Perla Group Dubai UAE review: Fraud 28

To know more about Charles D'Alberto please visit www.charlesdalberto.com and share your experience with other victims.

i have strong evidence against charles adalberto, and we can catch this man.I am looking for support do contact me on ivelisse.melendez@hotmail.com.

Ordered an armored car from Charles for 140.000 USD in Florida. I paid in advance and he never delivered. http://www.charlesdalberto.org is under construction, should you like to make a contribution (information, not money) to the website please email me at info.about.charles@gmail.com. I think he is in Canada at the moment...

There are several other victims of this guy.
When he was in Dubai he took $42, 000 from me.
I have Dubai court order against him in hand but he escaped Dubai.
Anyone needs more details please contact me enteshari@yahoo.com.

Ali Enteshari, Dubai

a "Charles S. D'Alberto" of "Swiss-American Investments Inc" recently expressed an interest in buying some aviation assets in Italy. He says they are "a publicly traded investment fund". A search on the company name reveals it doesn't exist (there is however a defunct Nevada Corp). A search on his name brings me to this site (thank youl) and Perla Group. Interestingly Perla Group is also a defunct Nevada Corp. A search the phone number he gave reveals (with a bit of digging) an Aerokopter for sale (like Perla Group) http://www.airplanemart.com/airplane-for-sale/show-client-listing/1202/
A reverse search on the number leads to Fort Lauderdale. It would seem to be the same guy and he is too brazen (or too stupid) to cover his tracks.

I know the recent adventures of Mr. Charles Sam D'Alberto move him to Italy, is only one scammer. Is been unmasked, the value as person is like to zero

The Heritage Foundation
About
Issues
Research
Events
The Daily Signal
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Renew Membership
Donate

Search Heritage for

The Heritage Foundation
Issue Brief #4487 on Cyber Security
November 18, 2015
Cyber Attacks on U.S. Companies Since November 2014
By Riley Walters

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Riley Walters
Research Assistant
Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy
Researchers are concerned over the strength and comprehensiveness of cybersecurity in the U.S., as companies across the country are being targeted in cyber attacks at an increasing rate of both occurrence and cost. Concerns continue to grow as both the number of attacks on companies’ networks and the cost to companies are increasing. The quantity and quality of information being hacked, stolen, destroyed, or leaked is becoming more of a problem for consumers and businesses alike.

The Ponemon Institute recently released its 2015 Cost of Cyber Crime, which analyzes the cost of all cyber crime for a variety of 58 U.S. organizations both public and private.[1] The U.S., in comparison with other nations in the Ponemon study, continues to rank highest in its cost of cyber crime at an annual average of $15.4 million per company.

Ponemon surveyed companies in the areas of finance, energy and utilities, and defense and aerospace—three of the most affected sectors—as well as communication, retail, and health care. The annual cost of cybercrime for these companies has more than doubled since 2010, which then averaged $6.5 million. Of the companies surveyed, the minimum cost to a company was $1.9 million while the maximum cost was as much as $65 million in 2015.

This year, companies saw an average of 160 successful cyber attacks per week, more than three times the 2010 average of 50 per week.

Every company surveyed was the victim of a Trojan, virus, or worm type of attack. Ninety-seven percent surveyed were reported to have been the victim of a malware attack and 76 percent were victim of a Web-based attack. Just as worrisome as hackers trying to get into a network system are those with malicious intent who already have access to a system. Forty-three percent of companies reported cyber attacks by malicious insiders and 36 percent of companies suffered attacks as the result of a stolen device.

This paper continues the “Cyber Attacks on U.S. Companies in 2014” paper released last October.[2] The dates listed for each hack reflect the time when these attacks were released to the public and not the date of when the breach actually occurred.

November 2014
Sony Pictures Entertainment (entertainment). In November, hackers linked to the North Korean government launched an attack on Sony Entertainment, allegedly over a movie depicting North Korea in a negative light. The hackers took terabytes of private data and released confidential information to the public as well as a number of Sony movies.[3]
GoDaddy and Gigya (online). The Syrian Electronic Army—a group of hackers loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad—claimed responsibility for an attack on a variety of news outlet Web sites such as CNBC, Forbes, the Chicago Tribune, PCWorld, and The Independent via the Gigya Domain Name Service from GoDaddy.com.[4] No personal information was affected.[5]
December 2014
Las Vegas Sands Corp (gaming). In February 2014, the Sands Casino was hacked by a group out of Iran. The hackers brought the $14 billion operation to a standstill as they shut down PCs, servers, and wiped hard drives clean. The attack was suspected to be in retaliation for comments that Sands CEO Sheldo Adelson made about the Iranian government.[6]
Chick-Fil-A (restaurant). In January 2014, Chick-Fil-A suffered a credit card breach at a number of restaurants, affecting around 9, 000 credit cards. The breach is suspected to have occurred over a span of 10 months and could be related to a number of other point-of-sale system breaches that happened in 2014.[7]
Staples, Inc. (retail). In another point-of-sale system breach, security experts from Staples detected malware at 115 different stores—1.16 million credit cards were reportedly affected. The breach occurred between July and September 2014.[8]
January 2015
Morgan Stanley (finance). An employee was fired from Morgan Stanley after allegedly stealing data and account numbers from as many as 350, 000 clients. The disgruntled employee was able to post some personal information online, but no money was lost and the personal data was removed promptly after being detected.[9]
February 2015
Anthem, Inc. (health care). Health insurer Anthem, Inc., suffered a massive cyber attack that affected upwards of 80 million current and former customers. The compromised information included Social Security numbers, birthdates, addresses, and employee information.[10] The information of anywhere between 8.8 million and 18.8 million customers of Blue Cross Blue Shield was also affected, having been stored on the same servers.[11] The breach has been accredited to the Black Vine cyber-espionage group by cybersecurity firm Symantec, which is also accredited with the later Office of Personnel Management hacks and numerous other breaches dating back to 2012.[12]
Carbanak (banking and finance). Kaspersky Lab reports a group called Carbanak has, since 2013, attempted cyber attacks on 100 banking and financial institutions in almost 30 countries. The group is accredited with up to $1 billion in losses.[13]
Uber (transportation). An Uber database was reportedly accessed in May by an unauthorized third party—compromising as many as 50, 000 Uber drivers across America. Only the drivers’ names and license numbers were compromised.[14]
Forbes.com (news and business). In late November, the cyber espionage group Codoso Team used the Forbes.com website as a watering hole (a cyber campaign that uses trusted Web sites to launch attacks) to target U.S. defense contractors and financial services companies.[15]
March 2015
Premera Blue Cross (health care). In an attack that began in May of 2014, Premera Blue Cross fell victim to a cyber attack that exposed the medical and financial information of 11 million people, including their clinical records, bank account numbers, Social Security numbers, and birthdates. Also affected in the attacks were Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska, Vivacity, and Connection Insurance Services.[16]
Github (online). The hosting site for two other sites, GreatFire and CN-NYTimes, used for circumventing Chinese state censorship came under a significant distributed denial-of-service attack—almost overwhelming Github with Internet traffic. Experts attribute the attack to China in what is being called the “Great Cannon”—referring to China’s “Great Firewall” of Internet censorship.[17]
Register.com (online). Register, a site used for Internet domain registry, had its network accessed for about a year by hackers with stolen passwords. Some experts have suggested that the breach is connected to the Chinese military, which could possibly use the breach to redirect traffic in a further attempt to steal trade secrets and information.[18]
May 2015
Penn State University (academia). The College of Engineering at Penn State University identified a breach that had been existent for about two years. Although the school claimed that there was no sensitive material taken, it did notify 18, 000 students whose Social Security numbers could have been compromised. “The university estimates that it has spent roughly $2.85 million responding to the attacks.”[19]
CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield (health care). Around 1.1 million current and former customers of CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield were said to have had their username, real name, birthdate, and e-mail addresses compromised. The company made sure to mention that Social Security numbers and other medical and financial records were not compromised.[20]
Adult Friend Finder (online). The adult Web site Adult Friend Finder announced that the names, e-mail addresses, and sexual preferences of 3.9 million customers were accessed by hackers. It is unsure where the attack came from, but new agencies in the U.K. have reported that the data obtained in the attack were being “circulated on various dark websites.”[21]
Economic Espionage. Six individuals are charged with using their access to U.S. universities and technology development companies, such as ROFS Microsystems and Avago, to export proprietary trade secrets to China. The investigation goes as far back as 2006.[22]
Beacon Health System (health care). The health care firm was the victim of a phishing attack in which employee e-mails and the personal information of 300, 000 patients was reportedly affected.[23]
July 2015
Ashley Madison (online). The adult Web site was hacked by a group calling themselves The Impact Team. After stealing the information of 37 million users, including banking information, addresses, and sexual fantasies, the group later began releasing droves of information online in large data dumps.[24]
UCLA Health (health care). The personally identifiable information, including the Social Security numbers of 4.5 million users, was compromised. The hack began as early as May.[25]
Medical Informatics Engineering (health care). The breach to this medical software company compromised 3.9 million of its users’ Social Security numbers, health records, and other personally identifiable information. The hack began May 7th and was detected May 26th.[26]
United Airlines (transportation). Reportedly the victim of the Chinese cyber team Black Vine, United systems were accessed in May or early June, around the same time as OPM and Anthem. Airline records, including flight manifests, were taken.[27]
August (2015)
Trade on the Market. In early August, a group of 32 U.S. traders and Eastern European hackers from Ukraine worked together to access unpublished press releases in an attempt to gain an edge on Wall Street. This information was traded on, bringing in “over $100 million in ill-gotten gains.”[28]
American Airlines Group, Inc., and Sabre Corp. (transportation and booking). Also reportedly the victim of Chinese espionage group Black Vine, the airline and booking companies, while not disclosing the amount or type of information accessed, could reach into the millions.[29]
September 2015
Excellus BlueCross BlueShield (health care). In another health insurer cyber attack the company Excellus had the financial and medical information of 10 million of its customers compromised. The hackers found their way around the encrypted data and were able to access names, addresses, Social Security Numbers, medical claims information, etc.[30]
Trump Hotel Collection (hotel). Seven Trump hotels across the U.S. and Canada reportedly had their systems breached, affecting the information of customers who may have visited those locations between May 2014 and June 2015. While the malware collecting the information has been removed, it has been unconfirmed what and how much information was extracted.[31]
WhatsApp (communications). The cross-platform messaging application reported that up to 200, 000 of their Web-based service users are either at risk of a cyber attack or have already had personal information compromised. vCards—electronic contact information—were loaded with malicious code and sent to random users’ phone numbers.[32]
October 2015
Experian (finance). Hackers recently attacked the servers of Experian, which stores the credit assessment data of T-Mobile USA, Inc., customers. The attack took the names, addresses, and Social Security Numbers of more than 15 million people.[33]
Scottrade (finance). The names and addresses of up to 4.6 million users of the trade and investment firm were reportedly targeted between 2013 and 2014.[34]
Bugat/Dridex Botnet. A large network of computers controlled by hackers was set to automatically steal confidential personal and financial information, including banking credentials and keystrokes (passwords). The FBI attributes up to $10 million in direct losses to the Bugat/Dridex Botnet.[35]
It should be noted this list is incomplete. A simple search through the Department of Homeland Security’s Daily Open Source Infrastructure Reports[36] or the Department of Health and Human Services’ Breach Portal[37] will show a greater number of breaches than recounted in this list.

In fact, health care services continued to see a large amount of smaller (fewer than 1 million people affected) breaches. Interestingly, a number of universities were also subject to cyber attacks this past year, possibly reflecting greater cyber-ability in their current students. Even though cyber breaches and attacks continually affect a wide variety of industries, there continues to be a pattern in the type of information targeted by these malicious actors.

Congress and the Administration should:

Consider how regulations financially affect businesses. While asking businesses to focus more on cybersecurity is noble, policymakers will need to remember that businesses will focus only on as much security as fits into their business model. However, businesses (especially smaller businesses) will need to think about how cybersecurity breaches will affect their image and bottom line.
Avoid minimum security standards. Setting obligatory cybersecurity standards for companies will not prevent breaches—in fact, it may worsen security. Telling companies to comply with a minimum set of regulatory standards for security is like asking companies to jump and then having both companies and hackers respond with “How high?” Avoid making companies commit funding to securing one or several aspects, when a hacker can simply attack or breach where funding was misallocated from.
Increase cooperation with private businesses. As the backbone of the tech market and target of many of these cyberattacks, the private industry is working on best practices and collaborating to create the technology and workforce necessary to counter cyber threats. This includes companies in the U.S., as well as those with a global presence. Increasing cooperation with private business will allow government access to firsthand knowledge on emerging cyber threats, and vice versa will help private businesses prepare using whatever cyber information the government has to share.
Conclusion
Cyber attacks are on the rise and will continue to be of concern for the foreseeable future. It will be up to private industry to meet these concerns head-on and support the government in its ability to act lawfully against cyber criminals—so long as businesses lack the authority to fight back against those who threaten their systems.

—Riley Walters is a Research Assistant in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation.
Get Heritage in your inbox—free!
Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

It's free to sign up to get the latest conservative policy perspectives - straight from Heritage experts.

Your Email Address

Your Zip Code
Submit

Show references in this report

The Heritage Foundation
©2016 The Heritage Foundation

Donate | Press & Media | Contact Us | Shop Heritage | Careers
Privacy Policy | Copyright

Given that it is hard to imagine modern life without using the ICTs and that their usage is increasing every day, it is not hard to understand why is the issue of the impact of ICTs on the society one of the topics of almost all meetings concerning ICTs. These new technologies contributed to the fact that most people the world in which we are living today consider as e-world.

ICTs, since their appearance, influenced a rapidly change of the world. The field of ICTs is very broad and includes different technologies, some of which are quite old and some are new. ‘ICT is any technology that enables communication and the electronic capture, processing, and transmission of information. Radio,
television and print media are vital in many developing countries. In recent years ‘new’ ICT, such as mobile phones and the internet (and associated applications such as ‘VOIP’, transmitting telephone calls over the internet) have become available to growing numbers worldwide.’ (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2006, p.1). Accordingly, the question of the Internet access and its impact on the societies, in
particular developing countries, is of the great importance. The impact of the Internet access on the developing countries appears in two forms, as a positive and one who facilitate development and as a negative, contributing deepening digital divide.

There are several positive Internet access impacts on the developing countries. Access to wide range of information, new job opportunities, broader education, to name but a few. With an access to wide range of information, people could contribute to the more democratic society. They can use examples from other,
developed countries, and implement them in their own. According to Jorgensen (2006, p. ix, para. 2) ‘access to information is essential for self-determination, for social and political participation, and for development.’ Furthermore, new technologies provide new job opportunities and as a result of it the reduction of unemployment. Finally, with the ICTs there is an opportunity for broader education. That education includes new skills, such as computer skills, new sources for education and finally new means of education, such as online studying.

However, ICTs could bring negative consequences for developing countries. Although, it was already stated that the ICTs could reduce unemployment, it is possible that the ICTs contribute exactly to the opposite, higher unemployment. Most of the jobs could be done by the computers and there is no need for so many human resources. Furthermore, ICTs could deepen the digital divide between developing and developed countries. In developing countries a lot of people do not have an access to the Internet. On the other hand, people from developed countries are improving their technologies every day and developing countries can not follow them. Finally, the new technologies require new skills. Even if the new technologies would be fully implemented in
developing countries, it would be without any significance if the people do not have the skills necessary to use them.

Having in mind all these impacts of the ICTs on the modern society, it is hard to offer a clear statement whether the ICTs are facilitating development or exactly the opposite, aggravating development of the society. Since there are both advantages and disadvantages of the ICTs, the solution that takes the best parts of all impacts should be found. This should be a responsibility of, first of all, governments, but also, the responsibility of Internet Service Providers. The citizens from both developing and developed countries should have equal conditions for their development and the field of new technologies is one of the fields where these conditions should be improved.

HAVING shown the nature and tendency of charity or Christian love, in respect to our receiving injury, and doing good to others — that it “suffers long and is kind;” and also with respect to the good possessed by others as compared with that possessed by ourselves — that charity “envieth not;” the apostle now proceeds to show, that in reference to what we ourselves may be or have, charity is not proud — that “it vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly.” As, on the one hand, it prevents us from envying others what they possess, so, on the other, it keeps us from glorying in what we possess ourselves. Paul had just declared that charity was contrary to a spirit of envy, and now he declares that it is equally contrary to that spirit which specially provokes men to envy others, and which they often make a pretense or apology for envying them, viz. that they are puffed up with their honors and prosperity, and vaunt themselves on their possession of these things. When men have obtained prosperity, or are advanced, and others observe that they are puffed up and vaunt themselves in it, this tends to provoke envy, and make others uneasy at the sight of their prosperity. But if a man has prosperity or advancement, and yet does not vaunt himself or behave in an unseemly manner on account of it, this tends to reconcile others to his high circumstances, and make them satisfied that he should enjoy his elevation. As already observed, when men envy another, they are prone to excuse and justify themselves in so doing, by the pretense that he does not make a good improvement of his prosperity, but is proud of it, and puffed up on account of it. But the apostle shows how Christian love, or charity, tends to make all behave suitably to their condition, whatever it may be: if below others, not to envy them, and if above others, not to be proud or puffed up with the prosperity.

In the words of the text, we may observe, that a spirit of Christian love is spoken of as the opposite of a proud behavior, and that two degrees of such a behavior are mentioned. The higher degree is expressed by a man’s “vaunting himself, ” that is, by his so carrying himself as to show plainly that he glories in what he has, or is. The lower degree is expressed by his “behaving himself unseemly, ” that is, by his not conducting himself in a becoming and decent manner in the enjoyment of his prosperity, but so acting as to show that he thinks the mere fact of his being prosperous exalts him above others. And the spirit of charity or love is spoken of, as opposed not only to a proud behavior, but to a proud spirit, or pride in the heart, for charity “is not puffed up.” The doctrine we are taught, then, in these words, is this:

THAT THE SPIRIT OF CHARITY, OR CHRISTIAN LOVE, IS AN HUMBLE SPIRIT.

In speaking to this doctrine, I would show — I. What humility is; and, II. How a Christian spirit, or the spirit of charity, is an humble spirit. And,

I. I would show what humility is. — Humility may be defined to be a habit of mind and heart corresponding to our comparative unworthiness and vileness before God, or a sense of our own comparative meanness in his sight, with the disposition to a behavior answerable thereto. It consists partly in the understanding, or in the thought and knowledge we have of ourselves, partly in the will, partly in the sense or estimate we have of ourselves, and partly in the disposition we have to a behavior answerable to this sense or estimate. And the first thing in humility is,

1. A sense of our own comparative meanness. — I say comparative meanness, because humility is a grace proper for beings that are glorious and excellent in very many respects. Thus the saints and angels in heaven excel in humility, and humility is proper and suitable in them, though they are pure, spotless, and glorious beings, perfect in holiness, and excelling in mind and strength. But though they are thus glorious, yet they have a comparative meanness before God, of which they are sensible; for he is said (Psa. 113:6) to humble himself to behold the things that are in heaven. So the man Christ Jesus, who is the most excellent and glorious of all creatures, is yet meek and lowly of heart, and excels all other beings in humility. Humility is one of the excellencies of Christ, because he is not only God, but man, and as a man he was humble. For humility is not, and cannot be, an attribute of the divine nature. God’s nature is indeed infinitely opposite to pride, and yet humility cannot properly be predicated of him. For if it could, this would argue imperfection, which is impossible in God. God, who is infinite in excellence and glory, and infinitely above all things, cannot have any comparative meanness, and of course cannot have any such comparative meanness to be sensible of, and therefore cannot be humble. But humility is an excellence proper to all created intelligent beings, for they are all infinitely little and mean before God, and most of them are in some way mean and low in comparison with some of their fellow creatures. Humility implies a compliance with that rule of the apostle (Rom. 12:3), that we think not of ourselves more highly than we ought to think, but that we think soberly, according as God hath dealt to everyone of us the measure, not only of faith, but of other things. And this humility, as a virtue in men, implies a sense of their own comparative meanness, both as compared with God and as compared with their fellow creatures. And,

First, humility doth primarily and chiefly consist in a sense of our meanness as compared with God, or a sense of the infinite distance there is between God and ourselves. We are little, despicable creatures, even worms of the dust, and we should feel that we are as nothing, and less than nothing, in comparison with the Majesty of heaven and earth. Such a sense of his nothingness Abraham expressed, when he said (Gen. 18:27), “Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes.” There is no true humility without somewhat of this Spirit; for, however sensible we may be of our meanness as compared with some of our fellow creatures, we are not truly humble unless we have a sense of our nothingness as compared with God. Some have a low thought of themselves as compared with other men: from the meanness of their circumstances, or from a melancholy and desponding temperament which is natural to them, or from some other cause, while still they know nothing of the infinite distance there is between them and God. Though they may be ready to look upon themselves as humble-spirited, yet they have no true humility. That which above all other things it concerns us to know of ourselves, is what we are in comparison with God, who is our Creator, and the one in whom we live, and move, and have our being, and who is infinitely perfect in all things. And if we are ignorant of our meanness as compared with him, then the most essential thing, and that which is indispensable in true humility, is wanting. But where this is truly felt, there arises from it,

Secondly, a sense of our own meanness as compared with many of our fellow creatures. — For man is not only a mean creature in comparison with God, but he is very mean as compared with multitudes of creatures of a superior rank in the universe, and most men are mean in comparison with many of their fellowmen. And when a sense of this comparative meanness arises from a just sense of our meanness as God sees it, then it is of the nature of true humility. He that has a right sense and estimate of himself in comparison with God, will be likely to have his eyes open to see himself aright in all respects. Seeing truly how he stands with respect to the first and highest of all beings, will tend greatly to help him to a just apprehension of the place he stands in among creatures. And he that does not rightly know the first and greatest of beings, who is the fountain and source of all other beings, cannot truly know anything aright; but so far as he has come to a knowledge of the former, so far is he prepared for and led unto the knowledge of other things, and so of himself as related to others, and as standing among them.

All this would apply to men considered as unfallen beings, and would have been true of our race if our first parents had not fallen, and thus involved their posterity in sin. But humility in fallen men implies a sense of a tenfold meanness, both before God and men. Man’s natural meanness consists in his being infinitely below God in natural perfection, and in God’s being infinitely above him in greatness, power, wisdom, majesty, etc. And a truly humble man is sensible of the small extent of his own knowledge, and the great extent of his ignorance, and of the small extent of his understanding as compared with the understanding of God. He is sensible of his weakness. How little his strength is, and how little he is able to do. He is sensible of his natural distance from God: of his dependence on him, [and] of the insufficiency of his own power and wisdom, and that it is by God’s power that he is upheld and provided for, and that he needs God’s wisdom to lead and guide him, and his might to enable him to do what he ought to do for him. He is sensible of his subjection to God, and that God’s greatness does properly consist in his authority, whereby he is the sovereign Lord and King over all. He is willing to be subject to that authority, as feeling that it becomes him to submit to the divine will, and yield in all things to God’s authority. Man had this sort of comparative littleness before the fall. He was then infinitely little and mean in comparison with God. But his natural meanness has become much greater since the fall, for the moral ruin of his nature has greatly impaired his natural faculties, though it has not extinguished them.

The truly humble man, since the fall, is also sensible of his moral meanness and vileness. This consists in his sinfulness. His natural meanness is his littleness as a creature, [while] his moral meanness is his vileness and filthiness as a sinner. Unfallen man was infinitely distant from God in his natural qualities or attributes. Fallen man is infinitely distant from him also as sinful, and thus filthy. And a truly humble person is in some measure sensible of his comparative meanness in this respect, that he sees how exceedingly polluted he is before an infinitely holy God, in whose sight the heavens are not clean. He sees how pure God is, and how filthy and abominable he is before him. Such a sense of his comparative meanness Isaiah had, when he saw God’s glory, and cried out (Isa. 6:5), “Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.” An humble sense of our meanness in this respect implies self-abhorrence, such as led Job to exclaim (Job 42:5, 6), “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear; but now mine eye seeth thee: wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” It implies, also, such contrition and brokenness of heart as David speaks of when he says (Psa. 51:17), “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise;” and such, too, as Isaiah contemplated when he declared (Isa. 57:15), “Thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.” And both the sense of our own littleness, and the sense of our moral vileness before God, are implied in that poverty of spirit which the Savior speaks of when he says (Mat. 5:3), “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

And in order to this sense of our own meanness and unworthiness that is implied in humility, it is not only necessary that we should know God, and have a sense of his greatness, without which we cannot know ourselves, but we must have a right sense also of his excellence and loveliness. The devils and damned spirits see a great deal of God’s greatness, of his wisdom, omnipotence, etc. God makes them sensible of it by what they see in his dealings, and feel in their own sufferings. However unwilling they are to know it, God makes them know how much he is above them now, and they shall know and feel it still more, at and after the judgment. But they have no humility, nor will they ever have, because, though they see and feel God’s greatness, yet they see and feel nothing of his loveliness. And without this there can be no true humility, for that cannot exist unless the creature feels his distance from God, not only with respect to his greatness, but also his loveliness. The angels amid ransomed spirits in heaven see both these things: not only how much greater God is than they are, but how much more lovely he is also. So that, though they have no absolute defilement and filthiness, as fallen men have, yet, as compared with God, it is said (Job 15:15, and 4:18), “The heavens are not clean in his sight, ” and “his angels he charged with folly.” From such a sense of their comparative meanness, persons are made sensible how unworthy they are of God’s mercy or gracious notice. Such a sense Jacob expressed, when he said (Gen. 32:10), “I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies, and of all the truth which thou hast showed unto thy servant;” and David, when he exclaimed (2 Sam. 7:18), “Who am I, O Lord God? and what is my house, that thou hast brought me hitherto?” And such a sense have all who are truly humble before God. But as humility consists in a sense of our comparative meanness, so it implies,

2. A disposition to a corresponding behavior and conduct. — Without this there is no true humility. If it could be so that our understanding could be enlightened to see our own meanness, and at the same time the will and disposition of the soul did not comply with and conform to that which is answerable to our sense of it, but opposed it, then there would be no humility. As was just now said, the devils and damned spirits see much of their comparative littleness before God in some respects. They know that God is infinitely above them in power, and knowledge, and majesty. And yet, not knowing and feeling his loveliness and excellence, their wills and dispositions by no means comply with and conform to what is becoming their meanness, and so they have no humility, but are full of pride. Without pretending to mention everything in our behavior answerable to a proper sense of our meanness and vileness to which humility would dispose us — for that would include the whole of our duty toward God and man — I would specify some things that are worthy of notice, both in reference to God and in reference to man. And,

First, some things in our behavior toward God to which humility will dispose us. As the first of these, humility disposes a person heartily and freely to acknowledge his meanness or littleness before God. He sees how fit and suitable it is that he should do this, and he does it willingly, and even with delight. He freely confesses his own nothingness and vileness, and owns himself unworthy of any mercy, and deserving of all misery. It is the disposition of the humble soul, to lie low before God, and to humble himself in the dust in his presence. Humility also disposes one to be distrustful of himself, and to depend only on God. The proud man, that has a high opinion of his own wisdom, or strength, or righteousness, is self-confident. But the humble are not disposed to trust in themselves, but are diffident of their own sufficiency. It is their disposition to rely on God, and with delight to cast themselves wholly on him as their refuge, and righteousness, and strength. The humble man is further disposed to renounce all the glory of the good he has or does, and to give it all to God. If there be anything that is good in him, or any good done by him, it is not his disposition to glory or vaunt himself in it before God, but to ascribe all to God, and in the language of the Psalmist (Psa. 115:1) to say, “Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy and thy truth’s sake.” It is the disposition, again, of the humble person, wholly to subject himself to God. His heart is not opposed to a full and absolute subjection to the divine will, but inclined to it. He is disposed to be subject to the commands and laws of God, for he sees it to be right and best that he who is so infinitely inferior to God, should be thus subject; and that it is an honor that belongs to God, to reign over, and give laws to him. And he is equally disposed to be subject to the providence and daily disposal of God, and to submit cheerfully to his will as manifested in what he orders for him. Though God orders affliction, and low and depressed circumstances, as his lot in the world, he does not murmur, but feeling his meanness and unworthiness, he is sensible that afflictive and trying dispensations are what he deserves, and that his circumstances are better than he merits. And however dark the divine dealings, with the faith which we so often see manifested in those who are eminent in grace, he is ready to say with Job (Job 13:15), “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.” And as humility implies a disposition to such a behavior toward God, so,

Secondly, it disposes to a behavior toward men answerable to our comparative meanness. And this I shall show by pointing out what kind of behavior humility tends to prevent. And it tends, in the first place, to prevent an aspiring and ambitious behavior amongst men. The man that is under the influence of an humble spirit, is content with such a situation amongst men as God is pleased to allot to him, and is not greedy of honor, and does not affect to appear uppermost and exalted above his neighbors. He acts on the principle of that saying of the prophet (Jer. 45:5), “Seekest thou great things for thyself? Seek them not;” and also of that injunction of the apostle (Rom. 12:16), “Mind not high things.” Humility tends also to prevent an ostentatious behavior. If the truly humble man has any advantage or benefit of any kind, either temporal or spiritual, above his neighbors, he will not affect to make a show of it. If he has greater natural abilities than others, he will not be forward to parade and display them, or be careful that others shall know his superiority in this respect. If he has a remarkable spiritual experience, he will not be solicitous that men should know it for the sake of the honor he may obtain by it; nor does he affect to be esteemed of men as an eminent saint and a faithful servant of heaven, for it is a small thing with him what men may think of him. If he does anything well, or does his duty in any respect with difficulty and self-denial, he does not affect that men should take notice of it, nor is he careful lest they should not observe it. He is not of the behavior of the Pharisees, who, it is said (Mat. 23:5), did all their works to be seen of men; but if he has done anything in sincerity, he is content that the great Being who sees in secret beholds and will approve it.

Humility tends also to prevent an arrogant and assuming behavior. He that is under the influence of an humble spirit is not forward to take too much upon him, and when he is amongst others, he does not carry it toward them as if he expected and insisted that a great deal of regard should be shown to himself. His behavior does not carry with it the idea that he is the best amongst those about him, and that he is the one to whom the chief regard should be shown, and whose judgment is most to be sought and followed. He does not carry it as if he expected that everybody should bow and truckle to him, and give place to him, as if no one was of as much consequence as himself. He does not put on assuming airs in his common conversation, nor in the management of his business, nor in the duties of religion. He is not forward to take upon himself that which does not belong to him, as though he had power where indeed he has not, as if the earth ought to be subject to his bidding, and must comply with his inclination and purposes. On the contrary, he gives all due deference to the judgment and inclinations of others, and his behavior carries with it the impression, that he sincerely receives and acts on that teaching of the apostle (Phil. 2:3), “Let nothing be done through strife or vain-glory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” In talking of the things of religion, he has not the air, either in his speech or behavior, of one that esteems himself one of the best saints in the whole company, but he rather carries himself as if he thought, in the expression of the apostle (Eph. 3:8), that he was “less than the least of all saints.”

Humility tends also to prevent a scornful behavior. Treating others with scorn and contempt is one of the worst and most offensive manifestations of pride toward them. But they that are under the influence of an humble spirit are far from such a behavior. They do not despise or look down on those that are below them with a haughty supercilious air, as though they were scarce worthy to come nigh them or to have any regard from them. They are sensible that there is no such vast difference between themselves and their fellowmen as warrants such a behavior. They are not found treating with scorn and contempt what others say, or speaking of what they do with ridicule and sneering reflections, or sitting and relating what others may have spoken or done, only to make sport of it. On the contrary, humility disposes a person to a condescending behavior to the meekest and lowest, and to treat inferiors with courtesy and affability, as being sensible of his own weakness and despicableness before God, and that it is God alone that makes him in any respect to differ from others, or gives him the advantage over them. The truly humble will (Rom. 12:16) always have the spirit to “condescend to men of low estate.” Even if they are great men, and in places of public trust and honor, humility will dispose them to treat their inferiors in such a manner as has been spoken of, and not in a haughty and scornful manner, as vaunting themselves on their greatness.

Humility tends also to prevent a willful and stubborn behavior. They that are under the influence of an humble spirit will not set up their own will either in public or private affairs. They will not be stiff and inflexible, and insist that everything must go according to what they happen first to propose, and manifest a disposition by no means to be easy, but to make all the difficulty they can, and to make others uneasy as well as themselves, and to prevent anything being done with any quietness, if it be not according to their own mind and will. They are not as some that the apostle Peter describes (2 Pet. 2:10), presumptuous and self-willed, always bent on carrying their own points, and, if this cannot be done, then bent on opposing and annoying others. On the contrary, humility disposes men to be of a yielding spirit to others, ready, for the sake of peace, and to gratify others, to comply in many things with their inclinations, and to yield to their judgments wherein they are not inconsistent with truth and holiness. A truly humble man is inflexible in nothing but in the cause of his Lord and Master, which is the cause of truth and virtue. In this he is inflexible, because God and conscience require it. But in things of lesser moment, and which do not involve his principles as a follower of Christ, and in things that only concern his own private interests, he is apt to yield to others. And if he sees that others are stubborn and unreasonable in their willfulness, he does not allow that to provoke him to be stubborn and willful in his opposition to them, but he rather acts on the principles taught in such passages as Rom. 12:19; 1 Cor. 6:7; Mat. 5:40, 41; “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath.” “Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?” “If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.”

Humility will further tend to prevent a leveling behavior. Some persons are always ready to level those above them down to themselves, while they are never willing to level those below them up to their own position. But he that is under the influence of humility will avoid both these extremes. On the one hand, he will be willing that all should rise just so far as their diligence and worth of character entitle them to, and on the other hand, he will be willing that his superiors should be known and acknowledged in their place, and have rendered to them all the honors that are their due. He will not desire that all should stand upon the same level, for he knows it is best that there should be gradations in society: that some should be above others, and should be honored and submitted to as such. And therefore he is willing to be content with this divine arrangement, and, agreeably to it, to conform both his spirit and behavior to such precepts as the following: “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour” (Rom. 13:7); “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work” (Titus 3:1).

Humility also tends, once more, to prevent a self-justifying behavior. He that is under the influence of an humble spirit, if he has fallen into a fault, as all are liable at some time to fall, or if in anything he has injured another, or dishonored the Christian name and character, will be willing to acknowledge his fault, and take the shame of it to himself. He will not be hard to be brought to a sense of his fault, nor to testify that sense by a suitable acknowledgment of his error. He will be inwardly humbled for it, and ready to show his humility in the manner which the apostle points out, when he says (Jam. 5:16), “Confess your faults one to another.” It is pride that makes men so exceedingly backward to confess their fault when they have fallen into one, and that makes them think that to be their shame which is in truth their highest honor. But humility in the behavior makes men prompt to their duty in this respect, and if it prevails as it should, will lead them to do it with alacrity and even delight. And when anyone shall give such a person a Christian admonition or reproof for any fault, humility will dispose him to take it kindly, and even thankfully. It is pride that makes men to be so uneasy when they are reproved by any of their neighbors, so that oftentimes they will not bear it, but become angry, and manifest great bitterness of spirit. Humility, on the contrary, will dispose them not only to tolerate such reproofs, but to esteem and prize them as marks of kindness and friendship. “Let the righteous smite me, ” says the Psalmist (Psa. 141:5), “it shall be a kindness; and let him reprove me, it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head.”

Having thus shown what humility is in its nature, and to what it will lead us both in spirit and behavior, in respect both to God and to our fellowmen, I proceed, as proposed, to show,

In the application of this subject we may see,

1. The excellency of a Christian spirit. — “The righteous, ” it is said (Pro. 12:26), “is more excellent than his neighbour.” And much of this excellence in the true Christian consists in his meek and lowly spirit, which makes him so like his Savior. This spirit the apostle speaks of (1 Pet. 3:4) as the richest of all ornaments, “even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” The subject should lead us,

2. To examine ourselves, and see if we are indeed of an humble spirit. — “His soul, ” says the prophet (Hab. 2:4), “which is lifted up, is not upright in him;” and the fact that “God resisteth the proud” (Jam. 4:6), or, as in the original, “sets himself in battle array against him, ” shows how he abhors a proud spirit. And it is not every show and appearance of humility that will stand the test of the gospel. There are various imitations of it that fall short of the reality. Some put on an affected humility. Others have a natural low-spiritedness, and are wanting in manliness of character. Others are melancholy or despondent, [while] others, under the convictions of conscience, by which, for the time, they are depressed, seem broken in spirit. Others seem greatly abased while in adversity and affliction, or have a natural melting of the heart under the common illuminations of the truth. In others, there is a counterfeit kind of humility, wrought by the delusions of Satan: and all of these may be mistaken for true humility. Examine yourself, then, and see what is the nature of your humility, whether it be of these superficial kinds, or whether it be indeed wrought by the Holy Spirit in your hearts. Do not rest satisfied, till you find that the spirit and behavior of those whom the gospel accounts humble, are yours.

3. The subject exhorts those who are strangers to the grace of God, to seek that grace, that they may thus attain to this spirit of humility. — If such be your character, you are now destitute of a Christian spirit, which is a spirit of grace, and so wholly destitute of humility. Your spirit is a proud spirit, and though you may not seem to carry yourself very proudly amongst men, yet you are lifting yourself up against God, in refusing to submit your heart and life to him. And in doing this, you are disregarding or defying God’s sovereignty, and daring to contend with your Maker, though he dreadfully threatens those who do this. You are proudly casting contempt on God’s authority, in refusing obey it and continuing to live in disobedience, in refusing to be conformed to his will and to comply with the humbling conditions and way of salvation by Christ, and in trusting to your own strength and righteousness, instead of that which Christ so freely offers. Now, as to such a spirit, consider that this is, in an especial sense, the sin of devils. “Not a novice, ” says the apostle (1 Tim. 3:6), “lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil.” And consider, too, how odious and abominable such a spirit is to God, and how terribly he has threatened it; declaring (Pro. 16:5) that “every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished;” and again (Pro. 6:16), “These things doth the Lord hate: a proud look, ” etc.; and again (Pro. 29:23), that “a man’s pride shall bring him low;” and (2 Sam. 22:28) that the eyes of the Lord are upon the haughty, that he may bring them down; and still again (Isa. 23:9), that “the Lord of hosts hath purposed it, to stain the pride of all glory, and to bring into contempt all the honourable of the earth.” Consider, too, how Pharaoh, and Korah, and Haman, and Belshazzar, and Herod, were awfully punished for their pride of heart and conduct. Be admonished, by their example, to cherish an humble spirit, and to walk humbly with God, and toward men.

This company gave us support.Some companies just get it. They understand that nonprofits are out there fighting to make the world a better place, so they institute corporate giving programs that provide more funds, in more ways, to more organizations.

Two popular ways that companies donate to nonprofits are:

Matching gift programs – Corporations match employee donations to eligible nonprofits, thus doubling or tripling donations.
Volunteer grant programs – Businesses award money to nonprofits in exchange for employee efforts at those nonprofits.
Like Tom Brady with a football, some companies make corporate giving look easy, and they accomplish great feats as if doing so is simply in their nature. Below are five companies that deserve an MVP trophy for corporate philanthropy.

1. Apple
CEO Tim Cook became Apple’s head honcho in April 2011 and almost immediately instituted a program to match employee donations. In the time since, Apple has matched over $25 million worth of employee donations, resulting in more than $50 million for charities around the world.

In October 2014, Apple informed employees that it will expand its corporate giving program to include all countries in which it has a presence, which extends the program from U.S.-based nonprofits and a handful of organizations in other nations. Apple also announced that its volunteer grant program will give employees $25 per hour for their respective organizations.

Silicon Valley companies have been criticized for a lack of corporate philanthropy, although companies may just differ in how they donate. While Tim Cook is adamant about employees dictating where Apple donates, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg separates his business from his philanthropy. He and his wife gave $120 million to help local schools in 2014, which demonstrates his propensity to acquire wealth and share it personally rather than to donate through corporate giving.

Apple will match employee donations up to $10, 000 per year, and most 501(c)(3) organizations or equivalent organizations are eligible to receive matching gifts.

2. Google
Normal companies don’t offer diverse giving options, but Google is not a normal company. With offices in 70 cities and more than 40 countries, Google’s philanthropy has a deep global reach from New York, to the U.K., to Germany and more.

Google could not give as much as it does without enthusiastic, benevolent employees. Last year, more than 6, 500 Google employees volunteered nearly 80, 000 hours of service. In total, Google has matched $21 million in employee donations to over 9, 000 organizations worldwide.

Google’s community programs include:

Bay Area Giving: Proud to support local nonprofits that strengthen the community, Google has given over $60 million to Bay Area nonprofits over the past three years.
Code for America: In an effort to provide better technological support for governments that are slow to embrace technology, Google provides Code for America with an annual gift of $3 million to develop civic technological solutions.
Roberta: Google believes that robots are a fun, effective way to teach children foundational technological concepts, so they funded Germany’s Fraunhofer Institute for Intelligent Analysis and Information Systems to help them develop technology to program and control robots using a smartphone app.
Programming Education Gathering: Google donated more than 5, 000 Raspberry Pi computers in order to provide a computer science education to more than 25, 000 Japanese children.
Raspberry Pi: A $1 million Google grant will give Raspberry Pi computers — inexpensive microcomputers about the size of a credit card — to 15, 000 U.K. children who show exceptional enthusiasm for computer science.
3. Microsoft
In 1983, 200 Microsoft employees raised $17, 000 for nonprofits through the company’s first employee giving program. Thanks to matching gifts, Microsoft employees have since donated over $1 billion to charitable organizations. That’s a lot of computers.

But maybe it’s not a lot of computers, because Microsoft saves nonprofits from having to spend too much on technology through product donations. In 2014, over 86, 000 organizations in more than 125 countries received technology donations. The gifts ranged from computers to software to refurbished hardware in an effort to affordably bring nonprofits into the 21st century.

Microsoft also offers a volunteer match program, which began in 2005. Nonprofits receive $25 per hour when Microsoft employees volunteer for at least four hours.

For regular matching gifts, Microsoft employees may submit matching gift requests for donations up to $15, 000 per year, which is one reason Microsoft is consistently included in the listing of top matching gift programs.

4. PepsiCo
Pepsi is a food and beverage powerhouse, which is why its philanthropy prioritizes related causes, including:

Healthy lifestyles
Affordable nutrition
Access to clean water
Sustainable agriculture
Job readiness
Empowering women
Pepsi offers to match gifts up to $10, 000 per year per employer, and it matches at a 2:1 ratio if the employee volunteers more than 50 hours with a single organization. Otherwise, Pepsi matches 1:1.

Pepsi employees strive to improve communities through a number of programs including:

PepsiCorps: This skill-based volunteer program places Pepsi employees in communities from Ghana, to India, to New Mexico, to aid with projects that relate to Pepsi’s corporate giving initiatives.
Mother Water Cellar Project in Greater China Region: Pepsi volunteers helped to construct a water purification tower for the benefit of over 700 students and teachers at a school in southwest China.
Food for Good: Started by employees in 2009, Food for Good has served over 1.6 million free, nutritious meals to inner-city children.
Pepsi also prides itself on strategic grants, through which it donates about $25 million per year. The company loves to support water sanitation efforts, and tends to give large gifts to organizations that are established enough to deliver potable water to millions of people.

5. Shell
Like Pepsi, Shell also supports the community in a big way.

Through a long-standing philanthropic relationship, Shell has donated more than $24.8 million dollars to the University of Texas at Austin. In 2012, Shell and UT signed a five-year, $7.5 million deal to address challenges facing the growing worldwide oil and gas industry. Most of the money will go to research, but nearly half a million dollars will support UT students and programs.

To empower employees, Shell offers a matching gift program. The company matches employee donations between $25 and $5, 500 at a 1:1 ratio.

Matching gifts have helped Shell to pursue several philanthropic goals. As of the end of 2014, Shell donations have helped to create more than 35, 000 jobs, saved 6.2 million metric tons of CO2, and raised $5 billion for organizations in four continents.

—

In 2013, more than $335 billion worth of charitable donations were given to nonprofits, and 15 percent of that came from company foundations. Giving by foundations also increased by 5.7 percent from the previous year. When it comes to charitable giving, corporations matter, and the funds they give are a significant portion of the giving pie. Whether it’s through matching gifts, volunteer grants or related charitable initiatives, it’s good to see that some of the world’s largest companies believe in philanthropy and lead by example.

The five above companies are some of the most successful companies in the world. And charitable giving as a core value benefits their bottom line in more ways than just community appreciation.

We hope that employees and companies continue to give back to nonprofits to not only better their local communities, but also improve their business results.

This year, companies saw an average of 160 successful cyber attacks per week, more than three times the 2010 average of 50 per week.

This focus on dissuasion and defense, especially when it comes to space and cyber, is reflected in the array of U.S. government strategic documents including the National Security Space Strategy, the National Space Policy, the U.S. National Security Strategy, and the U.S. National Military Strategy. The American focus seems to be on deterrence in space—in particular, on deterring an opponent from attacking our own space assets. The same sort of logic appears to be developing regarding cyber, as reflected in the recent Department of Defense Cyber Strategy and the earlier Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative.
In each of these respects, the People’s Republic of China has a very different perspective. Whereas for the United States the very act of deterring an opponent or multiple opponents from acting in certain ways is seen as serving U.S. interests, deterrence in the Chinese view is a means rather than an end. This is because the Chinese concept of weishe, which is typically translated as “deterrence, ” embodies both “dissuasion” and “coercion.” Coercion, in turn, is typically in the service of some other goal: One does not simply coerce an adversary; one coerces an adversary to get them to do something that one wants. Thus, the Chinese would employ weishe as the means, whether dissuasive or coercive, to persuade an opponent to follow a course of action that accords with larger Chinese strategic objectives.

All of these conditions make traditional extended deterrence with land, sea, and air forces difficult. The incorporation of cyberspace and outer space, however, does not necessarily mark a qualitative change in terms of deterring broad military threats to American allies. Indeed, given the Chinese view that future “local wars under informationized conditions” will be joint operations involving operations on land, sea, and air, in outer space, and in the electromagnetic spectrum, including cyberspace, the PRC views future weishe requirements in a way that resembles “extended cross-domain deterrence.” That is, the PRC will seek to employ all the various forces and capabilities in pursuit of its ends; therefore, the United States should be thinking about extended deterrent measures that similarly embody all of its capabilities, including land, sea, air, outer space, cyber, and nuclear forces.
Should the PRC threaten to engage in broad actions against an ally or friend, it is not clear that the extended deterrent challenges confronting the United States would be fundamentally different because of the added domains of outer space and cyberspace.

I know that is the biggest problem here.

The international climate of cyber security is dramatically changing and thus unpredictable. As such, agile yet sustainable solutions are needed, along with an effective and a pragmatic evaluation framework to assess and demonstrate the value and efficacy of international development collaboration. Currently, no mature frameworks are available for evaluating such non-conventional, new, and complex international activities as they exist today, and thus this study aims to provide an innovative and pragmatic approach to study cybersecurity.

Many problems in cyber security are becoming complicated and global. In July 2009, one-third of South Korea’s websites were knocked out over a period of a week by distributed cyber attacks. This attack was sophisticatedly designed with a series of hierarchy. This single crisis involved computers over 75 countries and is one of the most common types of cyber attacks, DDos (Distributed Denial of Service). International activities for improving cyber security have been underinvested. This is because the benefits of the activities are mostly spillover effects and easily overlooked. Public sectors are still searching for strong justifications to take actions and need more financial and human resources. Private sectors lack incentives to participate in public good projects

Both international philanthropic activities and Cyber security area have intrinsic limitations on engaging other actors because their benefits are largely distributed and the costs concentrated. Those underestimated benefits and cost burdens discourage the participation of private companies and weaken the justification of public sectors for launching international initiatives in the Cybersecurity area.

This company and so many others have problems in cyber security and now are becoming complicated and global. In July 2009, onethird of South Korea’s websites were knocked out over a period of a week by distributed cyber attacks. This attack was sophisticatedly designed with a series of hierarchy--a 'host computer' which sent attack commands to infected computers, 748 intermediate 'handlers' over 72 countries, which are infected by the host and distributed the infection, and 'agents' which are a large number of zombie PCs. Along with this chain of command, a hacker could control 130, 000 zombie PCs and ordered them to attack target servers in Korea. This single crisis involved computers over 75 countries and is one of the most common types of cyber attacks, DDos (Distributed Denial of Service) 1. The story shows that cyber crimes are becoming complicated and globalized. We are connected and cyber security problems are border-less. To address those types of the emerging cyber problems, we need internationally cooperative solutions.

I post this two times just to see and understand what is the main problem.

I understood but how to reduce the demage?

To reduce the damage of cyber security crimes and incidents, simply monitoring traffic in a country is not helpful. Cyber security issues are not only public goods but also ‘global public goods’2, whose externalities span the world. Its impacts bring enormous spillover externalities but are widely distributed over the countries. With concentrated cost and diffuse benefit, no entity will volunteer to solve this problem. Given their limited resources, most organizations should optimize their operations by choosing the most effective solutions. Decisions, either for policy or business, need to be the ‘right decisions.’

How can we evaluate decisions?

The most traditional method is cost-benefit analysis, used in conventional business as well as international development programs, notably by World Bank. In addition, cost-benefit analysis has evolved to deal with ever-changing issues such as environmental problems; the cost-benefit analysis tries to include and internalize new context and value systems. Cybersecurity problems share many common characters with environmental problems. As cost-benefit analysis has been adapted to the environmental domain, this paper suggests an extended costbenefit analysis framework for cybersecurity. There has been insufficient investment in cybersecurity. With the traditional cost-benefit analysis, the benefits of international activities in cybersecurity have been overlooked because they bring not only benefits as public goods but also as global public goods.

Charles D'Alberto and his Perla Group International are SCAMS

Charles d'alberto is a Scammed. His family may be involved too.

https://truth4u.wixsite.com/dalberto-scam1

The numerous persons and companies that have previous filed legal action against Charles D’Alberto and Perla Group ( https://perlagrp.wordpress.com/ )

have redirected their claims to go after Perla’s remaining Corporate Members:

Mim D'Alberto
Marisa D'Alberto
Cristian D'Alberto
Elysa D'Alberto

Perla’s creditors have decided that if they can’t get Charles D’Alberto to pay his and Perla’s debts – they go after those Perla Members who aren’t hiding.

Charles D’Alberto can continue to hide in Lugano Switzerland and throw the other Perla Corporate Members under the bus – but justice will be served.

Legal proceedings have begun in Australia to go after Perla’s Corporate Members, excluding Charles D’Alberto.

Perla’s Corporate Members will surely regret their involvement with Charles D’Alberto and Perla’s illegal activities.