[hiharryhere]

I doubt it. Here in Australia at least companies with large gov contracts are prevented by gov policy from paying ransoms.

[ceejayoz]

It wouldn't be the first catch-22 scenario caused by conflicting laws.

[jacquesm]

The 'easy' solution is not to let your data leak.

[generic92034]

Certainly different companies put a different effort into their IT security measures, but I doubt any of them would claim that their system is "unhackable". So, I am not sure that not letting your data leak is an option you can really choose. You might be able to influence the probability of a hack, though.

[tsujamin]

Out of curiosity what's the source on that? AFAICS there's no clear legislation restricting it (although a lot of talk about such a bill in the future). It is in standard contract terms?

[hiharryhere]

Source is a close relative involved in responding to a recent, well publicised data breach.

They service several large commonwealth departments and were instructed by them not to pay.

[hug]

They instruct you not to pay, but that instruction has absolutely no binding.

The Australian orgs I have deal with in large compromises have universally opted to pay to prevent release, where it was financially feasible.