1494: Insurance - Revision history

2001:718:1C01:96:A11B:FBD2:7B4B:CDFF: /* Lifehacks vs. IT hacks */

2025-12-11T14:10:18Z

‎Lifehacks vs. IT hacks

162.158.90.193: /* Explanation */ Mentioned something similar in real life

2024-12-05T05:52:05Z

‎Explanation: Mentioned something similar in real life

Apollo11: added an s

2024-03-21T14:56:52Z

added an s

IMSoP: /* Explanation / I don't think it's necessary to alternate* between those two scams; either alternative would be enough

2024-02-28T17:13:23Z

‎Explanation: I don't think it's necessary to *alternate* between those two scams; either *alternative* would be enough

172.69.195.173: /* Explanation */

2023-12-09T15:22:10Z

‎Explanation

Tromag at 22:41, 8 December 2023

2023-12-08T22:41:54Z

Natg19: /* Transcript */

2022-09-22T23:44:14Z

‎Transcript

Jacky720: Reverted edits by Xray Kilo Charlie Delta (talk) to last revision by Davidy22

2022-05-23T18:46:57Z

Reverted edits by Xray Kilo Charlie Delta (talk) to last revision by Davidy22

Show changes

Xray Kilo Charlie Delta: haha your js cant stop my js

2022-05-23T18:13:08Z

haha your js cant stop my js

Show changes

Davidy22: Reverted edits by Explain xkcd server admin (talk) to last revision by Theusaf

2022-05-21T02:55:17Z

Reverted edits by Explain xkcd server admin (talk) to last revision by Theusaf

Show changes

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 ==Lifehacks vs. IT hacks==
-The term hacking in IT is ambiguous and goes from code development (in particular in the opensource community) to the fact of "using a {{w|Hack|hack}}". A hack would then refer to a tricky piece of code doing the intended job in a way that the framework or project in which it is inserted was not intended to. To the general public, 'hacking' a system would normally refer to some illegal way of achieving a goal against the will of the original developers of the system, like getting a copy of all the data available or taking advantage of some unwanted behavior, but a more distinctive term for such an exploitation (maliciously or after an invitation to perform legitimate penetration testing) would be 'cracking'.
+The term hacking in IT is ambiguous and goes from code development (in particular in the opensource community) to the fact of "using a {{w|Hack_(computer_science)|hack}}". A hack would then refer to a tricky piece of code doing the intended job in a way that the framework or project in which it is inserted was not intended to. To the general public, 'hacking' a system would normally refer to some illegal way of achieving a goal against the will of the original developers of the system, like getting a copy of all the data available or taking advantage of some unwanted behavior, but a more distinctive term for such an exploitation (maliciously or after an invitation to perform legitimate penetration testing) would be 'cracking'.
 This comic is making fun of what IT hacks would look like in real world. Surely, taking lots of luggage from an airport is technically possible and probably not so difficult, but first, it looks weird, and second, it's also obviously illegal. The weirdness of such behavior is more obvious in real life than in IT.

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 The comparison here is that exploiting a program's faults can be regarded as interesting or fun, while exploiting the faults in a legal document will often result in some sort of legal repercussions. Moreover, most such exploitations that involve money have usually been figured out already, and systems changed or laws passed in order prevent them from happening. When they do occur, the exploiter is subject to legal punishment.
-Cueball begins to ask how the agent knew what his question was, and is again cut off by the agent explaining that he sees a lot of programmers, suggesting that Cueball is not the first to consider that particular loophole.
+Cueball begins to ask how the agent knew what his question was, and is again cut off by the agent explaining that he sees a lot of programmers, suggesting that Cueball is not the first to consider that particular loophole. The idea that there are many people on the lookout for and eager to try exploits that turn out to be fraud may seem absurd at first, which is part of what contributes to the comic's humor, but [https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/03/business/chase-tiktok-trend/index.html in 2024, an exploit that many participants apparently did not realize is check fraud went viral on TikTok.]
 The title text provides another example: US airports typically place passengers' luggage on carousels, and leave it to the individual travelers to find and retrieve their own luggage, which would seem to make it easy to take luggage that's not yours (even "all the luggage"), but that's less of a 'hack' than a crude form of petty theft, which contravenes both the law and normal social and ethical expectations.

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 The title text provides another example: US airports typically place passengers' luggage on carousels, and leave it to the individual travelers to find and retrieve their own luggage, which would seem to make it easy to take luggage that's not yours (even "all the luggage"), but that's less of a 'hack' than a crude form of petty theft, which contravenes both the law and normal social and ethical expectations.
-It should be noted that there are place in which it's typical for airports to verify luggage ownership before allowing people to take their bags. In most wealthy countries, this practice has largely been abandoned, because other peoples' luggage isn't typically very valuable, airports are generally fully of security cameras, and walking off with a random piece of luggage creates a significant risk that the actual owner will see you trying to take it. For these reasons, the risks associated with such theft generally outweigh the rewards. A single person trying to remove "all the luggage" would be particularly impractical. Even if they could contrive a method to transport it all, their actions would be so obvious that they would almost certainly be caught immediately.
+It should be noted that there are places in which it's typical for airports to verify luggage ownership before allowing people to take their bags. In most wealthy countries, this practice has largely been abandoned, because other peoples' luggage isn't typically very valuable, airports are generally fully of security cameras, and walking off with a random piece of luggage creates a significant risk that the actual owner will see you trying to take it. For these reasons, the risks associated with such theft generally outweigh the rewards. A single person trying to remove "all the luggage" would be particularly impractical. Even if they could contrive a method to transport it all, their actions would be so obvious that they would almost certainly be caught immediately.
 The core point, in both of these cases, is that theoretical loopholes, which might be easy to exploit in computer code, are usually wildly impractical in reality, and often carry both moral implications and the risk of punishment.

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 [[Cueball]], apparently having just purchased a new insurance policy, is given a document explaining the policy terms. As is often the case, he's presented as some sort of programmer or at least logically minded person. He reads through the terms that are handed to him, and finds some sort of loophole. This is a play on the fact that programmers tend to look for loopholes in programs, code and system architecture, and treat finding them as a challenge (either to exploit them, or to prevent such exploitation by other parties). The fact that Cueball is trying to discuss his findings with the agent suggests that he's trying to prevent it from happening, rather than planning to do it himself.
-In this case, the obvious "loophole" in a fire insurance policy is that the customer generally receives a large payment in the event of a fire. This means that a person could make money by insuring a building or other property for more than its actual value, then deliberately setting a fire. Alternately, someone could set a fire and claim that more valuables were destroyed than actually were. In either case, the customer would effectively receive free money for their troubles. In principle, this could be done repeatedly, resulting in an unlimited source of money.
+In this case, the obvious "loophole" in a fire insurance policy is that the customer generally receives a large payment in the event of a fire. This means that a person could make money by insuring a building or other property for more than its actual value, then deliberately setting a fire. Alternatively, someone could set a fire and claim that more valuables were destroyed than actually were. In either case, the customer would effectively receive free money for their troubles. In principle, this could be done repeatedly, resulting in an unlimited source of money.
 All of this is implied simply by Cueball reviewing the document, starting to ask a question, and being cut off by the agent, explaining that this {{w|Life hacking|"cool hack"}} is actually just an instance of {{w|insurance fraud}}, which is a) well known and b) highly illegal. In practice, insurance companies are constantly on the lookout for such forms of fraud, and attempting to do so in real life would be more likely to land you in prison than to enrich you.

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 [[Cueball]], apparently having just purchased a new insurance policy, is given a document explaining the policy terms. As is often the case, he's presented as some sort of programmer or at least logically minded person. He reads through the terms that are handed to him, and finds some sort of loophole. This is a play on the fact that programmers tend to look for loopholes in programs, code and system architecture, and treat finding them as a challenge (either to exploit them, or to prevent such exploitation by other parties). The fact that Cueball is trying to discuss his findings with the agent suggests that he's trying to prevent it from happening, rather than planning to do it himself.
-In this case, the obvious "loophole" in a fire insurance policy is that the customer generally receives a large payment in the event of a fire. This means that a person could make money by insurance a building or other property for more than its actual value, then deliberately setting a fire. Alternately, someone could set a fire and claim that more valuables were destroyed than actually were. In either case, the customer would effectively receive free money for their troubles. In principle, this could be done repeatedly, resulting in an unlimited source of money.
+In this case, the obvious "loophole" in a fire insurance policy is that the customer generally receives a large payment in the event of a fire. This means that a person could make money by insuring a building or other property for more than its actual value, then deliberately setting a fire. Alternately, someone could set a fire and claim that more valuables were destroyed than actually were. In either case, the customer would effectively receive free money for their troubles. In principle, this could be done repeatedly, resulting in an unlimited source of money.
 All of this is implied simply by Cueball reviewing the document, starting to ask a question, and being cut off by the agent, explaining that this {{w|Life hacking|"cool hack"}} is actually just an instance of {{w|insurance fraud}}, which is a) well known and b) highly illegal. In practice, insurance companies are constantly on the lookout for such forms of fraud, and attempting to do so in real life would be more likely to land you in prison than to enrich you.

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ==Explanation==
-[[Cueball]] in this comic, as is often the case, is some sort of programmer or at least logically minded person. He reads through the terms that are handed to him, and finds some sort of loophole. This is a play on the fact that programmers often find loopholes in programs and code, and exploiting them is nothing more than a "cool find" or an interesting idea. More importantly, programmers try to prevent loopholes, which is why it is important to be able to identify them.
+[[Cueball]], apparently having just purchased a new insurance policy, is given a document explaining the policy terms. As is often the case, he's presented as some sort of programmer or at least logically minded person. He reads through the terms that are handed to him, and finds some sort of loophole. This is a play on the fact that programmers tend to look for loopholes in programs, code and system architecture, and treat finding them as a challenge (either to exploit them, or to prevent such exploitation by other parties). The fact that Cueball is trying to discuss his findings with the agent suggests that he's trying to prevent it from happening, rather than planning to do it himself.
-The insurance agent foresees this, and explains that this {{w|Life hacking|"cool hack"}} is actually just an instance of {{w|insurance fraud}}, which is highly illegal. The comparison here is that exploiting a program's faults can be regarded as interesting or fun, while exploiting the faults in a legal document will often result in some sort of legal repercussions (however, sometimes legal {{w|loophole|loopholes}} are exploited by individuals or corporations in ways that are not illegal).
+In this case, the obvious "loophole" in a fire insurance policy is that the customer generally receives a large payment in the event of a fire. This means that a person could make money by insurance a building or other property for more than its actual value, then deliberately setting a fire. Alternately, someone could set a fire and claim that more valuables were destroyed than actually were. In either case, the customer would effectively receive free money for their troubles. In principle, this could be done repeatedly, resulting in an unlimited source of money.
-The insurance agent is also already prepared for the following question - how he knew Cueball would be looking for loopholes, and it's because many programmers visit him.
+All of this is implied simply by Cueball reviewing the document, starting to ask a question, and being cut off by the agent, explaining that this {{w|Life hacking|"cool hack"}} is actually just an instance of {{w|insurance fraud}}, which is a) well known and b) highly illegal. In practice, insurance companies are constantly on the lookout for such forms of fraud, and attempting to do so in real life would be more likely to land you in prison than to enrich you.
-The title text provides another example: While airport luggage security certainly is exploitable, walking out with ''every'' piece of luggage from the conveyor belt would be easily noticeable and would result in being arrested for theft, and many annoyed travelers.
+The comparison here is that exploiting a program's faults can be regarded as interesting or fun, while exploiting the faults in a legal document will often result in some sort of legal repercussions. Moreover, most such exploitations that involve money have usually been figured out already, and systems changed or laws passed in order prevent them from happening. When they do occur, the exploiter is subject to legal punishment.
 [[1469: UV]] also contains a case of insurance fraud.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:44, 22 September 2022
Line 39:		Line 39:
	{{comic discussion}}		{{comic discussion}}
	[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]		[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
		+	[[Category:Aviation]]

1494: Insurance - Revision history

2001:718:1C01:96:A11B:FBD2:7B4B:CDFF: /* Lifehacks vs. IT hacks */

162.158.90.193: /* Explanation */ Mentioned something similar in real life

Apollo11: added an s

IMSoP: /* Explanation */ I don't think it's necessary to *alternate* between those two scams; either *alternative* would be enough

172.69.195.173: /* Explanation */

Tromag at 22:41, 8 December 2023

Natg19: /* Transcript */

Jacky720: Reverted edits by Xray Kilo Charlie Delta (talk) to last revision by Davidy22

Xray Kilo Charlie Delta: haha your js cant stop my js

Davidy22: Reverted edits by Explain xkcd server admin (talk) to last revision by Theusaf

IMSoP: /* Explanation / I don't think it's necessary to alternate* between those two scams; either alternative would be enough