4 ms·
It takes two to tango. If a cyber war is ongoing, then I think the insurance company should cite retaliatory action in the war as evidence. From what I can tell
by bredren 8y ago
It takes two to tango. If a cyber war is ongoing, then I think the insurance company should cite retaliatory action in the war as evidence. From what I can tell western governments do not generally publicize any specifics of effective cyber operations.
So i wonder if this puts insurance companies in a position where they benefit from classified operations are outed to bolster the case that this was indeed an act of war.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoWar, hostilities, civil unrest and acts of god have been standard exclusions in insurance policies, well, forever. I'm not sure why this would be any different, but for the "cyber" that gives HN something to talk about. After all, a bloodless coup or invasion would be an act of war without retaliation. Normal civil standards of proof would be all that's needed.
- bredren 8y agoThose would be but there is clear precedent those are war-like actions. There is not president that ransomware is cyberwarfare.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 8y agoI thought that retaliatory action would be a good indicator, so I took a look, and I'd say this supports Zurich's decision: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/15/russian-sanctions-treasury-ira-notpetya/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/15/russian-sanctions-treasury... Others cited the exclusion to be worded as "hostile or warlike action in time of peace or war", further tilting the scales in the insurance's favor.
- bredren 8y agoThe sanctions as retaliatory? I’d agree the are but I was thinking more of a cyber counter offensive.