> What bothers me about their advice is that it is only correct macroeconomically.
That's because it's the correct advice. Ransom is a very old business, and experience throughout history shows you should never pay the danegeld[1].
> ignores that it is in cybercriminals' best interest to let you decrypt after you paid
That isn't being ignored. Paying the ransom is short-term thinking. Of course they will let you decrypt. By paying them you establish yourself as an easy/reliable mark that will probably pay again in the future. Paying would only make sense if you could somehow guarantee it was an isolated event.
Not only that, they know people close to you are potential targets as well (e.g. your mail contacts, facebook contacts), because most likely than not they are in the same economical bracket and are just as "savvy" technologically speaking.
You can guarantee that it is an isolated event by backing up your files in the future. I imagine most victims are embarrassed and try to think of it as an expensive lesson.
That's because it's the correct advice. Ransom is a very old business, and experience throughout history shows you should never pay the danegeld[1].
> ignores that it is in cybercriminals' best interest to let you decrypt after you paid
That isn't being ignored. Paying the ransom is short-term thinking. Of course they will let you decrypt. By paying them you establish yourself as an easy/reliable mark that will probably pay again in the future. Paying would only make sense if you could somehow guarantee it was an isolated event.
[1] http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.html