3 ms·
I've seen similar insurance claims invalidated because the company couldn't prove then had taken reasonable steps to prevent an attack. The fact there were two
by swarnie_ 8y ago
I've seen similar insurance claims invalidated because the company couldn't prove then had taken reasonable steps to prevent an attack.
The fact there were two similar incidents 8 months apart tells me there was a fundamental security issue which wasn't addressed correctly.
- mattnewton 8y agoThat seems a bit like a catch 22 to me - if you get hacked enough, it must be your fault, so no payout.
- jrhurst 8y agoWait. How is this a catch 22? There is no. "In order to do Y you must first do X. But in order to do X you must first do Y"
- shawabawa3 8y agoIn order to get paid you must be hacked, in order to be hacked it must be your fault, if it's your fault you can't be paid
- fundingshovel 8y agoThat's not what this is staying at all though. It's saying "In order to get paid you must show you took reasonable precautions not get hacked AND get hacked." It's pretty hard to argue ignoring a known issue for 9 months is taking reasonable precaution. I don't see how that's any different then not paying when someone falls on because of broken steps you knew about and didn't fix, which would be pretty common.