Ransomware, Bitcoin, and Cyber Crime have merged into a perfect virus. Modern day cyber criminals employ a new twist on a centuries-old crime. Rather than kidnapping and holding an individual for a ransom, hackers used a bitcoin ransomware attack to hold computer systems hostage and demanding payment in cryptocurrency.
WannaCry, the world’s first ransom worm, seems to be the most vicious and pervasive cyber attack to date. WannaCry’s ransomware has attacked businesses, governments, and healthcare systems in at least 150 countries so far. This global threat is introduced into system servers through at least three avenues: The Remote Desktop Protocol, a Microsoft Windows vulnerability, or a phishing email. Once in, the virus holds data files hostage until the victim pays a $300 to $600 ransom. Even the method of payment has been modernized; Bitcoin is the currency of choice.
But Why Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is a digital currency conceptualized by the software developer Satoshi Nakamoto (a pseudonym). A network of computer users create bitcoins which are open to anyone. The software employs a complicated mathematical formula to generate Bitcoins. This network allows users to compete against each other to create Bitcoins currency, making generation challenging and thus keeping the value up. The Bitcoins then reside within this distributed system. In this ideal platform, Bitcoins provide significant advantages to the cyber thief — it is fast and anonymous.
All transactions are recorded and stored in the network. Even though the transactions are transparent to anyone, the individuals making those transactions are completely anonymous. This anonymity is what makes bitcoin the most favored currency for cyber criminals.
How Does Bitcoin Play Into Ransomware and Cyber Crime?
Bitcoins provide significant advantages to the cyber thief —it is fast and anonymous.
According to economists, seven common aspects characterize real money. These aspects include durability, portability, acceptability, limited supply, divisibility, uniformity, and fungibility. The rules and methods governing the creation and documentation of Bitcoin accomplish at least four of these seven characteristics.
Governing rules allow only 21 million bitcoins to ever be mined. The finite number of Bitcoins and difficulty in mining accomplishes the characteristic of limited supply. Portability is then satisfied through the digital transactions, which are completely transparent.
Bitcoin Acceptability & Durability
Durability means that whatever form the money takes, whether physical or digital, the currency is easily replaceable should it become damaged. However, durability is a moot point if the internet remains viable. Perhaps a more important question of the viability of Bitcoins as an exchange medium lies in its acceptability. Acceptability means just that—the monetary form in question is commonly accepted as a medium of value exchange. To be acceptable, users must trust that the medium will hold its value and continue to be accepted by other users.
Bitcoin is becoming increasingly acceptable. Microsoft, Dish Network, and Expedia are among the growing list of companies accepting Bitcoin as a means of payment. Bitcoin value recently reached record highs with a $32 billion market cap, as Japan joined the list of countries allowing retailers to accept Bitcoin as a legal currency. Acceptability also contributes to fungibility (interchangeability). Bitcoins can be purchased with and exchanged for other official currency, including the U.S. dollar and the Yen. Acceptable form of currency or not, the uncertainty of the ability to protect critical data is leading many businesses to stockpile Bitcoin in anticipation of ransomware attacks.
Government failure and corruption confront the United States on a daily basis. Infrastructure may be the most glaring example. You can’t leave your home without experiencing bad roads in appalling repair. There are also the government buildings that are shoddy with very poor maintenance. US airports? Don’t even go there. Read on to know why Reason Foundation founder Bob Poole thinks Public-Private Partnership for infrastructure is much needed in the U.S.
The cost to repair and upgrade an entire nation in shambles is simply astronomical. The government does not have the money to do the job at all, let alone do it right. Which is how we landed in this situation in the first place.
In this exclusive Bold Interview, Bold Business sits down with the eminent scholar Bob Poole, founder of Reason, perhaps the leading free-market think tank in the world. Mr. Poole offers an effective solution to the failure of government funded infrastructure. Public-Private Partnerships, also known as Public-Private Partnership for infrastructure or P3, can unlock a torrent of funds to rebuild, repair, and expand our failing infrastructure.
Mr. Poole claims that Public-Private Partnership for infrastructure overcomes problems in government funded projects in a number of critical ways. But, before we discuss his solutions, let us take a moment to see how we got into this mess.
The Folly of Government Infrastructure Funding
The government’s DNA spells failure. That may be a strong statement, but it is a defensible position. The basic problem is simple, private ownership tends to create a strong sense of duty and care.
P3 brings private equity into play, along with the accountability and efficiency demanded by modern business practices.
The virtuous obligations of ownership are apparent in the planning stages of a project or product and continue throughout the life cycle. In the planning stages, care is devoted to getting the best product possible, at the most reasonable price. That product is likely to be maintained throughout its lifetime of use with the same kind of diligence.
Contrast this to a government project. In government, by law in most jurisdictions, projects go to the lowest bidder. This sounds like a great idea that prevents government awarding contracts on the basis of favoritism. In fact, it leads to a very unhealthy system of rigging bids. First of all, there is a need to cut corners and make substitutions in order to achieve the low bid. Without a doubt, they affect the quality of the product.
This is inherent in the nature of the beast. Take the building of a school for example. Under government rules, no one is actually responsible for the final product. The team who are given the contract to build the school will never have to use it, own it, or even set foot in it after the celebratory ribbon cutting cocktail party. So they suggest numerous design changes which affect the quality and functionality of the school and also cut costs. Any one of these changes may be acceptable on their own, but under the relentless pressure of low bid contracts, cost cutting often wins out over quality, particularly when it comes to the long-term. Materials that last for 3 to 5 years will be substituted for materials that last 10 or 20. The system encourages wasteful short-term thinking that creates horrific maintenance and refurbishing costs in the long run.
How Else the Government May be Failing Us
In addition, it is hardly a secret that many government contractors submit low bids with full knowledge that the project cannot be completed for the stated cost. In private business, we call this fraud, in government contracting we call it cost overrun. Also, with privately accountable funds, the practice is completely unacceptable. In government, the cost overrun fraud is just business as usual.
This practice insults the public three times over. First, the project is designed to be cheap and shoddy, hampered by the requirement to be the lowest bid. Then the public has to pay a premium to complete a project, for which the price was an actual fraud at the time it was agreed upon. Third, the public is stuck with the bill for maintaining badly designed and sub-par facilities.
Clearly, this is a no-win situation and a bad way to finance and build infrastructure. And the results are apparent everywhere you look. When was the last time went into a government building and marveled at its beautiful design, beauty, functionality, and quality? Right, never happens. Government buildings encompass a world of crummy plastic chairs, bathroom faucets that don’t work, peeling paint and nasty lighting.
Public-Private Partnership for Infrastructure: Poole’s Solution for Infrastructure Funding
Fortunately, there is a solution. Public-Private Partnerships for infrastructure brings private equity into play, along with the accountability and efficiency demanded by modern business practices. This isn’t a new idea, Public-Private Partnership for infrastructure finance and build major projects around the world.
As a matter of fact, the World Bank requires P3 for most projects these days. The World Bank contributes seed money, setting boundaries and guidelines, and private equity provides the bulk of the funding as well as the services. The system produces astonishing results, from a better selection of projects to better quality facilities. These projects often provide much-needed government revenue over the long run, without costing the public treasuries a dime to implement. It’s a win-win all the way around.
P3 is Not Privy to the U.S.
The United States created the concept of Public-Private Partnership for infrastructure. However, we have been the most laggard nation to embrace P3 as the best solution to infrastructure funding. P3 built the Tokyo subway system, Jordan Airport, and projects from Brazil to Britain. The rest of the world has grabbed onto Public-Private Partnerships for infrastructure for funding.
In the US, not so much.
This is unfortunate, as Mr. Poole points out that P3 leads to better projects at a tiny fraction of the cost. One of the most important areas of efficiency and cost savings is in the selection of projects.
Why P3 is the Only Way to End Infrastructure Disasters
Private equity does not fund boondoggles. There are no “Bridges to Nowhere” in P3. Private equity selects those projects that offer the greatest public benefit, simply by paying attention to market forces. How can you know if there really is a need for a new road? If people will pay to use it.
The discipline of the market ensures to first build the most necessary and viable projects. The market allows for prioritization and funding of the most necessary projects. Contrast this to typical highway and transportation funding, which divides the pie amongst congressional districts and quid pro quo all around the room, rather than public benefit and need.
Also, when long-term ownership is part of the mix, all parties tend to be a lot more conscientious about life cycle costs. This is very important for large long-term capital intensive projects, like bridges, roads, airports, and schools. Construction is just part of the cost, maintenance often dwarfs the building cost by orders of magnitude.
What Are We Waiting For?
If a private entity is responsible not only for the building but also for the maintenance of a project, it goes without saying that they will be far more cognizant of the long-term costs of their decisions. Faced with a choice between the cheapest plumbing materials today, or the least expensive over 20 years, they will take the long-term view. This results in better quality construction and planning.
P3 isn’t a pie in the sky, untested idea. It has been used for infrastructure development successfully all over the world. The US is one of the last countries on the planet to embrace this bold idea. Mr. Poole has spent years developing and promoting this concept which has provided benefits to first word and third world countries alike.
It is high time that the US shed our 19th-century attachment to government as the solution. To build infrastructure fit for the 21st century, we need to embrace the bold idea of P3.
Bob Poole is the founder of the Reason Foundation, one of the most influential free-market think tanks in the world. He specializes in traffic and infrastructure issues and is a strong advocate for the benefits of Public Private Partnerships.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.