Silicon Valley user abuse started with Bill Gates [This is a preview excerpt from "Deaver on Cybersecurity: An irreverent and honest exposé of the online security problem, complete with a candid and thorough reveal of its solution" by F. Scott Deaver, now available from Amazon Kindle as eBook (with free versions), paperback, and hardcover at https://www.amazon.com/Deaver- Cybersecurity-irreverent-security-complete- ebook/dp/B07ZG9YBPT/ref=sr_1_1?crid=8SRF0SSU42WX&keywords=d eaver+on+cybersecurity&qid=1578669299&s=digital- text&sprefix=Deaver%2Cdigital-text%2C190&sr=1-1.] Deliberate cybersecurity vendor malfeasance Cyberextortion - leveraging and promoting fear of hacking to sell cybersecurity products that do not work - is a thriving and lucrative business in Silicon Valley. It is an unregulated for-profit subset of an industry run by corrupt mercenary bean-counters with no regard for technical competence. It should be no surprise to anyone that cyberextortion would spring from the commercial side of the software industry. In the early 1980s, the computer world was split between two very distinct and large groups with a vast unpopulated no-man's-land between them. In the one corner, we had well-entrenched and well- heeled hulking mercenary monoliths and bullies, consisting of IBM, Digital (DEC)[1], ITT[2], AT&T[3], Xerox[4], Honeywell[5], the major players in the military-industrial complex[6] remaining after the Vietnam war buildup, and the Fortune 500 companies generally[7] - all incestuously-related and intertwined over the providing and consumption of mainframe computers and services. This would be the group represented by "Hal 9000" of "Space Odyssey: 2001"[8] fame. In the other corner, far, far away, we have the academic community and hobbyists, including the likes of USC[9], MIT[10], UC Berkeley[11], the math departments of most major universities in the country, and the online (via dialup modem) community of CompuServe[12]. The world's most corrupt businesses in the age of Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities[13] on the one side, and intelligent, well-intentioned naïve college students with no life experiences or industry familiarity on the other. Recruiters would traipse across the great divide seeking out the best and brightest academics during the school year; and upon graduation, the great migration looking for jobs and interviews in the opposite direction. Then came the crass personal computer software pioneers to fill up the great void in the middle. Generally sociopathic, mercenary, privileged, and with some unique talent, intellect, idea, or hyper- aggression to accompany their trust-funds, senses of entitlement, pedigrees (in and out of the computer sciences), and with the moral fiber of the most corrupt of thieves, man-boys like Bill Gates[14], Steve Jobs[15], and Larry Ellison[16], along with dozens of others, rose to the fore in areas in and around personal computing and distributed networking, crashing the gap between the two broad camps that previously interacted in very narrow ways. A shark invades a goldfish bowl, and the PC commercial software industry is born The intersection of Bill Gates and a group of well-meaning, naïve, not- yet-fully-baked tree-hugging students and computer geeks was akin to planting a pedophilic Catholic priest in the middle of a kindergarten playground at recess (though for the purposes of clarity, Gate's rape of his peers was purely intellectual, not sexual, as far as any known record would show). As an active hobbyist and hacker myself at the time (I am eleven months older than Bill Gates), I am intimately familiar with the environment around college campuses at the time. I was not a student, but was on campus at both Iowa State University[17] and at Drake University[18] on a daily basis for many years during this period working one-on-one with engineering and computer sciences students on prototypes and patents for my invention of the electric construction nail gun through the Center for Industrial Research and Service's[19],[20] (CIRAS) invention incubation program. At the time, the academic attitude among most students towards the computer sciences was altruistic, to say the least. It was all about applying communal effort to a common good, open-source, and shared ideas towards collaborations that helped achieve universal understanding. Code was left on chalkboards, often written in math syntax that anyone could contribute to and discuss. There simply was, during those days, no place for the concept of "mercenary me". Bill Gates and his crowd, of course, changed all of that - "mercenary me" was in their DNA. But, none of them came to the game in any upfront or honest fashion - it was intellectual rape followed by an in-your-face "I am better than you" betrayal. And no one person illustrates this better than Bill Gates. There is no question that Bill Gates is intelligent - but so, for that matter, is Ted Kaczynski[21]. And yes, the comparison is very relevant - both scored 1590 or above on their SATs and were admitted to Harvard at younger than 17 years of age on scholarship (a fascinating insight into the old SAT scores with specific reference to Kaczynski is contained in an article for the weekly Standard written by Stuart Koehl and entitled "Write Like the Unabomber"[22]). Both Kaczynski and Gates possess high Intelligent Quotients (IQ)[23] - at 165 versus 160, Kaczynski has the "advantage", though there is a theory out there that says there's an optimum IQ for conventional success (about 130) and that people who deviate too far from it (in either direction) tend to be at risk for failure by society’s standards.[24] Both Kaczynski and Gate also possess well-below-average Emotional Quotients (EQ)[25],[26],[27],[28] - neither scores well on EQ assessments of their massive collections of publicly-available materials (something Bill Gates has recently begun acknowledging, to his credit[29],[30],[31]). Here Gates has the advantage over Kaczynski - neither has anything like genuine empathy, and both Kaczynski and Gates can detect enough of a person's emotional state to protect themselves against it and manipulate/leverage it to their advantage to some degree, but Gates is better at the latter and can also simulate empathy to a certain extent, which Kaczynski simply cannot do. In terms of their Moral Quotients (MQ)[32],[33],[34],[35], neither Gates nor Kaczynski could manage a convincing toddler's crawl out of their mother's basements. Both are true narcissists and sociopaths with a robust supporting history in the public record, with Kaczynski having the more violent criminal bent and Gates having the enormous economic advantage, able to crush dissenters and whistle-blowers, and buy his way out of criminal trouble with the largest law enforcement agencies on Earth[36],[37]. Gates has used his bullying influence in philanthropy to force solutions they don't want on ignorant, impoverished third-world cultures[38],[39],[40],[41] (other than the "third-world" part, all of that should sound familiar to victims of Windows 95), and then in turn has tried to leverage that manufactured image to revise history (all while continuing to evade his fair share of taxes[42]!). [With respect to taxes, Gates showed how out of touch he was with the rest of us when he famously declared in a statement of genuinely Trumpian excess during a 2014 BBC interview[43], "I've paid more tax than any individual ever, and gladly so ... I've paid over $6 billion in taxes." The problem with that is, of course, that even if true, he paid only $6 billion in taxes on $145 billion in earnings and capital gains against a retained net worth of $101 billion (at its peak). That is a tax rate between 4.14% and 5.94%, depending upon how it is calculated. For comparison, in the same year that the statement was made (2014), the average American individual taxpayer paid $13,414 in taxes against an income of $53,657[44], a tax rate of 25.00%. So, yes, while Gates paid more in taxes than most people in terms of gross dollars, that was merely because his accumulated net worth from all his earning was roughly two million times more than the average American's annual earnings! But by percentage, Gates raped other American taxpayers, paying only one-quarter what they did in taxes. By any measure of fairness, Gates should repay the American taxpayer between $19.25 billion and $30.25 billion, the difference between the 25.00% tax he should have paid and the $6 billion he claims he actually paid.] And the idea of a bullying, tax-dodging "philanthropist" spending money that he saved himself by paying society less than he owed for his crimes (peddling mercenary incompetence on a massive scale at an extraordinary profit through an illegal monopoly) seems a little muddied to you, welcome to the world of Bill Gates. And by no coincidence whatsoever, since he contributed so extensively to it, welcome to the equally muddy world of cyberextortion. And I am fully aware that there are any number of people in Bill Gate's world as well as in cyberextortion that see no mud whatsoever - the distinction is one of the moral code, or lack thereof) of the viewer (the idea of a self-determined moral code is an oxymoron of sorts, since morality is decided by community standards, not by individuals). Bill Gates, for all his money, intelligence, talent, and accomplishments, is immoral - you simply cannot be a narcissist and/or a sociopath and be moral, because morality is at its core a community exercise, one in which empathy is a necessary factor in extracting standards of right and wrong from all the competing needs and interests of a group of people.