Richmond Journal of Law and Technology

By: Paxton Rizzo

DNA testing has seen a rise in popularity after becoming more available to the general public. Not surprisingly, the popularity for DNA testing of man’s best friend was quick to follow. The technology that allows us to understand where we come from, now also allows us to understand where our dogs come from. Knowing what breeds make up our dogs may not just be some fun gift idea but may prove helpful in moving some dogs that have been falsely labeled as “Pit Type” out from under breed targeted legislation.

Canine DNA testing is done using the same process as human DNA testing. A cheek swab is taken from the dog and mailed to whatever company is providing the testing.[1] Company choice is especially important for accuracy when testing dogs. Owners should look for a company with a bigger database if they want the test to be as accurate as possible.[2] The bigger the database, the more DNA repeating sequences it has to in or to and compare them to sequences from dogs known to belong to a specific breed.[3] These repeating DNA sequences are known as single-nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs; different breeds have different signature SNPs.[4] Larger databases have more SNPs aggregated and matched to specific breeds, thus resulting in more accurate tests.[5]

Many mixed breed dog’s appearances do not portray what their genetics are. In the legal field, this has proven detrimental to some mixed breed dogs. Currently, Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) targets one dog type in particular that almost every American has heard of, the Pit Bull.[6]  In legislation the term “Pit Bull” is often broken down to mean Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers.[7] Defining what breeds they mean is necessary because the American Kennel Club (AKC), the largest dog breed registry in the country, does not recognize the “Pit Bull” as a breed. To put it all together at this point, the “breed” Pit Bull has no breed standard that breeders would breed their dogs to meet because it is not a real breed. Thus, there is no standard repeating code or SNPs that could determine a dog as a “Pit Bull”.

The lack of a breed standard creates the confusion that causes misidentification of mixbreed dogs.[8] BSL bans the breeds of dogs that traditionally make up the baseline DNA of what the public would call “Pit Bulls”.[9] Those breeds are AKC recognized, thus DNA testing can reveal whether a particular dog has those breeds in its make up, but to be certain, DNA testing would be necessary.[10] There are many breeds of dogs that legislation does not target that when mixed with other breeds resembles what some would call a “Pit Bull”.[11] Veterinarians and Shelter workers, with and without breed identification training, have mixed success rates when attempting to identify breed based on phenotype.[12] Many iterations of BSL relies on individuals who have no breed identification training to try and distinguish what is and is not a “Pit Bull,” a type of dog we have already established has no standard of what it will look like.[13]  This has led to many dogs being seized that were not among the breeds defined as “Pit Bulls,” such as Niko, a boxer mix in Kansas City.[14] DNA testing was able to prove that this boxer mix seized by animal control in Kansas City was not a Pit Bull.[15] That ordeal that lasted 8 months prompted a near by town in Kansas to repeal its breed specific legislation,[16] possibly realizing it was unenforceable on appearance alone.

Virginia is not a state that has any breed specific legislation, but there are apartment complexes and other living situations that do not allow owners to have a “Pit Bull.” The Richmond SPCA was curious to see if breed identification available through DNA testing would increase the adoption of dogs that resembled what would be considered a Pit Type dog.[17] What they found was that the breed identification in this legal environment did not make perspective owners any more or less likely to adopt a dog and what most owners really cared about was temperament.[18]

Canine DNA testing is revealing that dogs that look like a “Pit Bull” may not have any Pit Type dog in them; they may just be a Great Dane mixed with Chow Chow.[19] Alternatively, they may have 50% American Bull Dog in them, a breed that some legislation considers a pit type dog, but the other 50% of that same dog may be Lassie.[20] The ability to test their dog may provide with modern DNA technology may provide owners with the ability to protect their dog from breed specific legislation or know if the breed specific legislation applies to them. The more DNA testing that is done on dogs the more we will see that any dog can be a “Pit Bull,” and every dog is a “Pit Bull”, which could make legislation that has been challenged on fairness impossible to enforce.

 

[1] Kathryn Socie-Dunning, Dog DNA Tests: Mixed Results, Whole Dog Journal (July 2018), https://www.whole-dog-journal.com/issues/21_7/features/Dog-DNA-Tests-Mixed-Results_21872-1.html.

[2] See id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] See Kate Horowitz, DNA Tests Show Many Shelter Dogs Are Mislabeled as Pit Bulls, Mental Floss (Feb. 20, 2016), http://mentalfloss.com/article/75759/dna-tests-show-many-shelter-dogs-are-mislabeled-pit-bulls.

[7] See Dana M. Campbell, Pit Bull Bans: The State of Breed-Specific Legislation, GPSolo, July/Aug. 2009, at 38.

[8] See Id. See also Horowitz, supra note 7.

[9] Campbell, supra note 8, at 38.

[10] See Horowitz, supra note 7. See also Emily Weiss, Bully This – The Results Are In…, ASPCApro, (Sept. 26, 2013), https://www.aspcapro.org/blog/2013/09/25/bully-—-results-are-….

[11] See Weiss, supra note 11.

[12] See id. See also Horowitz, supra note 7.

[13] Campbell, supra note 8, at 39.

[14] Id. at 38.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] See Weiss, supra note 11.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

By: Kirk Kaczmarek

Analysts have repeatedly claimed that blockchain technology would upend the way we transact.[1] However, Bitcoin’s precipitous downward spiral has seemingly stopped the blockchain revolution in its tracks.[2] But blockchain enthusiasts may soon have cause to rejoice. Brave, an emerging privacy-focused web browser integrated with cryptocurrency may lay the groundwork for the heralded blockchain takeover of transactions.

Google is a paradox – a tech giant that brought in 32.5 billion dollars in Q2 2018 while providing most of its services for free; [3] a user base that conducts 3.5 billion Google searches a day while distrusting the company itself.[4] How does Google manage to turn these opposing forces into massive profits, and is its reign over the internet kingdom unassailable?

Google monetizes its services by treating its users as a product. Google collects data each time you use one of its services – everything from your name, birthday, gender, location, e-mail content, YouTube comments, the websites you visit, photographs and videos you save or view, contacts you add, calendar events, and more[5] – and then stores it all in data centers.[6] Next, Google uses this data to target advertisements to certain people.[7] This targeting process involves contracting with an almost innumerable number of middlemen, driving up the cost of advertisements.[8]

Monetizing free services in this way has become the norm; social media is one visible example.[9] Last March, Apple CEO Tim Cook scathingly rebuked this user-as-the-product business model.[10] In response, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended this practice as “the only rational model that can support building this service to reach people.”[11]

However, another tech industry heavyweight is challenging the status quo.

Enter Brendan Eich, the inventor of JavaScript and a cofounder of Mozilla – the organization responsible for the popular Firefox web browser and Thunderbird e-mail client.[12] In 2015, Eich founded and became CEO of Brave Software.[13]

Brave Software is developing an integrated two-pronged platform that Eich hopes will upend the current internet advertisement system by protecting user data, effectively targeting advertisements, and creating an entirely new marketplace for web-based advertising. The platform consists of the Brave web browser, and the Basic Attention Token (BAT), an Ethereum-based cryptocurrency associated with the value of web surfers’ attention.

Ironically, the Brave browser is based Chromium and should support all the same functionality that Google Chrome provides upon its full release. However, Brave differentiates itself in three key ways: it (1) blocks all advertisements by default, giving users the choice to opt into advertisements, (2) blocks all trackers by default, again allowing users to opt in, and (3) is integrated with BAT.

Via browser extensions, popular web browsers today are already capable of blocking advertisements and trackers.[14] However, this practice is unsustainable – without advertisement revenue, free internet services could not exist.[15] BAT integration is Brave’s solution to this problem.[16]

Consider watching a video on YouTube. Four entities are involved in this marketplace: (I) YouTube is the website publisher, (II) the person who made the video is the content creator, (III) the company who paid for the pre-video advertisement is the advertiser, and (IV) the viewer is the user. Brave offers a way for all four entities to benefit from the user’s attention.

Publishers, content creators, and users obtain BAT wallets – a cryptocurrency key that acts like an online bank account specifically for transacting in BAT.[17] Advertisers pay Brave in BAT to include advertisements in a catalogue.[18] This catalogue periodically updates directly to the Brave browser.[19] Rather than having the user send data to data centers, Brave keeps all the data stored locally on the user’s device; no third parties ever gain access to user data.[20] Should the user opt into advertisements, this data matches with the catalogue, and displays advertisements on the publisher’s website.[21]

Brave takes a small cut of the BAT from the transaction.[22] The content creators and publishers also take a cut. And finally, the user takes a cut as well.[23] By sharing the value of the user’s attention between the content creators, publishers, and users themselves, Brave creates a system that allows users to protect their data without obstructing the advertisement marketplace that keeps the internet free.[24]

If successful, Brave’s impact on internet-based services and advertisements could be enormous. However, the effects rippling from a successful large-scale implementation of an Ethereum-based cryptocurrency is perhaps even more intriguing. By cutting out middlemen and contracting entirely on the users’ devices, BAT highlights Ethereum’s potential as a means to form contracts automatically on a massive scale. If BAT can accrue value based on the platform itself, not merely its speculative value as a cryptocurrency, then the long-awaited blockchain revolution may arrive at last.

 

[1] See Andrew Rossow, How Blockchain Technology Can Help Power a New 21^st Century Metropolis, Forbes (Sep. 19, 2018, 10:37 am), https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewrossow/2018/09/19/how-blockchain-technology-can-help-power-a-new-21st-century-metropolis/#560242167d65, Joichi Ito, Neha Narula, Robleh Ali, The Blockchain Will Do to the Financial System What the Internet Did to Media, Harvard Business Rev. (March 8, 2017) https://hbr.org/2017/03/the-blockchain-will-do-to-banks-and-law-firms-what-the-internet-did-to-media.

[2] See Nathaniel Popper, Su-Hyun Lee, After the Boom: Hard Lessons for Cryptocurrency Investors, The New York Times (Aug. 20, 2018) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/20/technology/cryptocurrency-investor-losses.html.

[3] Alphabet Announces Second Quarter 2018 Results, Alphabet Inc. (June 30, 2018)

https://abc.xyz/investor/pdf/2018Q2_alphabet_earnings_release.pdf.

[4] See Google Search Statistics, Internet Live Stats http://www.internetlivestats.com/google-search-statistics/, Anuck Jesdanun, Ryan Nakashima, Don’t Trust the Tech Giants? You Likely Rely On Them Anyway, (June 11, 2018) https://phys.org/news/2018-06-dont-tech-giants.html; Robert Klara, How Bad Is It for Google and Facebook that Consumers Don’t Trust Them?, (Jan. 21, 2016) https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/how-big-problem-it-google-and-facebook-consumers-don-t-trust-them-169108/.

[5] See Making It Easy to Understand What Data We Collect and Why, Google https://safety.google/privacy/data/, Ben Popken, Google Sells the Future Powered By Your Personal Data, (May 10, 2018) https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-sells-future-powered-your-personal-data-n870501.

[6] See Google Data Center FAQ, (Mar. 16, 2017) https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2017/03/16/google-data-center-faq.

[7] See We Do Not Sell Your Personal Information to Anyone, Google https://safety.google/privacy/ads-and-data/.

[8] See Brave Software,  Basic Attention Token (BAT): Blockchain Digital Based Advertising, 5 (2018) https://basicattentiontoken.org/BasicAttentionTokenWhitePaper-4.pdf.

[9] See Steve Campbell, How Do Social Networks Make Money, MSNBC (April 30, 2010) https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-do-social-networks-make-money-case-wondering/.

[10] See Interview by Chris Hayes and Kara Swisher with Tim Cook, CEO, Apple, in New York, N.Y. (Mar. 27, 2018) https://www.recode.net/2018/4/6/17206532/transcript-interview-apple-tim-cook-msnbc-kara-swisher.

[11] Alyssa Newcomb, Mark Zuckerberg Fires Back at Apple CEO’s ‘Extremely Glib’ Comment, NBC (Apr. 2, 2018) https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/mark-zuckerberg-fires-back-apple-ceo-s-extremely-glib-comment-n862056.

[12] See Sebastian Anthony, Mozilla co-Founder Unveils Brave, a Browser that Blocks Ads by Default, Ars Technica (Jan. 21, 2016. 9:07 am) https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/01/mozilla-co-founder-unveils-brave-a-web-browser-that-blocks-ads-by-default/.

[13] See Brave Software Raises $2.5 Million and Expands Technical Team, The Business Journals (Nov. 17, 2015) https://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2015/11/17/SF59778.

[14] See John Corpuz, Best Ad Blockers and Privacy Extensions, Tom’s Guide (Jan. 12, 2018) https://www.tomsguide.com/us/pictures-story/565-best-adblockers-privacy-extensions.html.

[15] See Brave Software, supra note 8, at 1.

[16] See id.

[17] See Jennie, Understanding Basic Attention Token (BAT): An Easy Introduction, Medium (December 4, 2017) https://medium.com/@CryptoJennie/understanding-basic-attention-token-bat-an-easy-introduction-42633b3a1ba.

[18] See id.

[19] See id.

[20] See id.

[21] See id.

[22] See id.

[23] See id.

[24] See id.

Image Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Basic_Attention_Token_Icon.svg

By: Alexis George

As yet another election cycle approaches one seemingly harmless practice is still widely debated in the United States – should voters be able to take photos of themselves, or selfies, while carrying out their civic duty? In the age of widespread social media use it’s not difficult to see how this question has become more widespread over recent years. Nevertheless, unbeknownst to many voters, taking a selfie while in a voting booth or with your completed ballot is actually illegal in many states.

One of the best examples of this little known fact playing out in real life is the case of Justin Timberlake. Timberlake took a photo of himself with his filled out ballot for the 2016 Presidential election and posted it on social media but did not find out until afterwards that in his home state of Tennessee, it is actually a misdemeanor offense to take ballot selfies.[1] In fact, in Tennessee the misdemeanor offense of taking photos at polling places carries the potential punishment of thirty days in jail and a fifty dollar fine.[2] The issue of taking photos at polling places has come up in other states as well as at least five courts have ruled on the issue resulting in a circuit split between the First and Sixth Circuits over whether the practice should or should not be legal.[3]

Further, it was determined in November 2016 that as many at least 17 states had laws against ballot selfies while in only 19 states was taking a ballot selfie legal or not banned.[4] In the remaining states laws are unclear as to whether taking photos at polling places is or is not legal.[5] In Oklahoma for example, an official told the Associated Press that the law “appeared to ban” ballot selfies but that the penalties for breaking the law by posting a photo taken at a polling place “aren’t clear.”[6]

One of the main reasons for the disagreement among states over the legality of ballot selfies is the issue of balancing freedom of speech against the integrity of the voting process.[7] Jeffrey Hermes, deputy director of the Media Law Resource Center described the problem as “a very unusual case” as it is usually considered a violation of the First Amendment to ban political speech, which essentially is what taking a ballot selfie is.[8]

Many proponents of laws banning taking photos inside polling places or with completed ballots argue that these laws need to be upheld because they protect voter privacy.[9] Proponents on this side argue that the laws not only protect voters’ integrity, but also protect voters from being intimidated or induced.[10] The idea here is that if ballot selfies are allowed it could encourage “vote buying,” or the practice of voters being rewarded for providing proof that they voted for a certain candidate.[11] This argument makes it difficult for many states to come to a consensus about whether to make ballot selfies legal or not as voter privacy has long been a central concern of state legislatures—especially those which have enacted laws banning ballot selfies.

On the other side of the issue there is also a very well-founded concern. Proponents of making ballot selfies legal often argue that the selfies are protected by the First Amendment’s freedom of speech provision because they represent political speech.[12] Further, protecting political speech has consistently been an important theme throughout Supreme Court precedent.[13] Another argument to legalize ballot selfies has been that it encourages more civic engagement among younger generations and essentially makes the whole process of voting more fun. In fact, in an amicus brief urging the legalization of ballot selfies in New Hampshire, Snapchat, a popular communications app, argued that selfies are how young voters engage in the political process.[14]

Even today it is not clear whether an overall move towards the legalization of ballot selfies will take place. Given the popularity of technology and social media in general, the issue has garnered more support over the years. Nevertheless, even leading up to the approaching midterm elections a number of state legislatures have still decided against making ballot selfies legal.

 

[1] Roy S. Gutterman, Ballot Selfies: New Political Speech in Search of First Amendment Protection in Social Media, 8 Wake Forest J. of L. & Pol’y 211 (2018).

[2] See id.

[3] See id.

[4] Jefferson Graham, Want to take a ‘ballot selfie’? Here’s where it’s legal, and not, USA TODAY (Nov. 6, 2016, 10:01 AM), https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/11/06/ballot-selfie-beware-s-often-illegal-despite-flurry-late-attempts-change/93299316/.

[5] See id.

[6] Abby Ohlheiser, Yes, your ballot selfie still might be illegal. Sorry., Wash. Post (Nov. 8, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/10/26/yes-your-ballot-selfie-still-might-be-illegal-sorry/?utm_term=.381c05e8dc24.

[7] See id.

[8] See id.

[9] Katie Reilly, Here’s Where You’re Allowed to Take a Selfie While Voting, TIME (Oct. 26, 2016), http://time.com/4546190/2016-presidential-election-ballot-selfies/.

[10] Katie Rogers, Can You Take a Voting Selfie? States Wage Legal Battles Days Before Election, N.Y. Times (Nov. 2, 2016), https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/03/us/politics/voting-selfie.html.

[11] Graham, supra note 4.

[12] Daniel A. Horwitz, A Picture’s Worth a Thousand Words: Why Ballot Selfies are Protected by the First Amendment 18 SMU Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 247, 253 (2015).

[13] Gutterman, supra note 1, at 229.

[14] Graham, supra note 4.

Image Source: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/10/26/texplainer-can-i-take-ballot-selfie-texas/

By: Jordan Carrier

More than 15 million people have had their DNA analyzed by companies like 23andMe and Ancestry following a boom in testing during 2017.[1]  This increased interest in gene testing has been attributed to companies’ advertising of genealogical testing.[2] An initial consumer concern, and one that has persisted as more consumers have their DNA analyzed, is the loss of control over genetic information and the associated risks.[3] For example, the Chief Privacy Officer of 23andMe stated in 2016 that U.S. regulatory compliance “requires that raw information be held for a minimum of 10 years.”[4] This means that even if customers close their 23andMe accounts, the information is still held by the company.[5] This information can be used for research purposes by drug companies, can lead to lack of insurance coverage based on genetic predispositions, and can be used by law enforcement.[6] While testing companies are adamant that genetic information is deidentified and law enforcement efforts will be resisted at all costs, it is possible for information to be reidentified and federal government agencies have already begun subpoenaing these companies.[7]

The risks associated with genetic data not only affect those who make the decision to send samples to testing companies but have potential ramifications for family members as well.[8] Perhaps most notably, the arrest of the man suspected of being the Golden State killer occurred as a result of DNA from the crime scene matching to one of Joseph James DeAngelo’s relatives on an open source DNA and Genealogy Research site.[9] Between 1976 and 1986, the Sacramento, California area was plagued by a series of rapes and murders and the killer was nicknamed “The Golden State Killer.”[10] The crimes stopped and no arrests were made in the following 32 years.[11] In April of 2018, law enforcement officers created a genome-wide profile and uploaded it to GEDmatch, a database which contains approximately one million DNA profiles.[12] The site identified a third cousin,[13] and officers created a family tree for the match and narrowed family members down by age, gender, location, and other characteristics to determine a single suspect.[14] Between April and August of 2018, 13 cases have reportedly been solved through the use of similar long range familial searches.[15]

In response to the use of long range familial searches in criminal cases, researches sought out to determine what percent of individuals of European descent could be identified by a third cousin or closer match.[16] Using the same genealogy research site used to find a suspect in the Golden State Killer case, which consists of 1.28 million individuals who had their DNA tested with consumer genomics and demographic identifiers, the study concluded that nearly 60% of long-range familial searches can identify a third cousin or a closer relative, the same level of connection that lead to Joseph DeAngelo’s arrest.[17] To test these results, the DNA of an individual, whose identity was known but was treated as unknown for the purpose of the test, was used.[18] Within one hour of uploading the sample to GEDmatch, an ancestral couple from 4-6 generations ago had been identified.[19] By the end of the day, the target person had been identified and confirmed.[20]

As the number of consumers who have sent their DNA to sequencing companies continues to increase, so will the percent of individuals who can be matched to family members through the databases. It is estimated that if a random sample of 2% of a given population’s DNA is analyzed and put into a database, then 90% of searches would produce a family member.[21] While current databases are not representative samples, with 75% of people in the GEDmatch database being of European descent,[22] the ramifications are still very real.

Ultimately, it is up to consumers to determine if participating in a genetic testing services is something that they are comfortable with,[23] and the use of genetic information in the criminal investigation context may affect consumers’ comfort levels moving forward.

 

[1] See Y. Erlich et al., Identity Inference of Genomic Data Using Long-Range Familial Searches, Science Mag. (Oct. 11, 2018), http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/early/2018/10/10/science.aau4832.full.pdf.

[2]See Antonio Regalado, 2017 Was the Year Consumer DNA Testing Blew Up, MIT Technology Review, (Feb. 12, 2018), https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610233/2017-was-the-year-consumer-dna-testing-blew-up/.

[3]See Patrick Cain, Privacy Risks Lurk in DNA Tests, Experts Warn, Global News (Aug. 15, 2018 8:00 AM EDT), https://globalnews.ca/news/2879276/privacy-risks-lurk-in-dna-tests-experts-warn/.

[4] Id.

[5] See id.

[6] See Eric Rosenbaum, 5 Biggest Risks of Sharing Your DNA with Consumer Genetic-Testing Companies, CNBC (June 16, 2018 9:00 AM EDT), https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/16/5-biggest-risks-of-sharing-dna-with-consumer-genetic-testing-companies.html.

[7] See id.

[8] See Cyrus Farivar, GEDmatch, a Tiny GNA Analysis Firm, was Key for Golden State Killer Case, ARS Technica (Apr. 27, 2018 10:25 AM EDT), https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/gedmatch-a-tiny-dna-analysis-firm-was-key-for-golden-state-killer-case/.

[9]See id.

[10] See Laurel Wamsley, After Arrest of Suspected Golden State Killer, Details of His Life Emerge, NPR (Apr. 26, 2018 3:51 PM ET), https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/26/606060349/after-arrest-of-suspected-golden-state-killer-details-of-his-life-emerge.

[11]See Emily Shapiro & Jenna Harrison, Suspected ‘Golden State Killer,’ Accused of Murders Across California, to Face Trial in Sacramento: Officials, ABC News (Aug. 21, 2018 2:20 PM ET), https://abcnews.go.com/US/suspected-golden-state-killer-accused-murders-california-face/story?id=57292961.

[12] See Y. Erlich et al., Identity Inference of Genomic Data Using Long-Range Familial Searches, Science Mag. (Oct. 11, 2018), http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/early/2018/10/10/science.aau4832.full.pdf.

[13]See Y. Erlich et al., Identity Inference of Genomic Data Using Long-Range Familial Searches, Science Mag. (Oct. 11, 2018), http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/early/2018/10/10/science.aau4832.full.pdf.

[14] See Emily Shapiro & Jenna Harrison, Suspected ‘Golden State Killer,’ Accused of Murders Across California, to Face Trial in Sacramento: Officials, ABC News (Aug. 21, 2018 2:20 PM ET), https://abcnews.go.com/US/suspected-golden-state-killer-accused-murders-california-face/story?id=57292961.

[15]See Y. Erlich et al., Identity Inference of Genomic Data Using Long-Range Familial Searches, Science Mag. (Oct. 11, 2018), http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/early/2018/10/10/science.aau4832.full.pdf.

[16] See id.

[17] See id; See also Cyrus Farivar, GEDmatch, a Tiny GNA Analysis Firm, was Key for Golden State Killer Case, ARS Technica (Apr. 27, 2018 10:25 AM EDT), https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/gedmatch-a-tiny-dna-analysis-firm-was-key-for-golden-state-killer-case/.

[18] See id.

[19] See id.

[20] See id.

[21] See Cyrus Farivar, GEDmatch, a Tiny GNA Analysis Firm, was Key for Golden State Killer Case, ARS Technica (Apr. 27, 2018 10:25 AM EDT), https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/gedmatch-a-tiny-dna-analysis-firm-was-key-for-golden-state-killer-case/.

[22] See id.

[23] See Patrick Cain, Privacy Risks Lurk in DNA Tests, Experts Warn, Global News (Aug. 15, 2018 8:00 AM EDT), https://globalnews.ca/news/2879276/privacy-risks-lurk-in-dna-tests-experts-warn/.

Image Source: https://www.smarterhobby.com/genealogy/best-dna-test/

By Florian Uffer

The recent rise of cryptocurrency has taken the financial universe by storm and left a significant level of uncertainty in the legal world. Due to its revolutionary concept and technologically advanced nature, relevant U.S. regulatory agencies have found it difficult to rightfully assert jurisdiction over it.

Cryptocurrency is an electronic cash system which does not rely on banks or third parties to verify transactions.[1]Rather, transactions are recorded on a blockchain, a digital ledger.[2]This blockchain is used to confirm upcoming transactions, thus enabling direct peer-to-peer payments.[3]It follows that,due to the bypass of financial intermediaries, cryptocurrency transactions are significantly quicker and cheaper than their financial counterparts.

Government currency is regulated by the Department of the Treasury and by the Federal Reserve, commodities by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), and stocks and securities by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).[4]Cryptocurrency, however, lacks a single regulatory body.[5]The main hurdle facing regulators consists of a difficulty in properly classifying the range of cryptocurrencies that exist.[6]

In determining whether a certain asset classifies as a security, the SEC still uses a yardstick known as the Howey Test.[7]In SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., the Supreme Court elucidated that a transaction amounts to an investment contract[8]if (1) it is an investment of money, (2) the investment of money is in a common enterprise, (3) there is an expectation of profit, and (4) any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party.[9]

In a hearing before the House Committee on Appropriations, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton slightly clarified the agency’s position on cryptocurrency. The SEC distinguishes between cryptocurrencies as a medium of exchange, such as Bitcoin or other alternative coins, and tokens.[10]According to Clayton, if a cryptocurrency is used as a medium of exchange, a replacement for currency, then it is likely not a security, and thus not within the jurisdiction of the SEC.[11]Contrariwise, tokens, generally used to finance projects, mainly fall within the realm of securities.[12]This financial area, according to Clayton, has not grown with the usual “respect” for the law which is expected to be seen in financial markets.[13]Although Clayton considers the SEC to be the proper regulator of tokens, the question as to the proper regulator for cryptocurrency as a medium of exchange remains unclear.[14]A main reason for this uncertainty consists of the fact that U.S. laws did not expect non-sovereign-backed currencies to appear.[15]

There consequently remains an issue as to the governance of cryptocurrency as a medium of exchange. Which agency will govern the matter is still ambiguous, and Clayton stated that the SEC is “not going to do any violence to the traditional definition of a security that has worked for a long time[,]” thus clarifying that the SEC would not change its approach to obtain jurisdiction over the entirety of cryptocurrency.[16]

 

[1]Adam Levy, What is Cryptocurrency?, The Motley Fool(Mar. 11, 2018, 7:15 AM), https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/03/11/what-is-cryptocurrency.aspx.

[2]See id.

[3]See id.

[4]See Stephen J. Obie & Mark W. Rasmussen,How Regulation Could Help Cryptocurrencies Grow, Harvard Business Review(July 17, 2018), https://hbr.org/2018/07/how-regulation-could-help-cryptocurrencies-grow.

[5]See id.

[6]See Daniel Araya, The Challenges of Cryptocurrency Regulation,The Regulatory Interview(Oct. 9, 2018), https://www.theregreview.org/2018/10/09/araya-challenges-cryptocurrency-regulation/.

[7]SeeKate Rooney, Congress Members Ask SEC Chairman for Clarity on Cryptocurrency Regulation, CNBC(Sept. 28, 2018, 10:26 AM), https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/28/congress-ask-sec-chairman-for-clarity-on-cryptocurrency-regulation.html.

[8]“The term ‘security’ means any … investment contract …” Security Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78(c).

[9]See SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293, 298 (1946).

[10]See FY 2019 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: Hearing Before the Comm. on Appropriations(2018) (statement of Jay Clayton, Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission).  

[11]See id.

[12]See id.

[13]Id.

[14]See id.

[15]See id.

[16]See Kate Rooney, SEC Chief Says Agency Won’t Change Securities Laws to Cater to Cryptocurrencies, CNBC(June 6, 2018), https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/06/sec-chairman-clayton-says-agency-wont-change-definition-of-a-security.html.

Image Source: https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/cryptocurrency-regulation/

By: Alexis George

The NCAA, or National Collegiate Athletic Association, has long held that sports wagering does not have a place in college sports. According to the Association’s national office, it opposed every form of sports wagering, whether legal or illegal, because of its “potential to undermine the integrity of sports contests and jeopardize the welfare of student-athletes and the intercollegiate athletics community.” [1] To further enforce this ideal, the NCAA launched a campaign called “Don’t Bet On It” which employs the use of advertisements, studies, and other resources to educate student-athletes and coaches on what is and what is not permitted according to NCAA rules regarding sports wagering.[2]  Furthermore, the NCAA has been conducting its own studies every four years since 2004 to research student-athlete gambling behavior.[3]  The NCAA has said that the purpose of these studies is to study the behavior of student-athletes – including “behaviors that could put student-athletes at risk.”[4] Up until recently the NCAA has also had the support of federal legislation to help restrict sports wagering.

Federal regulation of sports wagering began in 1961 when three laws were enacted to extend federal regulation of sports gambling.[5] These laws made sports gambling effectively illegal in the United States.[6] The first was the Wire Communications Act (WCA). The WCA made it illegal not only to use phones to send or receive bets or provide gambling information, but also made it illegal to place wagers on any sporting event using any form of wire communication.[7] This was followed by the Transportation in Aid of Racketeering Enterprises Act which essentially extended the prohibitions of the WCA to any form of travel or mail.[8] The Interstate Transportation of Wagering Paraphernalia Act was enacted thereafter and made it illegal to transport wagering pool paraphernalia related to sporting events.[9] Congress continued to implement various initiatives and other forms of federal legislation to combat and prevent sports gambling in the years afterwards until finally enacting the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) in 1992.[10]

PASPA was enacted by Congress to prohibit any person or government entity from creating or authorizing wagering activities that involved professional or amateur athletics.[11] The Act specifically made it unlawful for individuals and government entities to sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law any lottery, sweepstakes, betting, gambling, or wagering scheme that was directly or indirectly based on competitive sporting games in which professional or amateur athletes participated.[12] The Act therefore was very much in alignment with the NCAA’s stance on sports wagering. As a result, it meant that not only would student-athletes and coaches be violating NCAA bylaws if they participated in sports wagering, but would also be violating federal law.

Nevertheless, PASPA and the NCAA’s stance on sports wagering has stood in stark contrast to the American public’s admiration of the practice in recent years. In fact, in the months leading up to the Supreme Court’s vote to overturn PASPA, a poll conducted by the University of Massachusetts Lowell and The Washington Post indicated that 55% of Americans approved of legalizing sports wagering on professional sports.[13] Further, in a survey conducted by ESPN, it was found that 118 million Americans (or about 38% of the entire population at the time) admitted to betting on sports in 2008.[14] Another study interestingly found that Americans in fact spent more money gambling on the NCAA Tournament bracket in a week than was spent on the entire two-year 2012 presidential election campaign.[15] This means that even while PASPA was still recognized law, American engagement in sports wagering grew extensively. This is also evidenced by the continued popularity of online sports wagering and fantasy league play.[16]

Given the popularity of sports wagering in the United States and the fact that PASPA has now been overturned, the NCAA has had to make some decisions regarding how to best handle the situation, especially since the organization remains steadfastly against sports wagering among student-athletes and coaches.

One such way that the NCAA has responded to the Supreme Court’s ruling on PASPA was by issuing a statement in support of the federal regulation and even deciding to allow championships in states that choose to permit sports wagering.[17] The previous policy of the NCAA prohibited any NCAA championship competition from occurring in any state that allowed sports wagering.[18] The NCAA has also decided to do a study on how sports wagering could likely impact college sports in order to “preserve the integrity of college athletics.”[19] In order to monitor the potential impact, the NCAA national office recently decided to employ the use of technology so that it can better monitor sports wagering in the global betting market.[20] The system would provide the NCAA with alerts if suspicious wagering activities involving NCAA competitions are identified and therefore better enable the NCAA to notify member schools, conferences, and even law enforcement of suspicious activities.[21]

Despite the fact that legalized sports gambling continues to expand in the United States following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the NCAA has chosen to stick to its belief that sports wagering is inherently in opposition to what organization stands for. For example, despite the significant financial gain the NCAA stood to gain, the Association decided not to accept any profits from sports wagering.[22] The NCAA national office has said that although it recognizes that it will cost money to monitor sports wagering, it did not feel it was appropriate to access the revenue generated by sports wagering given that the organization has chosen to remain opposed to the practice.[23]

As a result, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn PASPA, the NCAA remains opposed to the practice of sports wagering and continues to advocate against student-athlete and coach involvement in the practice. Additionally, the “Don’t Bet On It” campaign continues to live on as under NCAA bylaws sports wagering by student-athletes and coaches is still strictly prohibited even in states that have adopted legalized sports wagering.

 

[1] NCAA, Sports Wagering, http://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/sports-wagering.

[2] See Id.

[3] NCAA, NCAA National Study on Collegiate Wagering, http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/ncaa-national-study-collegiate-wagering.

[4] See id.

[5] Jeffrey Roeske, Doubling Down on Sports Gambling: Why PASPA Would Fail A Constitutional Challenge, 24 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 463, 465-466 (2014).

[6] See id at 466.

[7] See id.

[8] See id.

[9] See id.

[10] See id.

[11] See id.

[12] 28 U.S.C. § 3702 (1992).

[13] Rick Maese & Emily Guskin, Poll: For first time, majority of Americans approve of legalizing sports betting, Wash. Post (Sept. 26, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/poll-for-first-time-majority-of-americans-approve-of-legalizing-sports-betting/2017/09/26/a18b97ca-a226-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html?utm_term=.401e9951b790.

[14] Darren Heitner, The Hyper Growth Of Daily Fantasy Sports Is Going To Change Our Culture And Our Laws, Forbes (Sept. 16, 2015), https://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2015/09/16/the-hyper-growth-of-daily-fantasy-sports-is-going-to-change-our-culture-and-our-laws/#56148f025aca.

[15] Chris Cillizza, Americans spend more money on NCAA Tournament betting than on presidential elections. By a lot. Wash. Post (Mar. 21, 2015), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/21/americans-spends-more-money-on-ncaa-tournament-betting-than-on-presidential-elections-by-a-lot/.

[16] See id.

[17] Emily James, NCAA supports federal sports wagering regulation, NCAA (May 17, 2018, 10:00 AM), http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-supports-federal-sports-wagering-regulation.

[18] See id.

[19] Matt Rybaltowski, As College Football Nears, NCAA Launches Study On Sports Gambling Ramifications, Forbes (July 27, 2018, 6:00 AM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattrybaltowski/2018/07/27/as-college-football-nears-ncaa-launches-study-on-sports-gambling-ramifications/#7673a8922d0d.

[20] NCAA to use technology services to monitor sports wagering, NCAA (Sept. 4, 2018, 5:00 PM), http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-use-technology-services-monitor-sports-wagering.

[21] See id.

[22] Steve Berkowitz, NCAA will not seek a cut from sports betting, association executive says, USA TODAY (June 28, 2018, 4:43 PM), https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2018/06/28/ncaa-not-seek-revenues-sports-betting/743201002/.

[23] See id.

Image Source: https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/6695fc178ba50e8f2cd6ec6ec0f37f8c6a0d71ba/c=173-0-3827-2747/local/-/media/2016/02/19/USATODAY/USATODAY/635914742318636763-AP-NCAA-CONCUSSION-LAWSUIT-79178108.JPG?width=534&height=401&fit=crop

By: Nicole Gram

Since 2005, the United States Supreme Court has sought to eliminate mandatory sentences by court for minors, ruling in 2012 that a life without parole sentence for juveniles is cruel and unusual punishment and, therefore, unconstitutional.[1] In response, several states passed laws providing juveniles with an opportunity for re-sentencing or unanticipated release.[2] This situation created a significant challenge for release programs to prepare inmates for lives outside of prison and reduce the likelihood of them returning, which can be caused by their difficulty readjusting to society.[3] Two companies have created solutions to this dilemma that leverage virtual reality technology. Nsena has been filming 360-degree videos that can transport inmates into a new environment with images they can see and is developing a way to help inmates practice diffusing tension and dealing with conflict.[4] Dr. Raji Wahidy, founder and CEO of Virtual Rehab, believes virtual reality has potential to rehabilitate and educate prisoners, prepare them for a better life outside of prison, reduce the number of repeat offences, and ease the burden on taxpayers.[5]

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment “guarantees individuals the right not to be subjected to excessive sanctions.”[6]  Several cases of precedent are relevant in this arena. In Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 560 (2005), the courts held that the Eighth Amendment bars capital punishment for children and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), concluded that the Amendment prohibits a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for a juvenile convicted of a nonhomicide offense.[7] Graham further likened life without parole for juveniles to the death penalty, leading to the requirement for sentencing authorities to consider the characteristics of a defendant and the details of the offense before issuing a death sentence.[8] While Graham’s flat ban on life without parole was for nonhomicide crimes, nothing that Graham said about children is crime-specific.[9] Thus, its reasoning implicates any life without parole sentence for a juvenile.[10] Roper and Graham establish that children are constitutionally different from adults for sentencing purposes due to their “lack of maturity and underdeveloped sense of responsibility; they are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure; and their characters are not as well formed.”[11]

The Supreme Court ruling in 2012 that life sentences for juvenile offenders are unconstitutional presented even more challenges around preparing inmates for release since they may have been imprisoned for decades and missed acquiring necessary life skills while imprisoned as juveniles.[12] According to the Federal Bureau of Justice, more than half of state prisoners return to prison within five years of their release.[13] Citing statistics from the US National Institute of Justice, Dr. Wahidy said that two out of three offenders who leave prison return within three years, and 75 percent return within five years.[14] In light of this data, prison release programs were in desperate need of a creative solution to prepare this large group of inmates, who had likely spent more time in prison than out, to survive and live successfully in the outside world. Virtual reality technology is well known for gaming and entertainment but, in recent years, is being applied to other areas, such as education, and appears to be a potential solution for the training and preparation of inmates.

Nsena, a virtual reality company, has been filming 360-degree videos of places, such as halfway houses, to provide images that inmates will see in the outside world. Nsena is also developing a way to use virtual reality to help inmates reduce stress and deal with conflict appropriately.[15] These videos can transport users into a new environment and allow them to simulate the feelings they will experience.[16] Another company, Virtual Rehab, founded by CEO, Dr. Raji Wahidy, also believes in the potential of virtual reality to educate and prepare prisoners for a better life outside of prison toward the goal of reducing taxpayer burden and minimizing repeat offender rates.[17] Virtual Rehab’s technology allows prisoners to perform practical tasks in computer-generated worlds and uses haptic feedback technology, which provides a sense of touch, to make the experience feel more realistic.[18] Virtual reality technology is also being used as a treatment for mental health issues to help patients change negative or destructive thoughts and behavior.[19]It has been used successfully for reduction of stress, anxiety and phobias.[20] Since fifty six percent of prisoners in state prisons and sixty four percent of inmates in local jails have some form of mental illness, there is real value in using virtual reality for rehabilitation.[21]

As the state with largest number of juvenile inmates sentenced to life without parole, Pennsylvania implemented a number of programs to assist inmates with re-entry into communities, including virtual reality.[22] By early 2017, 105 juvenile inmates had been released after taking tours of their new homes via virtual reality headsets.[23] Also in 2017, Colorado started an early release program for juveniles who have already served twenty years of their sentence.[24] The three-year program requires inmates to use virtual reality to practice skills like doing laundry and grocery shopping.[25] Colorado has designed a catalogue of instructional virtual reality applications that educate users in everything from self-checkout and bagging groceries, using a debit card, to doing laundry and appropriately handling potentially violent confrontations.[26] Dozens of Coloradans now have a chance at release and are getting help via virtual reality to prepare for living on the outside and learning how to cope with situations they will encounter in society.[27]

Despite the measured benefits of virtual reality, some people still have concerns. Individuals focused on the punishment aspects of prison view the access to expensive games and entertainment for inmates as a conflict.  However, this is addressed by managing the use of virtual reality to focus solely on educational and mental health objectives.[28] With more than 650,000 inmates released each year, there is ample opportunity for positive value in leveraging this technology to release productive and law-abiding citizens with a healthy state-of-mind back into society.[29]

 

[1] See Melnick, Kyle, Inmates use VR to Prepare for Life on the Outside, VR Scout (Jan. 2, 2018), https://vrscout.com/news/inmates-vr-prepare-life-on-outside/, For Some Inmates on the Cusp of Freedom Virtual Reality Readies them for Release, CorrectionsOne (Mar. 27, 2018), https://www.correctionsone.com/re-entry-and-recidivism/articles/472767187-For-some-inmates-on-the-cusp-of-freedom-virtual-reality-readies-them-for-release/, Dolven, Taylor & Fidel, Emma, This Prison is Using VR to Teach Inmates how to Live on the Outside, Vice News (Dec. 27, 2017), https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/bjym3w/this-prison-is-using-vr-to-teach-inmates-how-to-live-on-the-outside.

[2] See Kim, Catherine, Introducing Inmates to Real Life via Virtual Reality, U.S. News & World Rep. (Mar. 15, 2018, 3:57 PM), https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2018-03-15/introducing-inmates-to-real-life-via-virtual-reality and For Some Inmates on the Cusp of Freedom Virtual Reality Readies them for Release, CorrectionsOne (Mar. 27, 2018), https://www.correctionsone.com/re-entry-and-recidivism/articles/472767187-For-some-inmates-on-the-cusp-of-freedom-virtual-reality-readies-them-for-release/.

[3] See Kim, Catherine, Introducing Inmates to Real Life via Virtual Reality, U.S. News & World Rep. (Mar. 15, 2018, 3:57 PM), https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2018-03-15/introducing-inmates-to-real-life-via-virtual-reality.

[4] See id.

[5] See Bindi, Tas, New York Startup to Use VR Tech to Rehabilitate Prisoners, ZD Net (Nov. 25, 2016), https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-york-startup-to-use-vr-tech-to-rehabilitate-prisoners/.

[6] See Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 560 (2005).

[7] See Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 560 (2005) and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010).

[8] See Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010).

[9] See id.

[10] See id.

[11] See Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 560 (2005) and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010).

[12] See Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 479-80 (2012), Kim, Catherine, Introducing Inmates to Real Life via Virtual Reality, U.S. News & World Rep. (Mar. 15, 2018, 3:57 PM), https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2018-03-15/introducing-inmates-to-real-life-via-virtual-reality, Melnick, Kyle, Inmates use VR to Prepare for Life on the Outside, VR Scout (Jan. 2, 2018), https://vrscout.com/news/inmates-vr-prepare-life-on-outside/.

[13] See Kim, Catherine, Introducing Inmates to Real Life via Virtual Reality, U.S. News & World Rep. (Mar. 15, 2018, 3:57 PM), https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2018-03-15/introducing-inmates-to-real-life-via-virtual-reality.

[14] See Bindi, Tas, New York Startup to Use VR Tech to Rehabilitate Prisoners, ZD Net (Nov. 25, 2016), https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-york-startup-to-use-vr-tech-to-rehabilitate-prisoners/.

[15] See Kim, Catherine, Introducing Inmates to Real Life via Virtual Reality, U.S. News & World Rep. (Mar. 15, 2018, 3:57 PM), https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2018-03-15/introducing-inmates-to-real-life-via-virtual-reality.

[16] See Zoukis, Christopher, Virtual Reality Behind Bars Could Change the Game for Prisoners, Huffington Post (Dec. 6, 2017), https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-zoukis/virtual-reality-behind-ba_b_12791456.html.

[17] See Bindi, Tas, New York Startup to Use VR Tech to Rehabilitate Prisoners, ZD Net (Nov. 25, 2016), https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-york-startup-to-use-vr-tech-to-rehabilitate-prisoners/.

[18] See id.

[19] See Zoukis, Christopher, Virtual Reality Behind Bars Could Change the Game for Prisoners, Huffington Post (Dec. 6, 2017), https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-zoukis/virtual-reality-behind-ba_b_12791456.html.

[20] See id.

[21] See Zoukis, Christopher, Virtual Reality Behind Bars Could Change the Game for Prisoners, Huffington Post (Dec. 6, 2017), https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-zoukis/virtual-reality-behind-ba_b_12791456.html.

[22] Kim, Catherine, Introducing Inmates to Real Life via Virtual Reality, U.S. News & World Rep. (Mar. 15, 2018, 3:57 PM), https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2018-03-15/introducing-inmates-to-real-life-via-virtual-reality.

[23] See id.

[24] See Melnick, Kyle, Inmates use VR to Prepare for Life on the Outside, VR Scout (Jan. 2, 2018), https://vrscout.com/news/inmates-vr-prepare-life-on-outside/, For Some Inmates on the Cusp of Freedom Virtual Reality Readies them for Release, CorrectionsOne (Mar. 27, 2018), https://www.correctionsone.com/re-entry-and-recidivism/articles/472767187-For-some-inmates-on-the-cusp-of-freedom-virtual-reality-readies-them-for-release/, Dolven, Taylor & Fidel, Emma, This Prison is Using VR to Teach Inmates how to Live on the Outside, Vice News (Dec. 27, 2017), https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/bjym3w/this-prison-is-using-vr-to-teach-inmates-how-to-live-on-the-outside.

[25] See Dolven, Taylor & Fidel, Emma, This Prison is Using VR to Teach Inmates how to Live on the Outside, Vice News (Dec. 27, 2017), https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/bjym3w/this-prison-is-using-vr-to-teach-inmates-how-to-live-on-the-outside.

[26] See Melnick, Kyle, Inmates use VR to Prepare for Life on the Outside, VR Scout (Jan. 2, 2018), https://vrscout.com/news/inmates-vr-prepare-life-on-outside/.

[27] See For Some Inmates on the Cusp of Freedom Virtual Reality Readies them for Release, CorrectionsOne (Mar. 27, 2018), https://www.correctionsone.com/re-entry-and-recidivism/articles/472767187-For-some-inmates-on-the-cusp-of-freedom-virtual-reality-readies-them-for-release/.

[28] See Zoukis, Christopher, Virtual Reality Behind Bars Could Change the Game for Prisoners, Huffington Post (Dec. 6, 2017), https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-zoukis/virtual-reality-behind-ba_b_12791456.html and Bindi, Tas, New York Startup to Use VR Tech to Rehabilitate Prisoners, ZD Net (Nov. 25, 2016), https://www.zdnet.com/article/new-york-startup-to-use-vr-tech-to-rehabilitate-prisoners/.

[29] See Zoukis, Christopher, Virtual Reality Behind Bars Could Change the Game for Prisoners, Huffington Post (Dec. 6, 2017), https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-zoukis/virtual-reality-behind-ba_b_12791456.html and Melnick, Kyle, Inmates use VR to Prepare for Life on the Outside, VR Scout (Jan. 2, 2018), https://vrscout.com/news/inmates-vr-prepare-life-on-outside/.

Image Source: http://bestvr.tech/virtual-reality-prepares-long-term-prisoners-release/

By: Eli Hill,

In recent years, the board gaming industry has experienced an economic renaissance.  One factor fueling this revival is the crowdsourcing marketspace made available through Kickstarter.[1]  To date, the ‘games’ category has earned the most dollars on the site, outpacing both the design and technology categories.[2]  Within the games category, board games pull in substantially larger earnings than video games.[3]  In just the last year, the public pledged over $135 million towards Kickstarter board game campaigns alone.[4]

For the most popular games on Kickstarter, campaign creators often offer ‘group pledge’ options for their backers.[5]  By purchasing a game in bulk, the backer is able to save significant expense, particularly on shipping.[6]  While this method of purchase is typical for the seasoned retailer, online forums now enable individual hobbyists to pool their funds and benefit from the group pledge savings much more easily.[7]

Board game enthusiasts living outside the western commercial markets often lack access to modern board game retailers.[8]  Because the crowdsourcing campaigns are often run by smaller, less experienced publishers, options for delivery outside the U.S. and U.K. are minimal or otherwise beleaguered by absurdly expensive shipping costs.[9]

To address this obstacle within the Southeast Asian markets, a company named Boarders Tabletop Game Studio (“Boarders”) became the premier distributor of the area for the most highly sought after Kickstarter board games.[10]  Several years ago, Boarders began to coordinate group pledges on behalf of its customer base as a way to increase access to Kickstarter exclusive board games for its isolated clientele.[11]

Backers of all Kickstarter campaigns are used to rolling the dice.[12]  Most understand the projects that their financial pledges go towards may not pan out according to the timeline and quality projections originally advertised.[13]  Kickstarter is not a store and has no obligation to deliver the products funded via its marketplace, but such an obligation does fall on the creators of each campaign.[14]

Regarding those indebted to Boarders group pledges, the majority of customer contributions never went towards any Kickstarter campaign.[15]  Suspicions first arose after publisher shipping information and delivery timelines didn’t align with customer expectation.[16]  Attempts to contact Boarders directly about the problems went unanswered.[17]  Some dedicated hobbyists had put thousands of dollars into the numerous campaigns Boarders claimed to be backing.[18]  Most publishers never received any money from Boarders, and for those few that did, still lost money refunding payments on cargo that Boarders had picked up, but never distributed.[19] Collectively, those harmed are now exploring what legal action may be brought against Boarders.[20]

Undoubtedly, the pairing of the board game industry with Kickstarter crowdsourcing has produced more success stories than scams.[21]  However, as the events in Southeast Asia show, digital crowdsourcing is still hampered by the business limitations in distribution.[22]  Kickstarter may provide a valuable international market for the board game industry, but for the publishers operating with limited market presence, the threat of fraud still looms large.[23]

 

[1] See Charlie Hall, Tabletop Games are Exploding on Kickstarter, Video Games are Flat, Polygon (Jan. 2, 2018, 4:06PM), https://www.polygon.com/2018/1/2/16842204/tabletop-games-are-exploding-on-kickstarter-video-games-are-flat (detailing annual growth of Kickstarter board games).

[2] Kickstarter, https://www.kickstarter.com/help/stats (click on ‘categories’ breakdown from main menu).

[3] See Hall, supra note 1.

[4] See id.

[5] Calvin Wong, Boarders Tabletop Game Studio defrauds thousands in Kickstarter scandal, Board Game Prices (Apr. 10, 2018), https://www.boardgameprices.com/articles/boarders-tabletop-game-studio-defrauds-thousands-in-kickstarter-scandal.

[6] See Jay H. Ganatra, When a Kickstarter Stops: Exploring Failures and Regulatory Frameworks for the Rewards-Based Crowdfunding Industry, 68 Rutgers L. Rev. 1425, 1459 (Spring 2016) (describing the cost savings of a bulk order on Kickstarter).

[7]  See id.

[8] See Wong, supra note 5.

[9] See Ganatra, supra note 6 (referencing the higher international shipping costs).

[10] See Wong, supra note 5.

[11] See id.

[12] See Ganatra, supra note 6 at 1465 (describing investor risk on Kickstarter).

[13] See id.

[14] See Michael M. Epstein & Nazgole Hashemi, Crowdfunding in Wonderland: Issues and Investor Risk in Non-Fraudulent Creative Arts Campaigns Under the Jobs Act, 6 Am. U. Bus. L. Rev. 1, 8 (detailing cases where fraudulent Kickstarter campaigns were obligated to defrauded customers).

[15] See Calvin Wong, Boarders Tabletop Game Studio defrauds thousands in Kickstarter scandal, Board Game Prices (Apr. 10, 2018), https://www.boardgameprices.com/articles/boarders-tabletop-game-studio-defrauds-thousands-in-kickstarter-scandal.

[16] See id.

[17] See id.

[18] See id.

[19] See id.

[20] See Calvin Wong, Boarders Tabletop Game Studio defrauds thousands in Kickstarter scandal, Board Game Prices (Apr. 10, 2018), https://www.boardgameprices.com/articles/boarders-tabletop-game-studio-defrauds-thousands-in-kickstarter-scandal.

[21] See generally, Kickstarter, https://www.kickstarter.com/help/stats (showing the data for successfully funded projects).

[22] See Wong, supra note 19.

[23] See Christopher Moores, Kickstart My Lawsuit: Fraud and Justice in Rewards-Based Crowdfunding, 49 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 383, 390 (Nov. 2015) (describing vulnerabilities to fraud that are exposed by Kickstarter campaigns).

Image Source: http://monopoly.wikia.com/wiki/Go_to_Jail_(card).

By: Lindsey Rhoten,

Elon Musk’s curiosity for dabbling into green technologies beyond Tesla’s electric cars emerges at the most critical moment in time; when the state of Earth’s health and the fate of the human race depends on morphing anthropogenic behavior. The human race desperately needs someone that prioritizes Earth’s integrity to invest the endless hours and the billions of dollars into innovating green alternatives for human mobility and energy consumption. This energy innovation is invaluable in moving away from operating power plants that burn fossil fuels, to a source that does not insulate solar heat in the atmosphere.[1]

Telsa is progressing towards a sustainable lifestyle with Telsa’s new Powerpack and Powerwall batteries that allow private homes, business entities, and utilities to collect sustainable and renewable solar energy to “manage power demand, provide backup power and increase grid resilience.”[2] These two energy storage mechanisms now provide a simple do-it-yourself method to utilizing the output of the renewable energy source.[3] The Powerwall is a rechargeable battery designed to store excess energy from solar panels, or the grid if there are no solar panels, and provide access to the left over energy for residential use upon demand.[4] The Powerpack is similar but adjusted to a larger size for business and utility usage.[5] This enables the commercial or larger entity to disconnect the Powerpack from the main power source and convert into its own independent micro grid source using stored energy.[6]

The United States electricity infrastructure is comprised of legacy grids that serve to generate, transmit, and distribute electricity to consumers.[7] One of the greatest shortcomings of the current energy system is that the grid must balance the energy supply to ensure that the electricity availability is contemporaneously adaptable to the increases in demand.[8] The legacy grid relies on peaking plants to elevate the supply with the demand; however, these plants waste energy if the demand is not present and they also generate more pollution than nonpeak plants.[9]

While decreasing fossil fuel use and slowing the flow of overcrowded grids are logical alternatives for those compelled to clean up the environment and save money on the monthly power bill, utility companies are certainly not the first to lobby support of this technology.[10] When consumers connect these energy storage batteries to their home or business as a power source, they are no longer dependent on the services provided by public utility companies.[11] Consequently, public utility profits decrease and the company may not be able to guarantee the viability of the company.[12]

The Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC), with regulation by the state, protects this natural monopoly,[13] which is where one company can provide a cheaper service to the entire market than multiple companies could.[14] Utility companies are trying to charge renewable energy users a higher fee because some users still connect to the grid as a backup emergency source and as a result, utilities want to recoup their fair share of grid infrastructure maintenance costs.[15] However, utilities cannot continue to resist this innovative technology. The industry must evolve alongside the technology and adopt flexible practices, while continuing to provide an equitable and safe product for all consumers, renewable energy users or not.

 

[1] See Union of Concerned Scientists, Is There a Connection Between the Ozone Hole and Global Warming?, https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#bf-toc-0 (last visited Apr. 11, 2018) (stating that global warming is largely caused by humans burning fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, which put an excessive amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Instead of the solar heat radiating out into space, the carbon dioxide particles act as a blanket to insulate solar heat in the atmosphere).

[2] Chaunceton B. Bird, Growth and Legal Implications of Energy Storage Technologies, Utah L. Rev. OnLaw 33, 41 (2017) (describing the Tesla Powerpack and Powerwall as innovative green technologies for energy storage and consumption).

[3] See id.

[4] See Tesla, Powerwall Overview: What is Powerwall?, https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/learn/powerwall/overview (last visited Apr. 11 2018).

[5] See Tesla, Powerpack: Applications, https://www.tesla.com/powerpack (last visited Apr. 11, 2018).

[6] See id. at Powerpack: Microgrid.

[7] See Lindsay Breslau et al., Batteries Included: Incentivizing Energy Storage, 17 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol’y 29, pt. I, § A (2017).

[8] See id. at 2.

[9] See id.

[10] See id. at pt. II, § C.

[11] See Bird, supra note 2, at 60.

[12] See id. (stating that if people disconnect from the grid, consumers will not be able to receive the rewards of resource sharing, which would subsequently result in an unequal and expensive electricity system).

[13] See id. at 48-49.

[14] Natural monopoly, Cambridge University Press Dictionary (2018), https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/natural-monopoly.

[15] See Breslau, supra note 7, at pt. II, § C.

Image Source: http://energypost.eu/green-electricity-europe-isnt-green/.