AIG Is Now Selling Cyber Insurance, But Only To High Net Worth Individuals (securityledger.com) 42
chicksdaddy writes from a report via Security Ledger: It turns out that the rich really aren't like everyone else -- they have more cyber insurance. That, after insurance giant AIG announced Monday that it has started offering cyber insurance to protect individuals and families from ransomware attacks, data theft and cyber bullying, The Security Ledger reports. But don't go looking to sign up at Wal-Mart: the service is only available to AIG's Private Client Group, which caters to high net worth and ultra high net worth individuals and families. The service is the first of its kind to provide what insurers call "first party coverage" -- basically: insurance to make the affected party whole after an adverse incident. In a sign of the times, AIG said it will pay for things like school relocation for children traumatized by cyber bullying and ransom to cyber criminals in the hope of restoring data and technology held hostage by crypto-ransomware. Private Client Group customers must have real estate or other assets like boats or art with a value of more than $1 million, said Jerry Hourihan, president of AIG's Private Client Group for the U.S. and Canada. Hourihan said that the new service is based on similar insurance that AIG offers to businesses and is a response to inquiries and demands from its high net worth clients, who have become increasingly concerned about cyber threats, he said. The insurance would be purchased as a so-called "rider" to a traditional home insurance policy and add about 10% or 15% to the annual premium. It's not a big stretch for AIG because it turns out there's not much daylight between really well off families and businesses. "Our clients have domestic employees and family offices to help manage their lives. They take on quasi commercial exposure," Hourihan said. There are no immediate plans to offer similar protections to families of ordinary means, despite a recent survey by the firm Accenture that found as many as 1 in 4 Americans has been the victim of data theft. (https://securityledger.com/2017/02/silent-epidemic-data-theft-has-become-a-public-health-crisis-digital-guardian/)
FTFY (Score:2)
in reality, all persons are equal. But some are more equal than others.
Re:FTFY (Score:4, Funny)
Know what treats everyone equally, regardless of their 'means'? A bullet.
Ooooh... big deal.
So does kleenex, and scissors, and the moon, and lice, and the pacific ocean, and spaghetti, and alligators... and every other inanimate object ever, along with all plants, and all non-human animals too.
Its really only a subset of people who treat people with 'means' any differently.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone is created equal.
Everybody is created equal under common law, but really not everybody is born equal, even if you somehow managed to completely establish socioeconomic equality for all (which would extend to the complete removal of all leadership positions, titles, and occupations.)
Also when I hear the term "created" when it comes to people, I can't help but ask: Created by whom?
Re: Sounds familiar (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That said, this is AIG we are talking about, son of sure if I would trust them in a major "heist." But, if you are less than 15 years from retirement, something like this might make a lot of sense.
Re: (Score:2)
It actually happens from time to time. The problem is that this doesn't give you more equality, all it gives you is a new 1%.
High? (Score:2)
$1M in assets barely gets you into the top 10% today.
High net worth? (Score:2)
Real high net worth families employ an IT manager to ensure this won't happen. $1M is at least an order too low to be able to sue AIG if they won't pay a claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
Paying ransoms should be illegal (Score:1)
Way to piss in the pool, idiots.
"made whole"? (Score:1)
Many ransomware incidents seem to involve the loss of data for the victim. If you pay the perp, you are breeding even more ransomware incidents as people start to realize that this works. You get more of what you reward.
And if you don't, you've lost your data.... UNLESS you took the necessary precautions to back it up some way that cannot be compromised by ransomware, and/or run a secure system that is not easily vulnerable to it, in which case you don't need this insurance to begin with.
I'm not rich at a
Cyberbullying (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
At a certain amount of net worth I would kind of expect that to happen without getting AIG involved. Dad talks to his lawyer who then calls some ex-cop who does work on the side. The ex-cop leans on the principal and gets Tommy suspended from school and kicked off the team.
It sounds very "Sopranos" but at the same time very plausible when money starts sloshing around.
Erik Prince in the Seychelles (Score:2)
I wonder if they've gotten any inquiries about a policy that covers impeachment.
Insurance against ransomware? (Score:2)
Really? Paying off ransomware companies? That's just going to make them target wealthy people. I mean, I'll be fine but it's probably only going to provoke more attacks since you're guaranteed a payday if the person you hit has AIG.
And:
public static bool operator==(const Person& a, const Person& b)
{
if(a.Wealth() != b.Wealth())
return false;
else
Insurance is not ... (Score:3)
... a plan of action.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why the simple hell is this modded down?
It's inherently obvious.
As an example, insurance does not replace goddam seat belts.
Defeats the purpose of insurance (Score:1)
You probably don't need insurance if you have a high "net worth". You should only buy insurance for things you cannot cover yourself.
If you can cover it yourself, it's usually cheaper on average to simply cover it yourself. Consumer groups will often give you this advice. Insurance co's ask a markup on what you pay into them on the average.
For example, if you can cover a $20k car crash on your own without going into bankruptcy or getting into dire financial problems, it's best to only buy insurance for amou
Do you really want to get ripped off? (Score:4, Informative)
The reason this insurance is only for the rich : it is prohibitively expensive.
For someone who has more than $1M in assets, insurance is already expensive, and so they can easily scare people with cyber horror stories into paying 10-15% more. After all, they are rich, they can pay. The "exclusive" stuff is a marketing tactic to make these rich customers feel special, and maybe more targeted, and more ready to pay.
But it is a much harder sell on average people. The risk is comparable, attacks are usually indiscriminate, and ransomware ask for a fixed sum. So it means that if you have a more typical home insurance, it could double the premium before the insurance company can expect a profit. And they probably judged that the average person won't pay.
It it turns out that normal people also want to get ripped off like the rich, they will arrange it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not "despite"; "because" (Score:2)
... there are no immediate plans to offer similar protections to families of ordinary means, despite a recent survey by the firm Accenture that found as many as 1 in 4 Americans has been the victim of data theft...
I think they mean because a recent survey... Etc. It doesn't do the shareholders any good to be paying claims to 25% of your clients.
I can do that too! (Score:2)
Of course, certain stipulations apply before I pay. For example, for the ransomware clause to take effect, you need a current backup...