iran has none of that.
True, but that doesn't mean our military won't built robots over the next 30 years to fight, I'm sure many parents will be happy when a robot is destroyed instead of their child killed.
Then what?
You haven't watched a little movie series called Terminator, have you?
Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.
