OSF
open access
Go Phish: Circuit Split in Policy Interpretation for Social Engineering Fraud Losses Creates Ambiguity for Insurers and Insureds
This Comment examines the circuit split over whether social engineering fraud losses are covered under computer fraud insurance provisions. It argues that recent decisions expanding coverage improperly blur the distinction between computer hacking and employee manipulation. The Comment contends that
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- A comparative analysis between General Data Protection Regulations and California Consumer Privacy Act#964803
- Data Breach, Privacy, and Cyber Insurance: How Insurance Companies Act as “Compliance Managers” for Businesses#23967
- Risk and Anxiety: A Theory of Data Breach Harms#269911
- 18 U.S.C. § 1030 — Fraud and related activity in connection with computers#574123
- Cybercrime and Data Protection Laws: Balancing Privacy and Security in the Digital Age#1176829
Record · ID 1121401
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive