What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Hackers threaten to release insurance files about 9/11 (1 Viewer)

LAUNCH

Footballguy
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/yw79k5/hacker-group-threatens-dump-911-insurance-files-dark-overlord

On Monday, New Year’s Eve, a hacker group announced it had breached a law firm handling cases related to the September 11 attacks, and threatened to publicly release a large cache of related internal files unless their ransom demands were met.

The news is the latest public extortion attempt from the group known as The Dark Overlord, which has previously targeted a production studio working for Netflix, as well as a host of medical centres and private businesses across the United States. The announcement also signals a slight evolution in The Dark Overlord’s strategy, which has expanded on leveraging the media to exert pressure on victims, to now distributing its threats and stolen data in a wider fashion.

In its announcement published on Pastebin, The Dark Overlord points to several different insurers and legal firms, claiming specifically that it hacked Hiscox Syndicates Ltd, Lloyds of London, and Silverstein Properties.

“Hiscox Syndicates Ltd and Lloyds of London are some of the biggest insurers on the planet insuring everything from the smallest policies to some of the largest policies on the planet, and who even insured structures such as the World Trade Centers,” the announcement reads.

It is unclear what exact files the group has stolen, but it is trying to capitalize on conspiracy theories around the 9/11 attacks.

“We'll be providing many answers about 9.11 conspiracies through our 18.000 secret documents leak,” the group tweeted on Monday.

In its extortion note, The Dark Overlord included a link for a 10GB archive of files it allegedly stole. The group also provided a link to this archive to Motherboard before publishing its announcement. The cache is encrypted, but the hackers are threatening to release the relevant decryption keys, unlocking different sets of files at a time, unless the victims pay the hackers an undisclosed ransom fee in Bitcoin.

“Pay the **** up, or we're going to bury you with this. If you continue to fail us, we'll escalate these releases by releasing the keys, each time a Layer is opened, a new wave of liability will fall upon you,” the extortion note reads.

 

culdeus

Have good
What's the worst case situation here?  They expose the fact that the insurance companies settled different families for different sums?  

Why would an insurance company be party to some vast conspiracy?  This is a situation where you write the check for the policy and move on.

 

Epic Problem

Footballguy
Having two of them to use would be interesting to say the least.
Might be something you'd want to insure. Or should I say, somethings? 

10 expensively insured body parts

Heidi Klum's legs - $2 million. ...

America Ferrera's smile - $10million. ...

Keith Richard's hands - $1.6 million. ...

Ilja Gort's nose - $5.58 million. ...

Epic Problem's schwantzes - $4.75 million...... 

Gennaro Pelliccia's taste buds - $13.3 million. ...

David Beckham's legs (and face) - $195 million. ...

Cristiano Ronaldo's legs - $144 million. ...

Bruce Springsteen's voice - £3.5 million.

Holly Madison's chest - $1 million

 

E Street Brat

Footballguy
Yo Dawg.

I heard you like Dark Overlords. So I put a Dark Overlord in the Dark Overlords so you can welcome the Dark Overlords while you welcome the Dark Overlords

 

E Street Brat

Footballguy
Might be something you'd want to insure. Or should I say, somethings? 

.

Bruce Springsteen's voice - £3.5 million.
Probably related to his cervical stenosis surgery a few years back. 

The condition, known as cervical stenosis, can be extremely painful. In Springsteen’s case the only answer was an operation that meant his doctors cutting open his throat and tying his vocal cords to the side to make room for disks to replace the ones that were damaged.  After the surgery he wasn’t allowed to sing for three months – and there was no guarantee that his signature rasp would be the same.

 

matuski

Footballguy
What's the worst case situation here?  They expose the fact that the insurance companies settled different families for different sums?  

Why would an insurance company be party to some vast conspiracy?  This is a situation where you write the check for the policy and move on.
In my experience, treating the insurance business as a vast conspiracy isn't a bad approach.  The effort they go through to not pay is hard to fathom sometimes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

glvsav37

Footballguy
What's the worst case situation here?  They expose the fact that the insurance companies settled different families for different sums?  

Why would an insurance company be party to some vast conspiracy?  This is a situation where you write the check for the policy and move on.
I dont think they breached All State or Geico's files. These are major international insurance agencies that handle huge assets. IMO, these records could contain info on if anyone abruptly insured or increased property or business insurance in or around  the WTC just before the attack. Could point to the attacks being a known conspiracy outside OBL and key individuals if so. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

matttyl

Footballguy
In my experience, treating the insurance business as a vast conspiracy isn't a bad approach.  The effort they go through to not pay is hard to fathom sometimes.
In regards to 9/11, and with life insurance (I'm in the industry) - the big question was if the attack itself could be considered an "act of war".  Generally, "acts of war" are exclusions on life insurance. 

 

matttyl

Footballguy
Exhibit A
AFAIK, every carrier ended up paying every claim on the life insurance side, as they didn't want the bad press - especially after that tragedy.  But I know the question was raised - especially when the US government paid family members of the diseased directly.

 

matuski

Footballguy
AFAIK, every carrier ended up paying every claim on the life insurance side, as they didn't want the bad press - especially after that tragedy.  But I know the question was raised - especially when the US government paid family members of the diseased directly.
You are nailing this argument for me.

Not because it was the right thing to do, because they didn't want the bad press.

My next question is how much of each claim they paid, how they paid it, when they paid it.

 

matttyl

Footballguy
You are nailing this argument for me.

Not because it was the right thing to do, because they didn't want the bad press.

My next question is how much of each claim they paid, how they paid it, when they paid it.
The amount of the policy, in cash to the beneficiary of record, immediately.  Why would that even be a question?

They may have had a valid argument, though.  Acts of war are a general exclusion on a life policy, just like suicide in the first two years of the policy.  This was a practice started years ago, and is still in policies today.  If a guy kills himself 22 months into a policy, should the company pay the claim, even though it's specifically excluded?

 

matuski

Footballguy
The amount of the policy, in cash to the beneficiary of record, immediately.  Why would that even be a question?

They may have had a valid argument, though.  Acts of war are a general exclusion on a life policy, just like suicide in the first two years of the policy.  This was a practice started years ago, and is still in policies today.  If a guy kills himself 22 months into a policy, should the company pay the claim, even though it's specifically excluded?
Exhibit C

Want to bet on the immediately part?

Conflate the simple and the obvious.  The right thing to do here was pay... even when (perhaps especially when) there was any question about whether or not they "may have a valid argument".  

I credit you for not even pretending to argue that the industry has or even considers any interests outside of their own.

 

mr roboto

Footballguy
matuski said:
Exhibit C

Want to bet on the immediately part?

Conflate the simple and the obvious.  The right thing to do here was pay... even when (perhaps especially when) there was any question about whether or not they "may have a valid argument".  

I credit you for not even pretending to argue that the industry has or even considers any interests outside of their own.
Wait - what magical industry does?

Im not a big fan of insurance companies but if a policy excludes something not sure why they’d feel they have to pay anyway. Bad press is a legit cost they avoided :shrug:  

 

EYLive

Footballguy
Maybe there's secret info about how the 2 fallen towers should have been ruled a single terrorist occurrence instead of 2 separate ones.

 

matuski

Footballguy
Wait - what magical industry does?

Im not a big fan of insurance companies but if a policy excludes something not sure why they’d feel they have to pay anyway. Bad press is a legit cost they avoided :shrug:  
I would argue most industries at least balance these interests with their own.  Almost always the customer's satisfaction and doing right by them is on a list of priorities.  For most even their greed is best served by doing just that.

That the defense above from a rep of the industry begins with justifying other examples where they DIDN'T pay speaks volumes.  That those who did did to avoid bad press.  You would think a defense of insurance companies would involve stories where they DID take care of someone.. :shrug:

This case in particular - I can't imagine the level of greed that would go into an insurance company even considering not erring in favor of the family.  

 

matuski

Footballguy
My bad experiences involve many cases with health insurance, and several with home owner's.. perhaps I should give life insurer's the benefit of the doubt?

 

TLEF316

Footballguy
matuski said:
Exhibit C

Want to bet on the immediately part?

Conflate the simple and the obvious.  The right thing to do here was pay... even when (perhaps especially when) there was any question about whether or not they "may have a valid argument".  

I credit you for not even pretending to argue that the industry has or even considers any interests outside of their own.
Oh, this silly argument again.  Its not a charity. Its a business deal based on a contract (and in most cases, its a pretty simple contract that anyone could easily read, but often dont)

Why in the world would a business go out of their way to make a payment when they have a contract (agreed to by both parties) that specifically releases them from doing so? That's just absurd.  

I'm sure many people have anecdotal evidence how a friend of a friend got "screwed over" by an insurance company. But in my experience (which, to be fair, is entirely in commercial insurance. I can't speak to issues regarding life insurance or other personal lines beyond experience with my own claims), the opposite is true. I've only worked for 2 insurance companies (arguably the top 2 commercial insurers in the country) but I've seen far more examples of "I can't believe we're paying this claim?"(despite what appeared to be a pretty obvious "out" to my eyes)  than "how the hell do we get out of this one?".

Any insurer worth its salt values their reputation of paying claims over the relatively insignificant amount of money they'd save over denying a single rightful claim over a bogus technicality.  This is especially true when you consider that if it truly is some sort of shady gray area, the insurer would likely lose in court (since the party that drew up the contract generally loses when the language isn't clear)

You want insurance contracts that literally pay for everything (or insurers that pay for stuff that isn't in the contract just because its the "right thing to do"). Prepare for MUCH higher premiums. But then, of course, everyone would just complain about that.

 

matuski

Footballguy
Oh, this silly argument again.  Its not a charity. Its a business deal based on a contract (and in most cases, its a pretty simple contract that anyone could easily read, but often dont)

Why in the world would a business go out of their way to make a payment when they have a contract (agreed to by both parties) that specifically releases them from doing so? That's just absurd.  
The extreme circumstance.

And yes.. many businesses and people in this world did indeed participate, going out of of their way to be charitable.  Without any contract at all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

TLEF316

Footballguy
The extreme circumstance.
Why? And what constitutes extreme? 

I realize I'm never going to come across as the good guy in this argument, but that's incredibly broad. Are we just talking death or does an insurance company have a moral responsibility to pay excluded claims just because not doing so would cause extreme financial hardship for the claimant?

If I dont buy flood insurance and my house ends up under-water, should the company pay me anyway? (knowing that the alternative is me losing everything and having to start over from nothing)

 
Last edited by a moderator:

mr roboto

Footballguy
My bad experiences involve many cases with health insurance, and several with home owner's.. perhaps I should give life insurer's the benefit of the doubt?
Not necessarily. We’ve all had them. I’ve also had good ones where the claim was borderline and they paid out anyway because I was a long term customer. 

Its a game just like anything else. 

 

culdeus

Have good
Why? And what constitutes extreme? 

I realize I'm never going to come across as the good guy in this argument, but that's incredibly broad. Are we just talking death or does an insurance company have a moral responsibility to pay excluded claims just because not doing so would cause extreme financial hardship for the claimant?

If I dont buy flood insurance and my house ends up under-water, should the company pay me anyway? (knowing that the alternative is me losing everything and having to start over from nothing)
Flooding is a bad example since that aspect is well understood

 

TLEF316

Footballguy
Flooding is a bad example since that aspect is well understood
You would think that....until a claimant alleges that the 5 feet of water in their bay-side warehouse was caused by "fire"

 
Last edited by a moderator:

SWC

Bromigo
i hope they release stuff about roswell i always want to know if there is an alien spaceship there or not brohans take that to the bank 

 

D-Day

Footballguy
This most likely has nothing to do with life insurance.  I would suspect it has to do with a possibility of a liability lawsuit.  Examples off the top of my head that I am totally making up:

WTC was known to be built improperly and would fall if...
Medical issues arising to people in the area due to the towers destruction. "There is a spike in X disease for people living/working around this area"
Making it known that all existing skyscrapers are at risk, need to be upgraded/retrofitted so that people would be able to escape from the top floors.

 

irish eyes

Footballguy
Hackers/extortianists are the worst of the worst. These are people that should do life/hard time. Especially the ones like identity thieves, biggest losers on earth. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top