| |||||||||||||
PoniesPoniesPosted Sep 6, 2007 2:55 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165)Parent article: Software liability laws: a dangerous solution
The notion that using free software would lower insurance premiums is not just inconceivable, it's dangerous nonsense. The insurance industry is pathologically averse to offering any sort of discount for safe behavior, and charging extra for unsafe behavior drives away exactly the customers they most depend upon.
Bruce Scheier is often right, but not about this.
(Log in to post comments)
Ponies Posted Sep 6, 2007 8:44 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Um, no claims bonuses seem like a `discount for safe behaviour' to me. Aninsurance agency's ideal customer pays on time and never, ever makes a claim: i.e., engages only in safe behaviour.
Ponies Posted Sep 11, 2007 19:53 UTC (Tue) by hazelsct (guest, #3659) [Link] Ridiculous. There are incentives for safe behavior all over the insurance world, from auto (lower rates if you don't drive an accident-prone or high-theft auto) to homeowners (much lower rates in the US midwest than for gulf coast or flood plain residents). If company A doesn't offer them, then company B will steal all of its "safely-behaved" customers by charging them less. I don't know where you got this idea.
That said, there's no guarantee that free software users will pay less, and I agreed that it is somewhat dangerous to assert such a thing at this point. Until insurance companies start collecting evidence and pricing policies, such speculation is out of place.
|
|||||||||||||