The unsolved mystery of the Brinks jewelry heist
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Basically:
1. Jewelers at a trade show undervalued their wares to reduce shipping costs.
2. Items were stolen in transit.
3. Security company doing the transit is willing to pay the amount that was declared by the jewelers.
4. Jewelers want closer to fair market value even though they disclosed a number 10x less.
5. Article was done as a graphic novel and would have taken 5 seconds to read instead of 5 minutes of scrolling.
What an amazing panel of news.
If you only want the facts then I'm sure Wikipedia could service you.
I think the only case they might have is that security measures taken (regardless of declared value) were substandard. It does seem strange to me that it's considered ok to leave the truck essentially unattended; one driver sleeping inside while the other leaves to get food doesn't count as "attended" in my mind.
I don’t see how it matters to the client though; the security measures could be entirely non-existent, but that’s why the insurance policy exists. The quality of security should only impact the rate at which insurance has to be paid out, so it’s already the insurance companies’ problem and really only impacts them
Put another way, it was a business decision.
Alas, an inherent risk to the UX surrounding adoption of new technology is we tend to become so engrossed with realizing (P_success * Benefit) that we often dismiss the inevitable consequences of (P_failure * Cost).