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This discussion has been archived.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: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 29 2019, @07:00PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 29 2019, @07:00PM (#836353)

    It's possible the contract is an older contract with a built-in stipulation to periodically renew as-is. Changing the terms of the contract may have cost them more.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday April 29 2019, @08:26PM

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday April 29 2019, @08:26PM (#836384) Journal

    +1 Interesting. Yes, changing the terms of the contract always costs more. ;) The only thing that costs more than that is just blindly letting things just roll as they are without thought. :D

    We pay more to have that rider on our contract. That's why insurers went to the trouble of introducing those products - to segregate and minimize their own risks. That's what insurance does, and why each person and entity has to choose their coverage (including none at all if that's how one rolls).

    One also need not talk to a broker at renewals time but cut a check. If one is a small enough business (as others here pointed out to me on similar topics) one might not have the resources to add the coverage or obtain competent advice. On the other hand the broker makes their book by getting your business and so it is in the agent's interest to actually service your account and it makes sense for the business person to get that person's advice. I don't talk to our agents but I'm well aware that the people who do here make it a point every year to ask them what has changed and what the best plan is for the coming year - but we're likely just large enough to command that kind of attention for the asking. I think Target, Equifax, and OPM are a little bigger than us, though, and we know the score there, so.....

    --
    This sig for rent.