#Ditchcyber rrr…insurance (told you)

How can it be a surprise this happened ..?
This, being the position that because ‘cyber’insurance is a scam, someones claimed and found out. Yes, an insured company tried to get some money as far proxy of damage repair, after being hit on a (inherently; more on that later [1]) slight little flaw in information security (that’s what it is, however moronic you keep on cybering). And the insurance co panicked (why; they could have claimed the hurted just hadn’t done the right thing completely enough, apparently [2]). And threw in the only blanket, fail-safe claim denier: Cyberwar! Arrrgghhhhh!.

I the vacuum of definitions (let alone the official recognition of those by relevant international bodies e.g., the UN – not We The People that doesn’t count as a party that has any serious say in this, anymore), they’re not even false advertising. But … as they should know, the legal principle still is he who posits, proves and that might be a challenge… Until further notice, no state party shall be considered guilty, so no cyberwar is or was to be found. Maybe at that one planet near Alpha Centauri but we have only circumstantial evidence of that.

And you think that insurers know more, better than company employees that are in the firing lines ..? For the being fired upon, and then being fired anyway than for firing back or the reference to ‘war’ (quod non). So, they take your money and don’t know what for. Hence the dismissal on grounds of last resort. You should’ve known, again. And [2], again.


[Never worked. This one, fake on purpose …(note the Delft blue tiles); Barça]

[1] Remember, there’s no such thing as perfect security, and very-good security is way too expensive, not worth the risk … Ah, risk, the thing that is inherent in life. And which one can ‘manage’ but hey, one better also study this incl comments … (risks can be displaced but not reduced). When costs come in play, there’s only so much you can afford – and the rest, one insures …??
[2] If you have a fire insurance that requires to take all possible (beyond reasonable…), thinkable precautions and preventative measures, and still your house burnt down, it shows you haven’t done what was required i.e. prevent a fire. Anyone can claim with hindsight you’re risk analysis was flawed, in this way. And the spelling was without purpose but intentional.Plus, “So sind Beispiele der Gängelwagen der Urteilskraft, welchen derjenige, dem es am natürlichen Talent derselben mangelt, niemals entbehren kann. (Kant, CPR 187 A 134, B 173-4)

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *