QUESTION OF THE WEEK NO.12

Should accessing and using the Dark Web be criminalized?

Bitcoin: Do virtual currencies need regulation?

Bitcoin was the first decentralized virtual currency, a type of “unregulated, digital money, … used and accepted among members of a specific virtual community” (European Central Bank). Bitcoin was created by Satoshi Nakamoto on October 31, 2008, when Nakamoto published a research paper titled “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.” You can send and receive Bitcoins online, without having to go through a bank or other intermediary like PayPal. That means much lower transaction fees (around 0.0005 Bitcoin, or $0.60). And because there’s no central bank or mint to manage everything, there are no terms, limits, or conditions. Check out this video [1:36] on Bitcoin for more. But how can Bitcoin work without a central authority? If you receive a Bitcoin, how do you know it’s really yours to spend, with no third-party guaranteeing each transaction? Bitcoin’s answer is peer-to-peer data processing, also known as mining. Bitcoin mining is the process of making computer hardware do calculations for the Bitcoin network to confirm transactions. As a reward for their services, Bitcoin miners collect transaction fees.

Each user has a digital wallet, containing your Bitcoins, as well as a private key, like a unique digital fingerprint. When you buy a cup of coffee, you use your Bitcoin wallet to make the transaction, which is digitally signed by your private key. The “signature” is then checked by Bitcoin miners before being published on a transparent public ledger. The miners do mathematical calculations to check that it was really you that signed the transaction, and that you didn’t spend the same Bitcoin twice. If you want to learn more about the cryptography involved, the Bitcoin Wiki has a good explanation. The Bitcoin network works like most peer-to-peer software: users, also called nodes, can join and leave at will, and the “official” record is just the order of transactions that most nodes agree on. This does create the possibility of an attack on the Bitcoin network if a group of nodes made a concentrated effort to log inaccurate transactions. As Nakamoto says in his research paper, “The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.”

With Bitcoin worth $1190, new potential Bitcoin users might be wary of the peer-to-peer structure. Without a trusted third-party to oversee and mediate, there’s no money-back guarantee. And users have a high degree of anonymity, which provides opportunities for criminal activity, including black markets, money laundering, and tax evasion. Should Bitcoin be regulated? If so, who should step in? New York state created BitLicense, which requires that businesses obtain a license to deal in Bitcoin or other virtual currencies. This and other rules have been heavily criticized for imposing onerous conditions on Bitcoin operators, and making it difficult for small companies or startups to operate. You can read more about BitLicense here.

The IRS treats virtual currencies as property, so every Bitcoin user must track the gains or losses of each transaction to stay in compliance with IRS regulations. Tax Foundation, a tax policy research organization, claims that virtual currency should not be categorized as property. They say that the IRS ignores how virtual currency is used and treat them as something that people hold for an investment. The Federal Reserve does not currently have the jurisdiction to supervise or regulate virtual currency, but said in 2014 that “Bitcoin does not present a threat to economic activity by disrupting traditional channels of commerce; rather, it could serve as a boon. Its global transferability opens new markets to merchants and service providers” (Board of Governors meeting transcript).

I believe that regulating Bitcoin is a fruitless effort. It’s nearly impossible to stop someone downloading a Bitcoin wallet and connecting to the network. That’s because the Bitcoin network is completely decentralized. There’s no server to shut down and no one node that knows all. Even in areas where Bitcoin isn’t considered illegal, any regulations will inevitably restrict innovation. For a great overview of this debate, read this CoinDesk article.

QUESTION 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.  In order to provide better and more timely health care to individuals, should physicians and other healthcare providers be able to freely access and share this information with each other without a patient’s consent?

DNA Databases and Dragnets

The collection of a national DNA database is an idea that has been circulating for a very long time.  In the United States, the Title 42 Chapter 136 of the U.S Code states that the collection of DNA samples can only be obtained by individuals in custody, individuals on release, parole or probation, and individuals already in CODIS (Combined DNA Index System).  The Attorney General, Director of the Bureau of Prisons, the probation office, or anyone delegated by these people, can only collect DNA.   DNA can only be collected from people who are guilty of a class A misdemeanor and punished in accordance with title 18.  This U.S Code goes more into detail about what is determined a felony and what is described as a DNA sample.  These provisions are very different from those in the UK.

            Since 1994, the UK has been collecting DNA from people all around the nation and now holds DNA samples from 2.7 million people (5.2% of the population).  The DNA collected is largely associated with people who have never been charged or convicted of any crimes.  The British Parliament created the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act in 1994.  This act gives the police the right to take anyone’s DNA without consent, as long as they committed a “recordable” offense.  This could mean anywhere from a casual traffic stop or being drunk and disorderly to a robbery or murder.  In 2001, the law was changed to enable permanent retention of the DNA sample profiles for people who were charged but not proceeded against.  The ultimate goal of this is Act is to collect DNA from all citizens, to make a society where justice is accurately served to those who are guilty, and providing freedom to those who are innocent.

            The use of “DNA Dragnets” has become a popular way to collect citizen DNA.  Dragnets are used to collect a pool of DNA, which is then run through the system to see if they can find a match.  In September of 2004, a student at the University of Oklahoma was raped and murdered on her way home from class.  The investigator, John Maddox, found the DNA of the rapist, and created an arrest warrant for him under the name John Doe.  This was possible because they had the DNA evidence, but they did not know who he was.  So Maddox asked for people to volunteer their DNA.  The article states, “In most cases, where people refused, Kuykendall got the courts to force them to give DNA. But Juli's parents, Mary Jean and Bud Busken, wonder why any innocent person would hesitate. "The bottom line to me is there's only two people that don't want to have DNA taken, and that's a person that has done something wrong, or going to do something wrong," says Bud Busken.”  DNA collection is perfectly legal as long as it is voluntary.  This article was really interesting so if you want to check it out you can do so here.

            I find it hard to justify the need for a national DNA database with every single citizen’s DNA and even less the use of dragnets.  I feel like a criminal can just refuse to have his DNA tested, and unless they have any other evidence, they won’t be able to get a warrant to force the suspect to give DNA.  I do not think that the United States should create a national DNA database or allow the use of DNA dragnets because it infringes on the citizens right to privacy by being excessive and unreasonable.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/14135a

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490298/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dna-dragnet/

National DNA Database

Should the creation of a national DNA database consisting of DNA from every citizen collected through a mandatory collection program?

In the U.S. current law allows DNA to be taken from sex offenders and those convicted or accused of a serious crime.  The information is the stored 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.

How does it work exactly here in the U.S?

How do these DNA databases using CODIS work?

For example, in the case of a sexual assault where an evidence kit is collected from the victim, a DNA profile of the suspected perpetrator is developed from the swabs in the kit. The forensic unknown profile attributed to the suspected perpetrator is searched against their state database of convicted offender and arrestee profiles (contained within the Convicted Offender and Arrestee Indices, if that state is authorized to collect and database DNA samples from arrestees). If there is a candidate match in the Convicted Offender or Arrestee Index, the laboratory will go through procedures to confirm the match and, if confirmed, will obtain the identity of the suspected perpetrator. The DNA profile from the evidence is also searched against the state’s database of crime scene DNA profiles called the Forensic Index. If there is a candidate match in the Forensic Index, the laboratory goes through the confirmation procedures and, if confirmed, the match will have linked two or more crimes together. The law enforcement agencies involved in these cases are then able to share the information obtained on each of the cases and possibly develop additional leads. (FBI.gov)

Why not?

You may ask yourself why it is even a concern that the government stores a little bit of your DNA if you haven't committed a crime.

One argument focuses on the threat to privacy. "Many people are against the idea of extending the DNA database because of the potential threat it has to our privacy. While a DNA profile provides very little information about someone, their DNA sample contains information that can reveal their ethnicity or how susceptible they are to disease. The risk of data abuse is therefore potentially high."

Also when would we draw the line to who has access to this information? If the individual themselves had questions about their genetic profile could they request to view the information stored about them? Would we share this data with other all other countries or just those that have a similar system in place? Who would be regulating this data to make sure it doesn't get used for commercial purposes? "As genetic databases become increasingly common in other countries (over 60 countries are now operating one) the sharing of data between international police forces is likely to increase. This may increase the vulnerability of databases to abuse and hacking. It also introduces the challenge of differences in the rules for holding data which vary greatly between different countries. Although one standard may apply in the UK, it may not apply elsewhere."

What are the other possibilities of uses for the database? 

Genetic testing: "Currently the database can already be used for some genetic research studies and to identify partial matches, where close genetic relatives can be identified from the DNA profiles of relatives on the database." What new doors could this open up? Being able to find long lost relatives, prove certain familial ties and even uncover your genetic risk to certain disease? What if insurance companies were able to access this data and increase rates for those susceptible to certain conditions?

There are many ethical questions that arise with this possible new law. For example, how long will this data be stored? Maybe past the death of the individual to help rule out DNA in the future? Will certain groups be exempt from this and for what reasons? What measures will be taken to ensure the safety of this information? 

Personally I think that we don't have the means to protect such a large amount of personal information with any expectation of safety. The possible threats this country could face if this information got into the wrong hands outweighs the possible benefits to me. There is certainly valid debate from both sides but I just think it's too high of a security risk. This information could not only jeopardize privacy but also general safety. If someone got all the DNA profiles of a group of people they could target them in a number of ways (ex. biological warfare, discrimination) I do not think it should be mandatory for every citizen to give a DNA sample, that just gives too much control to the government. 

Sources:

http://www.yourgenome.org/debates/is-it-ethical-to-have-a-national-dna-database

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/dna-databases/ 

https://www.fbi.gov/services/laboratory/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet