Building Tomorrow

China’s old reputation when it came to tech was that of being the premier global manufacturer of knockoffs, not a site for innovative development. But China today is adopting new tech at truly incredible rates that surpasses most other countries. Rather than just talking about drone delivery, companies like JD are actually doing it. More people in China use mobile payments and participate in one-stop-shop digital ecosystems than almost the entire population of the US and Europe combined.On the other hand, while the technology economy in China is thriving, the political economy remains restrictive. Google had its secret plans to cooperate in the “Great Firewall of China” internet censorship scheme leaked. However, Chinese activists have used the blockchain to get around official media blackouts on vaccine scares and sexual assault scandalsWhat is WeChat? Do we view ourselves as the leader of technological advances? What is leap-frogging? Is our established infrastructure getting in the way of our own ability to innovate? Does China represent the new “right way to do things”? What is Google’s Dragonfly Project?Further Reading:How E-Commerce Is Transforming Rural China, written by Jiayang FanLetter from Shenzhen, written by Xiaowei R. WangChinese Citizens Are Using Blockchain to Warn Each Other of Unsafe Vaccines, written by Kristin HouserNorth Korea’s Hidden Revolution: How the Information Underground Is Transforming a Closed Society, written by Jieun BaekThe Art of Escaping Censorship, written by Jessica LoudisThe employee backlash over Google’s censored search engine for China, explained by Alexia Fernández CampbellRelated Content:Fifty Years after the Cultural Revolution, written by David BoazInnovative Maintenance, Maintaining Innovation, written by Pamela J. Hobart Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

DNA databases, which have long been used by amateur genealogists, have burst into the headlines as law enforcement uses them to solve cold case murders. For instance, detectives used an open source database called GEDmatch to catch the Golden State Killer, who murdered and raped dozens of women during the 1970s-80s.Yet while solving crimes is obviously good, there are concerns about violations of genetic privacy. It is now possible to identify the overwhelming majority of Americans, without their consent, based on merely two DNA samples from second or even third cousins. That said, future applications of these databases could propel remarkable medical innovations such as personalized gene therapies and bioelectronics.What are DNA databases designed to do? What are the privacy concerns associated with these databases? Are these databases more or less creepy than those of facial recognition? Which of these services are accessible to law enforcement? What is the panopticon, how does it apply to a DNA database? How is this any different than a fingerprint database?Further Reading“ ‘Genetic Informants’ and the Hunt for the Golden State Killer”, written by Matthew FeeneyThe hunt for the Golden State Killer on GEDmatch.Parabon Nanolabs is creating a DNA database specifically marketed for police.How does the 4th Amendment work in the age of warrantless searching of DNA databases?Carpenter v. United StatesOral Argument of Maryland v. KingRelated ContentDecentralization and Privacy Are Inevitable — in Tech and in Government, written by Aaron Ross PowellHow New Technology is Changing Law Enforcement, Free Thoughts Episode Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Phil Haunschild joins us this week to discuss how blockchain technology could potentially eliminate the governments’ presence in welfare and charity.Among the uninitiated, ‘blockchain’ is often treated as a synonym for ‘cryptocurrency.’ But blockchain technology has many other potential applications, including ways of improving the efficiency and transparency of good governance. For example, Phil Haunschild from the Idaho Freedom Foundation explains how a state-level blockchain could replace the expensive requirement to post public notices in newspapers, potentially saving millions of dollars in just one state. Phil then outlines his even grander plan to replace food stamps and other welfare programs with privately-run, blockchain-enabled charities.How is blockchain a better tool than a state-run database? How do smart contracts work in tandem with blockchain technology? Could blockchain be used in order to eliminate the presence of government in welfare and charity?Further ReadingA path to eliminate government subsidies for the media, writted by Phil HaunschildIdaho Freedom Foundation project proposal about how blockchain could allow people to be in control of the welfare system rather than the government. Blockchain Could Upend Welfare Programs, written by Phil Haunschild & Janae Wilkerson for the National ReviewRelated ContentSmart Contracts Aren’t Trustless, Nor Should They Be, written by Kate SillsWhat’s in Your (Crypto) Wallet?, Building Tomorrow EpisodeYour World on the Blockchain, Free Thoughts Episode Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Mark McDaniel from Reason Magazine joins us to discuss homemade gun technology in response to a recent court case involving gun ownership activist, Cody Wilson, and his group, Defense Distributed, who were the minds behind the “Wiki Weapon Project”.Cody Wilson and his group went unnoticed until they actually tried to build a weapon, specifically named the “Liberator”. However, when the printer company, Stratasys, heard of this plan they took his printer and reported Wilson’s intentions to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). The press got wind of this dispute when Wilson posted a viral video of Stratasys taking the printer away. Later on, the State Department got involved when Wilson posted the blueprints of how to print the “Liberator”.What kind of guns can be printed? What are the rules for making a traditional weapon at home? Why should we care if people can have 3D-printed guns so easily? How far away are we, technologically speaking, from creating legit firearms in our homes?Further ReadingsTrevor Burrus’ and Meggan Dewitt’s article about the amicus position the Cato Institute took on 3D printed guns.Mark McDaniel on how to legally make your own 3D printed gun.Andy Greenberg from Wired on how 3D guns are now deemed untraceable.Andrea O’Sullivan from Reason explains how the computer code to make 3D printed guns is protected by the 1st Amendment. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The parliament of the European Union narrowly voted down legislation intended to control copyright violations on the internet. The sponsors of the legislation argued that multinational internet companies like Google were essentially stealing content from newspapers and publishers. Their proposed fix would have levied what critics called a “link tax” on hyperlinked content, making it prohibitively expensive for a program like Google News to aggregate news content. In addition, the rules would have essentially forced platforms like Youtube that rely on user-uploaded content, like Youtube, to put in place content filters to screen out copyrighted content. However, the expense of these filters and regulatory compliance would have, ironically, given the major companies an advantage over smaller startups, leading to a less competitive internet. In addition, the content filters would have accidentally excluded legitimate non-copyrighted material, including memes, parodies, and covers. Although this was European legislation, the legislation has implications for American regulatory policy, including the new SESTA/FOSTA rules.Further Readings/References:In this article, Mike argues that this legislation would turn the internet into tv, “a limited broadcast medium only for those who are pre-checked by gatekeepers.”Any content filter will accidentally exclude legitimate conflict. Here Mike crunches the potential false positive rate.Paul has argued before that the SESTA/FOSTA legislation will have ill unintended consequences.One of the most important opponents of this legislation has been European Parliament member Julia Reda, representative of the Pirate Party.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

New technologies have made it possible for us to monetize more and more of our daily lives. First, we discuss the third party marketers who are using devices (eg cellphones, smart speakers) connected to smart tvs to compile data on consumers. While these companies are guilty of deceptive practices, there is the future potential for consumers to profit from that data themselves. Likewise, we cover a new internet browser called Brave, which allows users to sell their own browsing habits to advertisers and which could radically transform digital advertising. Finally, we talk about Ice Poseidon, who is not a lesser known of the Greek deities but a Twitch streamer who allows his followers to watch him go about his day and prank strangers. While a new wave of “always on” streamers often engage in juvenile behavior, they represent the way in which streaming has enabled ordinary people to make a living in ways previously impossible.Further Readings/References:Sapna Maheshwari’s NYT article on smart TV surveillance.Stephen Shankland’s write-up of the Brave browser.Ice Poseidon shows that it’s possible to simultaneously be repulsed by someone’s behavior and feel bad for them.Prototype’s latest article, by Julia Slupska, “Election Hacking and the Global Politics of Attention.” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week Kate Sills joins us to respond to several recent articles criticizing smart contracts. One of the issues we cover is the “Oracle problem,” which is how a self-enforcing digital contract can know whether terms have been met in the physical world. Also, we discusses how smart contracts cannot be mere transactional documents but also need to facilitate relationships, something that has led traditional contract law to purposefully include ambiguous or unenforceable clauses. Finally, we talk about Alex Tabbarok’s call for a dedicated arbitration system for smart contract disputes. Disclaimer: While squirrel mortality is referenced briefly during the episode, no members of the Sciuridae family were harmed in the making of this show.Kate Sill’s case for smart contracts.Jimmy Song on the Oracle problem.Alex Tabbarok calls for a smart contract arbitration system.(Deep Cut) Karen Levy reminds us that contracts are relational documents.Listen to Kate Sills discuss smart contracts and the blockchain on Free Thoughts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, we discuss cryptocurrency and security. There was a hack recently of a digital currency storage site. We’ll talk a little bit about what that means, what cryptocurrency ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ wallets are, what happens if you lose your password, and the sometimes surprising lengths to which major cryptocurrency owners have gone to secure their holdings. (Warning: Severed fingers make an appearance.) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Building Tomorrow explores the ways technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship are creating a freer, wealthier, and more peaceful world. In our first episode, we survey how major recent advances in tech have made it harder for the State to “read” citizens, deepened networks of trust between activists, expanded ownership of our bodies, and created new sharing economies.Further Readings/References:Yes, an augmented reality cocktail bar is absolutely the best use of this exciting new technology.Philosopher gnomes for the gardens of those with discerning taste.A Building Tomorrow review of Michael Munger’s book, Tomorrow 3.0.The first article of Will Duffield’s “Prototype” project on creating an uncensorable internet. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.