Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
I am curious, how do you think the police should be able to look for people drink driving?
Should they need to see you do something legal but seriously stupid like weaving between the lanes of the highway like a jackass before they can breathalyse you? Or should you actually need to break the law by running a red light? Or should they only be able to breath test people who crash?
Any of these would likely be "probable cause" under U.S. law to make a traffic stop. Under U.S. law an officer cannot detain you without either a warrant or probable cause. (At least, not in theory.)
Link to Original Source
No, liability insurance pays out according to the terms of the contract.
If I were writing an insurance policy to protect a company against hacking, I'd sure as heck include clauses that require the insured party to take certain steps to protect that data. *If* such terms were part of the contract, and *if* Sony didn't abide by the terms of the contract, then the insurer isn't under any obligation to pay out.
It all comes down to: what were the terms of the policy? None of us knows that, so we're all just taking WAGs on this issue.
Most liability contracts have clauses that require the insured to take certain measures to reduce their risk. If this policy does contain such clauses, and Sony didn't take those measures, it certainly stands to reason that the policy won't pay out.
It all comes down to what the contract says. Since that contract hasn't (as far as I'm aware) been released, all we can do here is guess.