@Viss@hrbrmstr This is a cool thinkpiece, but I'm fuzzy on why insurers would take on the burden of litigation when they could simply have policies that do not cover things like ransomware in the first place, or at least make it very hard to accept the claim. That's what Lloyd's and others have done.
@mttaggart@hrbrmstr so in my experience, 100% of the time when the discussion is "tech does stuff wrong, we should involve insurance", the cudgel they suggest to enforce the rules is "just more compliance", and so it reads to me like tech bros re-inventing shit like "carpool lanes", "hotels", "taxi cabs" and other stuff that already exists - but in the case of "just staple on more compliance", its already shown to not work, so.. they talk themselves in a circle
@mttaggart@hrbrmstr think of who the lawyers and insurance carriers will get to 'evaluate the software to see if it can be insured' - insurance sales people. or kpmg/deloitte/etc.
@Viss@mttaggart@hrbrmstr I’m a big fan of the “Hartford Steam Boiler” model. The company that provides the engineering services also provides the insurance. Then incentives are better aligned. That’s being bandied about but no one has done it at scale yet, that I know of.
Add comment