Dear John: Should I pay a ransom to get back my computer files?

Dear John: I'm not asking for help, but since this involves Bitcoin, I thought you might be interested.

About a month ago, I lost all my photos and other files on my Samsung laptop. I noticed a message that directed me to a Web site that I didn't recognize. And my computer kept crashing.

I called Tele-Techie, and the technician said that my files were encrypted by an outfit called CTB-Locker and were not recoverable unless I paid a "ransom" of $400.

He said that he had seen this a few times in the last few weeks. One business paid $500 to have its files unlocked. I didn't do it.

Yesterday, a box appeared on my screen that told me I had 96 hours to redeem my files or that they would be permanently locked. I clicked "next," and it directed me to a site that said I would have to pay $400 and that I would be directed to a site where I could purchase bitcoins to be applied to ransom my files.

I didn't do it. If this is the well-known scam that my technician said it is, why hasn't anyone been alerted to this piracy? Any ideas? B.N.

Dear B.N.: On behalf of my readers and myself, I'd like to thank you for giving us a heads-up.

I asked, and indeed this is a pretty well-known scam among those in the know. They use bitcoins because they are untraceable. And, hell, bitcoins aren't useful for much else.

So, everyone: Remember to back up your files. Some well-known cloud service is the best way to do it, unless you are diligent about performing this task yourself.

Dear John: I've been wondering about the change in oil prices lately and the pain higher prices have caused the US economy over the past several years.

Since the Saudis recently agreed to drop their sales price of oil to the US, there's been a little price relief at the pump — but there's an ulterior motive behind the drop.

This is not a typical market reaction to stimulus; it is classic price-fixing coming from one of the largest OPEC-member oil countries. Because OPEC is an organization of countries (not oil companies), individual members have sovereign immunity for their actions, meaning that OPEC is not regarded as being subject to competition law in the normal way.

As such, OPEC is structured as a "public" cartel and not a private cartel, which would be subject to legal liability under the antitrust laws now found in nearly every nation of the world, including the US.

As domestic economies feel the pinch of international fluctuations such as the one OPEC is causing for its own benefit, what kind of strategies can the US administer to counter its actions at home to benefit the US consumer? And why aren't we doing more? P.T.

Dear P.T.: I think the oil and gasoline market right now is acting just as it should.

Because of better technology in the gathering of oil (meaning fracking) and better technology in automobiles (electric cars, hybrids, etc.), demand for fuel is down.

An enormous help has also been the fact that the world economy has been on its back for seven years, and demand for gasoline is, therefore, down by a lot.

The Saudis and OPEC weren't responsible for the high price of gasoline these past several years, even as demand was coming down. That blame is closer to home — on Wall Street, where US government policies have given speculators the right to trade essential commodities like oil without limitation.

So we paid the price. And now the energy market is correcting, although the reason speculators backed off is anyone's guess.

What more can we do?

We could continue to explore for oil in the US and elsewhere in the world. The more oil producers, the more competition. And more competition means lower prices.

We should, of course, explore carefully so as to do as little environmental damage as possible.

But that isn't enough. I think Washington should also be contributing funding to state-of-the-art car engines, including ones that run on batteries, hydrogen, natural gas and whatever else comes along.

This should please those concerned about the environment — which, incidentally, should include all of us.

Sure, that'll cost taxpayers money. But this is a situation in which we either pay now for better technology that'll cause us to use less oil, or pay later when we have to fight the next war in the Middle East, which we all know will be about oil and which we all know is coming.

There is one problem with this: As we need less and less Middle East oil, that already unstable part of the world will become less stable. And we'll either decide to ignore its problems or deal with them. But however we contend with them will certainly be cheaper in lives and money than what we are now doing.