They'll use this as another way to justify Digital ID. Insurance companies will require sites to use Digital ID - just like they're now requiring people to re-roof every 15 years.
In a web-of-trust type of architecture, we are already using a 'digital ID' thanks to protocols such as OAuth and OpenID; these are already tying a user's digital presence together (for the sake of convenience over anything else), it wouldn't be much to tie banking to it to further a social credit-esque architecture.
We have seem private companies and even some government entities request access to social media accounts to determine employability - the above only furthers this agenda.
the article however points out a more overarching trend that a business will carry more onus over data protection since cyber attacks are becoming more ubiquitous - a matter of when and not if one is attacked. A company can only do so much to mitigate which is the due diligence and due care that has been a requirement for insurance, but if it becomes the norm to not insure based on 'when' then that sets a dangerous precedent for all insurance since insurance is the basis for exactly the 'when' model - we purchase insurance to mitigate when the 'when' happens. Now, if the insurer can prove malfeasance, and/or the lack of due care, then the onus falls on the insured to foot the bill, as it should be.
the question then becomes: how will one meet a regulation/requirement is the entire model does not account for the requirement. If transference is no longer a risk response, then this severely impacts our risk appetite and thus our risk tolerance, and thus our response will most likely be risk aversion, which will lead to collapse of the model if we cannot mitigate risk to acceptable levels.
not be daft, but i have no idea what re-roofing has to do with this topic? please, expand on this?
Lots of good info here - thanks. OpenId's sponsoring member list isn't surprising: https://openid.net/foundation/sponsoring-members/
A company can only do so much to mitigate which is the due diligence and due care that has been a requirement for insurance, but if it becomes the norm to not insure based on 'when' then that sets a dangerous precedent for all insurance since insurance is the basis for exactly the 'when' model - we purchase insurance to mitigate when the 'when' happens. Now, if the insurer can prove malfeasance, and/or the lack of due care, then the onus falls on the insured to foot the bill, as it should be.
So what's to prevent insurance companies from saying that not adopting digital ID requirements is lack of due care?
I realize that cyber attacks have a broader scope, but, as we've clearly seen, any rationale for pushing the great reset is fair game.
You're not daft - I'm the daft one not understanding "insurance speak." The roofing comment was an example of how insurance companies get laws/regulations implemented to force roof replacements in order to provide coverage. I realize insurance companies want to minimize their risk, but if they do this with roofs, what would syop them from doing the same thing with digital id? https://www.ocalapost.com/florida-insurance-companies-dropping-policies-for-10-year-old-roofs-regardless-of-manufacturer-recommendations/
I'm trackin'.
So what's to prevent insurance companies from saying that not adopting digital ID requirements is lack of due care?
I don't know exactly how digital ID could be proven to be mitagatory, but I could see it inevitably becoming a requirement to 'qualify' for coverage. Slippery slope.
The remaining part of your response is interesting, and I agree. How this unfolds will be interesting, for better or for worse, and it could very well redefine the landscape.
(post is archived)