<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>TedDoesntTalk</author><text>No insurance company is going to take that deal because infosec audits are not perfect and they can not audit every possible software release.&lt;p&gt;So your plan means governments will have to provide this insurance (there is precendent for governments providing insurance; eg Medicare in the US)&lt;p&gt;That means taxpayers will fund the payouts.&lt;p&gt;This is not a good solution. I don’t have an alternative, but I dont like this one.</text><parent_chain><item><author>INGELRII</author><text>This issue can be solved with mandatory insurance and compensation structure. For this sensitive private health information compensation should be at least 5 figures per person, no excuses. A data breach involving 10,000 people could cost 100s of millions.&lt;p&gt;Companies would have to take mandatory insurance against massive data leaks. In order to keep insurance fees reasonable, they would have to implement good security. Insurance companies would do audits because they don&amp;#x27;t want to lose money. They  would promote secure data vaults, require hardware authentication devices from their customers in exchange of insuring them.&lt;p&gt;Car manufacturers must be prepared to do massive recalls in case there is a fault in the car. Automotive recall insurance is a big business. Same thing. Regulatory structures protecting consumers.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Hackers hijack and publish mental health data of hundreds of people</title><url>https://www.foreigner.fi/articulo/national/scandal-over-the-hijack-and-and-publication-of-private-mental-health-data/20201023121903008599.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>kebman</author><text>Wouldn&amp;#x27;t it be better to simply invest that money in better security to begin with? An insurance scheme looks to me like a great incentive to hack insured servers, in order to cause insurance payouts on top of blackmail.&lt;p&gt;Anyway, just want to say that there&amp;#x27;s a special place in Hell reserved for people who do that kind of thing, and to minors, even...</text><parent_chain><item><author>INGELRII</author><text>This issue can be solved with mandatory insurance and compensation structure. For this sensitive private health information compensation should be at least 5 figures per person, no excuses. A data breach involving 10,000 people could cost 100s of millions.&lt;p&gt;Companies would have to take mandatory insurance against massive data leaks. In order to keep insurance fees reasonable, they would have to implement good security. Insurance companies would do audits because they don&amp;#x27;t want to lose money. They  would promote secure data vaults, require hardware authentication devices from their customers in exchange of insuring them.&lt;p&gt;Car manufacturers must be prepared to do massive recalls in case there is a fault in the car. Automotive recall insurance is a big business. Same thing. Regulatory structures protecting consumers.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Hackers hijack and publish mental health data of hundreds of people</title><url>https://www.foreigner.fi/articulo/national/scandal-over-the-hijack-and-and-publication-of-private-mental-health-data/20201023121903008599.html</url></story>