Chubb To Offer UK 'Troll Insurance' Policy (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Insurance group Chubb will start offering the UK's first cyber-bullying policy – 'troll insurance' – through which it will accept claims of up to £50,000 to cover counselling and relocation costs, as well as time spent out of work. Chubb will provide its personal insurance policy customers the option to claim expenses ensued from online abuse. Cyberbullying is defined by the insurer as 'three or more acts by the same person or group to harass, threaten or intimidate a customer.' While the new insurance option is targeted towards parents concerned about their children's online activities, adults who are targeted by cyber abuse will also be able to make a claim.

Comments

Someone doesn't understand the internet

[Dunbal]

I hope Chubb thought this out carefully because they will need to self insure...

Re:Someone doesn't understand the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's brilliant. I'm unfamiliar with insurance companies in the UK, but if they're at all like the ones in the US, they like to sue whoever caused the claim to occur unless it's the policy holder in which case they either attempt to not pay out, raise rates or both. Toss in the usual wide territories that insurance companies tend to operate in and they can sue in the perpetrators home district. And they tend to be ruthless at finding out who to sue. It adds a very real risk to online trolls which law enforcement seems to not be bothered with.

Re:Someone doesn't understand the internet

[lgw]

I hope Chubb thought this out carefully because they will need to self insure...

Oh, there will be fraud at first. but IMO this will end quite well. Many claims of "harassment so bad I had to flee my home" are bogus, often coupled with GoFundMes that bring in considerable funds for the person putting on the show. If done carefully, none of that is obviously illegal, being a very roundabout sort of fraud.

But it's different when you file a police report (and at least one professional victim found out the hard way that filing fake police reports is a crime), and insurance companies depend on police reports as their primary anti-fraud mechanism. I look forward to the professional victims who try this fraud, and discover that adding "insurance fraud" to "filing a fake police report" was a serious mistake.

Hopefully this will end with a lot less fraud among people claiming real harassment.

Re:Someone doesn't understand the internet

[cayenne8]

Actually my first thought was...

Is this reallysuch a widespread, common problem that people need insurance for it???

Is there really a need/market for this?

Would it not be cheaper to maybe grow a bit thicker skin?

Re:Someone doesn't understand the internet

[TheRaven64]

Is this reallysuch a widespread, common problem that people need insurance for it

I think that you misunderstand insurance. The things that you want to offer insurance for are ones where the perceived risk is significantly higher than the actual risk. This lets you charge a hefty premium, with little risk of having to pay out.

Re: Someone doesn't understand the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

We insurers love finding new risks to quantify - like bit coin insurance. The more risks, the more products we can offer to the market. I have concerns that chubb haven't thought this through though. It would be laughably easy to abuse yourself by VPN from a foreign nation and then claim back for 'costs'. That is fraud people, but... Oh come on you guys live in the real world.

Re:Someone doesn't understand the internet

[AmiMoJo]

Wow, that's a pretty big claim you slipped in there. Care to elaborate who this precessional victim who filled a false police report is?

Re:Someone doesn't understand the internet

[Proteus]

Would it not be cheaper to maybe grow a bit thicker skin?

There is a pretty significant difference between the hand-wringing over "someone was mean to me" and actually being harassed or bullied. Just because some Tumblr kids don't know the difference doesn't mean there is no difference.

Harassment, for example, requires making contacts "in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person" under UK law, not just being annoying. Growing a "thicker skin" isn't reasonable advice in response to actual harassment.

Re:Someone doesn't understand the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah - as far as I know, none of them filed police reports at all.

At least two cases I can think of, when the police were asked about supposed harassment claims, their answer was "we have no idea what you're talking about." Not "we don't comment on an on-going investigation" or anything like that, flat-out "we've never heard from this individual, ever." One of them was even an investigation by a main stream newspaper, although they some how found a way to spin it in favor of the supposed victim.

Re:Someone doesn't understand the internet

[mikael]

There are online pressure groups that are going around pushing for change. There was a petition organised to get Trump's honorary degree revoked. Similar tactics can be used to organize a boycott of a country's or a corporations products. In the UK, we have had invited speakers to university debating discussion halls, shouted and hounded out of the room by small minorities of people.

Re:Someone doesn't understand the internet

[Geoffrey.landis]

a quick google search suggests that filing police reports about internet harassment is not very useful.

http://mic.com/articles/114964...
http://jezebel.com/the-cops-do...

Re:Someone doesn't understand the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

However, you need to be careful. Insurance products are government regulated in the UK. Products that never pay out are not true "insurance" and the regulator will come in and make you refund everybody in full for tricking them. This leaves you out of pocket, since obviously selling the worthless "insurance" cost you money, and you don't get to keep the resulting payments. In some cases they'll also fine you on top.

The insurance company must make sure that a reasonable person wouldn't buy their insurance unless there was a chance they'd be able to successfully claim. So for example, it's OK to sell car insurance to people who are safe, careful drivers, even though they're less likely to claim - but it's not OK to sell it to people who you know are delusional and don't own a car. You can't insure people against being eaten by Venusian Space Sharks, because nobody will get eaten by Venusian Space Sharks so that insurance was worthless and you knew it (or legally you should have known it) when you sold it.

Re:Someone doesn't understand the internet

[thoromyr]

From your description it doesn't sound like they'll have any problem at all. There is a strong perception of risk so unless they rig the rules so they never pay out under any realistically possible conditions they should be fine.

GP was right: insurance thrives where the actual risks/costs are significantly lower than the real risks/costs. There are some factors that can influence this (such as regulatory requirements to carry insurance and situations with undue burden), but the underlying mechanism (real costs lower than billed costs) is required -- otherwise the insurance company would go out of business -- and profitability is highest when real costs are significantly lower than actual costs.

Regulatory: there's a reason car insurance companies pay for legislation mandating car insurance, and it isn't out of a desire for safer roads.

Undue Burden: this is the usual excuse offered for insurance and it certainly is a factor, but it is not as fundamental as the real/billed cost differential. Essentially, when the potential cost of a risk exceeds an individual's ability to pay in order to survive the eventuality insurance is paid to cover it. In principle there's a balance between rate of incidence, average cost and billed costs.

Re:Someone doesn't understand the internet

[Locke2005]

Not well thought out at all.
1) Buy cyberbullying insurance
2) Create anonymous account to bully my own child
3) Have Chubb pay for my next move
4) Profit!

Re:Someone doesn't understand the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

At first I thought you were referring to Anita Sarkeesian, but her police report was verified. Maybe Zoe Quinn? She did "flee" to hide from trolls....at the same exact time and destination as her planned vacation.

Re:Someone doesn't understand the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. Not because of police apathy, but because most harassment doesn't violate any laws. Either that or the perpetrators come from outside police jurisdictions, which kicks the responsibility up to national and federal law agencies who have much more important cases to worry about.

Re:Someone doesn't understand the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because cops deal with real crimes, not anonymous strangers being mean to you on the Internet.

Re:Someone doesn't understand the internet

[Mashiki]

Well that covers the special snowflakes out there with no problem, especially the ones that claim they've gotten PTSD from a tweet.

Re:Someone doesn't understand the internet

[sjames]

A drop of water on the forehead does you no harm. Unless you know there will be another, and another, and another, and that it won't stop or even relent in the foreseeable future.

Re:Someone doesn't understand the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

a quick google search suggests that filing police reports about internet harassment is not very useful.

It's useful if you want to make an insurance claim that requires one. Oddly, that's the topic of our conversation. Just like when someone broke into my house. The police report did nothing to get my property back, but I had to file one if I wished to make an insurance claim. Sadly, they didn't cover half of the stuff and the other half was about equal to my deductible. Wonderful stuff, insurance.

Go on 4chan

[Anonymous Coward]

Go on 4chan.
Tell them about your seven proxies and troll insurance.
?
Profit.

Can't wait for this in Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

Because I can't get enough of the insurance ads on commercial TV for insurance of anything they can think of.

Re:Can't wait for this in Australia

[Nidi62]

Because I can't get enough of the insurance ads on commercial TV for insurance of anything they can think of.

Since pretty much everything in Australia is either designed to or actively trying to kill you, do they offer insurance for just being in Australia?

Re:Can't wait for this in Australia

[PopeRatzo]

Since pretty much everything in Australia is either designed to or actively trying to kill you, do they offer insurance for just being in Australia?

They need to offer death adder insurance, that's for sure. Those bastards got "death" right in their name.

Re:Can't wait for this in Australia

[UberVegeta]

I suspect that in the UK at least, being killed by a "Death Adder" would be enough to get your insurance claim rejected on grounds of negligence.

"You knew it was called a *death* adder right? What outcome were you expecting by going near it?"

Some Slashdotters would rightly point out if you can't claim under reasonable circumstances then you shouldn't be sold the insurance (Death Adder insurance should cover encounters with Death Adders). Unfortunately, large institutions in the UK already have a track record of knowingly mis-selling you stuff they know won't cover you (Payment Protection Insurance for students and the unemployed... neither of these groups were covered under PPI but the banks still sold it).

Unfortunate name

[Calydor]

Anyone making claims through this will inevitably be referred to as Chubbies.

Re:Unfortunate name

[gstoddart]

So if you follow them after they move are you a Chubbie Chaser? ;-)

Re:Unfortunate name

[malditaenvidia]

This post severely triggered me; prepare to be contacted by my insurance company.

Fraud?

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems like it would be the absolute easiest sort of insurance to defraud.

Re:Fraud?

[Anonymous Coward]

No it won't you FUCKING GODDAMN FAGGOT.

(you're welcome)

Re:Fraud?

[amicusNYCL]

It sounds like a useful service. You want to move cities but can't afford it? Great, go online and post some stupid things, make a claim, and have them pay for you to move.

Re:Fraud?

[fustakrakich]

You are so sued! We are gonna sue your ass AND your balls!

Re:Fraud?

[LaurenCates]

And in ENGLAND!

Here's the plan

[q4Fry]

Step one: Sign up.
Step two: Run for office.

Internet Relocation?

[tomxor]

I'd like to see how they propose to do that.

i h8 u

[Anonymous Coward]

I CAN RUIN UR LIFE
NO1 LIKES U!
LOSER!
>:|

That'll be 50,000 pounds , Chubb

Troll toll

[Anonymous Coward]

You gotta pay the troll toll to get in!

I have a competing service

[slashmydots]

For the low, low price of $1 US I will offer get the fuck over it insurance. If you're the victim of cyber bullying and harassment I will send you messages reminding you that it's just some dumbass social reject autistic piece of human garbage whose opinions and statements should have no weight against your self confidence. I'll also remind you that they do not represent society as a whole and you should honestly just disregard all the stupid bullshit they're saying.

Re:I have a competing service

[Anonymous Coward]

Having experienced this I can tell you it isn't that easy to just get past. I have a lot of friends online, and an part of several communities. After being trolled I was forced out of some of them, forced out of the places I previously felt comfortable and happy.

I expect you still think I should just get over it, but screw you. I'm a normal, social person, it hurts and by comparison to what has happened to some people it's not even that bad.

Re:I have a competing service

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody with two brain cells to rub together wouldn't mix up their real life and their internet "life". You pissed some anonymous douchebag off on the internet and let him find out who you are and/or how to harass you? Holy fuck you're dumb. Most social people are.

Re:I have a competing service

[thoromyr]

I can see why you are posting anonymously...

Re:I have a competing service

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowhere did I see that the AC claimed that s/he had given out personal information.

Nowhere did I see that the AC claimed that s/he had been harassed in real life.

Re:I have a competing service

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you get them their job back after the internet hate mob gets them fired?

Just another scam

[smooth wombat]

Insurance is the biggest scam perpetrated against humanity since religion. It's nothing but a scare tactic to make one believe they need to throw their money away or something bad will happen.

On average, most people in the U.S. will lose, over their lifetime, at least $250K to insurance. That's money which will never be recovered or used for more worthwhile endeavors such as food, clothing or housing. It's gone. Forever. And you gained no benefit for it.

What a scam.

Re:Just another scam

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you.

I thought I was the only one who thought this.

If I want insurance id contact the Mafia.

Re:Just another scam

[pla]

On average, most people in the U.S. will lose, over their lifetime, at least $250K to insurance

That little? Wow. Hell, medical insurance alone over a 40-year career will come out to more than that. Throw in another grand per year each for the car and house...


And you gained no benefit for it.

You mean you don't consider the warm and fuzzy feeling you get from lining the coffers of a corporate parasite a "benefit"? Well, to each their own, I suppose.

Re:Just another scam

[smooth wombat]

That's why I said at least. I'm being very conservative. Obviously in places such as New York, LA, San Francisco or Chicago people will waste significantly more money on insurance, but that is balanced against people who will waste significantly less in other parts of the country.

For instance, my car insurance is less than $500/year. Over 40 years that's only $20K I'm wasting and that isn't the entire time I would be driving.

Re:Just another scam

[kheldan]

You, apparently, have never considered what it's like for someone who has been in an accident caused by someone with no auto insurance. They walk away from the whole thing more or less scot-free, and you're left with no working vehicle (that you may still be making payments on) and maybe no way to afford repairing it anytime soon (or replacing it if it's totalled). Meanwhile the jerk with no insurance, who more likely than not has no money and no regular income (or at least so little income that there's not much to take from them in court) shrugs and tells you 'tough luck'. That's a valid use for insurance, as much as we hate paying it. Note that I am not saying insurance companies are all or always fair when you make a claim, I personally know better than that. But at least if the jerk that hits you has insurance you have a chance of getting your vehicle repaired.

Re:Just another scam

[Proteus]

Insurance is a way to externalize risk by diluting it among a population -- I can take a known loss instead of accepting the entire risk of something bad happening. By definition, most people have to actually realize less risk than the individual insurance rate covers, but you gain huge advantages to having certainty of what your risk is.

Take fire insurance, for example. I insure a building that would cost $200k to rebuild, and it costs me $50/month. Given the chance of a fire actually occurring and causing enough damage to require a rebuild, my loss expectancy over the next 10 years is greater than what I pay in insurance. It seems scammy because there's a chance my loss over 10 years to fire will be $0, in which case I'm "out" $6k with no value returned, right?

But here's the thing -- I know exactly what it's going to cost me for insurance this year, and I can plan around that. I don't need to keep huge piles of cash on hand to rebuild that $200k structure. That means I can spend that money on growing my business, etc.; the value of being able to know what I'm on the hook for means I can keep a smaller amount of cash on hand, and that's absolutely value returned.

Insurance only becomes a bad deal if you entirely trust the insurance company to represent the risk fairly to you, or if you don't bother to assess whether a particular risk makes sense to externalize.

Re:Just another scam

[barbariccow]

Ok, so pass a law that claims go through government, and you must pay it off in so-many-years with low interest, whilst the government fronts the bill. Then, everyone is "covered", and no insurance company leeches make money.

Re:Just another scam

[kheldan]

So you want more and bigger government? Also, you want it to take months or even years for your claim to be processed, while it goes through government bureaucracy? You think private sector insurance companies are bad, just wait until the government is handling it.

Relocation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I want a troll insurance policy where the company sends out Moose and Rocko to "show the troll the error of his ways".

Re:Relocation?

[kheldan]

I want a troll insurance policy where the company sends out Moose and Rocko to "show the troll the error of his ways".

Try the darknet, I hear there are plenty of guys for hire on there that do 'wetwork'.

Re:Relocation?

[Locke2005]

"Moose and Rocko"?!? No, no, it's either "Moose and Squirrel" or "Bullwinkle and Rocky". You're welcome! -- Natasha and Boris

Re:Relocation?

[Ash-Fox]

I want a troll insurance policy where the company sends out Moose and Rocko to "show the troll the error of his ways".

Can someone link me to the source of this reference?

Short lived

[bkr1_2k]

This isn't going to last long. To pay for itself the premiums will have to be insane. With all the people claiming they've been hurt by "cyber bullying" these days, Chubb's going to go broke unless they discontinue this option very soon or charge so much that no one will buy it. Which will, of course, cause them to discontinue the option.

Re:Short lived

[Falos]

Have a little faith in capitalism leeching from rubes, it's what they do best.

As (facetiously) remarked at Ars:
>This policy only covers the websites and services listed in Paragraph H. Travel to other destinations including but not limited to 4Chan, ExtremeTech and independent.co.uk is not covered by this policy.

Hmmmm... I'm rich ... or in jail

[Opportunist]

Depends on whether they consider it insurance fraud if you post on creationist and conspiracy theorist boards...

Re:Hmmmm... I'm rich ... or in jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do that? All you have to do is go disagree with Anita Sarkeesian.

Re:Hmmmm... I'm rich ... or in jail

[Opportunist]

I'd guess that being yelled at randomly by insane people doesn't count.

Interesting, does it also...

[DRMShill]

offer protection against lunatic SJW mobs that will try to ruin your life if you ever use incorrect speech?

Re:Interesting, does it also...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the problem. There is no single definition of a dickbag (should I say vagbag so you don't get triggered?).
SJWs had a guy who made a dick joke to his buddy lose his job. He was not being a dick, he was only talking with his friend. Yet, the SJW hate mob used threats to punish him for speaking, and not even to them. Go choke on a dick you piece of shit.

More like pussy insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

For people who can't handle life.

Just walk away from the screen!

[malditaenvidia]

Like, just close your eyes!

What if you troll a bully?

[Earthquake Retrofit]

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

It only works to prevent disaster

[Anonymous Coward]

Insurance only makes sense when the loss it protects you from would be financially disastrous if it were to occur. Fire insurance works, because replacing a destroyed building is very expensive. Car insurance works, because liability for an accident can be a large amount of money if someone else is injured. If the potential loss isn't disastrous, you're better off self-insuring by saving the money that you would have otherwise spent on insurance.

Slashdot monetization outlook

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Slashdot could become profitable again by purchasing insurance against APK's posts.

Re:Slashdot monetization outlook

[Anonymous Coward]

Apk != troll. Scum like you are. Adblock/ublock/ghostery/privacybadger fans post here? So can apk. Apk has a better way of doing what they do for less and yet his hosts program does more too. Which of his inferior competition do you obviously work for I must ask?

Re:Slashdot monetization outlook

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever you say, APK.

Re:Slashdot monetization outlook

[Anonymous Coward]

All ac posts on slashdot are apk. Mr. expert ac says so. Even he is apk.

First claim's on me

[tandavanadesan]

First claim's on me. Anyone who buys this insurance is a pathetic useless idiot.

Rat.

[jondeanmack]

I smell a rat. People claiming money falsely based on their lack of information with the hope of the accused revealing the truth of their accusations to prove their innocence. Is this what it has come too for those with new truth information? An insurance company claiming that any new truths only have a maximum value of £50,000.

Re:I got a better use for the money

[shentino]

Great idea.

Where's the part where you stop shithead fakers from making up bull just to get someone they don't like beat up?