Shell: Gas, Stations, and Shell Companies

Generated Title: "Ghost in the Shell" Predicted Cybercrime? The Numbers Tell a Different Story

Okay, so everyone's saying "Ghost in the Shell" nailed the future of cybercrime. Thirty years on, and it's all supposed to be coming true. Government hackers, stalkerware, the whole shebang. But let's pump the brakes and actually look at the data.

Hype vs. Reality: The Cybercrime Mirage

The article points to the Puppet Master as a government-backed hacker, anticipating APTs. Fine. But government hacking didn't exactly spring into existence in 1995. Clifford Stoll's book, "The Cuckoo's Egg," detailed KGB hacking in 1986 – almost a decade before the "Ghost in the Shell" movie. (And let's not forget, that was based on events that actually happened.)

And the garbage man hacking his "wife's" cyber-brain? That's presented as a prescient take on stalkerware. Except, the article also admits the guy's memories were fake. So, it's not really about stalkerware, is it? It's about mind control, which is a slightly different ballgame. The connection feels…strained.

The piece quotes John Wilander, a cybersecurity veteran, listing examples like hackers reusing exploits. Groundbreaking? Not really. It's like saying "Die Hard" predicted terrorists would use guns. Exploits get reused because...they work. That's not prophecy; that's just basic economics of effort.

The article highlights the fact that cybersecurity wasn’t even a word yet in 1989. But computer security was. It was a "niche specialty", the article concedes. So, it's not like Masamune Shirow was pulling this stuff out of thin air. He was extrapolating from an existing field. The question is: how much?

Let's be clear: "Ghost in the Shell" is fiction. It's speculative fiction. The danger is when speculation gets confused with prediction. When we start attributing Nostradamus-like powers to a manga artist. That's where things get dicey.

I've looked at hundreds of these "tech predictions" pieces, and this one feels particularly weak on the data side. It's relying heavily on anecdotal connections and ignoring the broader historical context.

The "Climate Finance" Shell Game

Speaking of shell games, another article highlights how climate finance is being creatively accounted for. How climate finance to help poor countries became a global shell game – donors have counted fossil fuel projects, airports and even ice cream shops The claim is that developed countries are inflating their climate aid numbers by relabeling existing aid or funding projects that have little to do with climate change.

Japan financing a coal plant in Vietnam? Italy counting ice cream expansion as climate finance? The US including a Marriott Hotel due to stormwater control and hurricane protection measures? That's not climate finance; that's greenwashing on a global scale.

The article states that in 2024, developed countries pledged to boost climate finance from $100 billion a year to at least $300 billion a year by 2035, and to work toward $1.3 trillion annually from a wide spectrum of public and private sources. Whether or not these goals are met will largely depend on how "climate finance" is defined.

The author writes that Reuters reviewed climate finance documents from 27 countries and found that at least $3 billion labeled as climate finance went to projects that had little or nothing to do with fighting or recovering from climate change. That’s a discrepancy of at least 1%, which is significant.

The piece argues for a shared definition of "climate finance" to protect vulnerable countries and avoid long-term debt. But what are the chances of that happening? Given the incentives at play, I suspect we'll see more creative accounting, not less.

I've seen similar accounting tricks in the hedge fund world. Reclassifying assets, shifting liabilities, the whole nine yards. It's all about making the numbers look better than they actually are. And that's exactly what's happening with climate finance.

So, What's the Real Story?

"Ghost in the Shell" is great sci-fi. But let's not pretend it's a crystal ball. The cybercrime seeds were already planted. And as for climate finance, it's less about helping vulnerable countries and more about wealthy nations patting themselves on the back while cooking the books. The numbers don't lie, but they can be awfully misleading.