3 ms·

If this leak would have cost "6 figures" per person, as you advocate, that would total somewhere around 4 billion euros. If the insurance company has to pay out

If this leak would have cost "6 figures" per person, as you advocate, that would total somewhere around 4 billion euros. If the insurance company has to pay out billions of euros for a single leak, it's going to have to charge pretty hefty premiums for their client. In order to stay profitable, the client has to raise prices for their mental health services. If the end user was previously paying 100 euros to talk to someone about their mental health issues, maybe now they would have to pay 100 euros to talk + 200 euros to cover the insurance premium. Doesn't sound too good, does it? Now let's imagine what the insurance company does when it's about to get hit for 4 billion euros. Instead of paying out, it's going to hire an army of lawyers who are going to make a convincing argument that, actually, this was not a data leak at all, this was [something else not covered by the insurance agreement]. We've already seen this with all the "cybersecurity insurance" products, which are basically scams.

OpticalWindows 6y ago
Yes, good. Change your systems or get rid of it. Make it uninsurable and replace it with something of actual value.
erdos4d 6y ago
Why should a private insurance company be allowed to skim a profit off this? The government should be on the hook directly, with careers ended when the taxpayer has to compensate these people for their injury.
- eru 6y ago
  Same reason we have private insurance companies in general. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance
- michaelt 6y ago
  If you want fire insurance for a factory, the insurers will inspect what you're doing, the safety precautions you have in place, your testing regimes and so on - and charge you more (or refuse to insure you at all) if they don't like what they see. And as there are multiple insurers you get a competitive market - meaning the insurers who are best at spotting real problems prosper, while the insurers who miss problems or worry about non-problems are less profitable. And if a company can't get insurance at all it's not because one guy was being a hardass - they've had a bunch of chances to convince different insurers, all of whom have refused, rather than blame for them going out of business falling on some government agency. This is appealing to people who love free markets and small government, as there are multiple competing insurers, and all the inspections, monitoring and even the payouts happen at no cost to the government.
daniel-cussen 6y ago
Many liability risks are not passed onto customers. Banks, for instance, if they used your logic, would charge you extra for their own incompetence if they were unusually frequent victims of fraud. What happens instead is these industries filter for competence, as table stakes for participating in them.
- baobabKoodaa 6y ago
  > Many liability risks are not passed onto customers. Banks, for instance, if they used your logic, would charge you extra for their own incompetence if they were unusually frequent victims of fraud. What happens instead is these industries filter for competence, as table stakes for participating in them. Funny that you would choose banking as an example. Banks are in fact very frequently victims of fraud. Despite this, banks are (generally) profitable. Why? Because the cost of fraud is passed on to clients of banks (typically businesses), who pass on the cost to their customers. I mean sure, a bank that is "unusually frequent" victim of fraud will be unable to stay in operation, but a bank that is suffering the "average amount of fraud" will stay in operation just fine and pass those costs onto their clients. In summary, liability risks _are_ passed onto customers, and you are wrong when you claim otherwise.

OpticalWindows 6y ago

Yes, good. Change your systems or get rid of it. Make it uninsurable and replace it with something of actual value.

erdos4d 6y ago

Why should a private insurance company be allowed to skim a profit off this? The government should be on the hook directly, with careers ended when the taxpayer has to compensate these people for their injury.

eru 6y ago
Same reason we have private insurance companies in general. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance
michaelt 6y ago
If you want fire insurance for a factory, the insurers will inspect what you're doing, the safety precautions you have in place, your testing regimes and so on - and charge you more (or refuse to insure you at all) if they don't like what they see. And as there are multiple insurers you get a competitive market - meaning the insurers who are best at spotting real problems prosper, while the insurers who miss problems or worry about non-problems are less profitable. And if a company can't get insurance at all it's not because one guy was being a hardass - they've had a bunch of chances to convince different insurers, all of whom have refused, rather than blame for them going out of business falling on some government agency. This is appealing to people who love free markets and small government, as there are multiple competing insurers, and all the inspections, monitoring and even the payouts happen at no cost to the government.

daniel-cussen 6y ago

Many liability risks are not passed onto customers. Banks, for instance, if they used your logic, would charge you extra for their own incompetence if they were unusually frequent victims of fraud. What happens instead is these industries filter for competence, as table stakes for participating in them.

baobabKoodaa 6y ago
> Many liability risks are not passed onto customers. Banks, for instance, if they used your logic, would charge you extra for their own incompetence if they were unusually frequent victims of fraud. What happens instead is these industries filter for competence, as table stakes for participating in them. Funny that you would choose banking as an example. Banks are in fact very frequently victims of fraud. Despite this, banks are (generally) profitable. Why? Because the cost of fraud is passed on to clients of banks (typically businesses), who pass on the cost to their customers. I mean sure, a bank that is "unusually frequent" victim of fraud will be unable to stay in operation, but a bank that is suffering the "average amount of fraud" will stay in operation just fine and pass those costs onto their clients. In summary, liability risks _are_ passed onto customers, and you are wrong when you claim otherwise.