Jay L. Zagorsky, The Ohio State University

A world without cash seems wonderful at first glance since it is convenient and fast. You don’t need to withdraw dollars or euros ahead of time. You don’t have to worry about money being lost or stolen. Paying for things with your phone is a breeze.

Many countries around the world are steadily shifting away from cash. Canada, the United Kingdom and Sweden have already largely embraced a cashless society. The U.S. is also steadily making the move, with people holding smaller amounts of cash.

However, the recent string of natural disasters and security breaches at major financial entities exposes a huge flaw in this trend: When the power goes out, telephone lines shut down or account information is stolen, it is impossible to use ATMs, credit or debit cards or mobile payments – no matter how rich you are.

In other words, giving up cash increases the chance of the kind of economic catastrophe that results when people can no longer easily trade for the goods they need and want. The solution to this national security issue is simple: bring back the currently maligned large denomination bills like the $500, which was discontinued in 1969.

Countries going cashless

Recently, some prominent economists have suggested countries should move to a cashless society, with actions like eliminating the $100 bill.

Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard professor who was also chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that going cashless reduces crime by ensuring tax cheats, drug lords, gangs and terrorists cannot easily fund their activities.

If only small bills are allowed, then people making illegal payments need briefcases stacked with huge numbers of small denomination bills like $5 and $10s. This is much more difficult than discreetly using a small envelope filled with a few very high value notes.

Some countries have eliminated high value notes to reduce corruption. India in 2016 eliminated the 500-rupee (about $7.69) and 1,000-rupee notes for this reason before bringing in new denominations.

Larry Summers, an economist who was also president of Harvard and a Treasury secretary, also argued for eliminating both the $100 bill and €500 note (about $592) from circulation. A few months after his recommendation, the European Central Bank decided to stop issuing the large bills by the end of 2018 in an attempt to reduce corruption and terrorism. The Wall Street Journal reports, however, that there is no move yet to kill off Ben Franklin and his $100 note.

Risks of a cashless society

While eliminating high value notes does make illegal transactions harder, it also introduces new risks. A cashless society that solely uses credit cards, debit cards and electronic transfers is dependent on a to replace physical money. This network requires three things to work all the time.

First, there always has to be electricity to power the computers and network storage. Second, communication between all parts of the network needs to be available. Finally, the network has to be secure, so only authorized money transactions occur.

All three of these fundamental requirements for a cashless society have broken down recently in dramatic fashion.

Hurricanes Irma and Maria devastated Puerto Rico in September. Many weeks later, less than 20 percent of the electricity has been restored, and no one really knows when the rest of the island will regain power. Because the electricity has been cut off to almost all cities and towns, the entire island has reverted to a economy based on cash, which is in very short supply. Credit and debit cards can’t be used because there is no way to process transactions and no power to run credit card terminals and readers.

Wildfires are currently ravaging Northern California. One of the problems caused by the fires is that the flames have destroyed numerous cell towers. When the phone network goes down, it is impossible both to reach loved ones and for credit and debit card readers to connect to the network. Without a connection, those without cash can’t buy fuel to flee, pay hotels for temporary shelter or purchase food.

Finally, we’ve recently learned how unsecure the network that processes transactions and protects our financial data has become. As most people do not possess piles of coins or bills anymore, our money consists of entries in bank and brokerage databases. If those entries change or disappear, people’s wealth vanishes, too.

The Pentagon is trying to ensure that cyberattacks cannot disrupt the financial system. Nevertheless, the capabilities of rogue actors, like North Korea, are increasing. It has even been implicated in stealing millions from a Taiwanese bank.

The recent breach of Equifax’s database and hacks at numerous other financial institutions show security is a major problem.

These events show just how precarious the three pillars of a cashless society are and how quickly they can falter. When this network breaks down, people who do not have cash are forced to barter. Bartering is devastating for an economy, in part because it needs a “double coincidence of wants.”

A double coincidence means your desire to trade something has to happen or coincide at the exact same moment someone else wants what you are offering – and has something you want as well. Moreover, few people in a modern economy own many goods or can provide services that are useful for bartering. When a natural disaster or war strikes, no one wants to barter for collections of antique dolls, baseball cards or china.

A solution

When it works, a cashless society is wonderful. I enjoy not having to carry or worry about cash when I travel. The networks, when they work, are amazing. I have checked my bank balance on the edge of a desert in Botswana using an ATM and paid my taxes from a cell phone in Tokyo.

However, a cashless society means a country’s economy is vulnerable to anything that causes a long-term disruption in power, communications or security. And those threats are rising. The number of natural disasters striking the U.S. is increasing, and wars are no longer being fought using just conventional weapons. Today the computers that control a country are playing a much bigger role.

Shifting to a cashless economy makes a country more vulnerable to both disasters and wars. National defense is not only about boots, guns and bullets. It is about keeping the economy running at all times. Cash can ensure the economy won’t collapse in an emergency, since people with cash are still able to buy and sell.

The solution is simple. Governments need to bring back higher value notes like $500 bills. There clearly are negatives to bringing back large bills, which make it easier for crime and corruption to flourish. I believe, however, that the positives outweigh the negatives, particularly the usefulness of cash during disasters.

Whether governments bring back larger bills or not, store some cash at home in case of emergency. When disaster is about to strike and it is time to flee, having cash in your wallet or purse can make the difference. Cash gives you purchasing power when everything else fails.

Jay L. Zagorsky, Economist and Research Scientist, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Amin Kharraz, Northeastern University

Ransomware – malicious software that sneaks onto your computer, encrypts your data so you can’t access it and demands payment for unlocking the information – has become an emerging cyberthreat. Several reports in the past few years document the diversity of ransomware attacks and their increasingly sophisticated methods. Recently, high-profile ransomware attacks on large enterprises such as hospitals and police departments have demonstrated that large organizations of all types are at risk of significant real-world consequences if they don’t protect themselves properly against this type of cyberthreat.

The development of strong encryption technology has made it easier to encode data so that it cannot be read without the decryption key. The emergence of anonymity services such as the Tor network and bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has eased worries about whether people who receive payments might be identified through financial tracking. These trends are likely driving factors in the recent surge of ransomware development and attacks.

Like other classes of malicious software – often called “malware” – ransomware uses a fairly wide range of techniques to sneak into people’s computers. These include attachments or links in unsolicited email messages, or phony advertisements on websites. However, when it comes to the core part of the attack – encrypting victims’ files to make them inaccessible – most ransomware attacks use very similar methods. This commonality provides an opportunity for ransomware attacks to be detected before they are carried out.

My recent research discovered that ransomware programs’ attempts to request access and encrypt files on hard drives are very different from benign operating system processes. We also found that diverse types of ransomware, even ones that vary widely in terms of sophistication, interact with computer file systems similarly.

Moving fast and hitting hard

One reason for this similarity amid apparent diversity is the commonality of attackers’ mindsets: the most successful attack is one that encrypts a user’s data very quickly, makes the computer files inaccessible and requests money from the victim. The more slowly that sequence happens, the more likely the ransomware is to be detected and shut down by antivirus software.

What attackers are trying to do is not simple. First, they need to reliably encrypt the victim’s files. Early ransomware used very basic techniques to do this. For example, it used to be that a ransomware application would use a single decryption key no matter where it spread to. This meant that if someone were able to detect the attack and discover the key, they could share the key with other victims, who could then decode the encrypted data without paying.

Today’s ransomware attackers use advanced cryptographic systems and Internet connectivity to minimize the chance that a victim could find a way to get her files back on her own. Once the program makes its way into a new computer, it sends a message back over the internet to a computer the attacker is using to control the ransomware. A unique key pair for encryption and decryption is generated for that compromised computer. The decryption key is saved in the attacker’s computer, while the encryption key is sent to the malicious program in the compromised computer to perform the file encryption. The decryption key, which is required to decrypt the files only on that computer, is what the victim receives when he pays the ransom fee.

The second part of a “successful” ransomware attack – from the perspective of the attacker – depends on finding reliable ways to get paid without being caught. Ransomware operators continuously strive to make payments harder to trace and easier to convert into their preferred currency. Attackers attempt to avoid being identified and arrested by communicating via the anonymous Tor network and exchanging money in difficult-to-trace cryptocurrencies like bitcoins.

Defending against a ransomware attack

Unfortunately, the use of advanced cryptosystems in modern ransomware families has made recovering victims’ files almost impossible without paying the ransom. However, it is easier to defend against ransomware than to fight off other types of cyberthreats, such as hackers gaining unauthorized entry to company data and stealing secret information.

The easiest way to protect against ransomware attacks is to have, and follow, a reliable data-backup policy. Companies that do not want to end up as paying victims of ransomware should have their workers conduct real-time incremental backups (which back up file changes every few minutes). In addition, in case their own backup servers get infected with ransomware, these companies should have offsite cloud backup storage that is protected from ransomware. Companies that are attacked can then restore their data from these backups instead of paying the ransom.

Users should also download and install regular updates to software, including third-party plug-ins for web browsers and other systems. These often plug security vulnerabilities that, if left open, provide attackers an easy way in.

Generally, being infected with ransomware has two important messages for an organization. First, it’s a sign of vulnerability in a company’s entire computer system, which also means that the organization is vulnerable to other types of attacks. It is always better to learn of an intrusion earlier, rather than being compromised for several months.

Second, being infected with ransomware also suggests users are engaging in risky online behavior, such as clicking on unidentified email attachments from unknown senders, and following links on disreputable websites. Teaching people about safe internet browsing can dramatically reduce an organization’s vulnerability to a ransomware attack.

Amin Kharraz, Research Assistant, Systems Security Lab, Northeastern University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Updated the Robots website: https://schmitt-trading.com/robots
Please read about the robots we invented:

The EURUSDCCH4 robot trades in the H4 chart of the EURUSD chart.

Expert advisor: EURUSDCCH4_EA

Symbol: EURUSD

Period: H4

Testing period: 01.01.2019 – 31.10.2021

Initial deposit: 2000.00

Total Net Profit: 1766.20

Balance drawdown maximal: 130.90 (6.55 %)

Estimated yearly return EURUSDCCH4:

Initial deposit: 2000

Total Net Profit: 623.36

Yearly return: 31.17 %

As found on Twitter, I recommend to increase internet privacy and work on security.

Right to Privacy

The right to privacy is an element of various legal traditions that intends to restrain governmental and private actions that threaten the privacy of individuals.^[1][2] Over 150 national constitutions mention the right to privacy.^[3]

10 December 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) originally written to guarantee individual rights of everyone everywhere. The words Right to Privacy is not written in the document however, many interpret this by reading Article 12,^[4] which states:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Since the global surveillance disclosures of 2013, initiated by ex-NSA employee Edward Snowden, the right to privacy has been a subject of international debate. Government agencies, such as the NSA, CIA, R&AW and GCHQ, have engaged in mass, global surveillance.

Some current debates around the right to privacy include whether privacy can co-exist with the current capabilities of intelligence agencies to access and analyze many details of an individual’s life; whether or not the right to privacy is forfeited as part of the social contract to bolster defense against supposed terrorist threats; and whether threats of terrorism are a valid excuse to spy on the general population.

Private sector actors can also threaten the right to privacy—particularly technology companies, such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Yahoo that use and collect personal data. These concerns have been strengthened by scandals, including the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal, which focused on psychographic company Cambridge Analytica which used personal data from Facebook to influence large groups of people.^[5]

Source: Right to privacy, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_privacy&oldid=1053389245 (last visited Nov. 5, 2021).

Please continue reading here:

Privacy

As found on Twitter, I recommend to increase internet privacy and work on security.

Please continue reading here:

Privacy

Updated the Robots website: https://schmitt-trading.com/robots
Please read about the robots we invented:
Schmitti4 is the most dreamy of our robot family. He is slightly apathetic and can’t be disturbed by anything. Schmitti4 is active on the currency market and buys and sells the currency pair Euro/US Dollar.

The Schmitti4 robot is a medium-term trading robot that buys and sells the EURUSD in the 4-hour chart.

Expert advisor: Schmitti4_EA

Symbol: EURUSD

Period: H4

Testing period: 01.01.2019 – 31.10.2021

Initial deposit: 2000.00

Total Net Profit: 2220.00

Balance drawdown maximal: 566.30 (28.31 %)

Estimated yearly return Schmitti4:

Initial deposit: 2000

Total Net Profit: 783.53

Yearly return: 39.18 %

Scott Shackelford, Indiana University

Large-scale cyberattacks with eye-watering statistics, like the breach of a billion Yahoo accounts in 2016, grab most of the headlines. But what often gets lost in the noise is how often small and medium-sized organizations find themselves under attack.

In the last year, half of American small businesses have been breached by hackers. That includes Meridian Health in Muncie, Indiana, where 1,200 workers’ W-2 forms were stolen when an employee was duped by an email purporting to come from a top company executive. Many small companies are just one fraudulent wire transfer away from going out of business.

There’s lots of advice available about how to fight cybercrime, but it’s hard to tell what’s best. I am a scholar of how businesses can more effectively mitigate cyber risk, and my advice is to know the three “B’s” of cybersecurity: Be aware, be organized and be proactive.

Here’s how more companies can boost their cybersecurity preparedness without breaking the bank.

Be aware

Almost any company can be vulnerable to a range of cyberattacks. A company manager or network security professional needs to know about the various types of digital threats and how to limit vulnerability.

There are some attacks that every employee should know about. The most common attacks use a method called “phishing,” or a variant that specifically targets one potential victim, called “spearphishing.” These typically take the form of email messages that appear to be sent by coworkers or supervisors asking for sensitive information. That’s what happened to the health care company in Muncie. These messages can contain instructions that a victim might follow, believing them legitimate – such as clicking a link that installs malware or captures login information, or even making a wire transfer to another business’s account.

The best defenses against these types of attacks involve skepticism and vigilance. Attackers can be very clever and persistent: If just one person has one weak moment and clicks on one malicious link, an entire network can be compromised.

Be organized

Most companies go to great lengths to protect their physical assets and personnel. But many do not take similar precautions with their digital information. A key computer may be kept disconnected from the internet, but if it accepts flash drives or rewriteable CDs, or if its password is easy to guess, the information is just as vulnerable.

Small business owners need to prioritize cybersecurity. Without proper preparation, even large companies can find themselves unprepared for cyberattacks. When Sony was hacked in 2011, it did not have an executive focused solely on information security. But hiring someone did not prevent another hack in 2014.

Be proactive

Planning ahead is vital, instead of just being reactive. The National Institute for Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework lists five main functions of cybersecurity efforts: Identify vulnerabilities, protect against attacks, detect anyone who gets through, respond to the attack quickly and recover after the attack has been stopped.

Some companies are already receiving advice that following the NIST guidelines can reduce legal liability if cybersecurity problems arise or are discovered. Companies can also work with colleges and universities to create cybersecurity clinics, or even consider buying cyber risk insurance.

There’s no way to avoid being the target of a cyberattack, but that doesn’t mean becoming a victim. Simple steps can have huge results: The Australian government reported resisting 85 percent of cyberattacks by taking three basic steps: restricting which programs can run on government computers, keeping software updated regularly and minimizing the number of people who have administrative control over networks and key machines.

Cybersecurity doesn’t have to be rocket science; it’s just computer science.

Scott Shackelford, Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics; Director, Ostrom Workshop Program on Cybersecurity and Internet Governance; Cybersecurity Program Chair, IU-Bloomington, Indiana University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Beverly Moran, Vanderbilt University

The speed with which a tax on billionaires came and went as a means to pay for President Joe Biden’s economic agenda shows why it’s so hard to tax wealth in the U.S.

Democrats unveiled their proposal on Oct. 27, 2021, and it was nixed that same day, replaced with a surcharge on millionaire incomes.

The idea of taxing the richest Americans’ fortunes has been batted around for some time, and perhaps with good reason from a tax perspective. The total wealth of U.S. billionaires soared by US$1.8 trillion during the COVID-19 pandemic as of mid-August. And recent reporting has found that despite their massive riches, billionaires tend to pay very little in taxes.

As an expert on tax policy, I have observed that there’s a big obstacle standing in the way of a wealth tax: the Constitution.

Income and wealth inequality

Concerns about inequality have increased in recent decades.

Americans enjoyed substantial economic growth and broadly shared prosperity from the end of World War II into the 1970s.

But in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan dramatically slashed taxes on the wealthy – twice – cutting the top rate on wages from 70% to 28%.

Studies have shown lower income and corporate tax rates, combined with other “trickle-down” policies such as deregulation, have led to steadily rising income for the richest Americans and wealth inequality.

The most affluent 1% controlled 39% of all wealth – including all cash, real estate, stocks, bonds and other investments – in 2016, up from less than 30% in 1989. At the same time, the bottom 90% held less than a quarter of America’s wealth, compared with more than a third in 1989.

Currently, the federal government taxes all income above $518,400 at 37% for single filers, with an additional 3.8% investment tax on incomes over $200,000. Of course, as a ProPublica cache of tax documents shows, loopholes and tax dodges result in actual income tax rates being significantly lower.

The problem with taxing wealth

Unlike an income tax, a wealth tax reaches the root of both wealth and income inequality.

But there are strong arguments that a federal wealth tax is unconstitutional. Wealth taxes violate Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the federal government from assessing “direct taxes” that aren’t apportioned equally among the states.

A direct tax is a tax on a thing, like property or income. An indirect tax is a tax on a transaction: for example, a sale or a gift.

The income tax is a direct tax and constitutional because of the 16th Amendment, which specifically allows income taxes without apportionment. As for property, you may notice that only states and cities levy real estate taxes. In almost every case, the federal government cannot tax real estate or any other form of wealth absent a transaction.

Proponents of a wealth tax, such as U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, cite a small group of law professors who back her claim that a wealth tax passes constitutional muster. But the argument against constitutionality is strong enough that a Supreme Court challenge is sure to follow any attempt to enact a wealth tax.

Barring a victory before the conservative-leaning Supreme Court or an arduous amendment to the Constitution, the federal government is shut out of taxing wealth.

A rising tide

I agree with progressive lawmakers that the United States should return to economic policies that seek to lift all boats.

Although American wealth and productivity have surged in the past 40 years, most Americans have not seen their lot improve nearly as much as the richest have – and are paying higher tax rates. In 2020 alone, America’s billionaires saw their wealth increase $560 billion, even as tens of millions were unemployed or depended on food donations to get enough to eat.

The U.S. tax system is at least partly responsible for these gaps. While a wealth tax may not be a workable solution, there are other means, such as higher income tax rates for the well-to-do or a wealth transfer tax that focuses on the transfer of wealth to a billionaire’s heirs. These approaches could not only help solve the problem of inequality but would pass legal muster too.

This is an updated version of an article published on June 9, 2021.

Beverly Moran, Professor Emerita of Law, Vanderbilt University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Updated the Robots website: https://schmitt-trading.com/robots
Please read about the robots we invented:

The GBPUSDCCH1 robot trades in the H1 chart of the GBPUSD chart.

Expert advisor: GBPUSDCCH1_EA

Symbol: GBPUSD

Period: H1

Testing period: 01.01.2020 – 31.10.2021

Initial deposit: 2000.00

Total Net Profit: 1322.50

Balance drawdown maximal: 474.10 (23.71 %)

Estimated yearly return GBPUSDCCH1:

Initial deposit: 2000

Total Net Profit: 721.36

Yearly return: 36.06 %