Hacker News Reader

Comment by tocs3 | Hacker News Reader

Holding actual people liable sounds like a more effective option. The insurance would just be included into the cost of doing business and make everything more expensive. Insurance makes everything worse.

Holding actual humans liable (with appropriate levels of harshness) would make actual humans more likely to take preventative steps. Holding shareholders somewhat liable (maybe extra taxes on sales of a companies stock) might be useful also.

View on HN

In EU, NIS2 regulations already hold top management personally liable both financially and in worst case criminally.

Does wonders for how c-level treats compliance work, now if only middle management followed...

Sarbanes-Oxley in the US holds top management personally responsible too, and compliance is taken far more seriously than with other regulations as a result.

If you think there is never a valid use for insurance policies I can’t take you seriously.

Sure, when you want payout. This is not about payout, but about us not wanting it to happen again.

Sure there are valid uses for insurance. It is just the incentives are all wrong for the insurance companies.

The incentives are to price risk correctly so that they can price their policies cheap enough to beat the competition while not going out of business from paying more in claims than they receive in premiums.

What do you think their incentives should be?

There is a cap to how much and insurance company can make (health insurance for instance are capped at 20% of premiums). To make more money next year they can sign up more policy holders or make sure costs go up. Companies also often have a large stake in the fix it shops/clinics/hospitals so they recoup much of their cost that way. Market capture, if it cost more to buy insurance than to fix it/absorb the cost without insurance why would you buy insurance. It is useful for the insurance companies to see costs increase.

Sure there can be good arguments for having insurance. Insurance companies are part of the financial sector and will be working to make more money. That is a fine incentive for the insurance industry but for the insurance consumer it is a reason to be skeptical and careful.

Are we talking hypothetical utopia or something that could actually happen? Insurance probably isn’t the most perfect solution but it’s the most feasible. These exact policies and insurers already exist.

And why the hell would anyone want a job where a mistake results in personal ruin? Sure, there are a lot of shitty companies and people running them, but mistakes also happen when people are trying to do a good job. It’s not possible to completely prevent a data breach even with an unlimited budget.

I think the best solution is to weed out the people who behave irresponsibly and have an environment where we learn from the ones who are responsible and fail anyway.

> And why the hell would anyone want a job where a mistake results in personal ruin?

People will do nearly anything if the price is right.

Yes, there are some people who thrive on risk and will do things like jump off a mountain in a wing suit just for the thrill of it. That doesn't mean making that sort of personal recklessness legally mandatory for employment is a good idea.

This sort of personal liability OP is proposing would just ensure the security industry is dominated by highly compensated compulsive gamblers because nobody else is insane enough to take the risk. It's an absolutely ridiculous idea.

The most reckless will, of course; but most people won't -- they just won't do it.

Corporations evolved the liability structure they have today so that large undertakings, where many people have to work together and where the bad deeds of a small number of those people could sink the undertaking, were something that regular -- people who can't self insure -- could be a part of, as investors, managers, staff, &c, &c.

Limited liability may make accountability too narrow; but blanket personal liability makes it far too broad. It's not a solution for running a large, complex economy in a more accountable way.

And 70 years ago I would agree with you, but now we have a handful of individuals who are the economy with wealth that's rivaling nations. Something has gone awry.

What does that have to with assigning liability to managers as proposed?

It seems like the handful of people you're talking about are totally different people.

> And why the hell would anyone want a job where a mistake results in personal ruin

We are talking about the sort of job where you are paid ludicrous amounts of money. The sort of jobs that usually come with massive golden parachutes

People earning more money in a year than most people earn their whole lives should be accepting a much higher burden of risk

Very true. If you don't want to be exposed to such rich, you're free to work elsewhere. No one is forcing you to take on these jobs that immiserate society.

"A mistake" is a far cry from criminal negligence and we shouldn't conflate them.

>why the hell would anyone want a job where a mistake results in personal ruin?

I guess you think pilots, doctors, air traffic controllers, etc. are all made up?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com