It might work; but it might raise barriers. "Sorry, we can't use your software - it's not approved by our insurers..."
The UK government last week partnered with 12 insurance companies to develop the "cyber-insurance" market. But experts are split on whether encouraging the development of the nascent market will result in the adoption of improved security practices. Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude said that while cyber insurance adds an …
Thursday 13th November 2014 13:01 GMT Anonymous Coward
Just another mis-selling opportunity
Since the PPI money-mill jammed up through over use, the Financial Services sector moved through Interest Rate Swap mis-selling to SME's, Identity Protection mis-selling (consumers, again), stopped off for a bit of LIBOR manipulation, when that was rumbled they stoked up with some foreign exchange rigging. They've yet to be properly rumbled and "punished" for high frequency trading, but that'll come. So where's the next scam to rip off customers?
Fade to the boardroom of Rubbish Bank of Scotland:
"Gentlemen, our new business development wizards have been working hard to develop novel abusive products, and they've come up with a real cracker this time. We'll offer hacking insurance. It'll target larger SME's and corporates, and they're both due a new scr*wing over. As usual, the terms and conditions will preclude any likely claim, as we proved that strategy worked well for PPI, and we'll make it a condition of business for anybody with a loan, overdraft, or trade credit agreements, like we did with swaps. And it draws on our expertise in selling high cost, value free products with a tech dimension, as we pioneered with Identity Theft insurance. So these business customers can't get out of buying it, they have to pay what we demand, and they'll never in a million years be able to successfully claim. We'll build this into a multi-billion revenue stream, and by the time the regulators rumble it our new business lads will have found something new to mis-sell."
Thursday 13th November 2014 13:40 GMT Stretch
...akin to saying that growing the car insurance market will improve road safety.
Well. Insurance companies really like money, and they hate giving it away for claims. So they will natural try to reduce claims by increasing premiums on less safe vehicles. So safer vehicles become cheaper and road safety is improved as people are greedy and mean.
You would suppose this is the argument. I make no claim on its validity.
Thursday 13th November 2014 16:30 GMT Elmer Phud
Tuesday 18th November 2014 10:37 GMT Disgruntled of TW
Trust and Insurance companies
Is there any? I see similar exploitation opportunities here, as within the motor vehicle insurance industry.
Protected no-claims bonuses are NOT transferable, unless your current insurance provider and your prospective one agrees to it. It's just a contract. Ever made a claim? Ever been told how much your underwriter actually paid to the injured party? Ever asked, "if I make a claim for £3k today, what will my premium be at renewal?" Ever had an answer?
The veil of secrecy means it is a market ripe for corruption. There is no FoI act here - this is plain private sector commercial profit, behind a veil of loss adjustment process secrecy.
Wednesday 10th December 2014 14:57 GMT YetAnotherLocksmith
Load of cobblers.
Just as with the box-ticking exercise that is the PCI-DSS has become, so to this shall pass. Anything not up to scratch? Tough, no (re)payment, it is your fault. We find anything is wrong on the form - you thought you had MacAVG and it's MalNorBytes! - we have you arrested for attempted fraud.
And what on earth would the premium be? Sony are going out of business, and they'd happily take a large insurance company with them. Yet last week (ok, 2 weeks) you'd have thought them a safe bet.