Will FBI v. Apple ultimately threaten Bitcoin?

Governments are all about national security - that's almost a given.  So it totally makes sense that the FBI would want to unlock the iphone used by the perpetrators of the San Bernadino shootings.  It shouldn't be surprising that the FBI would then want to use that same technology update to access other iPhones in other national security cases, then other federal crime cases, and then any cases.  It's the slippery slope we've seen often when government adopt new technologies (e.g. assault weapons now used against minor drug offenses).

But what if this isn't really about national security, or iPhone privacy at all?  What if there's a deeper issue about privacy and anonymity that the government sees in the bitcoin movement? 

Next to national security, governments are most interested in making sure they collect all the taxes that they can.  The rising growth of bitcoin threatens that interest, in the anonymous nature of bitcoin transactions.  Without a source and identity associated with transactions, governments will lack the ability to properly trace and audit financial and commercial transactions for the purposes of collecting taxes (and, as a sideline, preventing nefarious activity).

The same 'weakness' has been highlighted as a feature of cash recently, but with cash, it's difficult to move substantial amounts of money over long distances and national borders without significant weight and volume issues ($1M of $100 bills is about 22 pounds worth).  With bitcoin, that weight problem is eliminated without the loss of anonymity.  Billions can move great physical distances at the push of a button, safely and securely, and anonymously.

And maybe that's what really has the government concerned, and what they're really after - a way to force any company that promotes anonymity and privacy into developing backdoors into that technology.  This national security issue is one that galvanizes public support in a way that tapping into commercial transactions for tax revenue would not. 

The outcome, however, might be the same, and it will be quite interesting to see how the government argues this case - either in the very specific details of 'we need this one phone for national security' or the more general 'we need to be able and allowed to force open encryption by any entity who would create that encryption in the first place'.  If the more general case is the one being pursued, and succeeds, bitcoin's useful life as an anonymous crypto-currency will be short indeed.

The Lesser of two Evils

While discussing the primary returns from Nevada and South Carolina today, my son asked me the question: "If the election came down to Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, who would you vote for?" 

Ick.  Possibly the worst outcome of our fractious primary system in the US presidential election would be that situation, and if it came to that, I might find myself in the 'Draft a 3rd party candidate' campaign, but naturally, my son saw that option coming, and limited me to these two candidates only.

Tough call, but I expect I might even find myself voting for Bernie Sanders in this case.  While I am a registered Republican, and generally quite conservative, I see 'less damage' in a Sanders presidency than if Donald Trump were elected.

While I don't agree with several of Mr. Sanders' views and positions, the enactment of his policies would require a Congress that would be willing to enact laws aligned to that position.  While the power of the Presidency is significant, real change requires consensus among the Legislature and the Executive branch.  I'm not convinced that the country is ready to swing dramatically in the "Democratic Socialist" direction that Mr. Sanders would prefer, so I would  expect that the Congress would be in opposition during the term of his potential presidency.

The same may be true of Donald Trump - the country at large is not really ready for his brand of conservatism, either (although he might start with a Republican Congress, if only for two years).  But a hypothetical President Trump represents a risk of embarrassing and weakening America.  In his candidacy, he has repeated spoken off the cuff, and said things that we would not find acceptable from a President, and many times he has had to come back after the fact to explain himself and try to soften the blow.  International diplomacy (a key role for the president!) doesn't give much allowance for 'second chances'.  While I may agree with many of his policies (not all), the other candidates have equal or better positions (but again, I'm hoping to escape this binary choice). 

The actual voting results for Trump have consistently been lower than the pre-vote polls indicate; I take this as a sign that he may excite people, but when it comes down to actually pulling a lever for a candidate, the electorate looks hard at the candidates, and makes a better decision.  Let's hope that in the end, my son's scenario is not a choice I'll have to make.

SCOTUS and the US Presidential Candidates

A dramatic event happened in US politics this weekend – the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and the political fallout that then occurred.

It was an event to me mainly because he was the first Supreme Court Justice that I remember going through the confirmation process.  He was appointed in 1986 by Ronald Reagan, when I was 15 years old and just learning about national government (in part due to my participation in Boy Scouts).  I didn’t follow his nomination and appointment very closely, but I learned enough to be very interested by both the Robert Bork nomination and again with David Souter a few years later, which I followed closely.

Justice Scalia’s passing was a surprise (and a blow to relative conservatives like me), but more surprising was the reaction from the various presidential candidates.  Immediately after his passing (the same night, in fact) several candidates for the Republican nomination came out and said that no nominee by President Obama should be confirmed by the Senate, as is required by the US Constitution.  

To me, this is a twofold mistake, both in policy and politics.  On policy, it’s a rejection of the principles of the Constitution, which enumerates powers of the President (including supreme court nominations) for the entire four years of his term, not just the three years (and shrinking!) before the election cycle starts. As of right now, there are not even nominees to replace the president when his term ends, and the election cycle has been running since June of last year, so the idea that a president could not successfully nominate a SCOTUS justice is to de facto shorten the term of the President.  (Two notes; First, Justice Scalia himself, as a strict constructionist, would have hated the idea that the Constitution would be overridden by political considerations.  Second, there is an unwritten rule called the “Thurmond Rule” about nominating a justice at the end of one’s term.  It’s a bad rule, and too early to invoke it anyway).

Second, politically.  By rejecting the nomination of any justice before it’s even been made, the Republicans are handing their Democrat opponents an easy issue with which to beat them.  The statement that the Republicans are willing to circumvent the Constitution or thwart the will of the people to get their way is almost too easy, and will energize the base of Democrat voters who don’t trust the Republicans to run the government.  It could also lead to a groundswell of independent voters who will feel the same way, and at a minimum, who may vote for a Republican president, but also a Democrat Senate to keep the power of the President in check.  (Note: candidate Ted Cruz has stated he would filibuster a nominee himself – if he were to do that, it would be the end of his viability as a candidate; Americans do not want to see paralysis in their government.)

I, for one, am actually writing to my Senators, urging them to put aside election year politics, and abide by the authority given to them by the Constitution.  President Obama clearly has the right to nominate a justice to SCOTUS, and the Senate has an obligation to confirm or reject the candidate on the merits of the candidate only, and not their politics.  If the one hundred (or so) Senators cannot see their way to carry out this responsibility, they have no place holding their office.

2016 - The return

As it relates to this blog, I’ve been nothing but inconsistent.  While I had portrayed this as a mix of topics, including running, fitness, politics, etc., it’s been pretty narrowly focused, and I’ve consistently argued with myself that I had nothing of high quality to say.

And that’s a problem of perspective.  I’ve read so many great blogs that I’m confident little that I would write would measure up.  That’s true, and will continue to be, but I’m going to try not to care.

So you, reader, may become annoyed, or bored, or turned off by some of the opinions that I might voice here.  That’ll have to be okay with me, and given that only about three people besides me ever read this, it won’t seem like a great loss if I lose readership :-)

If you are reading, feel free to hold me accountable, and ask if I’ve stopped writing.  I did that last year when I found out that some people I knew personally were reading this, and it sorta freaked me out.   After a conversation with my dear wife this weekend, I realized how silly that really was.  So like it or not, you can expect to hear more from me in 2016.