Tornado Cash is a decentralized cryptocurrency mixing service built on Ethereum. Its open-source protocol allows users to obscure the trail of their cryptocurrency transactions by pooling funds together, making it difficult to trace the origin and destination of any given transfer.In August 2022, the U.S. Treasury Department took the unprecedented step of sanctioning Tornado Cash, effectively criminalizing its use by American citizens and businesses. Authorities accused the service of facilitating money laundering, including processing hundreds of millions in stolen funds linked to North Korean hackers. In the wake of the sanctions, Tornado Cash's website was taken down, its GitHub repository removed, and one of its developers arrested in Amsterdam.The crackdown has sent shockwaves through the crypto and privacy advocacy communities. Proponents argue that Tornado Cash is a neutral tool, akin to VPNs or Tor, with many legitimate uses beyond illicit finance. They warn that banning a piece of code sets a dangerous precedent and undermines fundamental rights to privacy and free speech. On the other hand, regulators contend that mixers like Tornado Cash have become a haven for cybercriminals and rogue state actors, necessitating more aggressive enforcement.As the legal and political battle unfolds, Coin Center, a leading crypto policy think tank, has taken up the mantle of defending Tornado Cash and its users. Director of Research Peter Van Valkenburgh, who also serves as a board member for Zcash, joins The Dynamist today to walk through this crackdown and the implications for decentralized finance and open-source software today. Luke Hogg, director of policy and outreach, guest hosts this episode. You can read more from Peter on this issue here.

Social media undermines democracy. Small businesses are more innovative than big ones. Corporate profits are at all-time highs. America’s secret weapon is laissez-faire capitalism. These are widely held beliefs, but are they true? Our guest today argues that these statements aren’t just wrong, but that they’re holding America back—discouraging talented people from entering the technology field and making companies too cautious and wary of regulators. Is America losing its faith in innovation? If so, what can companies and governments do to turn the tide? Has America’s “free-market” really been as free as we think, and what can policymakers learn from Alexander Hamilton when it comes to industrial policy?Evan is joined by Robert Atkinson, Founder and President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan research and educational institute, often recognized as the world’s leading think tank on science and tech policy. He is also the co-author of the Technology Fears and Scapegoats: 40 Myths about Privacy, Jobs, AI, and Today’s Innovation Economy. Read his article on Hamiltonian industrial policy here.

Is American ready for the next pandemic? The answer is a resounding “no,” according to a recent Washington Post editorial. When the U.S. was caught flat-footed and unprepared to deal with COVID-19, many lawmakers vowed to address pandemic preparedness. Yet, according to many experts, these efforts are inadequate and interest among lawmakers in preparedness has waned as focus has shifted to wars around the world and other geopolitical conflicts.With bio threats emerging at an accelerating pace, and as biotechnology becomes more available, how can companies and governments address these threats?Evan is joined by Swati Sureka, Strategic Communications Lead at Ginkgo Bioworks, a U.S. biotech firm that partners with the CDC and other organizations to monitor for emerging pathogens worldwide. She’s the co-author of a new paper laying out a roadmap for a global pathogen surveillance infrastructure, “A New Paradigm for Threat Agnostic Biodetection: Biological Intelligence.” 

When it comes to AI regulation, states are moving faster than the federal government.  While California is the hub of American AI innovation (Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta are all headquartered in the Valley), the state is also poised to enact some of the strictest state regulations on frontier AI development. Introduced on February 8, the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Systems Act (SB 1047) is a sweeping bill that would include a new regulatory division and requirements that companies demonstrate their tech won’t be used for harmful purposes, such as building a bioweapon or aiding terrorism.SB 1047 has generated intense debate within the AI community and beyond. Proponents argue that robust oversight and safety requirements are essential to mitigate the catastrophic risks posed by advanced AI systems. Opponents contend that the scope is overbroad and that the compliance burdens and legal risks will advantage incumbent players over smaller and open-source developers.Evan is joined by Brian Chau, Executive Director of Alliance for the Future and Dean Ball, a research fellow at the Mercatus Center and author of the Substack Hyperdimensional. You can read Alliance for the Future’s call to action on SB 1047 here. And you can read Dean’s analysis of the bill here. For a counter argument, check out a piece by AI writer Zvi Mowshowitz here.

Is America in a new Cold War with China? If so, who is winning? One of the defining features of the 21st century has been the intensifying competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party. As the two superpowers jockey for global influence, China threatens to dislodge America’s longstanding role atop the international order.At the heart of this struggle lies the Belt and Road Initiative, or BRI, a massive infrastructure and investment project that has become the centerpiece of China's foreign policy. The BRI is often portrayed as an economic venture—China is seeking to create new markets for its goods, stimulate economic growth in its less-developed regions like Africa and Latin America. But the BRI has increasingly come under scrutiny as a geopolitical gambit designed to expand China's power and undermine American leadership.As policymakers in Washington grapple with how to respond to China's growing assertiveness, our guest today offers a provocative thesis: America is losing this new cold war, and it needs a bold strategy to turn the tide.Evan is joined by Michael Sobolik, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council. His new book, "Countering China's Great Game: A Strategy for American Dominance,” calls for the U.S. to take new approach that would exploit the BRI's weaknesses, such as its reliance on unsustainable debt and its tendency to breed corruption and local resentment, while simultaneously strengthening U.S. alliances and providing alternative models of development assistance. Michael also hosts the "Great Power Podcast," AFPC's show about global competition and U.S.-China relations. You can read a critique of Michael’s book here.

​Should we accelerate into the AI future or proceed with caution? Do we even have a choice?From deep-tech disruptors to policymaking under time pressure, a battle over the fate of human civilization is now being waged on multiple fronts: Closed vs. Open, Hardware vs. Software, Safety vs. Ethics: in sum, Order vs. Chaos.Foundation for American Innovation and 8VC hosted a live recording of a conversation with Andrew Côté (Hyperstition founder, a16z scout) and Guillaume Verdon (Extropic founder, effective accelerationism creator), moderated by FAI Senior Economist Samuel Hammond. Andrew, Gil, and Sam discussed their visions for the future, the tradeoffs between centralized and decentralized AI, and the incentives facing founders, technologists, and government regulators.

The number of internet-connected devices in the world has skyrocketed. According to one estimate, there are currently 17 billion connected devices in the world. This doesn’t just include well known electronics like laptops and smartphones. These devices span every sector of the global economy—from agriculture and manufacturing to healthcare and science. The average American household now has 17 connected devices. While this growth has been a boon for jobs and the tech sector, it has also dramatically increased cybersecurity risk.In theory, every one of these devices could be a vector for a cyberattack, and there are serious questions about whether manufacturers are building adequate security into the design of their products. What can the private sector and government do to improve cybersecurity and mitigate threats? Evan is joined by Nathan Simington, Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). You can read his recent statement on the agency’s newly established Cyber Trust Mark here.

This week, President Biden signed into law a bill that would require TikTok to divest itself from Chinese parent company ByteDance or else face a ban in the United States. The legislation was part of a package of bills that included foreign aid to Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine. Over the past few years, TikTok has exploded in popularity. Today over 170 million Americans are monthly users of the platform, and seven million businesses rely on it for either part or all their income. With that growth in users has come growing concern about its parent company ByteDance, and its capacity as a vector for surveillance and propaganda by the Chinese government.​​Proponents of a divestiture/ban argue that this is a narrowly targeted measure to address a clear national security threat, consistent with other restrictions on foreign ownership in areas like broadcast media. Critics, meanwhile, raise First Amendment concerns and argue that the bill creates a slippery slope that could lead to the targeting of platforms like X or Truth Social.​​To consider these questions, the Foundation for American Innovation and Young Voices hosted a debate on the bill, with the following resolution: Given national security concerns, ByteDance should be forced to divest from TikTok or face a ban. Evan was joined by the following speakers:Pro Divestment:Michael Sobolik, Senior Fellow in Indo-Pacific Studies, American Foreign Policy Council (AFPC) and author of Countering China’s Great Game: A Strategy for American DominanceMatt Stoller, Director of Research, American Economic Liberties ProjectAnti-divestment:Jennifer Huddleston, Technology Policy Research Fellow at the Cato InstituteMike Godwin, Principal Attorney at Godwin’s Law Consulting and former employee of TikTok on the company’s Trust and Safety team

In the U.S., there is supposed to be some division between domestic and foreign police activities. The CIA handles overseas activities, while the FBI and local police agencies handle domestic law enforcement. Because as the Internet is inherently borderless, Americans’ emails, texts, and phone calls are inevitably captured in overseas intelligence activities, which is legal under Section 702 of the the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). With FISA set to expire on April 19 without Congressional reauthorization, the debate over whether and how to reform government surveillance has intensified. The Biden Administration, the FBI, and others in the world of national security say Section 702 is a critical tool to combat terrorism and other threats, and that privacy reforms might put Americans in danger by slowing down intel activities. Critics warn that this provision is violating the civil liberties of Americans, that Section 702 enables warrantless surveillance and is an end run around the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures.How will Congress act? How does 702 really work? And what are the politics and alliances on both sides of this debate? Are there any reforms that might pass as part of a compromise? Evan and Luke are joined by David DiMolfetta, a reporter at NextGov/FCW, where he covers how the US government is adapting to the world of cybersecurity. He was a researcher at the Washington Post and a reporter at S&P Global. You can read his latest piece on Section 702 here.

In the digital world, there is an enduring tension between privacy and security. What is our right to privacy from the government or the companies whose services we use? What rights does our government have to surveil us in the name of national security? Most of us have a general understanding of the basic tradeoff in the Internet era—you give up some data in exchange for free or freemium services like Gmail or social media apps like Instagram. But the data marketplace goes well beyond the Big Tech players we’re most familiar with, and the depth and breadth of these processes, and the players involved, are often much harder to pin down.What role do data brokers play and what sorts of data do they have access to? Is our data simply for sale to the highest bidder? Can even the chips in car tires be used to spy on people?Joining us to discuss all of this is Byron Tau, whose investigative work has shone a light on the connections between tech companies and government surveillance. His latest book, "Means of Control: How the Hidden Alliance of Tech and Government Is Creating a New American Surveillance State," uncovers the extensive ways our data are used to watch and influence us as the American public. Byron is also a reporter at NOTUS, a new publication covering politics and policy from the Albritton Journalism Institute, and an adjunct lecturer at Georgetown University.