Blog Post No. 11: Cyber Currency and Regulation

TOPIC:

Bitcoin (as well as other virtual or cryptocurrencies) represents a decentralized payment system that operates independently of any government or central bank. People and businesses can exchange their currencies on a peer-to-peer basis, without passing through any financial intermediary. This means that the Bitcoin network does not reside under any given regulation, and can therefore be constructed to be agnostic to any jurisdictional rules. Given this current lack of a central regulatory authority, people can operate the network in a pseudonymous manner, without disclosing their identity to anyone. This provides opportunities for criminal activities, including tax-evasion, illegal drug trafficking and money-laundering.

However, Bitcoin also provides a series of benefits to consumers: it can be used to transfer funds across borders at virtually no costs—providing new opportunities for cheaper and faster money transfers, and potentially bringing new efficiencies into the financial market. There is currently a controversy over whether virtual currencies should be regulated and if so, by whom. Several states have passed laws regulating virtual currencies, but they have been criticized for imposing onerous obligations on Bitcoin operators and stifling innovation.



Blog Post:

Bitcoin Privacy and Anonymity 

Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency and payment system that uses a public and immutable cryptographically secured ledger. Bitcoin’s system runs on a worldwide peer-to-peer network cutting out the central entity or administrator for the currency, like a bank or government. Here is a quick video that overviews Bitcoin in its entirety. Bitcoin has many open market that determine what price each coin is currently worth. Here is Coinbase, one of the larger trading markets, live real time trades and prices. How anonymous is this system? Bitcoin is not exactly anonymous, but pseudo-anonymous. Every transaction is logged on the public ledger. The identity of who is making the transaction is not revealed on the public ledger but there are ways to identify the individuals who are making the transactions. When you make a transaction on this network it won’t initially reveal the identity of the individuals but as soon as a link can be made, all of your previous transactions are revealed. This MIT article outlines the different ways to link individuals to their transactions. Your bitcoin wallet has two keys, one that is private and one that is public. When you use your public key to send or reserve funds it correlates to your private key that allows access to your wallet. Using web cookies and fingerprinting it is possible to connect your public key to you and your name.

There are many cryptocurrencies other than bitcoin. Some of these are marketing them self as privacy coins. Alt coins like Monero XMR, Dash, Zcash, and PIVX are examples of currencies that are focused on privacy. Monero, the largest by market cap at 2.6 billion USD, if used properly on a secure computer can be impossible to track or connect to your identity. This response by the Monero team outlines the steps needed to be anonymous when trading their coin.

Concerns Surrounding Bitcoin Technology 

The lack of authority and regulation around Bitcoin allows it to be used in promiscuous ways.The ICE has stated that crypto currencies have allowed for easier money laundering.

People argue that for bitcoin to ever take over as the global currency, a lot is going to have to change. The way our economy is currently set up this would not work. The transaction speeds are still slow(about an hour) and Bitcoins transaction fees spiked to almost $40 in the past 6 months. Bitcoin does has massive scaling problems because of this. At Bitcoins peak the infrastructure failed to keep up with demand.



Because of bitcoin’s lack of regulation there has already been questionable activity with cryptocurrency. Recently Bitconnect was revealed to be a 2 billion dollar ponzi scheme. John Oliver did a great segment on Bitconnect and cryptocurrencies. Bitconnect is an ICO (Initial Coin Offering) giving investors the opportunity to invest in their coin. Bitconnect used the hype of cryptocurrencies to convince people that is was possible for them to receive 1% interest daily and compound the profits. This is obviously too good to be true and ended in a spectacular free fall. When regulators started to get involve Bitconnect released all assets back to investors in the form of their currency which immediately went from a value of $380 to $10 in a matter of minutes.

Potential Benefits of Bitcoin 

Bitcoin is a decentralized network that allows people to move large sums of money across the world. Because Bitcoin is decentralized it is very hard for any government or bank to manipulate or control the value. Bitcoin can be used as an alternative currency to take power and money away from governments. Bitcoin is being put to use in Venezuela, where inflation has reached 13,000 percent. Citizens are putting their money in Bitcoin as an alternative to their country’s currency as a much more stable choice. Governments do not have the ability to just print more bitcoin like they do for their own currency. It takes power away from banks and makes a peer to peer network.

Current Regulation 

Bitcoin is a relatively new technology with very little regulation around it. Countries have been scrambling to tax and regulate this technology, partially because it is easy to avoid paying taxes on your bitcoin investments. Depending on which platform you use for buying and selling you could not be taxed.

The United States federal government has not created regulation on cryptocurrencies yet. The U.S. CFTC commissioner has said that cryptocurrency exchanges adopting a ‘self-regulation’ could encourage similar standards for other markets.

In utah their is currently no legislation that addresses Bitcoin. The technology doesn't have much legislation at all across the 50 states.

My Personal View

I want to preface that I am somewhat biased when it comes to this topic. I personally have been trading bitcoin for several years and have been a large advocate of this technology. I think the benefits of taking power away from governments and banks vastly outweighs the risk of some people using this technology for tax evasion and other questionable uses. People are always finding new ways to move illegal money and just because bitcoin is used for this purpose doesn’t mean the platform as a whole should be tainted. It’s like Russia’s twitter bots, you don’t blame twitter for Russia’s twitter bots influencing people’s views of political issues, you blame the people who made the twitterbots. I don’t think it's fair to look at bitcoin as the problem so we should look at the people using the technology for illegal purposes instead.

Q. OF THE WEEK NO. 11

Healthcare providers are moving to a system of electronic health records where an individual's entire medical history, diagnoses, treatments, medications, and other health information are maintained in a digital form.  The digitization of medical records significantly increases efficiency and results in individuals receiving better care,  more timely care and care at a more affordable cost.  Should physicians and other healthcare providers be able to freely access and share this information with each other without a patient's express consent?

DNA: The Best Crime Fighter Since Batman?

Blog Post 10- DNA Databases

Topic:

          Current  law  in  the  U.S.  allows  DNA  to  be  taken  from  sex  offenders  and  those  convicted  or accused  of  a  serious  crime.    The  information  is  maintained  in  a  national  DNA  database.    The database  has  been  used  both  to  prosecute  crimes  and  to  exonerate  those  wrongfully  convicted.  With  some  exceptions,  most  notably  the  military,  the  federal  government  may  not  collect  DNA from ordinary citizens.  Several states, including Utah, have statutorily allowed the collection of DNA  from  persons  arrested  and  subsequently  charged  with  felonies.    In  Utah,  DNA  samples  of those arrested, but never charged or later exonerated, must be destroyed.  In contrast, Britain more widely collects DNA from ordinary citizens, often in “DNA dragnets” where, for example, DNA samples of all male citizens in a given community are taken to aid in the investigation of a rape.  The samples are maintained in a national database.   
          Opine  on  whether  the  creation  of  a  national  DNA  database  consisting  of  DNA  from  every citizen  collected  through  a  mandatory  collection  program  would  be  sound  public  policy  and explain and justify your view.

Overview:

          A little over a hundred years ago a suspect could leave a pool of his own blood at the scene of a crime and all the police could do was mop it up and stick with their hunch. Those days are long gone. Now if there is even something as small as an eyelash left at a crime scene the police can find the identity of the perpetrator almost instantly thanks to the help of  forensics and DNA databases. Deoxyribonucleic Acid or DNA for short is a chemical found in every cell of every living organism on this planet. Made up of 23 pairs of chromosomes and every single one is different due to the different ordering of 4 nitrogenous bases. Every person has their own individual sequence and by comparing DNA found on cells of a crime scene the police can find out who done it. But, there is a catch.

          In order to effectively use this DNA to solve a crime there already has to be a record somewhere of your specific genetic code. Starting in 1994 the US government allowed for the collection of this DNA to be put into a database so that if the same person committed multiple crimes they would be identifiable the second time because their DNA would already be on record. "The database originally tracked only sex offenders, but has expanded to include all people convicted of a qualifying federal offense. Some states and the federal government have also begun collecting DNA samples from people who have been arrested for a crime but have not yet been convicted, as well as from detained immigrants" (1). These databases have been responsible for both convicting perpetrators and exonerating falsely convicted persons. However, advancements in technology and a more modern mindset have started to raise questions about the collection of DNA for storage. 

Privacy Concerns:

          Due to the fact that DNA is linked to one specific individual there are some concerns about how it will be used once in the data bank. Firstly, there is a concern that this DNA will be used to track individuals or their relatives. Every time you touch anything you leave a trace of your DNA on it at this could be used to track people or see who all has been in a specific place recently. While this is good for forensics during criminal investigations, it is bad if it falls into the wrong hands or the government decides that they want to follow you and know where you go. Secondly, "in order to be useful to track suspects, DNA records are linked to other computer records such as records of arrest, which can be used to refuse someone a visa or a job, or lead to them being treated differently by the police" (2). Finally, there is the fact that DNA can be analyzed to find health and genetic patterns such as if a person is more likely to develop different diseases or whether or not they are fertile. This information that people may not even know about themselves, let alone want to be known by others around them. In addition to all of these concerns there is the fact that there are already other problems with the justice system right now such as racial and religious bias. These DNA databases could create an even larger distrust between the law and the people because people could face even more prejudice based upon certain characteristics shown in their DNA.

Benefits:

          On the flip side of the coin there are a ton of benefits to having DNA databases. Primarily, the hypothetical of having a database of the entire nation. That would save the police force so much work. Every case could be solved so quickly because if there was any tiny bit of DNA from the criminal at the scene of a crime they would immediately be able to link it to the DNA of the person who committed the crime. No more long drawn out searches for criminals. Trial would be so simple because they would have evidence already with just the DNA itself. Now you would probably still want to do some investigation because DNA analysis still isn't 100% and there is always the twin argument, but it is still more effective than what we currently have. In addition to being able to convict criminals quickly, we would also be able to prove people innocent just as easily. This way if your DNA was found at the crime and you didn't commit the crime you would have nothing to worry about. This database would be so effective if implemented that it could slow crime rates everywhere because it is nearly impossible to commit a crime without leaving any DNA and committing a crime in this system is essentially a one way ticket to jail for the correct suspect with little to no chance of someone getting falsely arrested.

Current Laws/Regulations:

         Utah law states, "People convicted of any felony or sex crime misdemeanor must submit a DNA sample to state officials . The state also collects DNA for those convicted of class A misdemeanors. Sample collection applies to juveniles" (3). Additionally, a convicted criminal can apply for a post conviction DNA test, but the test has to have a chance to produce new evidence to prove innocence.

          "The national DNA database system has three basic levels: first, local governments collect DNA information in their own databases. The local government can submit approved DNA profiles to their states own DNA database" (1). This system allows each state to set up their own specific rules, but in the end the national government still gets the DNA it desires.

My Opinion:

          I believe that the pros of creating a massive database will the DNA of everyone in the United States vastly outweighs the cons. It could be set up that at birth you have a small DNA sample taken since your DNA doesn't change as you get older. Being able to speed up all of the police work and never have to worry about false convictions would be so beneficial to the American justice system. I believe that this would reduce crime rates nationwide and wouldn't really be that difficult to implement. You would have to figure out a way to get every current resident into the database, but this would make the system more fair anyways because currently ethnic minorities and young people are over-represented, creating resentment and anti-police feeling. Two-in-five black men have their DNA on record, as against fewer than one-in-ten whites" (4). After implementation everyone would be equal and we would be able to solve any crime with more efficiency and more effectively. The biggest concern would be to make sure that this database is heavily encrypted and only people with a certain clearance would be able to access it. It would be similar to the way that medical personal now use the HIPAA in order to keep patient information confidential. To me the idea of helping the judicial system run smoother seems extremely more important than the chance of people stealing DNA which you can already do fairly easily.

References

1. http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-national-dna-database-system.html

2. http://dnapolicyinitiative.org/resources/dna-databases-and-human-rights/

3. http://www.ncsl.org/portals/1/documents/cj/dna/utah.pdf

4. http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/35669/pros-and-cons-compulsory-dna-database

Say, "Ahhhh"

Topic:

Current law in the  U.S. allows DNA to be taken from sex offenders and those convicted or accused of a serious crime.  The information is maintained in a national DNA database. The database has been used both to prosecute crimes and to exonerate those wrongfully convicted. With some exceptions,  most notably the military, the federal government may not collect DNA from ordinary citizens. Several states, including Utah, have statutorily allowed the collection of DNA from persons arrested and subsequently charged with felonies. In  Utah, DNA samples of those arrested, but never charged or later exonerated, must be destroyed. In contrast, Britain more widely collects DNA from ordinary citizens, often in “DNA dragnets” where, for example, DNA samples of all male citizens in a given community are taken to aid in the investigation of a rape. The samples are maintained in a national database.

Blog:

DNA Today

The collection of DNA in the United States has widely grown in a commercial sense, more individuals are voluntary providing samples to get a deeper understanding of their family ties. Companies such as Ancestry provide a service that allows consumers to purchase AncestryDNA kit, and in turn, are given information on the origins of family or potential health implications. While the commercial benefits of DNA testing provide a deeper understanding of self, it also raises concerns for testing in another context: the criminal justice system.

DNA collection of convicted criminals has primarily faced no resistance from United States courts. In fact, many courts have continually backed legislation that supports this collection of data. What is at the forefront of the debate, however, is the collection of DNA of individuals who haven’t been convicted. Currently, the United Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in Mayland v. King that the police can collect DNA samples from individuals who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime. A comparison has been drawn between DNA samples and standard procedures such as fingerprinting and photographing by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. But it isn’t that simple.  

Privacy Concerns Regarding DNA Collection: What Your DNA Reveals About You

DNA sequences provide a profile for you, it reveals the most private information: medical history, family history, genetic health risks etc. A DNA sample is based on genetic profiling, that has the potential to tie you to an investigation. When you give up your DNA, you are rendering a holistic profile of yourself.  A sample is similar to a medical record, depending on the type of specimen drawn A sample according to the Guardian, can reveal sex, hair color, and eye color among others listed above. When providing samples to companies such as Ancestry or 23andme you consent to hand over your information to a third party company. Ancestry, for example, will hand over DNA data to the third party for research purposes for human genetics, health, genealogy and anthropology, this is usually consented upon purchasing.  Privacy for companies such as Ancestry is explicit with consumers about privacy concerns, here you can read their privacy statement.  Ancestry will also delete your data information upon request, and the physical sample will be destroyed only after you speak with management. The information embedded within your DNA raises serious privacy concerns not only in regards to personal information that can affect the way others might view you but also the criminal justice system.

Law enforcement currently utilizes forensic DNA to solve cold cases, rape, and unsolved murder investigations. Police Officers currently uses CODIS (Combined DNA Index System), specifically NDIS a federal national database that stores DNA samples that have been collected after an arrest. Advocates of privacy have raised concerns about the collection and retention of DNA samples at a commercial and state sense. Others are concerned about the privacy violations in regards to the Fourth Amendment for DNA samples collection that occurs preconviction. If you have your DNA on file it eliminates the right to anonymity and direct door for law enforcement to potential suspects.

The Benefits of DNA

Despite the complicated privacy issues concerning DNA, it does assist in different ways those including research purposes, crime investigations, personal purposes.  The collection of DNA has revolutionized research, providing a greater insight into human makeup. Personal genome sequencing “assesses the status of all of your genes at one time,” has given insight to potential diseases such as Huntington Disease, or possible markers of cancerous cells that you can take preventive steps to avoid. Personal genome sequencing is currently studied to cure possible diseases as well.

DNA has also revolutionized the criminal justice system. The DNA evidence can be used to clear suspects, solve cold cases, and clear individuals who have been wrongfully accused of a crime. One instance where this occurred was in 1999: “New York authorities connected a man through DNA evidence to at least 22 sexual assaults and robberies that had terrorized the city.”  It has also been used to identify the remains of a missing person.

The commercial use of DNA has been used to find potential living relatives, understand the family origin and relations. For example, a member of Ancestry, Kyle, who had thought he was German ended up actually finding he has a long lineage of Scottish ancestors.

Current Law Regarding DNA

Currently in the United States, only 31 states take DNA samples from felony arrestees and Utah among 7 other states have expanded to include DNA from those convicted of a misdemeanor. The uses of the DNA stored within the CODIS does not contain any medical or genetic characteristics. The 2013 ruling of Mayland v. King has provided a greater access to DNA samples as previously mentioned. A nondiscrimination act known as GINA (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act) was signed by former President Bush, to ensure that Americans genetic information is not used to discriminate in relation to health insurance or employment.

Conclusion

After researching this topic though I do see the potential benefits of mass collection of DNA samples, I do not think it is sound policy. This mass collection eliminates privacy and the right to anonymity. It would be of great concern to have a database with very personal information in a system.  Moreover, DNA should be seen as personal property, as it is in some sense an extension of ourselves that should require a warrant or arrest to demand that collection. A massive collection of DNA from citizens would yes produce a better outcome to finding potential suspects and solving cold cases, but it would also be unrealistic. Collecting DNA samples from everyone would be ineffective as there wouldn’t be a realistic way to collect DNA from all citizens. Furthermore to be able to store all that genetic data would overwhelming in the system and would require a massive amount of funding and individuals to log and store that data.

Q. OF THE WEEK NO. 10

Cyber bullying, student violence at school and teenage suicide is a growing concern in grades K-12 in schools across the nation.  Some schools are monitoring the social media posts of students in an effort to combat these problems and require students to disclose their social network passwords to school officials.  Many students and parents oppose such monitoring, citing an invasion of student privacy.

Is such monitoring sound public policy in today's digital world?

Anonymous on Campus?

Topic:

     This past year has seen a rise in racially related incidents and protests on college campuses.  Popular apps like Yik Yak and Yeti (which allow anonymous users to post to a geo-location restricted feed such as a college campus) have been used to make racist or threatening posts.  A survey of college officials in April of 2015 showed that a majority of those responding monitored the public feeds of such anonymous apps.

Blog:

            Geo-restricted, anonymous apps such as Yik Yak and Yeti have become popular on college campuses because they provide a space for students to share their experiences and opinions with fellow students, free of social dynamics that may otherwise inhibit expression. Along with being a place to share humor and gossip, these apps have been used to make threats and racist, sexist, or otherwise dangerous or offensive posts. Simultaneously, protests and racist speech have been occurring frequently on college campuses, prompting many college administrators to monitor student social media feeds, and even take action to determine the student’s identity if a concerning post is found. This monitoring and identity seeking takes place in the name of safety, but raises concerns about student's privacy and right to free speech.

Reasons for Monitoring

            Monitoring of student social media sites of all kinds has become one way for administrators to try to prevent bombings, shootings, and racist or sexist incidents from occurring on college campuses. This method has become common practice because perpetrators have been known to post hints or plans of an attack on social media, and anonymous platforms in particular have allowed students to harass and degrade others without consequences. Even if posts don’t pose a direct threat, they can be hateful and directed at an individual or group of people, which can cause mental health problems and social anxiety for students on campus, so administrators have felt pressure to try to protect their students. Some students have even requested that their peers be outed and disciplined for posts made about them, such as in a case brought by five female students and two feminist groups against the University of Mary, Washington and the school’s president, because feminist students had been harassed and received threats of sexual violence by fellow students on Yik Yak, but the students did not think administrators responded correctly.

Privacy Concerns Around Monitoring Anonymous Student Media

            Active, ongoing monitoring of anonymous student social media by school administrators can be viewed as an invasion of privacy because administrators are conducting a form of mass surveillance, especially if the school is state funded. Anonymous posts may still contain personally identifiable information, such as specific classes a student is in or the student’s residence hall, which could lead to their identity being discovered. It is also possible that a student could be identified and targeted online by an anonymous student, so only the victim would be revealed to administrators. If a student makes an anonymous post on social media and is then outed by administration they may be judged by their professors, peers, and potential employers. This outing may even go so far as to violate FERPA, if private information about a student is distributed without permission from the student.

Deliberate attempts by administrators to determine the identity of a student that has posted anonymously may also be considered a violation of the First Amendment, especially if the school is run by the state. If students know their administration will seek to determine their identity for any posts deemed inappropriate by the administration, then their free speech will be limited and they will have to self-censor. Censoring of hate speech is good, but students may  have to avoid posting opinions that cast administrators, professors, and schools as a whole in a negative light. Attempts by administrators to determine who made a post by requesting information from the app may violate a student's privacy because it attempts to take away their anonymity, and could lead to the student being sanctioned. If administrators attempt to sanction a student for speech, even unpopular speech, that doesn’t directly threaten anyone or break the student code of conduct, they are violating the First Amendment.

Current Laws Regulating Student Free Speech, Anonymous App Use and Monitoring

            According to the National Association of College and University Attorneys, “public institutions may only prohibit and discipline speech falling in those categories outside the protection of the First Amendment, such as “fighting words,” [10] speech inciting imminent lawless action [11], “true threats,” [12] unlawful harassment [13], obscenity, and defamation.” Based on a number of different court cases, student speech on and off campus is protected by the First Amendment. It is important to note that private schools have more power to restrict student speech on campus and take disciplinary action than public schools do, so long as rules are outlined in their student code of conduct. There is no law regulating administrators monitoring, or addressing student speech if no disciplinary action is taken that would violate the student’s First Amendment rights.
            In Utah, there is a law that doesn’t allow colleges and universities to ask students for their social media account information, but allows monitoring of the accounts. This law was created to respond to the athletics department at Utah State University requiring students to give administrators and a third-party monitoring company their usernames and passwords so the accounts could be directly monitored. USU also stopped active monitoring after finding that it was taking up a lot of their staff’s time. Now, instead of monitoring, the USU athletics department has a class to teach athletes about responsible social media use.

My Opinion

I do not think college administrators should actively monitor public student social media feeds. I think it’s the duty of administrators to educate students, not to monitor their social media activity. To me it is a waste of time and money, and counts as surveillance. While I recognize that ensuring student safety is one facet of a school administrator's job, I think they should approach safety through educating students, encouraging respectful discourse, and deferring to experts. If a problematic post is brought to an administrator’s attention, I think they should work with the Title IX Office and/or university police to address the issue because those departments have the training to recognize and respond appropriately to potential threats or illegal activity. While I am okay with administrators asking students to take down posts that are offensive but not threatening or illegal once, I don’t think they should seek to determine student’s identities unless a post is brought to their attention that presents clear danger, and law enforcement is involved.

Q. OF THE WEEK NO. 9

The Food and Drug Administration has required all TV advertisements for prescription drugs to list possible side effects.  Should the Federal Trade Commission require all TV advertisements for "smart devices" to list possible privacy and security risks?