viernes, 22 de abril de 2016

MercatorNet: Are we too concerned about an ageing population?

MercatorNet: Are we too concerned about an ageing population?



Are we too concerned about an ageing population?

Will the economic burden be as bad as we fear?
Marcus Roberts | Apr 22 2016 | comment 

Over at the LA Times there is an interesting piece about the ageing of the US population. It is interesting first because it has a fantastic infographic which plots the USA's population pyramid from 1933 until 2100. In it you can see the changes as the large bulge representing the baby boomers appears in the late 1940s and has moved its way up the pyramid until it has hit the retirement age threshold.
Although the baby boomers will have worked their way through the pyramid and their lives by the 2040s, the US population will have aged considerably in that time. According to the World Economic Forum an ageing population has various economic problems including "pressure on healthcare and other welfare systems and a much smaller working age population relative to the elderly." This is something that we have often mentioned on this blog.
However, perhaps things are not as gloomy as we have been led to believe. After all, what it means to be 65 today is not what it meant to be 65 back in the early part of the twentieth century. If we focus on the dependency ratios (those over the age of 65 as a proportion of the working aged population required to support them) then we will overlook the fact that not everyone, and indeed fewer people into the future, will simply retire and stop working once they reach the age of 65. The LA Times explains:
"Population economists Warren Sanderson and Sergei Scherbov propose recalibrating measures such as old-age dependency ratios to recognize such emerging trends. 'The old-age dependency ratio in the U.S. is forecast to increase by 61% from 2013 to 2030,' they observe. 'But using our economic dependency ratio, the ratio of adults in the labor force to adults not in the labor force increases by just 3% over that period. Clearly, doom-and-gloom stories about U.S. workers having to support so many more nonworkers in the future may need to be reconsidered.'"
This means that a number of those aged 65 and older will be contributing in taxes by working even if they are also drawing down the pension/social security. Of course this cost can be further reduced if governments push back the age at which social security can be claimed. (The current New Zealand government, for example, is adamantly against any such suggestion.) 
On the healthcare side, there is an argument that people only really start becoming a large drain on healthcare resources in the last few years of life. Thus:
"'In Japan, for example, when the burden of the health care costs of people aged 65 and up on those 20-64 years old is assessed using only the conventional old-age dependency ratio, that burden is forecast to increase 32 percent from 2013 to 2030,' write Sanderson and Scherbov. 'When we compute health care costs based on whether people are in the last few years of their lives, the burden increases only 14 percent.'"
There might indeed be an argument that the conventional measure of the dependency ratio is too outdated - as more and more people work into "old" age, 65 might lose its magical status. This would especially be the case if governments increase the retirement age to reflect this reality or push more people into work to make it a reality.
However, at some point an ageing population will cost us economically: our entire social welfare schemes are built upon the assumption an ever-increasing working population. That assumption can no longer be relied upon and we are going to have to wake up to that fact. Sooner or later. 
- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/demography/view/are-we-too-concerned-about-an-ageing-population/17927#sthash.HBbQI1HP.dpuf





MercatorNet: Hacking hospitals and holding data hostage





Hacking hospitals and holding data hostage

Old-fashioned crime with a new tech twist.
Heather Zeiger | Apr 22 2016 | comment 
A string of hospitals in the United States have been subjected to ransomware attacks. Hackers encrypt network files and hold them hostage until the hospital pays the ransom. Because those files include patient records, the hospital has to shut down services until it either restores backup files or pays the ransom. It is an old-fashioned type of crime with a tech twist.
Ransomware dates back to the 1980s, but it has become particularly prevalent in the past two years. McAfee reports that by the first half of 2015, there were over two million new ransomware samples. While ransomware can attack at-home networks, hospitals have been a prime target. The hospital’s daily operations depend upon accessing patient data. Shut down the ability to access data, and shut down the hospital. When this happens patients may not get the care that they need, putting their lives at risk.
Since the beginning of 2015, there have been several high-profile cases of hospital hacking. Some paid the ransom; some did not. In February Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center reportedly paid the ransom after being offline for a week. Methodist Hospital in Henderson, Kentucky, which was attacked last March, did not pay, and instead restored their data from backups. At the end of March MedStar Health had ten hospitals and 250 out-patient clinics hit with a ransomware virus.
Typically crooks demand a ransom from people who they think can pay it and who would have motives to pay it rather than report it. The health sector is lucrative. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services report that health care spending in the US reached $3.0 trillion and accounts for about 18 percent of GDP. Shutting down a hospital’s network endangers lives and results in loss of funds. Furthermore, smart hackers will ask for a ransom that is substantial enough to make the hack worth it, but low enough that hospital executives will consider it easier to pay the ransom than shut down for several days risking lives and lawsuits.
To make matters worse, according to a recent article in Wired, hospitals tend to not prioritize cybersecurity, in general. Last year, after the Charlie Sheen medical blackmail scandal came out, I talked to a friend who had worked in IT at a hospital. He said that one of the problems is that doctors make decisions about how the network is set up, and often these networks are no different from the kind of network you set up at home.
Wired said that the recent string of attacks are bad because the ransomware has become more sophisticated and can quickly spread throughout the network:
“And ransomware attackers have upped the ante in recent months with attacks that encrypt not just files on an individual computer but on core servers, to prevent an entire organization from accessing shared files and databases. The really malevolent attacks also go after backup repositories that victims might ordinarily use to restore data.”
According to Health Care IT News, 50 percent of the people they interviewed said that there was an attempted cyberattack on their hospital in the last twelve months. Another 25 percent said that they did not know if their hospital was attacked or not. This is not necessarily a bad sign. It means that the majority of hospitals have faced some kind of attack but those attacks are usually thwarted. The ones that end up making the news somehow circumvented the hospital’s security systems. The standard procedure is that, once a security breech is detected and dealt with, hospitals do not reveal how the breech happened or the details of how they solved the problem. While they understandably do not want to advertise their vulnerabilities, this means that other hospitals cannot learn from their mistakes.
As a note, the Federal Aviation Agency takes an opposite approach to breaches in security, reporting exactly what went wrong and how it was handled so that it does not happen again.
Personal data held hostage
Personal data can be held hostage. MIT Technology Review reports that Cryptolocker was the first of a more sophisticated ransomware that debuted in 2013. It worked by infecting Windows computers, encrypting all of the computer’s data files as well as any external drives so the user could not access any of their data. It would then display a 72-hour countdown timer asking the user to pay a fee in exchange for their data. It was eventually taken down by a collaborative effort between the FBI and the law enforcement agencies in the UK and the EU It is estimated that Cryptolocker made $3 million, and because it made so much money, there have been several copycats.
Not only have these attacks increased in frequency, but experts believe smartphones and tablets will become potent targets for ransomware. And lest Apple users think they are protected from these infections, CNET reported that a new ransomware called KeRanger has recently targeted Mac users.
Moral responsibility
Hospitals are in a moral bind. If they pay the criminals, they put more hospitals at risk. If they do not pay, then patients may not receive the care that they need. Individuals are also in a bind. While lives are not at stake, their data is. Even if they report the attack, the ransomware encryption is too difficult to crack, so they often just pay the ransom. Money is usually demanded in the form of Bitcoin, an untraceable digital currency, and communication is through untraceable servers, such as Tor.
An article in PC Magazine says that while experts in cybersecurity do not suggest paying the hackers, the FBI’s Cyber and counterintelligence program has now advised most people to pay the ransom. Experts say that this only makes the problem worse because funding cybercrimes just leads to an increase in cybercrime and provides resources for criminals to make more sophisticated ransomware programs.
For now, the best way out of this moral quandary is for people to protect their data by making external backups, and to be careful when opening email attachments. Ransomware can infect a computer through disreputable websites, downloads, attachments, and USB drives. It can also come from ads that have been infected. This past March the New York TimesBBC, About.com, AOL, and several other sites had seemingly innocuous ads that were actually vehicles for ransomware. The user did not have to click on the ad for his or her computer to become infected. According to CNET:
The cyberattackers inserted ads that contained malicious software into legitimate online ad networks…The ad networks then distributed the compromised advertising, known as malvertising, to websites, which served them to visitors.
While technology may change, human nature remains the same. Bad people like making money off vulnerable people. In today’s society information is a valuable commodity, but often people and organizations do not know how to protect their data from cyberattacks.
Heather Zeiger is a freelance science writer with advanced degrees in chemistry and bioethics. She writes on the intersection of science, culture, and technology.
- See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/connecting/view/hacking-hospitals-and-holding-data-hostage/17949#sthash.lpxSRa0r.dpuf





MercatorNet

It sounds like something from a post-modernist farce, Aristotle analysing Trump’s popularity, but since everyone else has had their say, why not one of the imperishable philosophers? After all, as Carson Holloway points out in today’s Public Discourse article:
“To understand the Trump phenomenon, to get some objective view of it, one must get out of the bubble. And there is surely no place further outside the bubble than the mind of Aristotle. His thoughts are not provoked by our own political struggles or shaped by the emotions that such struggles necessarily foster. He was just trying to understand the nature of politics for all time. His is a position rare for its detachment, and one from which we should try to understand our own problems.”
The method certainly works, in my opinion, identifying the basic dynamics of The Trump’s Progress with great clarity. See what you think.
The baby boomers leading the presidential nomination race in the US illustrate a point made by population economists quoted in Marcus Roberts’ post in Demography today – namely, that passing the age of 65 does not necessarily make one a burden on the economy and the younger generation, because many older people keep on working. If you are not too keen on those examples, just look at Queen Elizabeth, holding office at 90.
There will be no newsletter on Monday because it is Anzac Day Down Under and we will be taking a holiday for the memorial. See you Tuesday.


Carolyn Moynihan
Deputy Editor,
MERCATORNET

Aristotle explains the Trump phenomenon
Carson Holloway | FEATURES | 22 April 2016
The cry of the 'unjustly unequal'.
Read more...
 
Queen Elizabeth II and the rise of the 90+ club
Christina Victor | DEMOGRAPHY IS DESTINY | 22 April 2016
Don't forget the other population explosion.
Read more...
 
Are we too concerned about an ageing population?
Marcus Roberts | DEMOGRAPHY IS DESTINY | 22 April 2016
Will the economic burden be as bad as we fear?
Read more...
 
Sevens heaven: Kenya’s rugby team attains world glory
Mathew Otieno | HARAMBEE | 22 April 2016
A bunch of relentless semi-pros smashes the world’s best team.
Read more...
 
Hacking hospitals and holding data hostage
Heather Zeiger | CONNECTING | 22 April 2016
Old-fashioned crime with a new tech twist.
Read more...
MERCATORNET | New Media Foundation
Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George Street, North Strathfied NSW 2137, Australia

Designed by elleston

New Media Foundation | Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605 

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario