Tumgik
#this is becoming an Aqua account now /j
atomsminecraft · 1 year
Text
Ladies, gentlemen, and random abominations on earth(/j), I present to you Aqua’s sprite I saw and now obsessed with
Tumblr media Tumblr media
HE’S SO CUTE
I wanna squish those cheeks of his
HIS CHIBI IS SO CUTE
46 notes · View notes
purplesurveys · 4 years
Text
804
All About the Letter A!
Please List! (at least one)
Animals I Like: Aspins! That’s what we call our native dogs, and usually they’re street dogs. Since they come from the street, they can eat all types of human food with no problem and are generally less likely to contract serious diseases. They make for amazing guard dogs and are just the best companions. Kimi’s part aspin :)
Foods I Like: There’s a local place that makes really good avocado cheesecake, and I’ll go with that.
I Know Someone Who’s (jobs): Anthropologist, air cabin crew, and accountant.
I Wouldn’t Mind Visiting: Athens, Arizona, Antarctica.
Sometimes I Feel: Anxious is the word I’m looking for most of the time these days. Sometimes I also get agitated.
Music I Listen To: Against Me!, Ariana Grande, alt-J, Adele.
Movies I’ve Seen: Anomalisa, A Clockwork Orange, A Nightmare on Elm Street, A Streetcar Named Desire, Amélie, American History X, Adventureland.
Names I Like: Amelie/Amelia, Alessandra, Arden, Ava, Audrey.
And now, onto the random questions!
Are you able to distinguish the difference of when to use “a” versus “and”? If the survey meant a/an, then yes.
Have you ever been in an airplane before? Yessss, a bunch of times. Riding airplanes never fails to make me feel excited, too.
Are you available? No. Which reminds me of some asshole who messaged my Facebook last week and said he wanted “to talk” to me because I’m “pretty.” I was the most horrified demisexual and my fingers went straight to the Block option lol.
What’s the best/funniest “autocorrect” that has happened to you/in your phone? Fuck turning into duck is always funny.
Abercrombie, American Eagle, or Aeropostale for clothes? Pass. I think all three of these shops went out of style like a decade ago.
Do you believe in angels or aliens? I believe in extraterrestrial life but not in the big head, green skin, big black eyes way that they’re usually portrayed as. I don’t believe in angels.
Have you ever been arrested? Nope.
Can you tell the difference between acute, right, and obtuse angles? Yes.
Do you appreciate art? In which forms? I appreciate all kinds of art, but like if I was in an art museum I would always flock to paintings.
Does any part of your body currently ache? Which part? Nothing is aching but my entire body is feeling very hot because it’s noon.
Do you get a lot of acne? Only whenever I’m really stressed in school. When all my deadlines start coming together, there’s always one or two noticeable pimples that show up and it’s always in an unfortunate area on my face, like in the middle of my eyes.
Are you athletic? To an extent, I guess? I can play table tennis and have shown good reflexes in sports like futsal.
Who/what are you attracted to? What attractive qualities do you find appealing? I’m demisexual; who I’m attracted to depends on who I’ve become close with, so having a list of desirable traits around doesn’t work for me.
Favorite author? I don’t have one.
Favorite actor or actress: Kate Winslet.
Do you consume alcohol? Yesssss and am always down for it.
Do you have any ailments? Not anymore! I had a UTI last week but with some very good antibiotics prescribed to me by Angela’s mom I’ve been feeling better for around a week now. It was bad for a while though and I kept having a fever that never went away and I could barely go up and down the stairs without feeling faint.
Do you wear an apron when you cook? No. I don’t think we even have aprons at home.
What time do you normally fall asleep? Midnight or a few hours after that.
Have you ever broken your arm or your ankle? I’ve sprained an ankle before. I had a bad fall, embarrassingly, in front of a rally that was ongoing at school at the time.
What is your age? 22.
Do you typically win or lose arguments? With Gabie, it only ever ends in a truce because neither of us like losing. With my mom, I let her win so that I can pretty much continue staying in this house, but she doesn’t know I could essentially kill her if I just chose to turn up my arguments to 100% lmao. 
Do you believe in astrology? No and it’s really hard to like people who take them incredibly seriously. A worst breed of people is those who like astrology but relentlessly shit on the MBTI test like...sure it might be bogus too, but at least you take a million questions about your personality on the MBTI test...
Do you enjoy going to amusement parks? My friends and I don’t ever have time to go to amusement parks, but even if we did, I’d probably be the friend that doesn’t go half the time. I just wouldn’t get my money’s worth in places like those since I don’t go on rides anyway.
Do you like the color aqua? It’s not a bad color at all. < True.
What are your aspirations? Get a great start into my career, save some money to help my parents for a bit, move out, travel some, and ultimately, all the white picket fence stuff with the person I’ll be with. Idk, I’m conventional when it comes to my goals.
Do you have any allergies? I don’t.
What is one of your most awkward moments? I have at least one everyday. Same goes for embarrassing moments.
Describe your appearance: I’m 5′1″, black shoulder-length hair with bangs, dark brown eyes, two ear piercings with one of the piercings ripped open from an accident, and shoulders that are a little bit tilted if you look closely because of my scoliosis.
What kind of an accent do you have? I wouldn’t know how to describe it but I have just a teeeeeny bit of an American accent due to me talking in English most of the time with nearly everyone I know, but it’s not perfect because of my Filipino tongue. It’s the same accent as those who went to private school and speaks English as a first language.
Are you addicted to anything? I don’t have any serious addictions but I will never pass up the chance to eat macarons, cheesecake, and any dish with truffle in it.
What are you afraid of? Death, cockroaches, losing the people I love, being in the kitchen and having something get on fire, getting eaten alive by an animal, drowning in the middle of the ocean or sea.
Are you big on showing affection? Intimately, like if it’s only the two of us together. I don’t like being too showy when in public because I know a good number of people don’t like it.
Do you live in an apartment? Nope. House.
Do you prefer Apple products? Yeah, all the gadgets I use regularly are Apple.
Have you ever received an award? For what? The last one I received was in elementary school for winning in a quiz bee.
Are you an Aquarius or an Aries? No.
Which alarms have you heard before? My phone’s, the fire alarm in emergency drills, the national local alerts on my phone whenever there’s a typhoon, earthquake, or volcano eruption, firetruck siren, ambulance siren, police siren.
Have you ever been under anesthesia before? What was the outcome? No and I am scaredddddd for the possibility. As far as I know that’s an injection too; and besides, I might end up saying embarrassing shit in front of my parents.
Anything else that you’d like to ask? Nopes.
[a-zebra-is-a-striped-horse]
6 notes · View notes
pamphletstoinspire · 5 years
Photo
Tumblr media
Book Of Genesis - From The Latin Vulgate (1859 - Haydock Translation of The Roman Catholic Bible) - Chapter 18
INTRODUCTION.
The Hebrews now entitle all the Five Books of Moses, from the initial words, which originally were written like one continued word or verse; but the Sept. have preferred to give the titles the most memorable occurrences of each work. On this occasion, the Creation of all things out of nothing, strikes us with peculiar force. We find a refutation of all the heathenish mythology, and of the world’s eternity, which Aristotle endeavoured to establish. We behold the short reign of innocence, and the origin of sin and misery, the dispersion of nations, and the providence of God watching over his chosen people, till the death of Joseph, about the year 2369 (Usher) 2399 (Sal. and Tirin) B.C. 1631. We shall witness the same care in the other Books of Scripture, and adore his wisdom and goodness in preserving to himself faithful witnesses, and a true Holy Catholic Church, in all ages, even when the greatest corruption seemed to overspread the land. H.
—————————-
This Book is so called from its treating of the Generation, that is, of the Creation and the beginning of the world. The Hebrews call it Bereshith, from the word with which it begins. It contains not only the History of the Creation of the World, but also an account of its progress during the space of 2369 years, that is, until the death of Joseph.
The additional Notes in this Edition of the New Testament will be marked with the letter A. Such as are taken from various Interpreters and Commentators, will be marked as in the Old Testament. B. Bristow, C. Calmet, Ch. Challoner, D. Du Hamel, E. Estius, J. Jansenius, M. Menochius, Po. Polus, P. Pastorini, T. Tirinus, V. Bible de Vence, W. Worthington, Wi. Witham. — The names of other authors, who may be occasionally consulted, will be given at full length.
Verses are in English and Latin. HAYDOCK CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY
This Catholic commentary on the Old Testament, following the Douay-Rheims Bible text, was originally compiled by Catholic priest and biblical scholar Rev. George Leo Haydock (1774-1849). This transcription is based on Haydock’s notes as they appear in the 1859 edition of Haydock’s Catholic Family Bible and Commentary printed by Edward Dunigan and Brother, New York, New York.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
Changes made to the original text for this transcription include the following:
Greek letters. The original text sometimes includes Greek expressions spelled out in Greek letters. In this transcription, those expressions have been transliterated from Greek letters to English letters, put in italics, and underlined. The following substitution scheme has been used: A for Alpha; B for Beta; G for Gamma; D for Delta; E for Epsilon; Z for Zeta; E for Eta; Th for Theta; I for Iota; K for Kappa; L for Lamda; M for Mu; N for Nu; X for Xi; O for Omicron; P for Pi; R for Rho; S for Sigma; T for Tau; U for Upsilon; Ph for Phi; Ch for Chi; Ps for Psi; O for Omega. For example, where the name, Jesus, is spelled out in the original text in Greek letters, Iota-eta-sigma-omicron-upsilon-sigma, it is transliterated in this transcription as, Iesous. Greek diacritical marks have not been represented in this transcription.
Footnotes. The original text indicates footnotes with special characters, including the astrisk (*) and printers’ marks, such as the dagger mark, the double dagger mark, the section mark, the parallels mark, and the paragraph mark. In this transcription all these special characters have been replaced by numbers in square brackets, such as [1], [2], [3], etc.
Accent marks. The original text contains some English letters represented with accent marks. In this transcription, those letters have been rendered in this transcription without their accent marks.
Other special characters.
Solid horizontal lines of various lengths that appear in the original text have been represented as a series of consecutive hyphens of approximately the same length, such as .
Ligatures, single characters containing two letters united, in the original text in some Latin expressions have been represented in this transcription as separate letters. The ligature formed by uniting A and E is represented as Ae, that of a and e as ae, that of O and E as Oe, and that of o and e as oe.
Monetary sums in the original text represented with a preceding British pound sterling symbol (a stylized L, transected by a short horizontal line) are represented in this transcription with a following pound symbol, l.
The half symbol (½) and three-quarters symbol (¾) in the original text have been represented in this transcription with their decimal equivalent, (.5) and (.75) respectively.
Unreadable text. Places where the transcriber’s copy of the original text is unreadable have been indicated in this transcription by an empty set of square brackets, [].
Chapter 18
Angels are entertained by Abraham. They foretell the birth of Isaac. Abraham's prayer for the men of Sodom.
[1] And the Lord appeared to him in the vale of Mambre as he was sitting at the door of his tent, in the very heat of the day. Apparuit autem ei Dominus in convalle Mambre sedenti in ostio tabernaculi sui in ipso fervore diei.
[2] And when he had lifted up his eyes, there appeared to him three men standing near him: and as soon as he saw them he ran to meet them from the door of his tent, and adored down to the ground. Cumque elevasset oculos, apparuerunt ei tres viri stantes prope eum : quos cum vidisset, cucurrit in occursum eorum de ostio tabernaculi, et adoravit in terram.
[3] And he said: Lord, if I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away from thy servant: Et dixit : Domine, si inveni gratiam in oculis tuis, ne transeas servum tuum :
[4] But I will fetch a little water, and wash ye your feet, and rest ye under the tree. sed afferam pauxillum aquae, et lavate pedes vestros, et requiescite sub arbore.
[5] And I will set a morsel of bread, and strengthen ye your heart, afterwards you shall pass on: for therefore are you come aside to your servant. And they said: Do as thou hast spoken. Ponamque buccellam panis, et confortate cor vestrum : postea transibitis : idcirco enim declinastis ad servum vestrum. Qui dixerunt : Fac ut locutus es.
[6] Abraham made haste into the tent to Sara, and said to her: Make haste, temper together three measures of flour, and make cakes upon the hearth. Festinavit Abraham in tabernaculum ad Saram, dixitque ei : Accelera, tria sata similae commisce, et fac subcinericios panes.
[7] And he himself ran to the herd, and took from thence a calf very tender and very good, and gave it to a young man: who made haste and boiled it. Ipse vero ad armentum cucurrit, et tulit inde vitulum tenerrimum et optimum, deditque puero : qui festinavit et coxit illum.
[8] He took also butter and milk, and the calf which he had boiled, and set before them: but he stood by them under the tree. Tulit quoque butyrum et lac, et vitulum quem coxerat, et posuit coram eis : ipse vero stabat juxta eos sub arbore.
[9] And when they had eaten, they said to him: Where is Sara thy wife? He answered: Lo, she is in the tent. Cumque comedissent, dixerunt ad eum : Ubi est Sara uxor tua? Ille respondit : Ecce in tabernaculo est.
[10] And he said to him: I will return and come to thee at this time, life accompanying and Sara thy wife shall have a son. Which when Sara heard, she laughed behind the door of the tent. Cui dixit : Revertens veniam ad te tempore isto, vita comite, et habebit filium Sara uxor tua. Quo audito, Sara risit post ostium tabernaculi.
[11] Now they were both old, and far advanced in years, and it had ceased to be with Sara after the manner of women. Erant autem ambo senes, provectaeque aetatis, et desierant Sarae fieri muliebria.
[12] And she laughed secretly, saying: After I am grown old and my lord is an old man, shall I give myself to pleasure? Quae risit occulte dicens : Postquam consenui, et dominus meus vetulus est, voluptati operam dabo?
[13] And the Lord said to Abraham: Why did Sara laugh, saying: Shall I who am an old woman bear a child indeed? Dixit autem Dominus ad Abraham : Quare risit Sara, dicens : Num vere paritura sum anus?
[14] Is there any thing hard to God? According to appointment I will return to thee at this same time, life accompanying, and Sara shall have a son. Numquid Deo quidquam est difficile? juxta condictum revertar ad te hoc eodem tempore, vita comite, et habebit Sara filium.
[15] Sara denied, saying: I did not laugh: for she was afraid. But the Lord said, Nay: but thou didst laugh: Negabit Sara, dicens : Non risi, timore perterrita. Dominus autem : Non est, inquit, ita : sed risisti.
[16] And when the men rose up from thence, they turned their eyes towards Sodom: and Abraham walked with them, bringing them on the way. Cum ergo surrexissent inde viri, direxerunt oculos contra Sodomam : et Abraham simul gradiebatur, deducens eos.
[17] And the Lord said: Can I hide from Abraham what I am about to do: Dixitque Dominus : Num celare potero Abraham quae gesturus sum :
[18] Seeing he shall become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed? cum futurus sit in gentem magnam, ac robustissimam, et benedicendae sint in illo omnes nationes terrae?
[19] For I know that he will command his children, and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord, and do judgment and justice: that for Abraham's sake the Lord may bring to effect all the things he hath spoken unto him. Scio enim quod praecepturus sit filiis suis, et domui suae post se ut custodiant viam Domini, et faciant judicium et justitiam : ut adducat Dominus propter Abraham omnia quae locutus est ad eum.
[20] And the Lord said: The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is multiplied, and their sin is become exceedingly grievous. Dixit itaque Dominus : Clamor Sodomorum et Gomorrhae multiplicatus est, et peccatum eorum aggravatum est nimis.
[21] I will go down and see whether they have done according to the cry that is come to me: or whether it be not so, that I may know. Descendam, et videbo utrum clamorem qui venit ad me, opere compleverint; an non est ita, ut sciam.
[22] And they turned themselves from thence, and went their way to Sodom: but Abraham as yet stood before the Lord. Converteruntque se inde, et abierunt Sodomam : Abraham vero adhuc stabat coram Domino.
[23] And drawing nigh he said: Wilt thou destroy the just with the wicked? Et appropinquans ait : Numquid perdes justum cum impio?
[24] If there be fifty just men in the city, shall they perish withal? and wilt thou not spare that place for the sake of the fifty just, if they be therein? si fuerint quinquaginta justi in civitate, peribunt simul? et non parces loco illi propter quinquaginta justos, si fuerint in eo?
[25] Far be it from thee to do this thing, and to slay the just with the wicked, and for the just to be in like case as the wicked, this is not beseeming thee: thou who judgest all the earth, wilt not make this judgment. Absit a te ut rem hanc facias, et occidas justum cum impio, fiatque justus sicut impius, non est hoc tuum : qui judicas omnem terram, nequaquam facies judicium hoc.
[26] And the Lord said to him: If I find in Sodom fifty just within the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake. Dixitque Dominus ad eum : Si invenero Sodomis quinquaginta justos in medio civitatis, dimittam omni loco propter eos.
[27] And Abraham answered, and said: Seeing I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes. Respondensque Abraham, ait : Quia semel coepi, loquar ad Dominum meum, cum sim pulvis et cinis.
[28] What if there be five less than fifty just persons? wilt thou for five and forty destroy the whole city? And he said: I will not destroy it, if I find five and forty. Quid si minus quinquaginta justis quinque fuerint? delebis, propter quadraginta quinque, universam urbem? Et ait : Non delebo, si invenero ibi quadraginta quinque.
[29] And again he said to him: But if forty be found there, what wilt thou do? He said: I will not destroy it for the sake of forty. Rursumque locutus est ad eum : Sin autem quadraginta ibi inventi fuerint, quid facies? Ait : Non percutiam propter quadraginta.
[30] Lord, saith he, be not angry, I beseech thee, if I speak: What if thirty shall be found there? He answered: I will not do it, if I find thirty there. Ne quaeso, inquit, indigneris, Domine, si loquar : quid si ibi inventi fuerint triginta? Respondit : Non faciam, si invenero ibi triginta.
[31] Seeing, saith he, I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord. What if twenty be found there? He said: I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty. Quia semel, ait, coepi loquar ad Dominum meum : quid si ibi inventi fuerint viginti? Ait : Non interficiam propter viginti.
[32] I beseech thee, saith he, be not angry, Lord, if I speak yet once more: What if ten should be found there? And he said: I will not destroy it for the sake of ten. Obsecro, inquit, ne irascaris, Domine, si loquar adhuc semel : quid si inventi fuerint ibi decem? Et dixit : Non delebo propter decem.
[33] And the Lord departed, after he had left speaking to Abraham: and Abraham returned to his place. Abiitque Dominus, postquam cessavit loqui ad Abraham : et ille reversus est in locum suum.
Commentary:
Ver. 1. Sitting, &c. that he might lose no opportunity of exercising hospitality.
Ver. 2. Men in outward appearance, but angels indeed. Heb. xiii. 2. S. Aug. de C. D. xvi. c. 29. Some have supposed, that one of them was the Son of God, whom Abraham adored, and who bears throughout the chief authority. Tres vidit et unum adoravit. He saw three and adored one, as we read in the Church office. In the former supposition, which is generally adopted, this adoration was only a civil ceremony, if Abraham considered them as mere men; or it might be mixed with a degree of religious, though inferior veneration, if he imagined they were angels; or in fine, he adored God in his representatives. H.
Ver. 4. Wash ye, or let your feet be washed by me, or by my servants, laventur. M.
Ver. 5. Therefore, Providence has directed you hither. Abraham promises but little, and gives much, in the true spirit of generous hospitality. C.
Ver. 6. Measures, or one epha; that is, three pecks and three pints, English corn measure. --- Flour, of the finest quality, similæ. --- Hearth, as being soonest ready.
Ver. 7. Himself. These rich and truly noble people, do not esteem it beneath themto wait on strangers. They provide abundance, but no dainties. H.
Ver. 9. Eaten apparently. Tob. xii. 19. or perhaps they consumed the food, as fire may be said to eat. S. Justin's Dial.
Ver. 10. Time, or season of the year ensuing, if I be alive; which he says after the manner of men, as he had assumed also the human form. H.
Ver. 12. Laughed, as if the promise were incredible. --- My lord, or husband, which title of respect, S. Peter i. C. iii. 6, commends. D.
Ver. 13. Indeed. This was the import of Sara's words. By thus revealing what was secretly done in the tent, he shewed himself to be more than man.
Ver. 14. Hard. So Gabriel says to the blessed Virgin: there is nothing impossible to God.
Ver. 15. Afraid; which does not entirely clear her of sin: for though she might innocently laugh, if she thought the person who spoke was only a man, yet she ought not to have told an untruth; and if she reflected, that he had disclosed what she supposed no one knew, and thereby manifested his superiority over man, her denial was still more inexcusable. But she was taken, as it were, by surprise; and therefore the Lord reproves her very gently. H.
Ver. 21. I will go down, &c. The Lord here accommodates his discourse to the way of speaking and acting amongst men: for he knoweth all things, and needeth not to go any where for information. --- Note here, that two of the three angels went away immediately for Sodom; whilst the third, who represented the Lord, remained with Abraham.
Ver. 25. With the wicked. God frequently suffers the just to be here the most afflicted; designing to reward them abundantly hereafter. But this was not so common in the days of Abraham and Job. C.
Ver. 32. Ten. Abraham's chief solicitude was for Lot; though, out of modesty, he does not mention him; trusting, however, in the divine goodness the he would be preserved, unless he had forfeited his justice, he proceeds no farther. God thus challenges Jerusalem to produce one virtuous man, and the city shall be saved for his sake. Jer. v. 1. H.
1 note · View note
Text
Ninth Circuit: No Crime Policy Coverage for Social Engineering Fraud Losses
Along with all of the other risks arising from companies’ increasing dependence on electronics communications and data storage technology has come not only the risks of a data breach caused by a hacker, but also the risk of a company’s transfer of funds by one of its employees who has been duped into believing the transfer was legitimate and authorized. These kinds of losses, which have been called “payment instruction fraud” or “social engineering fraud,” raise of a host of potential issues under traditional insurance policies, owing to the voluntary nature of the funds transfer made by a person authorized to access the company’s computer system. A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit illustrates the kinds of coverage problems that can arise from these circumstances. The Ninth Circuit’s unpublished April 17, 2018 opinion in Aqua Star (USA) Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America can be found here. The Wiley Rein’s law firm’s April 19, 2018 post about the Ninth Circuit decision can be found here.
  Background
Aqua Star is a seafood importer. One of its employees was duped by a fraudster posing as one of the company’s seafood vendors into sending $713,890 to an overseas bank account controlled by the fraudster. The fraudster had directed the employee to change the vendor’s bank account information. The employee made the changes as instructed. The company sought coverage for the loss of funds under the computer crime coverage in its commercial crime policy. The crime insurer denied coverage for the loss arguing among other things that coverage was precluded by a policy exclusion (Exclusion G) precluding coverage for “loss or damages resulting directly or indirectly from the input of Electronic Data by a natural person having the authority to enter the Insured’s Computer System.”
  The company filed a breach of contract action against the insurer. The insurer filed a motion for summary judgment. The district granted the insurer’s motion based on its finding that there was no unauthorized use of the company’s computer system. The company appealed.
  The Ninth Circuit’s Opinion
In a brief three-page unpublished opinion dated April 17, 2018, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment.  The appellate court said that Exclusion G “unambiguously” precludes coverage for losses resulting from authorized use of the company’s computer system.
  The company’s losses, the appellate court said, “resulted from employees authorized to enter its computer system changing wiring information and sending four payments to a fraudster’s account.” The employees “had authority to enter” the computer system when they input the changed wiring information. Their conduct, the appellate court said, “fits squarely within the exclusion.”
  Discussion
The reason this issue continues to come up, and the reason courts struggle with these issues, is that social engineering fraud, or payment instruction fraud, is a very serious problem. The amount of money this company lost before it detected the problem underscores the magnitude of the problem; indeed, many companies subject to this kind of criminal activity have experienced even larger losses.
  As detailed in an April 27, 2018 Law 360 article by J. Robert MacAneyney and John Pitblado of the Carlton Fields law firm (here), the problem that these kinds of situation present from an insurance coverage standpoint is that in one of these payment fraud situations “the fraudster is not so much using a computer, as they are using a human dupe, who then conducts the authorized, nonfraudlent uses of a computer … unwittingly furthering the fraud.”
  The problem for parties to the insurance contract, as well as for courts evaluating the possibility of coverage under the contract, is that the standard Computer Fraud language was written at a time before computerized business transactions became a uniform and ubiquitous form of business transaction processing. With the spread of computer technology to all parts of a business’s activities, and in particular with email and other form of communication becoming pervasive, the opportunities for misconduct have multiplied, in ways that the traditional crime policy language do not fully anticipate. Policyholders have struggled to try to get coverage for their losses, and courts have struggled with the coverage issues.
  As the Law 360 article’s authors suggest with respect to judicial decision-making on these issues, “the results are decidedly mixed.” As their article details, there have been judicial decision that, unlike the court in the Aqua Star case, have found that losses from a social engineering or payment instruction fraud are in fact covered under the Computer Fraud coverage in the commercial crime policy. There are a number of appeals pending in a number of different circuits on this very issue, which is very much in a state of flux. (A closely watched case in the Second Circuit, the Mediadata case, in which the district court found that a social engineering fraud loss was covered under a crime policy’s Computer Fraud coverage section, remains pending.)
  The Ninth Circuit had little trouble concluding that there was no coverage for AquaStar’s losses under its commercial crime policy. In light of the specific circumstance involved and the specific exclusionary language at issue, the outcome in the case arguably is unsurprising. The problem for all companies from this decision is that it raises the question of what companies can do to try to ensure that their company has insurance protection for these kinds of losses.
  A number of insurers are now offering a social engineering fraud loss extension to their standard commercial crime policies. The availability of these extensions sometimes requires the payment of additional premium and/or additional underwriting. The movement of the insurance industry toward providing affirmative coverage for these kinds of losses unquestionably is a good thing, given the mixed record for this kind of coverage in the courts. However, in most instances, this coverage extension is subject to one very significant limitation; that is, the coverage extension is subject to a very strict sub-limit, usually no more than $250,000. As AquaStar’s circumstances show, the losses from this kind of fraud can quickly far exceed this restricted amount of coverage.
  Moreover, there are other potential limitations involved with these coverage extensions. Some versions of the extension limit coverage to situation where the fraudster impersonates an officer or employee of the insured company. As the AquaStar situation shows, losses can arise not just from the impersonation of a company officer or employee, but can also arise from the impersonation of a vendor. Or even a customer, regulator, lender, outside professional (such as an attorney, accountant, or investment banker). Even though the sublimited coverage represents only a restricted amount of coverage, it is important to ensure that the coverage that is available is constructed to ensure that the coverage is sufficient to provide protection in a broad variety of circumstances.
  Along those lines, in light of the changing nature of these frauds, it is not enough for the coverage extension to provide protection only in the event of the fraud resulting in the transfer of funds. Losses can arise at a company due to fraudulent instruction to transfer product or inventory as well. For that reason efforts should be made to ensure that the coverage extension is not limited just to losses from transfer of funds, but also to losses arising from the transfer of product or inventory.
  Given the strict limitation of coverage generally available in the insurance marketplace for these kinds of losses, it unquestionably is in the interests of all companies to focus on their loss avoidance strategy on a loss prevention approach. Well-designed company systems can be implemented to try to reduce these kinds of incidents and avoid the losses in the first place. Education and training obviously are an indispensable part of any loss prevention approach. In addition, the adoption of control processes to try to prevent the unauthorized transfer of funds can also help to avoid these kinds of losses. Mandatory requirement of second channel confirmation of change requests is one such approach; another is dual authorization requirements for any payments above a certain threshold.
  In the absence of an adequate risk transfer solution to the possibility of social engineering fraud, well-advised companies will want to try to implement a full range of risk avoidance strategies, starting with the inculcation among all employees of the danger that these kinds of frauds present. While the possibility of losses from social engineering fraud represents a growing threat, there are proactive steps companies can take to try to protect themselves from these kinds of losses.
  Quarterly Claims Update Webinar/Cryptocurrency Focus: On May 1, 2018, at 11:00 am EDT, I will be participating as a panelist in the Advisen Quarterly Claims Update webinar. This quarter’s session will have as its particular focus the emerging issues surrounding cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs). The session will be moderated by Advisen’s Jim Blinn. The panel will also include Garrett Koehn of CRC Insurance Group and Paul Tomasi of E-Risk Services. Information about this free one-hour webinar, including registration instructions, can  be found here. The quarterly claims update webinars are always  interesting, this one is likely to be particularly so.
The post Ninth Circuit: No Crime Policy Coverage for Social Engineering Fraud Losses appeared first on The D&O Diary.
Ninth Circuit: No Crime Policy Coverage for Social Engineering Fraud Losses published first on http://simonconsultancypage.tumblr.com/
0 notes
lawfultruth · 6 years
Text
Ninth Circuit: No Crime Policy Coverage for Social Engineering Fraud Losses
Along with all of the other risks arising from companies’ increasing dependence on electronics communications and data storage technology has come not only the risks of a data breach caused by a hacker, but also the risk of a company’s transfer of funds by one of its employees who has been duped into believing the transfer was legitimate and authorized. These kinds of losses, which have been called “payment instruction fraud” or “social engineering fraud,” raise of a host of potential issues under traditional insurance policies, owing to the voluntary nature of the funds transfer made by a person authorized to access the company’s computer system. A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit illustrates the kinds of coverage problems that can arise from these circumstances. The Ninth Circuit’s unpublished April 17, 2018 opinion in Aqua Star (USA) Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America can be found here. The Wiley Rein’s law firm’s April 19, 2018 post about the Ninth Circuit decision can be found here.
  Background
Aqua Star is a seafood importer. One of its employees was duped by a fraudster posing as one of the company’s seafood vendors into sending $713,890 to an overseas bank account controlled by the fraudster. The fraudster had directed the employee to change the vendor’s bank account information. The employee made the changes as instructed. The company sought coverage for the loss of funds under the computer crime coverage in its commercial crime policy. The crime insurer denied coverage for the loss arguing among other things that coverage was precluded by a policy exclusion (Exclusion G) precluding coverage for “loss or damages resulting directly or indirectly from the input of Electronic Data by a natural person having the authority to enter the Insured’s Computer System.”
  The company filed a breach of contract action against the insurer. The insurer filed a motion for summary judgment. The district granted the insurer’s motion based on its finding that there was no unauthorized use of the company’s computer system. The company appealed.
  The Ninth Circuit’s Opinion
In a brief three-page unpublished opinion dated April 17, 2018, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment.  The appellate court said that Exclusion G “unambiguously” precludes coverage for losses resulting from authorized use of the company’s computer system.
  The company’s losses, the appellate court said, “resulted from employees authorized to enter its computer system changing wiring information and sending four payments to a fraudster’s account.” The employees “had authority to enter” the computer system when they input the changed wiring information. Their conduct, the appellate court said, “fits squarely within the exclusion.”
  Discussion
The reason this issue continues to come up, and the reason courts struggle with these issues, is that social engineering fraud, or payment instruction fraud, is a very serious problem. The amount of money this company lost before it detected the problem underscores the magnitude of the problem; indeed, many companies subject to this kind of criminal activity have experienced even larger losses.
  As detailed in an April 27, 2018 Law 360 article by J. Robert MacAneyney and John Pitblado of the Carlton Fields law firm (here), the problem that these kinds of situation present from an insurance coverage standpoint is that in one of these payment fraud situations “the fraudster is not so much using a computer, as they are using a human dupe, who then conducts the authorized, nonfraudlent uses of a computer … unwittingly furthering the fraud.”
  The problem for parties to the insurance contract, as well as for courts evaluating the possibility of coverage under the contract, is that the standard Computer Fraud language was written at a time before computerized business transactions became a uniform and ubiquitous form of business transaction processing. With the spread of computer technology to all parts of a business’s activities, and in particular with email and other form of communication becoming pervasive, the opportunities for misconduct have multiplied, in ways that the traditional crime policy language do not fully anticipate. Policyholders have struggled to try to get coverage for their losses, and courts have struggled with the coverage issues.
  As the Law 360 article’s authors suggest with respect to judicial decision-making on these issues, “the results are decidedly mixed.” As their article details, there have been judicial decision that, unlike the court in the Aqua Star case, have found that losses from a social engineering or payment instruction fraud are in fact covered under the Computer Fraud coverage in the commercial crime policy. There are a number of appeals pending in a number of different circuits on this very issue, which is very much in a state of flux. (A closely watched case in the Second Circuit, the Mediadata case, in which the district court found that a social engineering fraud loss was covered under a crime policy’s Computer Fraud coverage section, remains pending.)
  The Ninth Circuit had little trouble concluding that there was no coverage for AquaStar’s losses under its commercial crime policy. In light of the specific circumstance involved and the specific exclusionary language at issue, the outcome in the case arguably is unsurprising. The problem for all companies from this decision is that it raises the question of what companies can do to try to ensure that their company has insurance protection for these kinds of losses.
  A number of insurers are now offering a social engineering fraud loss extension to their standard commercial crime policies. The availability of these extensions sometimes requires the payment of additional premium and/or additional underwriting. The movement of the insurance industry toward providing affirmative coverage for these kinds of losses unquestionably is a good thing, given the mixed record for this kind of coverage in the courts. However, in most instances, this coverage extension is subject to one very significant limitation; that is, the coverage extension is subject to a very strict sub-limit, usually no more than $250,000. As AquaStar’s circumstances show, the losses from this kind of fraud can quickly far exceed this restricted amount of coverage.
  Moreover, there are other potential limitations involved with these coverage extensions. Some versions of the extension limit coverage to situation where the fraudster impersonates an officer or employee of the insured company. As the AquaStar situation shows, losses can arise not just from the impersonation of a company officer or employee, but can also arise from the impersonation of a vendor. Or even a customer, regulator, lender, outside professional (such as an attorney, accountant, or investment banker). Even though the sublimited coverage represents only a restricted amount of coverage, it is important to ensure that the coverage that is available is constructed to ensure that the coverage is sufficient to provide protection in a broad variety of circumstances.
  Along those lines, in light of the changing nature of these frauds, it is not enough for the coverage extension to provide protection only in the event of the fraud resulting in the transfer of funds. Losses can arise at a company due to fraudulent instruction to transfer product or inventory as well. For that reason efforts should be made to ensure that the coverage extension is not limited just to losses from transfer of funds, but also to losses arising from the transfer of product or inventory.
  Given the strict limitation of coverage generally available in the insurance marketplace for these kinds of losses, it unquestionably is in the interests of all companies to focus on their loss avoidance strategy on a loss prevention approach. Well-designed company systems can be implemented to try to reduce these kinds of incidents and avoid the losses in the first place. Education and training obviously are an indispensable part of any loss prevention approach. In addition, the adoption of control processes to try to prevent the unauthorized transfer of funds can also help to avoid these kinds of losses. Mandatory requirement of second channel confirmation of change requests is one such approach; another is dual authorization requirements for any payments above a certain threshold.
  In the absence of an adequate risk transfer solution to the possibility of social engineering fraud, well-advised companies will want to try to implement a full range of risk avoidance strategies, starting with the inculcation among all employees of the danger that these kinds of frauds present. While the possibility of losses from social engineering fraud represents a growing threat, there are proactive steps companies can take to try to protect themselves from these kinds of losses.
  Quarterly Claims Update Webinar/Cryptocurrency Focus: On May 1, 2018, at 11:00 am EDT, I will be participating as a panelist in the Advisen Quarterly Claims Update webinar. This quarter’s session will have as its particular focus the emerging issues surrounding cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs). The session will be moderated by Advisen’s Jim Blinn. The panel will also include Garrett Koehn of CRC Insurance Group and Paul Tomasi of E-Risk Services. Information about this free one-hour webinar, including registration instructions, can  be found here. The quarterly claims update webinars are always  interesting, this one is likely to be particularly so.
The post Ninth Circuit: No Crime Policy Coverage for Social Engineering Fraud Losses appeared first on The D&O Diary.
Ninth Circuit: No Crime Policy Coverage for Social Engineering Fraud Losses syndicated from https://ronenkurzfeldweb.wordpress.com/
0 notes
golicit · 6 years
Text
Ninth Circuit: No Crime Policy Coverage for Social Engineering Fraud Losses
Along with all of the other risks arising from companies’ increasing dependence on electronics communications and data storage technology has come not only the risks of a data breach caused by a hacker, but also the risk of a company’s transfer of funds by one of its employees who has been duped into believing the transfer was legitimate and authorized. These kinds of losses, which have been called “payment instruction fraud” or “social engineering fraud,” raise of a host of potential issues under traditional insurance policies, owing to the voluntary nature of the funds transfer made by a person authorized to access the company’s computer system. A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit illustrates the kinds of coverage problems that can arise from these circumstances. The Ninth Circuit’s unpublished April 17, 2018 opinion in Aqua Star (USA) Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America can be found here. The Wiley Rein’s law firm’s April 19, 2018 post about the Ninth Circuit decision can be found here.
  Background
Aqua Star is a seafood importer. One of its employees was duped by a fraudster posing as one of the company’s seafood vendors into sending $713,890 to an overseas bank account controlled by the fraudster. The fraudster had directed the employee to change the vendor’s bank account information. The employee made the changes as instructed. The company sought coverage for the loss of funds under the computer crime coverage in its commercial crime policy. The crime insurer denied coverage for the loss arguing among other things that coverage was precluded by a policy exclusion (Exclusion G) precluding coverage for “loss or damages resulting directly or indirectly from the input of Electronic Data by a natural person having the authority to enter the Insured’s Computer System.”
  The company filed a breach of contract action against the insurer. The insurer filed a motion for summary judgment. The district granted the insurer’s motion based on its finding that there was no unauthorized use of the company’s computer system. The company appealed.
  The Ninth Circuit’s Opinion
In a brief three-page unpublished opinion dated April 17, 2018, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment.  The appellate court said that Exclusion G “unambiguously” precludes coverage for losses resulting from authorized use of the company’s computer system.
  The company’s losses, the appellate court said, “resulted from employees authorized to enter its computer system changing wiring information and sending four payments to a fraudster’s account.” The employees “had authority to enter” the computer system when they input the changed wiring information. Their conduct, the appellate court said, “fits squarely within the exclusion.”
  Discussion
The reason this issue continues to come up, and the reason courts struggle with these issues, is that social engineering fraud, or payment instruction fraud, is a very serious problem. The amount of money this company lost before it detected the problem underscores the magnitude of the problem; indeed, many companies subject to this kind of criminal activity have experienced even larger losses.
  As detailed in an April 27, 2018 Law 360 article by J. Robert MacAneyney and John Pitblado of the Carlton Fields law firm (here), the problem that these kinds of situation present from an insurance coverage standpoint is that in one of these payment fraud situations “the fraudster is not so much using a computer, as they are using a human dupe, who then conducts the authorized, nonfraudlent uses of a computer … unwittingly furthering the fraud.”
  The problem for parties to the insurance contract, as well as for courts evaluating the possibility of coverage under the contract, is that the standard Computer Fraud language was written at a time before computerized business transactions became a uniform and ubiquitous form of business transaction processing. With the spread of computer technology to all parts of a business’s activities, and in particular with email and other form of communication becoming pervasive, the opportunities for misconduct have multiplied, in ways that the traditional crime policy language do not fully anticipate. Policyholders have struggled to try to get coverage for their losses, and courts have struggled with the coverage issues.
  As the Law 360 article’s authors suggest with respect to judicial decision-making on these issues, “the results are decidedly mixed.” As their article details, there have been judicial decision that, unlike the court in the Aqua Star case, have found that losses from a social engineering or payment instruction fraud are in fact covered under the Computer Fraud coverage in the commercial crime policy. There are a number of appeals pending in a number of different circuits on this very issue, which is very much in a state of flux. (A closely watched case in the Second Circuit, the Mediadata case, in which the district court found that a social engineering fraud loss was covered under a crime policy’s Computer Fraud coverage section, remains pending.)
  The Ninth Circuit had little trouble concluding that there was no coverage for AquaStar’s losses under its commercial crime policy. In light of the specific circumstance involved and the specific exclusionary language at issue, the outcome in the case arguably is unsurprising. The problem for all companies from this decision is that it raises the question of what companies can do to try to ensure that their company has insurance protection for these kinds of losses.
  A number of insurers are now offering a social engineering fraud loss extension to their standard commercial crime policies. The availability of these extensions sometimes requires the payment of additional premium and/or additional underwriting. The movement of the insurance industry toward providing affirmative coverage for these kinds of losses unquestionably is a good thing, given the mixed record for this kind of coverage in the courts. However, in most instances, this coverage extension is subject to one very significant limitation; that is, the coverage extension is subject to a very strict sub-limit, usually no more than $250,000. As AquaStar’s circumstances show, the losses from this kind of fraud can quickly far exceed this restricted amount of coverage.
  Moreover, there are other potential limitations involved with these coverage extensions. Some versions of the extension limit coverage to situation where the fraudster impersonates an officer or employee of the insured company. As the AquaStar situation shows, losses can arise not just from the impersonation of a company officer or employee, but can also arise from the impersonation of a vendor. Or even a customer, regulator, lender, outside professional (such as an attorney, accountant, or investment banker). Even though the sublimited coverage represents only a restricted amount of coverage, it is important to ensure that the coverage that is available is constructed to ensure that the coverage is sufficient to provide protection in a broad variety of circumstances.
  Along those lines, in light of the changing nature of these frauds, it is not enough for the coverage extension to provide protection only in the event of the fraud resulting in the transfer of funds. Losses can arise at a company due to fraudulent instruction to transfer product or inventory as well. For that reason efforts should be made to ensure that the coverage extension is not limited just to losses from transfer of funds, but also to losses arising from the transfer of product or inventory.
  Given the strict limitation of coverage generally available in the insurance marketplace for these kinds of losses, it unquestionably is in the interests of all companies to focus on their loss avoidance strategy on a loss prevention approach. Well-designed company systems can be implemented to try to reduce these kinds of incidents and avoid the losses in the first place. Education and training obviously are an indispensable part of any loss prevention approach. In addition, the adoption of control processes to try to prevent the unauthorized transfer of funds can also help to avoid these kinds of losses. Mandatory requirement of second channel confirmation of change requests is one such approach; another is dual authorization requirements for any payments above a certain threshold.
  In the absence of an adequate risk transfer solution to the possibility of social engineering fraud, well-advised companies will want to try to implement a full range of risk avoidance strategies, starting with the inculcation among all employees of the danger that these kinds of frauds present. While the possibility of losses from social engineering fraud represents a growing threat, there are proactive steps companies can take to try to protect themselves from these kinds of losses.
  Quarterly Claims Update Webinar/Cryptocurrency Focus: On May 1, 2018, at 11:00 am EDT, I will be participating as a panelist in the Advisen Quarterly Claims Update webinar. This quarter’s session will have as its particular focus the emerging issues surrounding cryptocurrencies and Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs). The session will be moderated by Advisen’s Jim Blinn. The panel will also include Garrett Koehn of CRC Insurance Group and Paul Tomasi of E-Risk Services. Information about this free one-hour webinar, including registration instructions, can  be found here. The quarterly claims update webinars are always  interesting, this one is likely to be particularly so.
The post Ninth Circuit: No Crime Policy Coverage for Social Engineering Fraud Losses appeared first on The D&O Diary.
Ninth Circuit: No Crime Policy Coverage for Social Engineering Fraud Losses published first on
0 notes