Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j25jpjn wrote



SsiSsiSsiSsi t1_j25jwkg wrote

Seriously, life is going to be a lot more bearable once people who grew up with tech are in a position to make these calls.


Cicero912 t1_j25mjk2 wrote

Is it? Theres only a small slice of people who are knowledgeable. A lot of people growing up nowadays/past few years have absolutely 0 knowledge of how to use tech unless its an app.


Lykeuhfox t1_j25r7w7 wrote

Case and point - the image used for a ransomware article is in HTML...


GreenAdvance t1_j25xije wrote

Case in point, all the comments here defending the company and saying the ruling is incorrect.


komAnt t1_j25vr89 wrote

Would you have preferred some proprietary source code instead? Or perhaps a dump of their users PII? I'm all for computer literacy but some of these comments are sensationalist. This is the same generation mining cryptocurrency and influencing stock markets as retail investors. Proponents for fixing climate change. An electorate with the highest voter turnout in the history of the country. Wouldn't write them off easily.


Kahrg t1_j25pias wrote

They are too busy doom scrolling on tiktok to learn valuable skills. :)


Cicero912 t1_j25rvx8 wrote

No, they just aren't taught anymore because "oh they've grown up with tech, they know what they are doing"


pm_me_your_buttbulge t1_j25x4be wrote

I dunno, I'd rather explain how to install an AdBlock to the younger folks than a 60+ year old.

My cousin who grew up with this has Asperger's Syndrome and is still significantly easier to explain tech to than... basically anyone that's 50+.

So while I get the hate that's, I truly suspect is jealousy or something, it's simply just not the case.

When it comes to tech, I'll gamble with the younger folks over the older folks who specifically refuse to learn it (e.g. practically all politicians).


Jaded-Moose983 t1_j25p887 wrote

I think that's an assumption that's proving to be incorrect. There's been computer tech for several generations now and there will always be those who just are not interested in anything but the tip of the iceberg.

I think it's comparable with an assumption that because I drive a car, I know how to maintain or fix it. It astonishes me how many people don't even know how to change their tire.

Additionally, those who are tech knowledgeable are less likely to be in legal or legislative positions. IMO, it places a greater burden on those who make judgements to elicit competent support on the technicalities. I see this gap widening over time, not narrowing.


sp3kter t1_j25qi5i wrote

All the people that understand and can fix this shit are 20 years from retirement. No kids these days know how to fix shit on computers, they grew up with touch screens not screw drivers.


Not_the_brightest t1_j25zx8s wrote

The court got it right here though.

The people in the wrong are those who thought “direct physical damage” covers loss of logical data. There is specialized insurance specifically for the kinds of losses incurred here.


hamlet9000 t1_j25u9da wrote

Not really.

The insurance policy in question was for PHYSICAL damage.

There are insurance policies you can get to protect against data loss, but the plaintiff in this case didn't have one.

It took me great effort to learn this. It involved reading the linked article. But I have suffered this hardship willingly to bring you knowledge.


shadowrun456 t1_j25mit5 wrote

It wasn't an absurd ruling thought. Do you really think the description "direct physical damage" (which the insurance was for) should apply to damage from hacks and ransomware?


[deleted] t1_j25qxl0 wrote



chrometoucan t1_j25wkow wrote

What is ambiguous here? They excluded digital data by saying physical…


Sorge74 t1_j260uj6 wrote

I mean is digital data physical? I mean yes it's not magic.


GreenAdvance t1_j25w6vc wrote

You didn't answer the question. To add, what is ambiguous about "direct physical damage"?

This is why you have breach insurance that includes a ransomware policy.

The appellate court was the one that made an absurd ruling on the level of "it's a series of tubes". Ransomware or any other loss of data does not constitute physical loss or damage.


devman0 t1_j2695wv wrote

In this case they got it right, this would be like saying your homeowners or renters insurance should cover losses due to a ransomware attack, which is patently absurd..

The case was bad on its merits and the rule is fine. If you want cyber security insurance you should buy an appropriate policy.


MaPoutine t1_j25v0qn wrote

You don't need to be young or old to read the policy wording to see what it covers and what it excludes.

Read the article. There is nothing in this case that hinges on some super high technology that the court just doesnt understand.

Software is not covered under the wording of that Property policy (FYI it is meant to cover tangible things like buildings and machinery and its wording is clear that it doesn't cover intangible things). Software and the like is intangible and the insurance industry has a separate product which does cover software and cyber claims (cyber policies). Just because the company didn't buy a Cyber policy doesn't mean the Property policy has to cover something its wording excludes.


Complex-Glass-8539 t1_j25q5d7 wrote

In insurance, if this is covered, everyone can enjoy very, very high premiums. The intent of coverage on a standard business policy is clear, if someone wants this coverage they need to purchase it, it’s a readily available coverage called Cyber Liability and Data Retention.

This court ruling would make all insurance significantly more expensive.

You should look at what the profit margins are for property and casualty carriers are in the US….they are low as fuck, many lose money. Only a few consistently make money. This isn’t health insurance, all the money goes to the brokers and agents who get paid commission without the risk and competition is terribly high. It’s not like adding coverage where none is intended won’t result in higher costs to be imposed on consumers, consumers who today often choose not to insure this exposure due to how expensive it is.


GreenAdvance t1_j25wjt8 wrote

This is covered under separate breach policies and it's common. I work for a financial institution and we carry breach insurance for this reason. It's essentially a requirement.

They didn't have a breach policy, and weren't covered.