Coffin Economics: Are Companies Purposefully Wrecking Cybersecurity In Exchange For More Profits?

• This article was originally a 3-part publication; it is combined herein, into a single read, for your convenience. Some strong mental imagery in use.

Businesses, and lawmakers, are placing the burden of cybersecurity on the customer's shoulders, vs. where it should be—on theirs.

Especially among the industrial nations, the use of the internet ("world wide web"), and access to it, is no longer a matter of a luxury; it has been fully integrated into our lives, by design... in many cases, we were forced to rely on this infrastructure by the business service providers, and employers, who found it an effective solution to cut their overhead and increase their profits... think of e-billing, e-mail, e-banking, and cloud computing; furthermore, recall what it was like during the first years of the COVID-19 pandemic, and our reliance on remote work and remote education, as a few examples.

My work...

So, if you are of the many who've kept up with my work and shared articles, you would know that, since the early first decade of this century, I've been designing, researching, and bench-marking, a barrage of smart-home and cloud tech, and, of course, with that, researching the strategic cybersecurity and privacy concerns that are related to the deployment of such tools.

Over the past few months, I started tracking a notable issue... one, in my capacity as an IT & Business Consultant, which I consider a serious problem. Among the many layers of protection a person can, and in some cases, should, use to protect their privacy and the integrity of their internet traffic—as a matter of best practices, are Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), and the use thereof.

If you work remotely for any corporation, or in sensitive sectors such as the military, or government service, I am sure that you have been "forced" to subscribe to their chosen VPN service, so to continue to protect their most valuable asset: Information, including private (confidential) data that allows them to be distinguished and competitive, and, to also protect them from prospect lawsuits and other legal actions.

My thought: Why is your information not considered as important, in the same light, to the said entities'? Shortly, I will make the case for the fact that compromising either one, can lead to infiltrating the other.

Money, money, mowney!...

Yep! It seems that many service providers started blocking customers who access their subscribed-to services while using VPNs! I may appreciate one of the reasons for doing so, which is that of protecting against malicious actors trying to infiltrate their systems and exploit their services for "free" (customarily, by customers, themselves, sharing their access credentials with others), but, in reality, that excuse, to justify downgrading a customer's cybersecurity, is a farce.

many service providers are blocking customers who access their subscribed-to services while using VPNs!

Let's be real...

The reason they are doing so, is that, for near three decades, many entities that capitalize on e-commerce services have been raping you by monetizing your personal information—to be more specific, US$200-Billion worth of annual profits are generated through trading your information, while you remain relatively helpless to effectively stop them from exploiting you!

The more e-commerce, and social media, utilization became a norm in our society, the more belligerent these businesses became, in return, at exploiting our data, especially that, now, the cybersecurity protection tools that once were only within the financial reach of wealthy corporations, are becoming affordable for the use of the average masses who wish to guard their security, and privacy, in a world that's becoming more malicious in its desire to harvest said assets, without your consent (surveillance economy).

Among the billions of unconscious and uneducated humans—pertaining to this threat, of whom we can observe the largest sample using social media platforms such as Facebook, are people who will eternally be willful victims of the said existing system... in other-words, willful-ignorance is certainly NOT bliss, but a choice.

e-commerce services have been raping you by monetizing your personal information—US$200-Billion worth of annual profits, while you remain helpless to effectively stop them from exploiting you!

What these people choose not to realize is that if they don't care about their personal privacy, still, their lackadaisical consciousness and lack of interest towards the the outcomes of their choices can easily harm others in their lives— including, but not limited to their children's lives, grandchildren, and so on... impacting their choices in arenas such as the prospects for their future careers or that of government service... the [future] sons could be made to pay for the sins of their fathers!

Remember that "once in the internet, it's forever in the internet"—somewhere.

Blackmail and exploitation...

Today, from e-commerce [product shopping] sites to streaming video services, many will not allow you to access their subscription services, that you have actually paid for, if you do not voluntarily allow them full access to tracking you, your 'habits,' and your whereabouts, which is a persistent loophole that exists primarily due to the willful, if not malicious, ignorance of our politicians and regulators, and, in many cases, also, their corruption and collusion with said businesses and private intelligence entities.

"Let me get into your panties, else!..." ??

I think that a business denying its customers service, which they have paid for, becasue they refuse to allow them access to their private data is akin to a department manager, or a police officer, abusing their authority in order to blackmail customers for sexual favors...

... "only if you have sex with me, I'll put that word in for your promotion"...

... "only if you have sex with me, I will not arrest and take you to jail"...

... This is corruption of the worst kind... a human debasing, bullying, massively exploiting, kind of corruption, but at a global scale! Actually, I think that it is the global scale of it all that makes it so challenging for many people to wrap their minds around the problem and acknowledge its existence.

The rule that these exploiters have set, and operate by, is the fundamental principle that states: "I can do that unto you, and thy better like it, but if you do it onto me, I shall destroy ye, and I will, forever, destroy yon reputation in the world, too!"... does that motto remind you of another business model? That of credit reporting agencies!

The regulators we trusted with our well-being are the ones who've betrayed us the most, and—as I see it, said [legally 'bribed'] regulators and politicians must be tarred and feathered in return, and life examples made of them to deter others... they are the ones who empower, and act as a cover for, these acts of blackmail and rape!

Stop! In the name of love... Back doors...

Some communities, such as in the European Union (EU), have enforced strong laws to protect their populous from such intrusions and immoral exploitation. If not for caring for their populous, for the fact that they actually became very aware that such threats to their citizens can easily turn into exploitable national security threats, too.

However, ironically, the U.S.–E.U. Safe Harbor Principles, developed between 1998 and 2000, effectively expose European users to privacy exploitation by U.S. companies! Go figure.

The U.S.–E.U. Safe Harbor Principles, developed between 1998 and 2000, effectively expose European users to privacy exploitation by U.S. companies! Go figure.

Being—very necessarily—candid...

Here at home, in the US, while we keep hearing critiques of the UK, Chinese, and Russian governments—among others—for their IT surveillance of their populations, our government is not doing any less... they, in the spirit of Capitalism, just outsource the job to for-profit corporations, adding to the costs, and lowering the standards and accountability! How laughable is this?!

At least, specifically, the Chinese government is transparent—in regards to this—and upfront with their citizens, where our government insistently tell us that they're—metaphorically—making love to us, while they're actually raping us!

Several whistleblowers, like Edward Snowden, but not limited to him, attempted to expose this costly hypocrisy—to our way of life, but the masses... well... are massive-asses.

Please note that my stance herein is not about my ethical compass, but about the sensible, technical, strategic understanding of the threats, and the best solutions to bridge the gaps. In the words of Mr. Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Case-in-point...

A simple demonstration of how quickly such data-tracking can impact national security, was after Strava fitness tracker data was shared on social media, which revealed the location of U.S. bases and soldier patrol routes! Truly, as the proverb goes: "the worst of all things, often, make you laugh the most [from irony]!"

Wrongly, placing the burden on the customer

Most consumers are neither equipped to understand the need for, or scope of, cybersecurity solutions, the methodology of their integration, or are qualified to do so, especially among members of a plug-n-play nation where 75% of American students heard their parents say "I hate math!" and over 54% of Americans cannot read and comprehend at an 8th Grade level!

When we pay for a service (digital e-commerce), in the modern phase of the age of globalization, we should have full access to it from anyplace we are at, without compromising our safety (privacy and cyber-security), and that of family and loved-ones.

When a streaming service streams a film to Dallas, Texas, or Paris, France, it doesn't cost them a bit more... they do not pay more for the infrastructure needed to carry the signal over the internet... the only reason this would bother them is that if they are colluding with the internet service providers (ISPs), in a model similar to that of the "General Motors streetcar conspiracy" of the 1940s. Can you perceive any other informed reason?

Many businesses are ethical, and others will do their best to maximize their pleasure of making profits in anyway possible, including that of raping their customers... think of Enron, an issue I've discussed in past articles, especially those addressing the use of short-term thinking where long-term thinking is needed, and then, a more recent example, of many, is Boeing.

Like with most prospect rape victims, mentally, they are not expecting to be exploited by those they come in contact with in their daily interactions, so, generally, most will not raise their guard... most people tend to be trusting by default. Hence, we can't count on human nature for protection, and that is why a layer of laws and regulations, to enforce a form of tangible accountability must be enacted; it is for reasons exactly as such that we developed the idea of enacting regulations as part of any human society.

Keep in mind, just like with abuse, including rape, there are also those victims who develop a coping mechanism described as the "Stockholm Syndrome," where, in this case, the victim empathizes with the businesses exploiting them, and allows them to continue to do so, defending their practices and even trying to recruit others to fall into the webs of said entity... Facebook serves as an excellent case-in-point, among a few other tools.

The intention of exploiting customers was implanted into the framework from the beginning

For context, chronologically and spatially, we are now in the second decade of the 21st Century. The internet has been accessible to the masses since 1993 (that's when I got on to the world wide web—WWW), and e-commerce by 1995. Cloud computing became a norm around 2005. Data-mining as a tool (Knowledge Discovery Databases—KDD) was first introduced in 1989, at GTE Laboratories.

During the early 2000s—when I was running my consulting partnership, Zyforia, I was invited to a small private meeting, in Dallas, Texas, with decision-makers and marketers from IBM to discuss the future of Cloud Computing and e-commerce, and to address any prospect concerns that may arise in the future, to which on top of my list were my concerns about cybersecurity and the privacy of data.

To date, I clearly recall the IBM representatives dismissing such concerns, even though they had no technical arguments to back their dismissals with, and chose to use "argument by pigheadedness" and argumentum ad lapidem. They kept returning the focus, dramatically, to the subject of "look at all the money you can make!"

Cyber attacks have cost the world US$8-Trillion in 2023, is expected to reach US$9.5-Trillion this year, and US$10.5-Trillion in 2025... NOTE: that's in TRILLIONS of US Dollars... and that's per IBM's own "Cost of Data Breach" reports!

I also recall one of my friends, and business partners, who I invited as my "other" to the meeting, emphasizing the validity of my concerns, but less forcefully, to which the Sr. IBM representative advised us that they will get back with us—using meeting time limitations as the excuse... they didn't, and when I followed up, I received a template response basically stating that they are looking into my concerns and suggestions... nothing came out of that.

Another model that is becoming more prevalent by the passing day is that of the "subscription model," where you purchase a license to use a product, but without having full independent access to the medium itself. At its fullest scale, software as a service (SaaS) as it is now called, is one of the biggest scams in the annals of time, which the customers are fully responsible for its existence by allowing it to continue to exist as the norm, not the exception! I will discuss that matter at a later time.

==================== PART TWO (2) ====================

Psy-Ops...

The SLAs are not about "what are your rights?" They are all about what are their rights... their rights to maximize their exploitation and profits, and minimize any deserved accountability.

As alluded to in "Part-1" of this article, most customers are not close to being qualified to make these life-altering decisions pertaining to maintaining their cybersecurity, especially that the contracts (SLAs) asked of them to study and acknowledge are often so convoluted, and written at a length and using a language, that even makes lawyers perplexed from trying to process. The SLAs are not about "what are your rights?" They are all about what are their rights... their rights to maximize their exploitation and profits and minimize any deserved accountability.

To cover-up the bitter taste of the poison, the creators of the software often find ways to sweeten the taste, and—via millions of dollars spent on psychological research (behavioral engineering)—to entice the customers to bypass reading the contracts expeditiously so to get their fixes of dopamine, and we see that demonstrated perfectly, and particularly, where it comes to downloading and running apps on smartphones and tablets... these mobile platforms provide troves of personal data, through their integrated sensors, which companies will never harvest from a person's desktop at the office or home... its their wet-dream!

Never doubt that millions of dollars go into the commercial research of the "means to effectively manipulate the human psyche" for marketing and sales of products as it does into the field of government intelligence and spying, if not more! Actually, some of the marketing and manipulation tactics used were adopted from lessons learn from grand global intelligence agencies such as the CIA, MI6, FSB, and so on!

They want legal deniability, and the ability to escape accountability, by you, the customer, accepting the blame, as a priori...

If you've ever studied SLAs belonging to any notable software/app package/e-service, you may realize that the tens of pages of fine-print can be summarized in a handful of bullets:

• You can't re-engineer and copy/use our ideas.
• You will allow us access to your IT infrastructure, as we ask for, to make sure that the software runs as intended, and we can glean at, and use, your personal data (including, but not limited to technical data) to fix problems (with no elaboration, allowing for ANY need they have to fall under "make sure the app runs as intended").
• Where applies, you will pay us for the use of the software/services, but, if for any reason the software does not perform, or fails, you have little recourse to recover any damages that may result from such.
• We can share your information with any of our "partners" to make sure we are providing you with quality service (again, with no elaboration, allowing for any need they have to fall under "providing you with quality service;" moreover, often, the "partners" do not provide the same [amiable] protections/guarantees, creating a major information exploitation gap).
• We can change these rules anytime we like, and as often as we like, and we do not need to notify you; so, it's your business to look this up as often as you think you need to. We can revoke your user license anytime we deem it necessary for us, even if you paid for it.

So, in other words, condensing all into a plain language" paragraph: "if you fu*k-up, we will drag you to hell, but if we do so, well, buyer beware, it's your fault not ours... you agreed to use our software as is... If you like, we can go for arbitration, which surely will not get you much of a win-win settlement, so, you might want to consider not wasting YOUR time!"

Speaking of "arbitration," note that I was not being facetious, for, here are some of the notable drawbacks of using this process which is most often chosen in the SLAs, and it is why most such businesses prefer to follow this path—when they must:

• Parties may be forced to resolve a dispute in arbitration when they would prefer to go to court (where, often, settlements can be more significant);
• Arbitrators may be biased in favor of those who provide repeat business, such as the companies involved in disputes rather than the victims allegedly harmed by those companies;
• Those involved are typically bound by the decisions the arbitrator makes, and neither party may be as happy as if they had come to a compromise themselves;
• Opposing counsel is difficult, especially if you are going against a juggernaut of an enterprise with big-shot attorneys, on prepaid retainers, sitting on their butts, waiting, and hungry to chew into yours!

Three decades of willful mediocrity for the sake of profits

We had over thirty years to create an equilibrium, where businesses can monetize a customer's data by asking for it—whether it's to be given gratis, or for a payment to the customer, but no. I presume that—in their minds—they thought: "why should I pay for something that I can take for free, and why should I ask—risking rejection—when I can just entrap and seize?"... the mindset of a rapist.

On the other-hand, over the past decade, there has been a rise in marketing efforts by VPN service providers (as a singular solution) that are espousing the benefits of subscribing their services, some using plain logic to explain the value, but most using "fear tactics;" though, with using both tactics, neither are being transparent about the probable restrictions to service access the prospect customers may encounter while using the VPNs.

VPN service providers are not telling you the whole story, either!

Why are businesses blocking people who use VPNs from using their e-commerce platforms?

Well, while I gave a singular reason earlier, it is not really the incentive... it's more of a by product. The actual incentive has to do with the business model of most these companies, which, as with airlines today, they are trying to squeeze every penny out of your wallet!...

... "You are 6ft-2in tall, and your longer legs will not bend safely and comfortably in the gap between your seat and the one in-front of you? Well, sorry chap, we're not running a charity here! You want to be safe and comfortable, you will have to pay extra for that emergency-exit or door seat that used to be free (first come, first assign), or upgrade to Business or First Class!"...

They created a crisis so to sell a solution that was not needed before! Selling us a solution to a problem of their own malicious making!

... "Hi there Long John Silver's customer! Welcome!... Oh, sorry, you want a bit extra of those greasy crumb bits that we used to give for free or throw in the trash? Sorry, now you will have to pay an extra dollar for them! I can't do anything about it; it's programmed into the register!"...

... "Hi there Capital One Bank customer! Welcome to using our app! Do you need to deposit that check of yours? Well, You must turn off your VPN in order to be able to do so, else, good luck finding a physical branch in your area to drive to and waste your time and monies to reach!"...

... and so on... do you see the trend? Well, guess what, e-commerce companies also operate by a similar model now; for one, they have different prices for products or services for the local market than that for a "remote" one. A good scenario to use, again, to describe this, is how hotels and airlines operate:

So, if I was in Luxembourg, and I logged onto my computer to purchase an airline ticket to fly from Luxembourg City to Madrid, I will be quoted a lower price than if I purchased the same identical ticket, but their systems detected that my Internet Protocol (IP) address was from the United States. Voila!

It's just like how many airlines have monetized the value of every seat on their aircraft, even though all of them are taking-off from the same port, and landing at the same destination, and providing the identical service (per class), technology allows them, now, to set a premium on the nuances of your most fundamental [psychological] needs... such as being able to sit in a healthy and safe way, and being able to egress your space in a timely way if there was an emergency without any further leg injuries due to impacts with the seat in-front of you!

"Man! That's capitalism!"

Some will justify it all by stating "well, that's capitalism!", and I will agree to some degree... that said, there is a bit of a difference between the outcomes of sitting in a window-seat, fastened with the lap belt, vs. sitting in a one with no seat-belts, by a window that is leaking pressure from a parameter seal! (For the possible outcome, think of Helios Airways Flight 522, and, Alaska Airlines Flight 1282.)

That is akin to what many companies who are utilizing e-commerce are forcing their customers to do: to sit in unsafe environments which have the potential for costing them their lives—whether due to turbulence, or a failure in the aircraft performance and, or, integrity.

The airliner example is a more tangible example, I think, so, no sane person will knowingly and willingly board an aircraft that is ill-maintained, with compromised engineering integrity, or a pilot who has a reputation for crashing, or an airline that has a reputation for bad performance.

A recent demonstration can be seen in many passenger reactions to the Boeing aircraft issues, and how Boeing has been handling the whole thing, and the exposé that as been educating us on the fact that such issues are a direct result of the company's culture and "strategic approach" to their business model, especially those counteracting their competitors' moves. Such a reaction, has many people desire not to fly on an Boeing aircraft, and to preference Airbus or any other, makes my point.

But, do customers have access to the same tangible triggers to demand change, in Information Technology (IT)? No.

The 'black-box' or "cloud" of the behind-the-scenes information technology...

To most people, what we do in IT (once called Data Processing-DP) is gobbledygook! A foreign language they do not comprehend. Moreover, how the detailed processes that make e-commerce viable—as a tool—are not tangible (as the case would be in the absence of seat space, or lack of seat belts, in an aircraft, for example), which is why the majority of customers will not react to the dangers inherit to the IT tools they use, until they are directly impacted by some serious damage, such as being hacked and impersonated (perhaps finding themselves on a wanted list!), someone steeling their monies from their bank accounts, or spying on their 'private' home cameras... etc.

The players...

The e-commerce businesses, including the banks, play an active role at covering up cases of threats and victimization.

When an airliner crashes, or there is a fight on board, or the general experience was negative, it will be all over the news and/or social media; and, being that it is a tangible dramatic experience, most people will heed the situation.

That's not the case if someone was hacked, impersonated, exploited, or harassed online. Moreover, the attitude of many fellow customers is, often, not to blame the matter on the mediocre safeguards in the system, but to blame the victim: "you should have known better," "you made the choice to shop there," "it is your fault; you should shop where I shop," etc.... Victim blaming, just like what happens in many instances of rape.

Banks, and other businesses, in collusion with regulators—under the excuse of threat of damage to the national economy, go out of their way to do their best to:

1. Make sure that they are left to self-regulate (fox in charge of the hen-house).
2. To cover-up on any notable cybersecurity threat event, especially at the individual experience level, unless it can be exploited for political purposes, or the victimized customer can afford a highly paid lawyer to spearhead exposing the problems... the great majority of Americans can't.

The mainstream media are totally a contributor to this state of victimizing the customers, and there are several reasons, which can plainly be put forth as follows:

1. Many of the people who run the industry are uneducated in such matters, or, are simply plain idiots... their focus is promoting sexual-exploitation and that of the culture of consumerism at, relatively, any cost, and normalizing both.
2. A cybersecurity breach is not 'sexy' an issue to be dramatic enough to sell ads, and initiate "clicks," and ratings, which they can monetize for an extended period... the exceptions may be if such a cybersecurity threat lead to a dramatic outcome such as someone's physical injury or death.
3. Most major media outlets are partners, or are straight-up owned (subsidiaries), by major IT corporations, and, due to conflict of interests, they will not dare to shoot themselves in the foot for the sake of job-security (profit).
4. The media caters to people's interests, so to keep them "hooked," and prevent them from "changing the channel." As stated before, the subject of cybersecurity is not tangible for most of the masses, and most also find it "boring as hell!" Ask me how do I know!

So, once again, in the spirit of self-preservation, media companies' profits trump society's well being, and hence, they will not carry the torch to educate the masses... certainly not on their own dime (a public service); their view is that there are other resources the viewers can choose to use to educate themselves on the matter, so, it's the customer's fault (victim blaming again) if they don't.

==================== PART THREE (3) ====================

Ethics in capitalism

Much has been written and debated discussing this subject matter, so, I will not delve in to much detail, but, an article titled "Capitalism is global, but is it ethical?" can be a starting point for you to embark on this thought journey.

It is to be pointed out that the science of Economics is one of the least understood by the masses—while having some of the most charlatans talking about it, especially in the age of social-media, and giving nonsensical advice! The only field that competes with such "snake-oil medicine" sales people (outside of religious cults) is literally the "self-care" & "medical supplements" fields.

Regulations...

This problematic gorge that we created between what's good for the individual vs. what's good for the community continues—at different levels—to be a critical problem among many community members, and what has led to the creation of the known and documented unhealthy, unproductive, massive disparity between the socioeconomic classes.

This is why the codification and enforcement of sound public regulations are paramount to manage the growth and health-state of any community, regardless of the scale. We can not continue to place the well-being of our communities and societies under the mercy of self-serving for-profit organizations that we have zero [true] influence on their decision making, even when we are stockholders (unless major owners; own over 10% of all shares)!

Reading reports about major cybersecurity breaches among major corporations has become a norm. The volume of hacks of Small-Medium Businesses (SMBs) is not even reported, and in most cases, I'd wager that the SMB owners are not even aware of said state! The lack of structure, including enacting the proper tangible penalties for incompetence and willful laxity at deploying and managing a proper cybersecurity protection infrastructure is a direct contributor to this state of mediocrity and victimization that exists.

Unfortunately, it is human nature, since the earliest years of childhood, to push, and try to cross all boundaries, in order to satisfy our desires. Such an attitude, which can be very dangerous, is usually tempered with time and experience (nature and nurture); but, can we count on that taking place, where it may endanger the rest of society? Think of the following example:

Human fascination with fire starts at a very young age, but at a certain stage, we learn through experience, or are commonly taught, the dangers of "playing with fire." Most of us understand and heed such feedback, but, there are those who do not... there are those who become pyromaniacs... there are those who choose to remain careless... etc. ... and as a result, demonstrated in a tangible example that most of us understand: US$4-Billion/year just to fight fires that are started in the US, by the latter mentioned types, and an economic loss of . I am not including stats on the global economic impact, or that on health and ecosystems.

Each year, people start fires that cost 20,000 American lives

There is a barrage of great resources on line, and at physical libraries, which can be used by anyone to learn more about this subject matter, but, for ease of access, I recommend an article that was published by one of the scientific journals I've enjoy studying since my childhood: the Scientific American, and the article is titled: "The Worst Wildfires Are Started by People. Here’s How."

As you see, we can't allow units of society to dictate, and force, up-on the rest of us, their own selfish desires that may cause notable harm to the collective. You are free to do what you want to do in your own life, as long as it is limited to impacting to your person and/or a consenting person(s) in that private/personal environment. "Globalization" amplifies the reach range of such harm and damage exponentially.

In conclusion...

We can not continue to allow for the state of "wild, wild, west" chaos to persist, where cybersecurity is concerned. These compromises we are making, for the sake of profits, WILL backfire in our faces, badly... very badly... it not a matter of "if," it is a matter of "when."

Furthermore, I'd like to go a step further to point out another major gap that was discussed by some during the early days of the internet, which is the sanctity of e-mail communications, that have become the de facto form of sending and receiving mail vs. the use of the traditional postal services.

We need to extend ALL the protections afforded to postal mail to e-mail, and do so immediately. All mail must be encrypted, and data-mining of email messages, among other forms of e-personal interactions, should be illegal without a court's warrant (Fourth Amendment rights in the US).

By doing otherwise, what these business are doing is no different than stalking and sexual exploitation of all of us, and that happens more often than your think in the IT world! It shouldn't be allowed for any exploiter to place a gun to our heads, and threaten us, just becasue we are demanding a fundamental service that they are offering... if they insist, then, I now started to see the value in "nationalizing" such critical services.

It's time for us to take back control over the public's' privacy, and kick-ass if we aren't obliged and continue to be blackmailed and abused by said bullies!... Remember that it has been thirty years of waiting to no avail... "we didn't start the fire!"

If you have any constructive thoughts on this subject matter, feedback, or experiences you would like to share that relate—which support this message, please share below!

?? OTHER ARTICLES BY AUTHOR: https://www.dhirubhai.net/in/raedmalexanderayyad/recent-activity/articles/