Uncertain Future – Part IV – Doxxing

The Gamergate scandal didn’t end at name calling, though. Several key individuals suffered far more than the traditional effects of the average internet rabble. Along with threats of rape and murder, which are disturbing, but easily dismissed given the safety that online anonymity provides, there was another threat, one which pierced that veil of safety and put the power directly in the hands of the mob.

Doxxing.

Doxxing – from documents – search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.

“hackers and online vigilantes routinely dox both public and private figures.” [11]

During Gamergate the ugly side of the conflict saw the threat, “We will dox you,” begin to surface for the first time. Doxxing, as the definition states is when online users attempt to publish personal information about other users, celebrities, or public figures against their will. This personal information ranges from your real name to private email, banking information, and anything that hackers can get hold of. Once one member discovers it and is able to publish it, the fear is that it may lead to future attacks, such as flooding email accounts with harassment emails via a botnet attack, or worse, people literally able to knock on your door.

And this is exactly what happened to the internet’s Queen, Felicia Day.

Day commented that she had thus far remained silent on the issue of Gamergate to fans and the media, including over 2.3 million Twitter followers at the time, not because she wanted to or didn’t care, but out of fear of getting doxxed  – and seeing her personal information become public knowledge on the seedy parts of the internet.

“I realised my silence on the issue was not motivated by some grand strategy, but out of fear that the issue has created about speaking out. … I have tried to retweet a few of the articles I’ve seen dissecting the issue in support, but personally I am terrified to be doxxed for even typing the words ‘gamer gate’. I have had stalkers and restraining orders issued in the past, I have had people show up on my doorstep when my personal information was hard to get.”

This was posted on her personal blog, in a post titled simply The Only Thing I have to Say about Gamergate. [12]She was immediately attacked online and doxxed. Felicia’s experiences in the past have included direct encounters with stalkers, empowered by knowledge about her that they shouldn’t have access to. Others, such as one of the women central to the beginning of Gamergate, Anita Sarkeesian a game designer who also makes videos explaining misogynist tropes in gaming, were far more disturbing.

According to Time, Sarkeesian, had to flee her home because of violent threats. She was even forced to cancel a speaking engagement at Utah State University after an anonymous person sent a letter to the school administration threatening to massacre students if she spoke. “I will write my manifesto in her spilled blood, and you will all bear witness to what feminist lies and poison have done to the men of America,” the letter read.

Now, perhaps, we are getting the reason that anonymity is something of a concern for security analysts. With abilities such as doxxing, which is just one among many possible issues that internet users face, those who use the internet, or everyone, is going to need to learn to deal with some new and very profound threats. In the way that we prepared ourselves for active shooters with things like A.L.I.C.E. training, training is going to have to be done to teach people how to protect their personal information from slippage, the military term for unwanted dispersal of sensitive information. If we don’t take that initiative,I’m afraid of an internet where anonymity creates a world where there are no activists. Many who have read and follow my work know, if nothing else, one thing about me; I am super American. I like that I have this right and freedom to speak up and speak out, but at the point where living room vigilantes are able to threaten the safety of women for complaining about big tits in video games, along with anyone who happens to listen… I’m seriously afraid of a world twenty years down the road. That anonymity grants protection for criminal acts is something we should very seriously be concerned and something the leaders of the internet need to seriously consider when they list their values. As was mentioned before, to quote Goya, “fantasy abandoned by reason produces impossible monsters.” That said, don’t be surprised if in your next annual security briefing, you see the “Dox” for the first, but not the last time.

Advertisements

Uncertain Future – Part II – Information Security

Information Security

Not every bad thing can kill you. Oh sure, there are many things that can still ruin your life, but most won’t kill you.

Something that has remarkably changed in last twenty years is something that didn’t exist twenty years before it – online security. The information we publish online about ourselves, the groups we associate with, and even our country, can devastate our lives, or even the lives of people we will never meet. This is so true, that to sign on to read this article, you no doubt had to fill out at least four passwords. Then there is work email, phone keys, banking password, anything associate with a bill, your firewall software (that one’s ironic) and anything with the Apple logo that assumes anyone with fat fingers are criminals and forces you redo your freaking password every single time I try to buy a song… legally (that’ll teach me the punishment for being good.)

In fact, the information that exists in the open is an entire field of spycraft. Open-source intelligence (OSINT) is intelligence collected from publicly available sources. It is the science of gathering executable knowledge to use against someone which they have willingly left available to the world. That’s not true, some of that knowledge could be stolen and published already, without the subject’s knowledge, and certainly without their permission. In my book, The Next Warrior, which deals with exploring the real way technology will change the face of warfare in the next few decades, this concept is explored with a young female spy named Samantha Avery. In 2026, Avery isn’t like the modern day spies, case officers that are employed by the CIA. She sits at a desk and gathers information at her comfortable office outside Washington DC. What makes her special is the ability to find and pool vast databases and other intelligence sources hidden throughout the internet to decipher useful information and patterns her clients are willing to pay desperately for. Why is this special in 2026, when we have Google today? One might only look back to 2006, when there were only 85,507,314 websites in existence. For a better understanding of how much things have changed, as I write, there are 998,253,877[1], just shy of a billion. Sure Google will still be a valuable tool, but as the rest of this section will show you, the information you can access via Google is limited. Beyond the reach of search engines is information hidden in the dark web, databases and forums which house classified, illegal, or personal information that some would pay well to know, or for Avery’s case, just pay well to know what to do with it.

That said, Cyber Security is already a big deal today. The world isn’t waiting for 2026 when Supersleuthes have already mastered the art of unburrying skeletons. Between personal invasions of privacy, to massive breaches of corporate firms and even national governments, the industry surrounding cyber security has exploded to levels we haven’t seen ever. In the future, this will be even more true. When we consider the other answers, which show a future possible (almost certain) marriage between our electronics, communications, cars, homes, and entertainment unseen today, and add with them more levels of privately controlled automated drones, our augmented reality suites, driverless everything; all at work, school, home, and at play, security analysts cringe at the myriad of ways in which these technologies will interlock and overlap – each time creating a new vulnerability and entry into our own private motherload of personal information. In truth, swarm technology and the internet of things is a terrifying concept, because with each new device that enters our sphere of influence, we experience a new breach point to our data, one that hackers can use to enter into our lives.

Take Nicholas Allegra. He’s a hacker who makes a hobby out of defeating Apple’s best and brightest security chiefs.  [2]

“It feels like editing an English paper,” Allegra says simply, his voice croaking as if he just woke up, though we’re speaking at 9:30 pm. “You just go through and look for errors. I don’t know why I seem to be so effective at it.”

Going by the hacker name Comex, Allegra created the JailbreakMe code, which allowed millions of users to upload any applications they wanted to Apple’s infamously restrictive devices. The way he did it was through exploiting a bug in how Apple’s mobile operating system iOS handles PDFs fonts. That allowed him to both locate and repurpose hidden commands. That critical flaw allowed a series of exploits that not only gains… blah, blah, blah, technical nerd jargon. The point is, this kid was able to publish code allowing millions of people to manipulate their phone against the creator’s wishes because of the way the phone read fontson pdfs.

“I spent a lot of time on the polish,” Allegra says with a hint of pride.

As I said before, these sorts of security failures aren’t limited to phones. In the next era of technological revolutions, new methods will open to new exploits in the same way that a 19 year old can crack the world’s safest phone. In a further example of how more tech means more problems, security researcher Nils Rodday is preparing a demonstration for the RSA security conference in San Francisco that will show how he is able to hack and take control of police drones from more than a mile away. [3]

“…flaws in the security of a $30,000 to $35,000 drone’s radio connection allow him to take full control over the quadcopter with just a laptop and a cheap radio chip connected via USB. By exploiting a lack of encryption between the drone and its controller module known as a “telemetry box,” any hacker who’s able to reverse engineer the drone’s flight software can impersonate that controller to send navigation commands, meanwhile blocking all commands from the drone’s legitimate operator.

I’m just going to take this opportunity to remind people that these things exist, and leave it at that.

Personally, I’m just glad people like Nils Rodday and Comex aka Nicholas Allegra are at worst chaotic good, working for the betterment of us all through nefarious means, rather than a full on evil geniuses.

There are, however, lots of evil people on the internet and many of these people want to do you great harm, or at least, have no concern for your well being as they attempt to make a better life for themselves. Whether it is because of a lone wolf cyber idealist like Comex; a community of hackers with motivations ranging from patriotism, sexism, anarchism, or just for the lulz; corporate hackers out to steal your money; or national hackers out to bring down the power grid, the internet is growing a more dangerous place, and Wall Street knows it.

HACK, the exchange-traded fund bundling 30 cyber security companies, has seen quite a year for just these reasons. Last year, following a spree of high profile hacks across several industries, the fund skyrocketed, increasing in value nearly 30% in only six months to over a $1 billion market cap. [4] Since June, the value in the fund has receded, along with the entire sector. Since the downturn, however, these security companies are coming together, literally, to shake up the security industry again. In the last quarter, niche security companies that weren’t able to compete on their own, are merging together and with much larger firms to solve problems some thought we wouldn’t have cracked for another decade, along with others, no one predicted.

Last year, there were 133 security M&A deals, up from 105 in 2014, according to 451 Research’s February report on the tech outlook for 2016.  Its recent survey of investment bankers showed that security is expected to have the most M&A activity this year, surpassing mobile technology for the first time in six years.

What this means is that many of today’s fears and concerns for tomorrow are getting a lot of attention, and new methods to solve them are gathering steam and energy to attempt the mitigate the flood of invasions expected in the next two decades. One of the biggest leaders in this is a company you know well. Microsoft is shoring up their defense against cyberattacks by purchasing many of these fledgling firms into their corporate umbrella, creating several new layers between its customers (along with itself) and would be hackers.  [5] The majority of the new additions came from startups that didn’t really have a place in the industry, solving problems too specific to truly go it on their own, but filled with good ideas and brilliant people. Microsoft’s recent acquisitions have been intended to add new capabilities, as well as new minds to the brain pool of Seattle. The hope is that, as these new units are integrated, the company will be capable of creating value and new technologies that will keep Microsoft and its users secure for at least the span of this question.

So here’s the real question: What exactly is it that Microsoft is so afraid of? Throughout this answer, I’ll attempt to explain some the risks that have the world’s largest tech firms, and even the world’s largest nations, preparing for a battle that we all need them to win. We will start off small with things that can only ruin your life, and then work up to the stuff that can legitimately break the world.

The Future of Private Armies!

This is a fun question, and if some of the technologies that research and development organizations like DARPA pan out, the answer might surprise you.


In the future, much of the weapons technology is going to shift to enable smaller and smaller teams becoming able to command more and more power on the battlefield. Of course, this initiative will be led by large nations and their multi-billion, perhaps trillion dollar budgets for research and development. Once the initial technological barriers are overcome, however, and the pandora’s box released, we very well might see new models for the old industries like defense and security come up that we haven’t seen before in history and art of warfare.

[New weapons systems] will allow smaller “players” to take part in global defense operations, allowing smaller nations wishing to get into the game, like the Netherlands or Qatar, to command vastly disproportionate forces to what exists today. The ramifications would be a world where very few, very powerful troops are required to dismantle regimes and upset political realities is that this power will shift from few massive nations, to many wealthy small nations. Large nations will still hold the majority of the strength, but small nations would shift the balance of power greatly. They will also be able to do this without the massive leviathan military apparatus of world spanning legacy systems that the United States currently fields. They will simply leapfrog this system entirely.

One interesting thing this also leads us to is that when small nations can afford elite special forces… so will large corporations and it may be a very profitable business to be in, far in excess of the Black Waters and the Academis of today. Future warfare technologies and techniques will be used against insurgents, unspecialized lightly trained militia, by experienced, professional troops using overwhelming resources. This will mean that the individual soldier will be far more valuable than the insurgent targets, but the average future mercs will also have a kill ratio orders of magnitude greater than that of the difference in their costs.
Jon Davis’ answer to As more advanced weapons and military knowledge become accessible, can we expect a terrorist organization to compete with the US army and use biological and nuclear weapons in the future?

By the way, this is the sort of technology I am referring to.


Raytheon has unveiled their new XOS 2 Exoskeleton, a wearable robotics suit developed for the military. It’s not made to kick soccer balls.

The wearable robotics suit is being designed to help with the many logistics challenges faced by the military both in and out of theater. Repetitive heavy lifting can lead to injuries, orthopedic injuries in particular. The XOS 2 does the lifting for its operator, reducing both strain and exertion. It also does the work faster. One operator in an exoskeleton suit can do the work of two to three soldiers. Deploying exoskeletons would allow military personnel to be reassigned to more strategic tasks. The suit is built from a combination of structures, sensors, actuators and controllers, and it is powered by high pressure hydraulics.
There are two main variants being developed; one which is meant for the logistics of carrying heavy loads in non-combat situations, which I can attest to, is a major pain, and the other a combat variant, intended to carry massive loads such as heavy packs, ammunition, and yes, heavy weapons and even massive shields. Right now the system requires a powered tether and hopefully going to be ready in the next five years, with an untethered version ready in the next eight. We’ll see…

The military is thinking much, much bigger than simple exo-skeletons. Along with these and other companies working toward producing military grade exoskeletons, the military is pushing for more in the terms of a completely armored combat power suit. The project’s name is the Tactical Assault Light Operator Suit (TALOS).

So far, the only thing that has come out of the TALOS project are CG and hopeful wishes, but in the future, the military is hoping to have specialized warriors straight out of the Iron Man comics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=24&v=rFObTuJqEw4

Having shown at least some of what is actually being developed for the warriors of tomorrow, let’s look back at the question: What type of corporations might be capable of getting some use from having private armies? The first thing I always think about when I hear “corporate military” is the thought of some evil imperial international corp who brings about the use of a private army for reasons that aren’t clear in the goal of selling more of product “x”? Does that really make sense to anyone? Think about companies like Coca-cola or Apple, they are already some of the largest and most powerful corporations on the planet. They can sell their products almost anywhere on the planet. Now ask yourself this, honestly, what would adding in someone with a gun to the equation do to help them sell more cokes and iPhones? For the vast majority of products that people sell, the bottom line isn’t created by military conquest, it is provided by selling goods and services better, cheaper, and more abundantly. I just can’t really understand who would benefit in this regard by adding in a military wing. Let’s be honest, for almost any corporate model today, adding a division of trained and lethal, not to mention very expensive, soldiers just simply doesn’t improve profits. In fact, running a war machine is so expensive, that there is a reason that only large nations do it. Think about it, it just doesn’t make sense to add a military to a company that has a logical business model already.

Having said that, and keeping in mind that for most businesses, there is no sense in making a military no matter how easy it becomes, first let’s remember what new quality some of the future weapons are going to have. With the increase in technology and power per dollar, armies will get to be much, much smaller. At some point, a force no larger than a few battalions of United States Marines will reasonably have the fighting strength of the entire attacking force that overthrew Iraq in only three weeks. Don’t scoff. In the seventy years since World War II we’ve created Stealth Bombers than can fly half-way around the world and greater strength than what was held by an entire Marine regiment of Iwo Jima years ago can now be directed by a single squad of AMLICO Marines. Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company

So rather than ask, which corporations might field large armies, ask which ones might have a need for extremely potent small armies.

To that I will suggest a few. The first might be the privatization of national militaries. The European Union could have a use for this model as it would allow them to temporarily gain a large amount of military power when needed, but not have a need to house, man, and fund large standing armies. Of course, this is just a modern variant of classic mercenaries, but given that future technology will lower the threshold of creating world class military forces, mercenaries are going to be an important part of the picture again. That said, professional militaries today have very little geopolitical role outside of private security for high value individuals. That said, we could foreseeable see a time when these forces will be strong enough that they will be able to realistically threaten nations without the means to defend themselves. You could one day soon see a small unit of elite troops, perhaps a thousand or so, be able to win the war against a regime like Saddam Hussein in 2003, where it took the United States and Coalition forces more than 300,000 to do it then with the strongest military alliance formed in the history of the planet.

But just saying mercenaries isn’t really that interesting. The second group that I could foresee having a real motivation for an on-call private army might surprise many today… so that’s why I want to talk about them.

Insurance companies.


Let’s say that a future exists where data science and advanced prediction algorithms exist that are so powerful that they make it possible to estimate the risks of various losses in various conflict scenarios so precisely that one might consider it a logical financial venture to insure candidates with good enough rating, but a lot to lose. Sure, these accounts may be multi-billion dollar accounts, with payouts in the hundreds of billions of dollars if a claim is rewarded, but what if such a business model could still be considered profitable?

Take the country of Lathodonia, a small nation in the Balkans. The Lathodonians are growing concerned about the loss of a power plant in their territory. They have no reason, at the moment, to fear something happening, but if it did, the country would suffer massively. It could be lost in a natural disaster, attacked by terrorists, or captured in a war far down beyond the foreseeable horizon. If this were to happen, they would need their losses covered while they get back online and the people of Lathodonia returning to a normal life with as little disruption as possible. That might including fixing the installation, paying for electricity to be imported into the grid from other sources, or maybe even to pay out damages and reparations for the time when the lights went out. So Lathodonia does what all sensible nations do and it takes out an insurance policy. Let’s say they consult an insurance company like none other in the industry. This company doesn’t deal with automotives, or health care, nor do they deal in fire protection or anything else that might be available on the market in 2015. This company ensures government agencies, multinational corporations, and entire nations in the cases of catastrophic loss for many billions, and sometimes, trillions of dollars against any number of threats and foreseeable losses that could have never been provided with less than an entire branch of government only thirty years prior. That insurance company is named GloboSure.

Where the future gets terrifying is that in the event that a conflict breaks out. GloboSure has a vested interest in ensuring that it suffers as few losses as possible and this means avoiding payout wherever it can. Insurance companies aren’t charities afterall. They would, for that reason, be incentivized into supplementing defense of this particular asset to help ensure that it doesn’t need to award any multi-billion dollar payouts in the near future. Rather than that, they would rather just offset the costs of an defensive operation to defend the asset, this time being a power plant, and deduct it from next year’s tax returns. Of course, before that, GloboSure’s diplomatic wing of international government lobbyists will have a go at it first, keeping, of course, return on invest always in mind. Either way, they know that spending a few million to safeguard a client’s assets will cost far more than paying out the balance of the account.

It won’t end with small nations, though. The second possibility would be very large multinational corporations that have an interest in protecting their fixed assets abroad. Once again, it doesn’t make sense for them to build their own military, and very rarely would it be worth going through a private military company either. All they really want is asset protection, after all. Why go through all that trouble? Once again, they will find their solution through insurance companies like GloboSure. But when would a multinational company ever really want to hire an insurance company that specializes in armed defense?

Imagine a future where nuclear power became the norm and a few companies now produce electricity for billions of people across the globe. They have many, many plants across the world and across border lines. Say that, as sometimes happens, one nation, let’s call it the Meznick Federation, decides it is in the best interest of all parties concerned, that they should annex the Western portion of Lathodonia, which just so happens to be the territory holding the power plant. NuPower, the owners of the international power electric company, are not particularly willing to see their multi-billion dollar energy plant be handed over to Meznick Federal Electric, in what amounts to a very hostile takeover. The billion dollar insurance account includes catastrophic loss, hostile government seizure, or terrorist involvement policy. This happens to be a high risk moment for the event of item #2 “Hostile Government Seizure”, so it is in the interest of the GloboSure Insurance Company to provide a reaction force capable of ensuring that no hostile powers decide they wish to also annex their client’s asset. Globosure’s quick reaction force would also ensure that no patriotic Lathodonian defenders decide to use the site outside of it’s intended design, by turning their own lovely nuclear plant into a defensive location. So while NuPower won’t have a need for its own actual military, it has one available at a moment’s notice… if GloboSure determines that such intervention is necessary.

Of course, there is nothing to say that the policy’s owners may not just another agency, or group of agencies acting together for some other random interest, one that is totally their business, but that few others would expect to be an active participant in a war. The policyholder on the power station could, for instance, be a collection of international environmental agencies pooling their collective funds to ensure that there is no major nuclear disaster anywhere in that part of Europe. If a nuclear power plant were to suffer a catastrophic event caused by some conflict, it could poison the entire region for generations. Clean up from such an event would also be devastating and cost millions to cleanse of the radiological purge and millions more to restore the land to something useful. By their estimation, it is a logical idea to have someone prepared to prevent an incident from occurring, while also having the fallback of getting a large enough payment award that clean-up can be made. So they too have a use for a policy with the hopes of safeguarding, or at least having a plan to clean and rebuild after an event that would be a worst case scenario today. As a side note, if you were paying attention, I just laid the groundwork for the United States Environmental Protection Agency to have a legitimate cause for creating a “Combat Operations” department.

No matter who owns the policy, the government being attacked, the company who owns the assets, or the collective of environmental agencies, or whoever else in the world feels they have a large enough stake in the matter to merit taking out a policy, when conflict seems imminent, GloboSure is going to get a call. When they do, they deploy their troops, most likely third party contractors to the selected sites and a new level of complexity is created in the future of warfare.

In truth, it’s doubtful that anyone in these situations would actually fight. Their goal is to exist as merely the threat of violence that would force anyone who might seek to make this private piece of property their own for either greed or nationalistic purposes. By merely bringing a big enough gun to the show, in this case, that gun being a next generation special operations infantry task force, whose one job is to make sure no one sets foot inside the power station, battlefield commanders for both the Meznick Army invasion forces and Lathodonian Defense Forces will have to decide if taking that asset, or even damaging it, is truly something worth sacrificing men and material for. Likely, a strong nation could take it, but at what cost? Among other things, the station itself when it gets caught in the crossfire, most likely. What would most likely happen following this, is that the power station would become a no man’s land. No one would set foot within miles of the place besides those authorized to. For anyone else, a warning shot from over three miles away, followed by less subtle methods of delivering a message of welcoming.

Quite frankly, if war is unavoidable, this is the best option for everyone. Lathodonia will probably lose, and the plant will probably be turned over, but that isn’t the worst thing that could happen. Consider this from the policy holder’s points of view, what they ended up with, and what they would have had had they not taken out the policy.

NuPower didn’t have a total loss. They still control the plant even if there is a several mile long siege around it. Meznick wouldn’t break the No-man’s-land to suffer some needless battle because that would surely destroy the station. That station, by the way, is no good to anyone broken and impossible to take from the forces guarding it with likely doing just that and definitely killing a lot of his own people. Besides, the plant itself is still precious, not only to NuPower, but to Meznick, as well. Instead, because of the threat of force of what would happen if players didn’t play nicely, it’s doubtful that anything else would bring the new owners of the real estate and the old owners of the plant to a table to plan a mutually beneficial trade. Mutually beneficial may not be an appropriate word, but GloboSure did provide NuPower with the best possible scenario, given the bleak state of affairs and given that their only other option without GloboSure was having their technology looted before being violently taken over by an enemy army. NuPower eventually lost the plant to Meznick Federal Power, but left on their terms, took what they wanted from the plant, and remarkably, never had a day without service to its customers throughout the war.

That was good for Lathodonia too. They got to keep the lights on during the war for as long as possible. Furthermore, there is little to no destruction of the grid, which means life can get back to normal relatively quickly. This wasn’t the case in Iraq where terrorists bombed the grid regularly, keeping a constant state of not being able to rely on the power. In Lathodonia, though they don’t want to admit it now that half their nation is flying the wrong flag, they suffered little beyond the loss of their lands. That was unfortunate, but a completely collapse, that was avoided.

The EPA got their money’s worth out of the deal. One more nuclear disaster averted.

Lathodonia may rate a payout, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Globosure might be able to negotiate a reasonable settlement there too in exchange for leaving the plant peacefully for the Meznick forces. A few bargaining chips like that can be worth a lot, perhaps better terms in the treaty at the end of the war. You never know. Globosure might end up saving a lot of money on this operation, and just out of good fortune and the well applied application of greed, a lot of lives too.


I know this reads like some dystopian science-fiction, but it is actually rather utopian when you really think about it. This move represents one more layer of complexity making the act of war that much harder and more costly for those who want to use it for their own gain, be it nation or individual. As with insurance companies today wanting to maximize their own profits through ensuring the best chance of never paying out, like when they offer you a discount for having working fire and smoke detectors or driving safely, they will be incentivized to make sure that client assets are protected from human harm. This will save lives and save money on all sides. It’s not altruistic by any means. It’s just flat out capitalistic greed. But where greed does more good than altruism could ever hope for, who really cares about why it works?

As twisted as it sounds, for some private companies to gain the ability to become armed forces, it might lead to a future that sees less destruction from war, less disruption to daily life during conflict, and fewer deaths and suffering when times of violence erupt. Conflict will never stop. Conflict is a natural and unavoidable reality of life, but that doesn’t mean that conflict might not become more bearable for the innocents who are caught up in it. That said, in most insurance cases, you aren’t hoping for a best case scenario. No one gets paid unless something bad is happening already. Everyone just wants to make it out better than a total loss. Today we have total loss, but who knows about tomorrow?

Still, I’m a little weirded out by a future that creates actuaries making millions if they hold a double Master’s Degree in both the fields Finance and Accounting and Military Studies.


You might also enjoy:


Thanks for reading. This post is part of an ongoing series into European Refugee Crisis I’ve taken on at the request of patron and follower request. If you would like to follow the series, make sure to follow the blog Jon’s Deep Thoughts. Everything I write is independent research supported completely by fan and follower assistance. If you want to support this project and any future essays, show your support by visiting my support page here: Support Jon Davis creating A Military Sci-Fi Novel, Articles, and Essays