The Bitfury Group, the leading global full-service Blockchain technology company, in conjunction with Steptoe & Johnson LLP, issued a press release today that Steptoe will serve as the legal services partner of the Global Blockchain Business Council (GBBC). Jason Weinstein was also listed as one of the 32 founding members of the GBBC, which was launched around the World Economic Forum 2017 Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland. See the full press release below.
CoinDesk quoted Alan Cohn in a December 30 article titled “A Slow Awakening: 2016 in US Blockchain Policy.” In the article, which discusses blockchain regulatory developments of the past year and what may lie ahead in 2017, Alan Cohn says: “If 2016 was the year that the blockchain burst into public view, 2017 is the year that blockchain pilots and proofs-of-concept begin to permeate the mainstream of industry.” With a number of new projects announced within the first few weeks of 2017 such as a collaboration between IBM and the FDA and Deloitte‘s new blockchain research lab, he may have hit the nail on the head.
Alan also predicts that in 2017 there will be a stronger focus on using blockchain technology “to solve real-world problems, starting with digitizing processes that have resisted technological solutions or automation because of fears around non-trusted counter-parties, multi-party transactions, insecure transaction records, and high rates of fraudulent activity, areas where blockchain technology offers stair-step advantages.” While only time will tell how the regulatory landscape will change, the activity in the past two weeks makes 2017 look like a promising year for the blockchain.
In the last installment of our five-part blockchain series, we focus on the insurance industry. Insurance and reinsurance companies are actively exploring and developing applications for blockchain technology. And for good reason – distributed ledger technology has the potential to revolutionize the way insurance companies operate and engage with their policyholders and to open a window into new products and new markets.
At the retail level, the blockchain promises to benefit both the consumer and insurer by simplifying the claims process, increasing efficiency of underwriting and claims handling, improving risk management, and reducing operational costs. The blockchain will help ensure the security of private or confidential information, improve auditability and transparency, and increase effectiveness in fraud detection. These enhancements will also help lead to an improved customer experience.
In this fourth installment of our five-part series highlighting the legal issues presented by blockchain, we’ll consider application to the aviation industry. Blockchain has the potential to increase airlines’ profitability by lowering transaction costs as well as improving efficiency and transparency, while simultaneously enhancing customer experiences.
As we discussed in the post “Taking Control of Your Identity,” digital identity verification is difficult and lacks trust – problems the blockchain can solve. And where is identity verification more important than when you’re standing in a long check-in line at the airport? Securely storing passenger information and identification on the blockchain will streamline passenger identity verification and may even reduce those long lines. Different airlines, airports and other entities can use the same shared, secure blockchain to create a universal digital identity system, significantly reducing operational costs. One blockchain startup is already developing a digital token that would contain all of a passenger’s travel documents and passport/identification in one place.
Imagine a world where you could easily register and claim ownership over your original creative works – from music to photos to blogs. Gone would be the days of seeing your work duplicated all over the internet without proper credit and having no way to prove ownership. With the use of blockchain technology, that world is not so far away. Distributed ledger technology promises to transform the way intellectual property rights are established and enforced – and the way IP creators are compensated.
Before joining Steptoe, I oversaw the Justice Department’s IP criminal enforcement program. In that role, I worked closely with others in law enforcement and with the content industry – from film and television to publishing to music – in an effort to try to stop piracy and to ensure that artists and creators of all types of IP were protected. At that time, the world was just beginning to hear about Bitcoin but had yet to discover the many other applications for blockchain technology that go far beyond digital currencies.
Today, however, as “blockchain” is on its way to becoming a household word, we’re poised for a revolution in the protection of all types of IP. That’s because the blockchain can be used to control and track the distribution of protected IP. By putting IP on the blockchain, creators would have an immutable, secure, time-stamped record of the creation and distribution of their works. In addition, it can be used to establish and enforce licenses for IP through smart contracts and even to transmit payments in real-time to IP owners.
One of the most intriguing uses of the blockchain may be the enhancement of identity solutions.
As we know, the blockchain offers enhancements over current mechanisms for creating and storing digital identities, such as security and resilience built in by design, a greater ability to control the uses of encrypted information, and the ability to provide standardization across a range of legacy IT systems. But what does this actually mean for identity applications in different industries?
A lot, actually. Identity validation for internet applications is a persistent problem. As the New Yorker cartoon famously says, “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.” Yet as we have seen, the use of fraudulent identity on the internet leads to mistrust in electronic transactions, a mistrust of the identity of individuals and organizations posting materials to social media, crowdsourced reviewing applications, and other sites, and an inability to take forward applications such as internet polling and voting.
This week, we will have a five-part series highlighting the legal issues presented by blockchain applications in a number of different industries. Today, we’re looking into the legal considerations of implementing the blockchain in the pharmaceutical industry. Among other benefits, distributed ledger technology can help reduce sales of counterfeit drugs and improve supply chain management, increase the security of digital patient records, improve processing of health insurance claims, and enhance the reliability and accuracy of clinical trials.
One of the biggest problems in the pharmaceutical industry is the proliferation of counterfeit drugs, which are increasingly difficult to detect and regulate. Sales of counterfeit pharmaceuticals are a billion-dollar business, and pharmaceutical companies invest enormous resources in sophisticated efforts to prevent and investigate counterfeiting of their products all over the globe. But the impact of this problem goes far beyond dollars and cents – because it places consumers’ lives directly at risk.
The election cycle has reached its predictable fever pitch, and one issue receiving particular attention this year is the vulnerability of electronic voting systems to tampering, either intentionally (think hacking or voter fraud) or unintentionally (think hanging chads or lost ballots). Although it is unlikely that a consensus solution will be implemented in the near future, experts in both public and private sectors are advocating a technology upgrade for America’s voting systems, and blockchain technology may offer the best hope of eventually cyber-securing our elections. Potential applications of blockchain technology are still in their infancy, but voting systems that adopt the technology may be able to provide significantly higher levels of certainty, transparency, and security, making elections much more efficient and much less susceptible to fraud, hacking, or simple human error.
An estimated 70 percent of states use some form of electronic voting, but aging technology has increased the susceptibility to insider manipulation and hacking. In one incident drawing national attention last year, Virginia decertified certain electronic voting machines, after state officials determined that the machines posed a serious risk of being compromised by hackers. This year, experts have repeatedly demonstrated the ease with which some electronic voting machines can be tampered with. Recent examples include a team at Symantec and Princeton professor Andrew Appel, both of whom conducted successful mock hacking exercises to illustrate the risks facing this year’s election. In August, the Senate Homeland Security Committee warned that “a cyberattack by foreign actors on our elections systems could compromise the integrity of our voting process.”
Perhaps the most prominent election-related security breach this year, however, involved the release of Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign emails obtained by hackers. Although not related to voting machines, these hacks demonstrate the risks posed by the growth of online voting, which is now offered by 32 states mostly for military and other citizens located abroad. In short, online voting exponentially increases the accessibility of the system, which exponentially increases the associated threats. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security’s cyber-division has warned against the adoption of online voting for any elections at this time, due to risk of tampering and potential loss of voter privacy.
An appellate decision from a provincial high court in northeastern China may help to shed some additional light on the Chinese government’s regulation of virtual currency exchanges in China, the anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) expectations placed on these exchanges, and the liability that might accrue to exchanges in the event of criminal activity involving virtual currencies.
The Lekuda (OKCOIN trading platform) case was initially filed in the civil division of the intermediate court of the municipality of Suihua (绥化) in northeastern China, Heilongjiang Province. Coincidentally, China’s northeastern region is also known for Bitcoin mining. In China, there are three types of litigation (三类诉讼), each with their own set of procedural rules and jurisprudence, and the Lekuda case filed in Suihua was styled as a tort case, a type of civil litigation. While characterized and classified as a civil tort case, the case also implicates certain criminal and administrative issues at its periphery.
The decision that was recently made publicly available was the July 2016 decision of the second instance court (an appellate decision). The underlying Suihua intermediate court decision has not yet been made publicly available, but may eventually become so. That said, from the appellate decision, we can learn the basic facts.
Alan Cohn and I talk with Laura Shin on her Unchained podcast about the Blockchain Alliance. We also talk about how crime involving Bitcoin is similar to crime involving any new technology, what genuinely new questions are being raised, and how various law enforcement agencies might think about recent developments like the emergence of the DAO and the subsequent DAO hack.