| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 8: |
Line 8: |
| | | | |
| | ==Explanation== | | ==Explanation== |
| − | [[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. | + | [[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. |
| | | | |
| − | 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.
| + | 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). |
| | | | |
| − | 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 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. |
| | | | |
| − | 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.
| + | 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. |
| − | | |
| − | 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 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 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.
| |
| | | | |
| | [[1469: UV]] also contains a case of insurance fraud. | | [[1469: UV]] also contains a case of insurance fraud. |
| Line 47: |
Line 39: |
| | {{comic discussion}} | | {{comic discussion}} |
| | [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]] | | [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]] |
| − | [[Category:Aviation]]
| |
