by 
On October 16, I attended the Cyber Security Finance Forum in Washington, D.C., and received quite a wakeup call. Speakers such as Jay Cohen, US Navy Rear Admiral (retired) and former DHS under Secretary for Science & Technology, gave insights into the problems we are faced with. Admiral Cohen reminded us that “we are at war [and] for the first time everyone is on the front line.”
During the forum, we heard several stories about how in many cases small businesses and individuals were being targeted by hackers and identity thieves instead of big companies, because they are “soft targets.” One story talked about how a small industrial business in the middle of Maine was hacked. Its bank records were compromised, and its bank was tricked into wiring $25,000 to an account in Russia.
While individuals and small businesses may be the new front line in the cybersecurity war, the explosion of the cloud, tablets, smartphones, and other networked mobile electronics certainly makes us all more vulnerable.
As data and software continue their migration to the cloud, accessed by mobile devices, the possible threats are infinite. These days I think even my stapler has an IP address, a 10-megapixel video camera, and can turn itself into a WiFi hotspot. I am now suspicious of the stapler, so I powered it down and put it in the desk drawer so it will not spy on me or attempt to hack into my bank records. But jokes aside, cybersecurity of mobile electronics is starting to become a big problem — and a tremendous technology business opportunity for those that tackle it.
Typically these threats come in four main types:
- Fraud:
- Data theft:
- Probing attacks:
- Nuisance attacks:
Someone is trying to steal money
Someone seeks to steal data for industrial or state-sponsored espionage, or simply to embarrass the target
Someone seeks vulnerabilities for future bigger attacks, and performs probes without harming anything (yet)
Hackers often launch a denial-of-service attack to shut down some service or business just because they don't agree with its philosophy or politics
Clearly, there is an enormous market opportunity for enterprise software that performs tasks ranging from intrusion detection and prevention, data backup and protection, malware identification, forensics, and data recovery. But what about opportunities in the electronics software space? The trend is clear that applications and data are moving to the cloud, to be accessed by a tablet, a smartphone, or other wireless device. Often the mobile device is the weak link in the chain, leading to the most vulnerable path to corporate or personal data. And in this new era of Bring Your Own Device (BYOD), these devices are uncontrolled.
There are many opportunities in the mobile electronics market for cybersecurity solutions. As with any requirement in the electronics space, these functions may be implemented in software, hardware, or a combination of both. The trade-off is usually the flexibility of software versus offloading some key functions such as encryption to a dedicated co-processor.
Key needs include the following, with varying degrees of maturity in today's mobile platforms:
- Data encryption and authentication: How do I know my Facebook chat conversation is not being intercepted at Starbucks? How do I know that my Yahoo email password is not being passed in clear text?
- Payment card processing:
- Voice encryption:
- Malware prevention:
- Prevention of denial of service attacks:
- Digital rights management:
- Data protection and theft recovery:
- Forensic triage:
- User authentication:
- Spyware:
- Network monitoring and policy enforcement:
- Application testing:
How do I make sure my credit card number is not compromised when I buy something? How do I make sure that I don't get improperly charged when using near field communication (NFC)?
How do I make sure my wireless or VoIP call is not intercepted? How does law enforcement ensure that it can be intercepted?
How do I know whether my smartphone does have malware, and what do I do about it?
What happens when a critical mobile device is targeted by a packet flood attack?
How does Marvell Studios know whether the copy of The Avengers I am watching on my tablet is legit?
If my device is stolen, how do I prevent theft of my data and retain my data for my future use? How do I find my stolen device?
If law enforcement or intelligence agencies seize the device in an investigation, how do they determine quickly whether there are illegal materials on the device?
How does my phone or tablet know that it's really me?
How can companies be sure that Bob the delivery man is really driving his truck instead of sitting at home?
How can I determine what wireless devices (mobile and WiFi) are in my office? How do I know if they are approved or rogue? How do I find and shut them down if they are not approved?
How do we know for sure that the latest update to the free smash-the-pig game didn't actually install malware?
It really is like the wild, wild, west for security in mobile devices. Since this is an M&A column, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the acquisition environment for companies in these spaces. In short, the outlook is very good.
Several of the panelists in the cybersecurity conference talked about the fiscal cliff, sequestration, and eventual cuts to defense spending. But the overriding sentiment is that spending on cybersecurity will not be cut and in fact will probably increase. With government spending cuts in other areas increasing, this should cause more integrators and contractors to grow their businesses by acquiring expertise in the cybersecurity arena. This will trickle down into the embedded space as well. We will continue to see chip and hardware companies buying security software and IP companies for one reason: they have to.
If your company would like to understand its prospects for an M&A transaction, feel free to reach out to me at . The McLean Group was recently named by Global Security Finance as one of the top 10 financial advisors (investment banks) for M&A transactions in the cybersecurity space. You can download the entire report .
First the simple viruses, then spyware and malware, then the Bot nets and so on.. The cyber attackers are always on the move as the protection mechanisms -such as firewalls, Anti-virus software, the secure protocols or the data encryption algorithms get developed.
So it is technology business Vs Technology anti-business.
And like other physical stealing and robbing techniques are improving day by day , the soft technological hacking techniques are getting developed at much faster rate than the actual applications themselves.
One of the key reasons for the vulnerability to the cyber attacks is the inability of the software community to guarantee a bug free software – the bugs which the developer community is unable to unearth, the hacker community gets hands onto them in no time . It is like those smart lawyers who find the loopholes in the newly made laws before the general public finds out the exact use for them.
Yes we are at war and all of us have to be on the Front Line
This is new point to ponder. Both government and business are equally worried. It may be able to control part of crime. But when it is state sponsored crime, it will be very difficult. With advent of this cyberwar, espionage will become more simplified and less riskky.
@ Brent
Thanks for the 12-point questionairre about the cybersecurity self-assessment.
I was really moved by the list as I have never concentrated on these points (which are also relevant to the individuals) despite the fact that these threats contain a high likelihood to endanger my system. If I as an individual should work on these security measures, a SMB or a corporate should definitely work on it.
@ _hm
Due to cyber-war between countries, we as individuals can get affected when a government website such as government taxation portal or a national identity record system gets hacked. Directly we might not get affected as in such a war, individuals' accounts are not a target as impact is too small.
Also, usually this is done without disclosing identity and is like a cold war therefore we can see presidents of 2 fighting countries (fighting on cyber platform only) warmly shaking hands at a conference while at the same time agencies grabbing each other's neck. The point is that we might never know who was really behind the attack.
I agree we are all on the warfront in the cyber war but are we all equally prepared for this? Are we all able to fight and can we all adapt to the dangers involved?
I guess in the olden days you'd hear about the odd bank being robbed of 100k by masked axe weilding hardmen. Nowadays it is the silent robber who steals 10 bucks here and 1 buck there from millions of accounts unbeknown to anyone. This crime is far more insidious and difficult to counter.
Interesting blog. I have a question: of the must-have list for software, do all packages have to have all those features? If so, are they easily downloaded? Are these enterprise-based or device based? The reason I ask: I can't imagine going down that list and finding a solution that meets each need. If it can be downloaded and automatically set, even better. But how much does a typical consumer need to have?
@flyingscot exactly, picking up a little over many places can be far more effective than a lot in one place — and a lot harder to trace.
Its practically impossible for developed countries like USA to stop outsourcing. The amount of business revenue associated if the manufacturing is outsourced to low wages countries like Asian regions is huge and no one in business can deny that. And also the labor laws in these countries are not very strict so its another plus point for businesses. So the heading of the article is quite apt that stop knocing outsourcing. I guess its just a polictical scenario.
@_hm: great post! If we would like to restrict the focus you have described, not necessary on crime, but on privacy, we could say each one of us is, potentially, really monitored about his on line activities; especially OTT players are not totally agreeing with the rules about privacy. Going further, privacy and then individual security are not fully assured. Maybe the “cyberwar” starts exactly from this topic.
Diane–I hope everyone who reads this forwards it to a US voter. The difference between outsourcing and offshoring is not well understood outside our industry. You can actually outsource and never leave the US. Offshoring has been the main job-killer, with outsourcing a contributing factor. There is also a difference between creating jobs and creatng wealth. A VC investment that takes hold does create jobs (Staples, as an example) and waelth. A failed venture costs jobs but creates wealth for those that strip the company bare.
Outsourcing public roles to private entities is a problem. Outsourcing to chase lower costs is also potentially a problem.
The fundamental problem in the US (and perhaps less so in many other OECD countries) is the quarterly perspective on performance.
When you outsource you lose flexibility since commitments are based on contracts with specific terms of service etc. What would work is that 'management' and 'workers' recognize that they are in-it together. That management doesnt look for ways to transfer most of the rewards of performance to themselves and deny to the workers. That management compensation is several thousand times that of the floor workers. That money shufflers (private equity) get the preponderance of reward.
But then, who am I kidding. People in power (and wealth) will continue to try to garner ever more. That greed cannot be legislated away, or 'niceness' be required for citizenship. That cultures do not change except after a major national or even global trauma.
Coming back to ground level: when outsourcing one needs to be sure that the lower costs are not just teaser rates, and that one factors in the 'cost' of loss of flexibility and control.
I am very impressed with your article, Diane.
To help the naysayers understand your points, I'll direct them to a place they'll find to be very uncomfortable:
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/08/franciscos-money-speech/
“To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss-the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery-that you must offer them values, not wounds-that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade-with reason, not force, as their final arbiter-it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability-and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?”
Yet we hope that they realize the happy existence they have while typing away on a smartphone was brought forth by people who did not follow the juvenile theories of “greed” they profess.
Until and of the populace understands that human dignity is not a product of gov't force, restriction of trade, or taxing the rich, they will continue to periodically enslave themselves.
thanks for your comments. Just curious though, it seems like you equate the motivation to build on one's wealth with greed. Why is it that if a CEO seeks to grow his wealth he is greedy, but it is OK for a shop worker to aspire to higher wages? Why do you vilify the executive for his success? It seems to me that without his ambition the shop worker may not have a job in the first place.
Thanks for your input. I just re-read Atlas Shrugged for the umpteenth time. LOVE that book. Rand was an absolute genius.
Motivation to building wealth in an equitable way is fine and good. But building while pushing down on those below you is greed; just like consensual relationships are fine, but relationships with subordinates are not. I am not bothered by the CEO making more as long as when things go south they take the fall as hard as the workers do. They play by the rules of the game, so they are not doing anything illegal, but perhaps lacking in 'ethics', and marginally 'immoral'.
The management set their own rules, the shop worker has to live by the rules set by the management. I know firsthand of a few cases where management established the incentive plan, made the decisions to maximize their own rewards, and 2 years later the comapny was so far behind the technology curve that it essentially was bankrupt. Now you tell me if any floor worker could have done that.
The management compensation multiple is the clearest indicator of greed.
I have been around a while and know, from inside, that when things are going well the 'management' takes full credit, but when things go poorly there are any number of excuses, but never their own fault. Just like the claim that 'I built it all on my own', when in fact a lot of the credit for entrepreneur success rests on the infrastructure that they start with and depend on. Would they really have 'succeeded' if the great schools were not supported by the 'taxpayers'.
As long as the rules are neither influenced nor set by those playing the game, I have no problem with the thinking. Our problem is that the system is 'rigged'.
Following up with the army's analogy, we are all in the front line with 4 or 5 new, shiny guns — visible from miles away.
Also, as important as prevention is being able to locate hackers and prosecute them… for that, we will need to establish better relationships with countries such as Russia and China.
To be intellectually honest, as all 'debaters' [not politicians,-)] must, please also review some counter arguments to the genius of Rand.
One start: noblesoul.com/orc/critics/index.html
@Azmatmalik “Coming back to ground level: when outsourcing one needs to be sure that the lower costs are not just teaser rates, and that one factors in the 'cost' of loss of flexibility and control.” Excellent point!
Ayn Rand believed that selfishness was a postivie force. I don't think she saw it as synonymous with greed, though.
@mfbertozzi: This espionage on privacy may be done by our own organization like facebook, google and sold to enemies knowingly or or by mistake. This may be just begining of much more intricate world of cyber war. We may look it as opportunity!
Of course she wouldn't think of selfishness as greed. in fact I think selfishness is fine, the limiting consideration is 'decency'. And that is often thought a weakness. I am selfish when I do 'good', as I enjoy the feeling that comes from helping others. But THAT is not 'greed'.
I concur with Author. But another aspect of this is very poor quality. I prefer to get good quality product and pay more for Made in USA products.
@Barbara, completely agree with your comments. There is a vast difference between offshoring and outsourcing. Many times political parties just make use of people's ignorance or limitations.
Ariella,
But Ayn Rand's argument on Selfishness is quite controversial. She believed that Selfishness is synonym with self-esteem. I tend to think that keeping a balance in everything is always the right answer. I have my doubts that Selfishness can be considered a Virtue, as she put it.
-Susan
It looks like that you forgot to follow the money. First chech the wealth distribution before arguing that profits are at a “barely sustainable level”. Apple has more than $117 billion in cache. You could easily pay a US worker instead of supporting the biggest legal slave factory. For the moment the problem is just greed.
@_hm: ops ! you are opening an innovative and fascinating horizon which could be named “socials for spying”. After all, in a such way, it is already started ?!?
@Susan I wouldn't consider it self-esteem so much as a devotion to self-actualization and all it entails. Her protagonists are more concerned with realizing their visions in design, industry, and business than in amassing a fortune. They don't make money by brokering and investing but by creating and producing. Their satisfaction came from seeing what they did put to use — and the money was really secondary, though she stressed that profit is essential for selfishness — and thereby the economy –to flourish and was vehemently opposed to communism. Of course, one doesn't have to agree with all her values, but Aristotle supposedly said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
It is pathetic to see you semi-literate people oscillate between the two extremes of Marx and Rand – both foreign Agitators and nothing in between !
If you want to understand their firebrand extremism / AgitProp, you need to first read up on their lives and motivations. Ayn Rand was a Russian Jew emigre and practiced a pretty licentious lifestyle after moving to NYC including snaring acolytes like Alan Greenspan. All our 401 (k)s have suffered from Greenspan's laissez faire tolerance of “irrational exuberance” by Wall St. shysters. Ayn Rand is at least partly responsible FOR IT.
It is a sign of America's corn-fed provincialism and the naivete of our first-generation college grads from State U.s / Community Colleges that they fall for Jewish AgitProp in Academia while missing the core of American values that made us great through the 1960s.
That is using hard work and application of science to convert our ( ill – begotten ) natural abundance into the mass production of rugged products and then distribute them at very low markup. These are very German virtues ( who made the Mid-West the industrial power house it used to be ), which is why Germany ( and not the Brits ), keep doing so well in Manufactiuring against any comers.
Since WW II, using real or contrived claims of persecution a trading / speculative community have taken over and gradually taken control of distribution as well as Academia / Media. Having surreptitiously carried out these coups they have turned off the productive capacity of America in order to conslidate their hold on the economy and next create artificial shortage and drive up prices.
Outsourcing is just a part of that scheme.
It is not an accident that it is Heinrich Kissinger who has been the most active Agent of Communist China and have advocated for outsourcing to China at least since the 1980s. His minions have spread through Wall St. and influenced Corporate boardrooms by luring them with the bonanza from China.
To their early converts, that bonanza never came and once great Electronics Co.s like Motorola lost their shirt in China ( technology pirated, wafer fabs hijacked ) and were destroyed.
We need to understand that Outsourcing to China is fundamentally different from same to Japan, Taiwan etc. because China is huge and nuclear armed. It has pretensions of restoring its past importance by pirating US technology and Wall St. is co-operating with them. They are investing in China in preference to the US because of China's lower labor cost, transferring US technology to make the Chinese more capable even though it damages US competitiveness.
To the average US consumer outsourcing saves at most 10 % over US manufacture because the Distributors in US & Wall St keep most of the 30 to 40 % cost reduction due to cheaper Chinese labor. Then they invest a part of that loot to buy politicians to prevent any halt to our suicidal Outsourcing to China and spread lies through the media including “Free lance Writers”.
For the last 15 years China has run a trade surplus of $ 350 billion per year over us. But the real loss when you factor in the damage done to US economy as a result of outsourcing to China ( loss of Taxes, unemployment benefit, having to pay 2 or 3x more for commodities like oil, grain and beef due to higher consumption by the Chinese who we have made rich by outsourcing !, higher Defense budget to block Chinese delusions of grandeur,.. ).
“Free Market” is a slogan that does not work if it becomes one – sided and makes the whole system unstable.
Even England, the birthplace of Adam Smith, became anti Free-market when its pitfalls became obvious. A suggestion for those who are “historically challenged” – read up on what the Brits did in the 18 th century when their trade deficit with China shot up because they were importing far too much Tea.
@mfbertozzi: In the spy game anything can happen. One must scrutinize all possible ways.
We as consumers have chased the cheapest products for ages now and as such companies are forced to produce offshore. Maybe there is a happy place where consumers think locally more and are willing to pay a little extra to mainatain a better local commnuity. Now when that protectionism becomes problematic is anyone's guess. Are there any role model countries out there?
If we are all in warfront, who then are we battling against? One thing remains – we are yet to identify where the cyber problem is. All these attacks are originated from somewhere, hosted by some servers, passing through some exchanges and routed finally to their destinations. What's the point of spending huge money on machine guns and missiles, if insufficient qualify persons to man then unavailable?
There are topical issues coming up in December this year in Dubai – World Conference on International Telecommunications ( WCIT12). The International telecommunication regulations (ITRs) might probably be revised to handle the cyber problems, some of the issues to address are:
1) Network Neutrality
2) Internet Principle
3) Cyber Security
4) Personal Data Protection
5) Online Child Protection
6) Misuse of Internet Numbering
7) Internet Addresses/Allocation
Ariella,
Selfishness as a manifestation of self-esteem was the recurrent topic in her talks and interviews. Of course her thinking had a great deal of influence in her characters and stories. However, this is a topic I am personally trying to figure out within ethical philosophy, and what it is to consider as a value. I might just do as Aristotle said. 🙂
-Susan
@ hm – I agree, and have stated so in the past. It is often difficult to find products made in US however.
This is very true. Despite my understanding of the reasoning for offshoring, I still make a concerted effort to support “Made in America” products. I am currently in the market for a new car and ironically enough the cars with the highest domestic content are the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord (according to Cars.com). Go figure!
Just curious..have you actually ever read Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead? And by the way, one of the benefits of being a “freelance writer” is that I am not beholden to a specific corporate philosophy or agenda. My views – like them or not – are my own!
@WB: It is one of the most important event, this year and topics you have summarized within the post, are critical, definitely. The only question is about what will be the real follow up, in the sense that several of us are wondering how and when each Gov will apply possible rules outlined as output of the session in Dubai. Rules and regulators are good, speaking for myself, I would say an agreed timeplan related to rules to apply, could act as strong incentive in cyber war's mitigation.
@Diane – I knew that the Camry and Accord had significant content, but didn't know they were the highest. While information for auto content is pretty readily available, it can be difficult for other products to determine actual US content.
Yes, I did purchased Toyota Camry – Made in USA. Even clothes and food, I look for Made in USA.
The subject of outsourcing/insourcing has numerous shades to it and capturing all of them in one single article is impossible. What one region loses in the outsourcing race is gain for another. If not for national boundaries, we wouldn't care who gets to manufacture what as long as the system is fair and optimal.
Is it?
I have had the pleasure of visiting such a country. In Switzerland, economies are local and purchases too for many of the citizens who live in small and often isolated parts of the country. A family I know would rather eat strawberries once a year there than purchase imported strawberries. They support their local farmers, butchers, bakeries and plumbers. Prices are high for these products and services but many gladly pay the extra cost because the current and next generation of workers depend on the patronage.
It doesn't always work out, though. Often, pricing for foreign (read China) products are so far below local prices that it just doesn't make sense to buy “local.” The younger generation, too, don't have the same allegiance and devotion to local manufacturers seen in thei parents and grandparents. It's not a viable model.
Bolaji,
I understand and really appreciate that aspect of Being American and Buying American products[Or extending it to French or any other nationality…].
But then that comes down to a personal choice;One can't force that on anyone else.
If a consumer chooses to do something like this (of his/her own volition)that's well and Good but if Government's try to force this on Consumers it will backfire and in spectacular fashion-Check what happened with the French Industry Minister when he suggested the same Nonsense…
http://www.testosteronepit.com/home/2012/10/24/shooting-from-the-hip-and-hitting-consumers-protectionism-in.html
The thing is we live in very interesting times;I can see what a Friend Halfway around the world is using and enjoying today in Real-time and If Like it;I want it too(no matter where the product is made).
Regards
Ashish.
Bolaji,
I am assuming you are referring to the Mercantilist nature of some economies like Germany or China today.
Well then,let me explain how things work in a Downturn.
Its those Mercantilist economies which get hit the hardest,simply because they have shown ZERO effort to develop their Domestic Economies.
Its not a sustainable formula that will work for everybody in the Long-run.
Regards
Ashish.
Ashish, I attended a conference recently on manufacturing and how Germany can keep its role in the world manufacturing chain. During the conference I asked a presenter why governments shouldn't get involved in influencing where manufacturing is done in the world and he got concerned that I was advocating for “controlled economy.”
That was the last thing on my mind but we often naively believe we can leave everything to the “free” economic system. It isn't always that free as we all know. My concern has always been that there's a social price for every government action or inaction. If we don't “encourage” local manufacturing and local industrial growth, we hollow out our society and leave people to the mercies of entrepreneurs.
I don't agree outsourcing is being unfairly knocked. I think companies move plants based on what they believe is best for investors. That's absolutely their right. Governments also have a duty to do what's best for their citizens, otherwise why have a government.
Bolaji,
Honestly I don't know know whether to Agree or Disagree with your Statement here[Part of me was to do both!!!].
I prefer looking at it from the Perspective of the Consumer.
Let the Consumer decide whats best for them and take the appropriate course of action.
I am not sure if you are familiar with the NIMBY phenomenon-Not in My Backyard.
This phenomenon is used to justify opposition to New Nuclear Power Plants,Refineries,Major Manufacturing Plants,etc in The US(and Increasingly Globally also).
What are you Gonna do,if the Consumer/Residents of a Country refuse to permit such and such plant to go up there?
You are left with no choice but to take it overseas!!!
Regards
Ashish.
Bolaji,
You actually believe Governments have the best Interests of Citizens at hand(In this debate of For or Against Outsourcing)???
In my opinion,Most Governments(Globally) have already sold out to the Highest bidder .
We are living in Crony Capitalist Infested Times.
Regards
Ashish.
You suggest consumers fight with their wallets? That road ends right back in outsourceland!
Bolaji,
Not always.
And even if it does;so what?
Is'nt that what Capitalism and Free-markets are all about?
Achieving the Best Service at the lowest Costs.
Regards
Ashish.
Ashish :
What is your definition of Mercantilist ? Contrary to your claims neither Germany nor China are Mercantilist as they make sure that a very large portion of their GDP is based on Manufacturing and not pure trade ( exchange of goods )..
Bolaji :
Glad to hear that you found out about good old CH and their attitudes. I spent a few years there living and working at a famous Lab there. The Swiss are very conscious of their smallness, and ALL citizens ( men ) have to do compulsory military service.
Since the fall of the USSR, we in the US has been fat, dumb and happy while Wall St. has gone on a Global rampage ( the so called Globalization ).
People here have not yet realized that China is simply too big even for the US and hungry. Unlike the Swiss, here in the US we are not yet insecure about China even though they have been eating our Lunch ( manufacturing, technology, investments, you name it ).
Partly its because the Wall St. financed Media keeps people confused about the threat. Its also because companies like Apple are doing too much of a good thing – by bringing out every 6 months Pacifiers and Mind altering drugs ( for thats what Smartphones and the Net have become ) Made in China.
Most people are distracted by Toys and Gizmos till it would be too late.
Ashish, “Best service at the lowest cost”? That's what the global economy has been reduced to. Yet we ignore the question of the social implications of our pursuit of the most profit for whoever can get it at the expense of everybody else. Where will it end and how long before our society begins to count the cost?