Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday April 29 2019, @02:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the got-to-read-the-fine-print dept.

In Ukraine, a cyberattack can mean a freezing night without power. But in the United States, it often seems like just one more unavoidable hassle of modern life. People change a few passwords, maybe sign up for credit monitoring, and then go on with life. But for the organizations on the receiving end—Target, Equifax, the federal government’s Office of Personnel Management, just to name a few—a cyberattack can mean scrambling to get systems back on line, setting up response war rooms, and, of course, paying huge bills for missed orders or new equipment.

And US businesses may no longer be able to rely on insurance to cover their losses. In an era of unceasing cyberattacks, including cases of state-sponsored hacking, insurance companies are beginning to re-interpret an old line in their contracts known as the “war exclusion.” Stripping away the metaphorical connotation of the term “cyberwarfare,” big insurers like Zurich Insurance have decided that state-sponsored attacks are basically just plain warfare. This shift comes as the US government is increasingly attributing state-sponsored cyberattacks to their alleged perpetrators, a development that some argue is a means of holding bad actors accountable.

But the policy certainly doesn’t seem to be doing any favors to the private sector.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday April 29 2019, @05:53PM

    by Pino P (4721) on Monday April 29 2019, @05:53PM (#836317) Journal

    If these are acts of war, who is the US at war with that's doing this?

    For example, the United States, Great Britain, and Australia have jointly blamed WannaCry on the Democratic People's Republic of [North] Korea. And yes, there's proof that North Koreans were involved [zdnet.com].

    Congress hasn't declared war on anybody in decades.

    A Congressional authorization for use of military force constitutes declaration of war. Some pundits distinguish AUMF bills that include "declaration of war" in the title from other AUMF bills that do not, but this is a distinction without a difference. Doe v. Bush, 323 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2003) [wikipedia.org].

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2