Berlin is being blackmailed by hackers, mayor says
Berlin says it will not pay hackers who stole data from city systems and demanded a ransom. The attack disrupted some online services, including housing-benefit applications and payments, and raises concerns that personal and other non-public information may have been exposed.
The ransom is reportedly 30 bitcoin, valued at about €2m (£1.7m), while the Rhysida group claims to have taken 5.79 terabytes of data and threatens to auction it after seven days. Officials say leaks occurred between 7 and 12 August, with further compromises found in transport and environment networks; election infrastructure was not affected despite elections being due in roughly a month.
- Berlin refuses alleged €2m hacker ransom.
- Housing-benefit services were disrupted.
- Stolen data may include personal information.
New here? Start with this
Berlin’s city government runs services that residents use for benefits, housing and other everyday needs. These systems can hold personal details and records that are not meant to be public, so unauthorised access may affect both services and privacy.
Ransomware attacks involve criminals taking or blocking access to data and demanding payment, sometimes threatening to publish or sell what they have taken. City authorities must weigh the risk of further exposure against the cost and uncertainty of paying; paying does not guarantee that stolen information will be deleted or services restored.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Paying could be defended as a way to secure the return or deletion of sensitive data and reduce the risk of further exposure, especially where residents’ personal information and access to essential services are at stake. Officials also have a duty to weigh the immediate harm to affected people against the longer-term consequences of refusing to negotiate.
The case against
Refusing to pay avoids rewarding criminal extortion and may reduce the incentive for hackers to target public services in future. Payment would not guarantee that the data was deleted or services restored, and public funds could instead support recovery, security improvements and help for those affected.