[llamataboot]

Not in the long-term, because then they gain a reputation as someone not to be "trusted". Many of these outfits have their own support forums, make it easy to pay, etc and happily hand your data back over because they make money in volume, not from one particular mark. You gain a reputation as being easy to work with and unlocking data and offering the support to do so, many more people will pay just to get rid of the headache when their computers are locked down.

[iamsohungry]

While I'm sure this is true and some hackers behave based on this idea, there are two issues:

1. "Many of these outfits" is not all: we still need a way to determine whether we should pay a ransom.

2. I'm sure I could manufacture a support forum which shows me to be trustworthy in an afternoon.

[lkowalcz]

For (1), this is the reason the ransom is small. Since "many" are actually trustworthy, it's a small risk to pay the relatively small ransom. (Also, you can verify via bitcoin address if you're dealing with a hacker who is known to give data back.)

For (2), could you also find a way to get the FBI to release a statement saying you are trustworthy?

[icebraining]

Also, you can verify via bitcoin address if you're dealing with a hacker who is known to give data back.

How so? Presumably they use a different one for each payment, no? Otherwise, how could they tell who paid?

[lkowalcz]

Apparently they reuse the primary wallet quite frequently:

http://www.coindesk.com/cryptowall-325-million-bitcoin-ranso...