Monthly Archives: September 2022

Phoenix Suns Governor Robert Sarver Banned For One Year And Fined $10M For Racist And Sexist Behavior | Weak Punishment By NBA Shows Where The Power…

Posted on by

The NBA announced the findings of its independent investigation into allegations that Phoenix Suns governor Robert Sarver created a racist and sexist atmosphere inside the Suns and Mercury organizations. The allegations became public in an expos by ESPN last year. As a result of the leagues findings, Sarver will be fined $10 million and suspended from his role as team governor for a year. This feckless and toothless punishment by the NBA reveals where the true power resides.

In 2014 in his first year as commissioner Adam Silver took the unprecedented step of banning then Los Angeles Clippers governor Donald Sterling for life. Private recordings of Sterling making racist comments were made public. This was hailed as a bold move by the new commissioner and it furthered the myth of the NBA as a progressive league unafraid to challenge its owners.

Of course Sterling was a known racist for decades by many in and around the NBA and found himself in court fighting allegations of racial discrimination towards minority tenants in his Los Angeles apartment complexes.

The only reason he was banned from the NBA is because those recordings became public and the league could no longer pretend it didnt know.

In 2014 when talk of Sterling being banned picked up steam, outspoken Dallas Mavericks governor Mark Cuban spoke out against the banning of Sterling, calling it a slippery slope.

Cuban was no ally of Sterlings, as he referred to his actions as abhorrent. But he was concerned about the precedent being set, and more broadly what this would mean for other governors.

In order for the commissioner to remove a governor from his position, he needs three-fourths of the governors to vote yes. Given what was said and the optics, the league is majority Black and, remember, players were planning to boycott playoff games finding 23 owners to vote yes was easy for Silver.

Apparently, in this instance with Sarver not so much. What Sarver did is no less abhorrent and egregious than Sterling.

The NBAs investigation revealed that on at least five separate occasions Sarver used the N-word. At least five, which means there were many more times. He made sexist comments towards women he employed, and revealed his genitalia to employees in the workplace.

But interestingly enough, the 43-page report detailing investigation also said:

Say what now?

Your detailed investigation all but confirms the scathing ESPN report but Sarvers not a racist or a sexist?

Sure thing.

Like Sterling, Sarver and his exploits have been rumored and whispered about around the NBA for years. How do you think something like the ESPN story gets started?

Sarver has a penchant for lewdness and crassness at best, and at worst behavior far more abhorrent.

In 2021 at a luau-themed roast and memorial service for his deceased business partner Richard (Dick) Heckmann, Sarver left many of the guests uncomfortable with the sexual tales of his good buddy Dick.

Sarvers net worth is approximately $800 million. A $10 million fine is chump change, and his one-year suspension basically means he cant be seen in public around the team. His bidding will still be done through a proxy, because he is the governor.

The 30 governors of the NBA franchises are where the true power in the league resides. Silver works for them, despite the relationship he has with the players and the public appearance that he can hold the governors collective feet to the fire.

If the governors decided they wanted Sarver out, he wouldve already been voted out. But there is a saying about birds of a feather. Given that the other governors are also mostly wealthy white men, do you think Sarver is the only governor whose engaged in less than ideal behavior, to put it mildly?

Probably not. So there is no incentive for them to start what would essentially be voting against their own interests.

A fine, the largest amount that the league can levy, and a one-year suspension is the best the NBA could do to try and move past this situation. Because what they dont want is a full on deep probe with subpoenas, full electronic discovery. A thorough search under the hood with the CSI microscopes would reveal things theyd rather not know.

Read More TSL Stories:

I Regret What I Did | Former Chiefs Assistant Britt Reid Apologizes For Seriously Injuring 5-Year-Old Girl In Drunken Car Crash The Shadow League

T.I. And Atlanta Artists Rise Up Against The Falcons For Choosing Rotimi To Sing Their Team Anthem | What In The A-Town, Shawty? The Shadow League

Read the original post:

Phoenix Suns Governor Robert Sarver Banned For One Year And Fined $10M For Racist And Sexist Behavior | Weak Punishment By NBA Shows Where The Power...

The Supreme Courts order in the Yeshiva University case reads like an implicit threat – Vox.com

Posted on by

The Supreme Court handed down a brief and highly unusual order Wednesday evening that set the stage for more legal wrangling over the line between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws.

The order itself is very narrow, giving lawyers for an orthodox Jewish university specific instructions on which motions they must file to ask New Yorks appeals courts to reconsider a decision against the university.

A state trial court ordered the university to recognize an LGBTQ student group, something the school refused to do on religious grounds. The school sought relief on the Supreme Courts shadow docket, a process for obtaining expedited relief from the justices without invoking the Courts ordinary processes. And the university actually had a strong case that the state court was at least partly in the wrong, under longstanding Supreme Court precedents.

While the Supreme Courts decision in Yeshiva University v. YU Pride Alliance is technically a loss for the university, because it leaves the trial courts order in place, the decision reads like an implicit threat to New Yorks appeals courts. It is very likely that, if New Yorks appeals courts do not step in to permit Yeshiva University to deny recognition to the pride group, the Supreme Court will do so in the near future.

Meanwhile, the four most conservative members of the Court dissented. They also joined an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito which, if it became law, would seriously damage many civil rights litigants ability to bring an anti-discrimination lawsuit against someone who claims that their discrimination is motivated by their religious faith. And Alitos approach could quite easily pick up the fifth vote it needs to become a majority opinion if the Yeshiva University case does return to the justices.

The case arises out of a dispute between Yeshiva, an Orthodox Jewish university in New York City, and a campus Pride Alliance group that wishes to be recognized as an official student organization by the university. The university refuses to do so, claiming that it would violate its sincere religious beliefs about how to form its undergraduate students in Torah values.

After the student group sued, a state trial court ordered the university to recognize the group, and two New York appeals courts denied the universitys efforts to swiftly block that order. That seemingly left the Supreme Court as the universitys last possible source of relief.

But the five justices in the majority the three liberals plus Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied the universitys request to block the trial courts decision, noting that the university technically could have filed additional motions in New Yorks appeals courts. Applicants may ask the New York courts to expedite consideration of the merits of their appeal, the Court wrote. They also may file with the Appellate Division a corrected motion for permission to appeal that courts denial of a stay to the New York Court of Appeals.

Thats an unexpected development. The Supreme Court typically does not provide lawyers with such detailed instructions on how they can navigate a states appellate process. Its a sign that this Court, with its recent extraordinary deference to religious conservatives, expects the university should prevail in state courts.

Moreover, Yeshiva actually made a fairly strong argument that the trial courts order violates longstanding doctrines giving religious institutions power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.

Should New Yorks appeals courts continue to deny Yeshiva the relief it seeks, the Supreme Court sent a fairly loud signal in its Wednesday order that it will not stay its hand a second time. If Yeshivas lawyers seek and receive neither expedited review nor interim relief from the New York courts, the Courts order states in its final line, they may return to this Court.

The justices, in other words, appear to be delivering a thinly veiled threat to New Yorks appeals courts: Grant Yeshiva the relief it seeks, or else the Supreme Court will.

Its worth noting that this case arrived at the Supreme Court on its shadow docket, a mix of emergency orders and other expedited matters that the justices decide without full briefing or oral argument.

Historically, when the Court decided a case, it ordinarily did so after the case was fully considered by lower courts, and after the justices received full briefing, heard oral argument, and often spent months drafting an opinion. This lengthy process was intended to prevent the justices from making a careless error in their ultimate decision. Because the Supreme Court has the final word on questions of federal law, it makes sense for it to spend a considerable amount of time with each case because there is no easy way to reconsider a Supreme Court decision.

Beginning in the Trump administration, however, the Court started ignoring its normal practices to rule swiftly in Trumps favor when a lower court blocked one of his policies prompting Justice Sonia Sotomayor to warn that her Court was putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the Trump administration.

The data bears Sotomayors accusation out. During previous administrations, asking the Court to take up a case on its shadow docket was considered such an extraordinary act that even the federal government was reluctant to do it. According to a 2019 paper by University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck, during the sixteen years of the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations, the Solicitor General filed a total of eight such applications averaging one every other [Supreme Court] Term.

But Trumps Justice Department ignored this longstanding norm, filing at least twenty-one applications for stays in the Supreme Court over the course of less than three years, including 10 in just the year-long Supreme Court term that began in October of 2018. And the Courts Republican-appointed majority rewarded Trump for this behavior, handing his administration a full or partial victory in about two-thirds of cases, according to Vladeck.

One consequence of the Courts eagerness to decide cases quickly and without full deliberation is that conservative private litigants have also started bringing cases on the Courts shadow docket with increasing frequency. And that creates a ton of unnecessary work for the justices. The old norms, which discouraged lawyers from seeking shadow docket relief, didnt just help ensure that the justices fully considered a case before making a decision, they also protected the justices from a cascade of motions seeking their immediate attention.

The Courts order in the Yeshiva University case is consistent with its old practice of encouraging lawyers to seek every possible avenue of relief from lower courts before bringing a matter to the justices attention. But because the order seems designed to pressure lower courts into granting Yeshiva the relief that it seeks, it is unlikely to deter future litigants from bringing shadow docket cases in the future.

In a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, Alito claims that his Court should have granted immediate relief to Yeshiva. Thats unsurprising, as Alito frequently takes maximalist stances in favor of religious conservatives.

And, indeed, Alitos opinion takes a distinctly maximalist approach to this case, calling for a legal rule that would make it very difficult to enforce anti-discrimination laws against anyone who claims that their religion requires them to discriminate.

In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the Supreme Court held that religious objectors typically must follow the same laws as everyone else. A state may not single out people of faith for inferior treatment that is not imposed on secular individuals or institutions, but religious objectors must follow all neutral law[s] of general applicability.

But Alito claims that New Yorks anti-discrimination law is not neutral or generally applicable because it does not apply to benevolent orders indeed, it does not apply to any club which proves that it is in its nature distinctly private.

These kinds of carveouts from civil rights laws for private clubs are exceedingly common. The federal law banning businesses that offer their services to the public from engaging in many forms of discrimination, for example, exempts a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public. It is likely that the First Amendment, which grants rights of free association to membership organizations that do not apply to public businesses, forbids states from enacting anti-discrimination laws that require genuinely private clubs to accept members they do not want to accept.

Alito, in other words, is saying that, if a state enacts an anti-discrimination law that exempts private clubs which the Constitution most likely requires it to exempt, then it must also exempt religious objectors from that law. In practice, that means Alito would give all religious objectors fairly sweeping exemptions from huge swaths of anti-discrimination law.

In fairness, Alito did suggest in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) that bans on race discrimination, at least in the workplace, may still be applied to religious objectors. But the position he lays out in his Yeshiva University dissent would likely give religious conservatives a broad right to engage in discrimination against women, LGBTQ Americans, and other groups that are often protected by civil rights laws.

And, if New Yorks appellate courts do not rule in Yeshivas favor, Alito will get the chance to pick up the fifth vote he needs to turn his approach into the law, once this case returns to the Supreme Court.

Our goal this month

Now is not the time for paywalls. Now is the time to point out whats hidden in plain sight (for instance, the hundreds of election deniers on ballots across the country), clearly explain the answers to voters questions, and give people the tools they need to be active participants in Americas democracy. Reader gifts help keep our well-sourced, research-driven explanatory journalism free for everyone. By the end of September, were aiming to add 5,000 new financial contributors to our community of Vox supporters. Will you help us reach our goal by making a gift today?

Read more from the original source:

The Supreme Courts order in the Yeshiva University case reads like an implicit threat - Vox.com

Web Crypto API – Web APIs | MDN – Mozilla

Posted on by

The Web Crypto API is an interface allowing a script to use cryptographic primitives in order to build systems using cryptography.

Warning: The Web Crypto API provides a number of low-level cryptographic primitives. It's very easy to misuse them, and the pitfalls involved can be very subtle.

Even assuming you use the basic cryptographic functions correctly, secure key management and overall security system design are extremely hard to get right, and are generally the domain of specialist security experts.

Errors in security system design and implementation can make the security of the system completely ineffective.

Please learn and experiment, but don't guarantee or imply the security of your work before an individual knowledgeable in this subject matter thoroughly reviews it. The Crypto 101 Course can be a great place to start learning about the design and implementation of secure systems.

Some browsers implemented an interface called Crypto without having it well defined or being cryptographically sound. In order to avoid confusion, methods and properties of this interface have been removed from browsers implementing the Web Crypto API, and all Web Crypto API methods are available on a new interface: SubtleCrypto. The Crypto.subtle property gives access to an object implementing it.

BCD tables only load in the browser

The rest is here:
Web Crypto API - Web APIs | MDN - Mozilla

Fundamental Cryptography in Theory and Python – iProgrammer

Posted on by

Learn to do Cryptography with Python and for free too. A course by computer scientist of ETH Zrich and cybersec expert Cyrill Gssi. He teaches the concepts of Cryptography with a practical approach.

And what better way of exploring the four classic concepts of Cryptography, that is confidentiality, integrity, authenticity and non-repudiation, than with Python.

Gssi developed this course with a few goals in mind. The first that by completing the course you would have gained a good understanding of cryptographyas a tool to realize the aims of information security. The second would be to furnish good knowledge about the existing fundamental cryptographic primitivesand an understanding of the security concerns associated with each of them. And, finally, the third goal would be to become able to apply that theoretical understanding of fundamental cryptographyby using the various cryptographic primitives in Python.

In concrete terms this would involve such things as symmetric, asymmetric, hybrid encryption and key exchanges or primitives such as the AES block cipher ,the RSA encryption scheme, and the Diffie-Hellman key exchanges EDH and ECDHE. All these relate toConfidentiality.

On the topic of Integrity, the cryptographic hash functions such as MD5, SHA-1, SHA-2 and SHA-3 are introduced.

As far as Authenticity is concerned, message authentication codes with HMACs, authenticated encryption with the Encrypt-then-MAC approach, and authenticated encryption with associated data with the GCM block cipher mode of operation, will be examined.

Finally on the Non-Repudiation front, we will have a close look at digital signatures based on RSA, DSA, Elliptic-Curve based DSA, Ed25519 and Ed448.

Theory and its practice in Python go hand in hand. Furthermore you will not just learn how to use the cryptographic primitives in Python, but you will additionally learn, how to implement most of these primitives in Python yourself.

The syllabus in detail:

1-Introduction and content of course2-Cryptography & its classic security goals3-Confidentiality as a security goal4-Symmetric encryption with AES and ECB/CBC5-Using insecure AES-ECB in Python6-Using secure AES-CBC in Python7-Implementing AES in Python #18-Implementing AES in Python #29-Implementing AES in Python #310-Implementing AES in Python #411-Implementing AES in Python #512-Implementing AES-ECB/CBC in Python #113-Implementing AES-ECB/CBC in Python #214-Asymmetric encryption with RSA15-Using RSA in Python16-Implementing RSA in Python #117-Implementing RSA in Python #218-Implementing RSA in Python #319-Hybrid encryption & key exchanges (EC)DHE20-Implementing hybrid RSA-AES encryption in Python21-Using EDH and ECDHE in Python22-Implementing a P-256 ECDHE in Python23-Integrity as a security goal24-Hash function structure and properties25-Hash function security26-Using MD5, SHA-1, SHA-2, SHA-3 in Python27-Implementing SHA-256 in Python #128-Implementing SHA-256 in Python #229-Authenticity as a security goal30-HMAC, Encrypt-then-MAC and GCM31-Using HMAC in Python32-Implementing HMAC in Python33-Implementing Encrypt-then-MAC in Python34-Using AES-GCM in Python35-Implementing AES-GCM in Python #136-Implementing AES-GCM in Python #237-Non-repudiation as a security goal38-Digital signatures39-Using RSA-PSS & Ed25519 signatures in Python40-Recap and summary

These 40 lessons of 2 up to 15mins in duration are provided as a Youtube playlist, while the accompanying Python code is up on its Github repo.

To sum it up, this is a great learning opportunity, combining two essential technologies, Cryptography and Python. Both very valuable for programming as well as careerwise forits students.

Fundamental cryptography with Python-Youtube playlist

Fundamental cryptography with Python-Github

Knock Yourself Out With 91 Python Videos

Play & Learn With CryptoHack

To be informed about new articles on IProgrammer,sign up for ourweekly newsletter,subscribe to theRSSfeedandfollow us on Twitter,Facebook orLinkedin.

Make a Comment or View Existing Comments Using Disqus

or email your comment to: comments@i-programmer.info

Read more:
Fundamental Cryptography in Theory and Python - iProgrammer

Cryptomathic appoints Laurent Lafargue as CEO of the pioneer in cryptography – FinanceFeeds

Posted on by

Every department in every organization from governments and banks to small businesses faces the same challenge: to secure their sensitive data.

Cryptomathic has appointed Laurent Lafargue as Chief Executive Officer as the cryptographic security solutions pioneer continues its high-growth trajectory across Europe and the United States.

The firm was founded in 1986 and specializes in four sectors: e-signatures, cryptographic key management, EMV payments and mobile security.

One of the first companies to commercialise cryptographic algorithms, Cryptomathic has built a strong portfolio of cybersecurity solutions over the past 35 years, having onboarded global household names in banking and technology.

Cryptomathic holds over 30 patents and has been named one of the worlds 40 most innovative companies by the World Economic Forum.

Bringing more than 20 years of managerial and executive experience to the chief executive role at Cryptomathic, Laurent Lafargue joins the firm after yearsat leading firms in semiconductors, smart cards, RFID, and electronics, including Infineon and Linxens.

Laurent Lafargue, Chief Executive Officer at Cryptomathic, commented:As the world races to go digital, the demand for cryptographic security solutions is exploding. Every department in every organization from governments and banks to small businesses faces the same challenge: to secure their sensitive data. Cryptography has emerged as the de-facto security model to meet this challenge wherever it presents itself, from protecting data in the cloud and on mobile devices, to safeguarding transactions and enabling the secure e-signing of legally binding documents.

Cryptomathic has operated at the bleeding edge of this field for over 35 years. Its solutions are trusted by governments, cloud service providers, and industry leaders in a host of sectors around the world, from financial services to automotive and aviation. It is a great privilege to lead the Cryptomathic team. Im hugely excited to play my part in driving the companys growth as it continues to shape the future of this industry.

The rest is here:
Cryptomathic appoints Laurent Lafargue as CEO of the pioneer in cryptography - FinanceFeeds

NTT Research Names Takashi Goto Head of the Technology Promotion Team – Business Wire

Posted on by

SUNNYVALE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--NTT Research, Inc., a division of NTT (TYO:9432), today announced that it has named Takashi Goto as head of its Technology Promotion Team, a group set up to help productize well-developed research concepts. Mr. Goto was previously a director in the NTT R&D Planning Department and before that a senior manager and senior research engineer at the NTT Information Network Laboratory Group. He joined NTT Research on July 1, 2022, succeeding Dr. Kei Karasawa, who has taken an executive position at NTT R&D in Tokyo. Mr. Goto will join the executive team at NTT Research, where he will be responsible for exploring the market potential for technologies under development at NTT Research, as well as NTT R&D. One of the first targets for commercialization is attribute-based encryption (ABE), a form of cryptography that allows for sharing data while preserving the data owners privacy.

The mission of NTT Research is to conduct basic research tied to long-term goals, rather than specific product or service roadmaps. Yet, along the way, the companys researchers may generate technologies that have market potential. The purpose of the Technology Promotion Team is to test that hypothesis by interacting with a range of stakeholders involved in the commercialization of invented technologies or byproducts. Mr. Gotos task will be to interface with NTT operating companies, potential end users, possible third-party partners and standardization bodies. Technology promotion also involves feasibility studies, use-cases, competitive analysis, proof of concept (POC) demonstrations and related efforts.

We are very pleased to welcome Takashi Goto to our team in Sunnyvale, NTT Research President and CEO Kazuhiro Gomi said. He is a talented engineer and manager with significant experience at NTT R&D and a keen interest in technology promotion, making him a perfect fit for this important role.

A leading candidate for commercialization, ABE was Introduced in 2005 in a paper co-authored by NTT Research Cryptography & Information Security (CIS) Lab Director, Brent Waters. Two years ago, that paper was recognized with an International Association for Cryptologic Research (IACR) Test of Time Award. To date, NTT Research has been talking with NTT operating companies, on the assumption that ABE solutions could address security and privacy needs in the health care, medical, financial, education and government sectors. In November 2021, NTT announced an agreement with the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), which includes conducting a POC platform of ABE aimed at making the UTS internal systems more secure. NTT Research is planning a hackathon event around ABE, aimed at showcasing innovative ABE-related applications. Mr. Goto is currently engaged in planning that event.

I have long been interested in creating value and introducing NTTs superior technology to Japan and the world, so I am very excited about my new role at NTT Research, Mr. Goto said. My near-term plans include providing technical support for a commercialization project in Australia, evaluating recent technologies through the hackathon and improving the process of intellectual property management.

In addition to ABE, other NTT Research-related technologies with potential commercial byproducts include applications of multiparty computation (MPC), another area of research for CIS Lab cryptographers, and implementations of the coherent Ising machine (CIM), a quantum computing-related technology that is an area of focus for the NTT Research Physics & Informatics (PHI) Lab. Supporting Mr. Goto at NTT Research are Mr. Fang Wu, a consultant and technology veteran, formerly with NTT Global Networks, NTT America, Lucent and Bell Labs; and Dr. Yannis Rouselakis, a software architect specializing in cryptographic technologies. To advance NTT Researchs core scientific mission, the company, unique among industrial laboratories, has advanced an open lab vision and over the past three years has established more than 20 relationships with premier research organizations in the U.S., Japan and around the world.

About NTT ResearchNTT Research opened its offices in July 2019 as a new Silicon Valley startup to conduct basic research and advance technologies that promote positive change for humankind. Currently, three labs are housed at NTT Research facilities in Sunnyvale: the Physics and Informatics (PHI) Lab, the Cryptography and Information Security (CIS) Lab, and the Medical and Health Informatics (MEI) Lab. The organization aims to upgrade reality in three areas: 1) quantum information, neuroscience and photonics; 2) cryptographic and information security; and 3) medical and health informatics. NTT Research is part of NTT, a global technology and business solutions provider with an annual R&D budget of $3.6 billion.

NTT and the NTT logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION and/or its affiliates. All other referenced product names are trademarks of their respective owners. 2022 NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION

Continue reading here:
NTT Research Names Takashi Goto Head of the Technology Promotion Team - Business Wire

Blockchain and POW are the leading technology behind Bitcoin. – Deadline News

Posted on by

Blockchain has the power to revolutionize all supply chain relationships, as it cuts out many intermediaries and improves transparency. As you might have heard, this new type of technology does not rely on servers to store and manage data for it to work.Instead, each companys blockchain uses cryptography to create decentralized networks that allow for instant value transfer without relying on external intermediaries. In addition, Bitcoin introduced blockchain and proof of work, a consensus algorithm allowing the execution of transactions with utter security in a trustless manner. Both blockchain and proof of work are two core technology of the entire bitcoin ecosystem; lets discuss everything you should know about these fundamental technologies. But before that, if you are planning to start your bitcoin trading journey, you may use a trusted platform like bitalpha-ai.io

Blockchain:Blockchain is an exciting new technology that can potentially change many peoples lives globally. Through blockchain technology, companies can now have an accurate, efficient, and transparent way to manage the entire lifecycle of their products, from sourcing raw materials through manufacturing, distribution, and sales to ensuring that the proper payments are being made along the way.

As a result, supply chain management companies will have significant cost savings due to this new technologys ability to circumvent fraudulent activities. The medical industry is another one ripe for disruption in various ways by blockchain technology. It will likely help to save lives by making food, drug, and preventative care distribution more efficient, secure, and transparent.

The benefits of using a blockchain are numerous, and the cost savings are significant. Blockchain technology offers several potential benefits regarding supply chain management, including greater operational efficiency, reduced costs, and increased quality assurance in data management. In addition, it also offers improved visibility across supply chains as well as improved data integrity due to its transparency features. A blockchain is essentially an immutable log shared across a network of many different parties that dont rely on centralized control or storage.

Proof of work:

Proof of work is a validation method in which the validity of transactions is confirmed by solving complex computationally tricky problems. In other words, this algorithm approves that a transaction has taken place. Its important to understand that this algorithm doesnt rely on data stored in any centralized database to verify its validity but instead relies on the computing power required to solve these computationally tricky problems.The blockchain networks are secured by miners who are rewarded with new bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies for their services while keeping track of the ledger. Proof of work may seem like a relatively new concept, but it has been around for quite some time. This algorithm is often called the grandfather of cryptography and was first used over a decade ago. Unlike other types of encryptions where the data is scrambled and then decoded at the receiving end, miners are required to solve cryptographic puzzles to verify transactions in proof of work.

Proof-of-work systems utilize advanced technologies that require significant levels of computer processing power input for secure blockchains to function. Unfortunately, it means that mining is only accessible to people who are able and willing to invest in their computing rigs or those who can afford more powerful machines.

Why blockchain and proof of work are essential for the bitcoin ecosystem?Both blockchain and proof of work are fundamental technologies to the bitcoin ecosystem. Theyre both so important that without them, its hard to imagine a world where cryptocurrencies would exist. As such, it makes sense that novices must acknowledge blockchain and proof of work before going deeper into the topic of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Proof of work is essential for bitcoin because this system requires an enormous amount of processing power and electricity to function correctly. Essentially, everyone who owns even a small number of bitcoins has access to this technology. Still, only those who can afford or are willing to spend a significant amount on their infrastructure can harness its full potential. In short, proof of work maintains the security and efficiency of the bitcoin ecosystem by validating each transaction. Also, it creates a high entry barrier for miners to enter the mining process.

When a transaction occurs, its verified and stored on a distributed computer network that is constantly updating the blockchain. In addition, it provides miners with new bitcoins or other forms of cryptocurrency as a reward for their services every time they process transactions.

The underlying science proof of work and blockchain are pretty similar. Still, with proof of work, transactions are verified by solving complex math problems utilizing a single computer system (the miner). In contrast, blockchain is shared between multiple computers at once to verify transactions simultaneously. In short, to prevent double-spending, the concept of blockchain is essential for the bitcoin network.

Here is the original post:
Blockchain and POW are the leading technology behind Bitcoin. - Deadline News

Investigating the Use of Blockchain to Authenticate Data from the Statistics Canada Website – Statistique Canada

Posted on by

Executive summary

Do you know what a non-fungible token (NFT) is? This question started a chain reaction that resulted in an investigation by a diverse team into how Statistics Canada (StatCan) could use blockchain, or distributed ledger technology, to authenticate a document. The question was posed as part of a more significant idea of how the Dissemination Division might use NFTs, or similar technology, to authenticate the products leaving the StatCan website. Initially, our team was composed of internal StatCan employees: Mathieu Laporte, Director of the Dissemination Division; Jacqueline Luffman, Chief of Publishing Services; and Lillian Klein, Research Librarian. These individuals discussed the idea among other StatCan staff to evaluate whether it was feasible. However, as we recognized a gap in our blockchain experience, we reached out to academics who research various aspects of blockchain technology. Through those meetings, we were connected to four blockchain experts: Dr.Florian Martin-Bariteau from the University of Ottawa, Dr.Jeremy Clark from Concordia University, Dr.Victoria Lemieux from the University of British Columbia and Dr.Tracey Lauriault from Carleton University. We met with these experts for a brainstorming session, where Jeremy Clark presented the idea of using digital signatures to authenticate StatCan documents. With this idea in mind, a team of researchers was formed to explore up-to-date cryptographic technology and applications to develop a comprehensive understanding of the technology and determine whether using this technology in StatCans work would be meaningful. Our research team includes Kathryn Fedchun, a PhD student at Carleton University; Didem Demirag, a PhD candidate at Concordia University; and Lillian Klein, a research librarian with StatCan. This paper summarizes months of collaborative work completed by this team.

The main focus of this project is to understand more about blockchain and see whether, as StatCan expands its website, it could use blockchain technology to enable users to authenticate the data downloaded from the website. With an increased understanding of these emerging technologies, the aim of this project is to develop a process of authentication that would allow users to verify that the material downloaded from the StatCan website has not been tampered with and was produced by StatCan. This would increase overall trust in the agency as a statistical organization. By using blockchain to determine the authenticity of its data, StatCan has the ability to increase social trust with its users. It was identified that the ideal method of authenticating the data should be easy to use and available in an online and offline format to ensure users with varying degrees of Internet connection can authenticate their data.

Our research successfully defined and explained what blockchain is and identified how blockchain is currently being used in a Canadian context. We found that there has recently been a call to action for government agencies to embrace blockchain technology and take strides to implement it in their work. To create a well-rounded assessment of the technology, we included a review of concerns regarding blockchain. We focused primarily on the environmental impact, the public perception of the technology and any potential backlash our team could anticipate, the lack of regulations, and the potential to be blinded by the hype of blockchain technology. Finally, we completed a brief comparison of five blockchains that could be used in our solution. This comparison focuses on general information about each chain, along with the transactions per second, the consensus mechanism, whether it is private or public, and each blockchains environmental impact. This analysis enabled us to decide that Avalanche is the best option for us as we move forward with our technical solution.

With the knowledge gained from this research, our team recommends that this project could be the agencys opportunity to answer the call to action. We propose that StatCan conduct a pilot project based on Jeremy Clarks idea about using digital signatures and build an application that users can download to authenticate their data. We propose using a hybrid model with a blockchain that will allow both online and offline users to authenticate their data. The technical details of this project are explained in depth below; to summarize:

In the hybrid solution, authentication will occur through an application that users must download. The list of hashes of files is updated periodically to contain the hashes of new StatCan products. The authentication of a file will occur as follows: the user will need to upload the file needing authentication to the app. This action will prompt the app to compute the hash of the file and compare it with the list of already existing hashes from StatCan products. The app will then inform the user whether the file is valid.

This solution adds tremendous value to the agencys transparency and trust with users. Hosting the hash values on the blockchain creates an immutable record over time of the products the agency has released and increases users ability to trust the information downloaded from the StatCan website. This project is an opportunity to experiment with blockchain technology without overhauling the agencys existing system.

In the age of information, it is necessary to acknowledge the growing amount of digital information available to Canadians and their increasing distrust of digital sources (Ipsos Public Affairs for Canadas Centre for International Governance Innovation [CIGI-IPSOS], 2019). According to Ipsos Public Affairs for Canadas Centre for International Governance Innovation (2019), 36% of Canadians feel that the government contributes to their sense of distrust in the Internet. As Statistics Canada (StatCan) is the branch of government responsible for disseminating information to Canadians, it should not ignore this statistic. During the 2020/2021 fiscal year, the StatCan website had over 28million web page visitors and 766,589 table downloads (Statistics Canada, 2021). StatCan prides itself on its transparency and accountability to the public and strives to meet the needs of its users (Statistics Canada, 2018). As an organization, StatCan advertises itself as being a trusted source of statistics on Canada (Statistics Canada, 2018). According to StatCans Trust Centre, the people of Canada can trust that information gathered from them, and about them, is done so for themand that these activities are carried out with integrity and the highest ethical standards (Statistics Canada, 2018). The Statistics Act guides StatCan to ensure that it promotes and develops integrated social and economic statistics pertaining to the whole of Canada (Statistics Act, 1985).

Users count on the agency and expect to access and download authentic, reliable data when they enter the StatCan website. But once a product has been downloaded, it is challenging to validate that it belongs to StatCan and has not been tampered with by a malicious actor. This means that users may believe they are accessing untampered data from StatCan when downloading a corrupted comma-separated value (CSV) file. Regarding the likelihood of StatCan becoming a victim of cyber threats at the hands of malicious agents, the increased number of ransomware attacks on Canadian organizations shows that the country is a potential target (Communications Security Establishment Canada, 2021). Therefore, as StatCan begins to plan the expansion and innovation of its website, it is essential that it consider how it can give users the ability to verify and authenticate the data they download from the website.

This research aims to investigate whether StatCan could respond to the authentication gap on its website by integrating emerging technologies into its existing publication methods. To find answers, we began by familiarizing ourselves with the current research surrounding blockchain and distributed ledger technology. We then considered the importance of record keeping, confidentiality, trust and authentication. We looked at multiple examples of other Canadian organizations and government agencies using blockchain and found multiple articles calling on the government to adopt this new technology. However, we also considered concerns related to these emerging technologies, including environmental impact, public image and potential backlash, a lack of regulation, and the possibility of being blinded by the hype. We investigated five blockchains that could be used in our system design: Ethereum, Avalanche, Cardano, Hyperledger and Solana. With a better understanding of the technology available to StatCan, we worked to conceptualize a system that allows users to authenticate the data they download from the website. Our goal is that the system enables users to verify that the material downloaded from the website has not been tampered with and was produced by StatCan. We believe that our method of authenticating data should be available in online and offline formats to ensure that users with varying degrees of Internet connection can authenticate the data. Our team prioritized this component to serve all Canadian users, knowing that high-speed Internet connection is inconsistent because of the digital divide in the country (Canadas Public Policy Forum, 2014). Additionally, we prioritized usability when considering options for a solution, which needs to be as simple as possible to ensure the technology is accessible and easy to understand by users.

Before a solution can be recommended, it is necessary to introduce the technology behind it to provide the context required to understand how the technology can help StatCan accomplish its goal. The main features that need to be understood are the digital signatures and hash functions that support our concept. In addition to the introduction and literature review, Appendix A has a glossary of terms to help readers understand the more technical material.

Throughout the research process, we found a few gaps in the literature. Given that blockchain is still a relatively new technology, especially for government use, it is not surprising that gaps were found. It was difficult to find any concrete Canadian government regulations or policies on how to incorporate blockchain. This means that directives on the implementation of blockchain within the government are still coming to light. This gap leaves our team with questions surrounding how policies might change in the future to simplify or complicate the implementation of this project. Another identified gap is the lack of variety in the way organizations have published their method of incorporating blockchain into their daily work. We found a lot of material about how blockchain is being used in cryptocurrency, record keeping and financial technology (fintech). However, it was difficult to determine how blockchain is used by organizations on a daily basis. We were also unable to find significant information on the legal implications of using blockchain for our purposes. For example, in the case of health records discussed below, it was difficult to determine how patient files were uploaded or tracked on the blockchain. Furthermore, it was difficult to find research on similar projects. We were unable to locate published research seeking to address the issue of how to give users the ability to authenticate data that have been downloaded from a website. We believe that our project fills some of the gaps in the literature and is a valuable step in the direction of new technology for StatCan.

We performed a systematic literature review for this study, which allowed us to understand the breadth and depth of the existing body of work and identify gaps to explore (Xiao and Watson, 2019, p.93). A successful systematic literature review involves three stages: planning, conducting and reporting (Xiao and Watson, 2019, p.102). The first stage, planning, is when researchers identify the need for a review, specify research questions, and develop a review protocol (Xiao and Watson, 2019, p.102). In the second stage, researchers conduct the research and identify and select primary studies, extract, analyze, and synthesize data (Xiao and Watson, 2019, p.102). Finally, the third stage involves researchers writ[ing] the report to disseminate their findings (Xiao and Watson, 2019, p.102). For this project, we had the following three research questions in mind:

In the planning phase of this study, we compiled a list of search terms that focused on our areas of interest in this project. The list of search terms can be found in Appendix B. As Xiao and Watson (2019) described in their article on how to conduct a systematic literature review, we used these search terms to identify relevant articles. As we collected academic research articles, our team added more search terms. We then used a variety of combinations of the search terms listed in Appendix B with Boolean operators to focus our results. In total, we completed 15 unique searches.

Depending on the number of results listed in a search, we reviewed between 100 and 300 results. If the number of results listed was below 1,000, we examined the first 100. If the number of results was below 100,000, we reviewed the first 200; if there were over 100,000 results, we examined the first 300. In the review process, we assessed academic articles based on their relevance to this study using the title of the article, the abstract and the listed keywords. Overall, we collected 59 papers and entered the source information into a spreadsheet, including the title, authors, year the article or book was published, abstract, and complete citation.

Upon collecting the sources, we began reviewing each article to determine its relevance to this project. We assessed the abstracts in further detail and skimmed through the articles to assess their usefulness. Of the 59 papers, we found 18 sources that proved significantly valuable for this project. Most of the excluded papers were too technical for the purpose of this literature review. While we have attempted to make this paper relatively accessible, we have provided a list of technical terminology and definitions in Appendix A. While some of these definitions are paraphrased, they contain a fair amount of quoted material to maintain integrity.

From our 18 sources, we extracted relevant information and data and synthesized them into the literature review below. Using the research questions listed above, we provided a detailed overview of the technology; considered the significance of record keeping, confidentiality, trust and authentication; and provided a list of examples of other government organizations and agencies using blockchain. In addition, we were surprised to find multiple articles calling on the government to use these new technologies, and we also included this as a theme below.

Beyond academic articles, we reviewed multiple articles on the concerning aspects of blockchain related to environmental impact, public image and potential backlash, a lack of regulation, and the potential to be blinded by the hype of blockchain technology. We also researched five specific blockchains: Ethereum, Avalanche, Cardano, Hyperledger and Solana. The number of blockchains available grows each day, but our team chose to investigate these five. Ethereum is an extremely popular peer-to-peer blockchain that uses a fair amount of energy. Avalanche is a more environmentally friendly proof-of-stake blockchain, like Cardano, which is also a proof-of-stake blockchain that is easy on the environment compared with Ethereum. Hyperledger is an umbrella project of open-source blockchains and related tools, and Solana is a carbon-neutral, proof-of-stake blockchain. More information about these five blockchains and their differences is provided below. This systematic literature review strengthened our knowledge of this technology and supported us in creating recommended solutions and next steps for this project, found below.

This project aims to explore how technology can help users verify and authenticate data from the StatCan website. This literature review begins with a brief overview of cryptographic technology. Next, we consider the importance of record keeping, confidentiality, trust and authentication. We provide examples of organizations, agencies and companies in Canada that use this technology. Then, we list multiple sources that call on the government to move toward new technology such as blockchain. Next, we consider potential concerns with using blockchain, such as environmental impact, public image and potential backlash, a lack of regulation, and the possibility of being blinded by the hype of blockchain technology. Finally, we compare five blockchains: Ethereum, Avalanche, Cardano, Hyperledger and Solana. This project is a small step for StatCan toward new technology that can better protect its data.

In the early 1990s, cryptographers Scott Stornetta and Stuart Haber conceived the idea of connecting blocks via hashed data (Treiblmaier and Clohessy, 2020, p. v). Almost 20 years later, on October 31, 2008,

A mysterious individual, or group of individuals, known only as Satoshi Nakamoto, posted a link to a paper entitled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System to an obscure mailing list called Cryptography List. In this paper, Nakamoto proposed the creation of what would become known as a blockchain as a means of enabling an electronic payment system that did not require a trusted third-party intermediary (Urban and Pineda, 2018, p.5).

A blockchain is a digital, decentralized and distributed ledger in which transactions are logged and added in chronological order with the goal of creating permanent and tamper-proof records (Treiblmaier, 2018, p.547). The idea of the ledger has existed for a long timeit is a permanent collection of recorded transactions, historically written in a physical book. Moving the ledger online into a digital currency is where blockchain originated. Since then, blockchain has broadened to include digital security beyond digital currency such as Bitcoin.

Much of this technology stems from cryptography. The term cryptography is derived from the Greek word kryptos, which is used to describe anything that is hidden, veiled, secret, or mysterious (Mohamed, 2020, np). Cryptography secures communication and information using technology and codes. It is well known that data are valuable and often vulnerable. In todays world, producing fake documents is becoming more common. As the fake ones accurately look like the originals, it is impractical for a common man to identify the real and the duplicate one (Prathibha and Krishna, 2021, p.71). Given this information, technology that uses cryptography and blockchain can protect the information, making it tamper-resistant [and] exceptionally hard to change or delete (DeFilippi, 2018, p. 3435). As people begin to recognize the significant and inherent value of data, blockchain and distributed ledger technology may force some organizations fundamentally to rethink their relations with users and approaches to privacy (Maull et al., 2017, p.484). Before providing some examples of blockchain use in Canada, we will discuss the importance of record keeping, confidentiality, trust and authentication for our project.

Victoria Lemieux, an archival studies scholar, claims that much of the discussion about trusted records or systems boils down to two interlinking concepts: reliability and authenticity (2016a, p.112). When a user accesses a record, they consider any potential risks associated with the data (Lemieux, 2016a). Users determine the reliability of data based on how they are accessing the data and on record creation, including who created the record and how (Lemieux, 2016a). Lemieux argues that long-term preservation of information in digital form requires that technical dangers to the longevity of authentic information be addressed (2016a, p.114). In our case, the purpose of what is actually stored on chain is not archiving but rather to establish that the original transaction record is authentic (Lemieux, 2016b, p.15). The aim of this project is to proactively safeguard StatCan data through the added value of blockchain technology.

This project demonstrates that StatCan recognizes the importance of confidentiality. When dealing with data, confidentiality refers to the protection of information, such as computer files or database elements, so that only authorized persons may access it in a controlled way (Mohamed, 2020, np). StatCan data need to be protected from potential threats or attacks. To accomplish this, we must determine the vulnerability or weakness of the current StatCan system (Mohamed, 2020). It is possible that data on the StatCan website could be altered without the users knowledge. This project attempts to fix the potential risk by addressing confidentiality and ensuring that information can be authenticated by the user.

According to a chapter on how authenticity can transform social trust, Batista et al. illustrate the three most important aspects of trust: accuracy, reliability and authenticity (2021, p.112). They argue that accurate [and reliable] records are precise, correct, truthful consistent, complete, and objective (Batista et al., 2021, p.114). To generate trust, the authors describe that authentic records need to preserve their identity and integrity over the period of long-term preservation (Batista et al., 2021, p.116). In the case of digital archives, the authors describe the difficulty in maintaining trust with a digital document. For example, suppose a statistical document has been altered. In this case, it might be challenging to detect the variances between the original and the copy that has been tampered with, and this can negatively impact social trust because of what they call uncertain authenticity (Batista et al., 2021, p.117). This project seeks to improve trust between StatCan and its users by providing a way to authenticate data from the StatCan website and removing uncertainty.

Authentication refers to the ability to determine the validity of a source. It answers the question, How does a receiver know that [the] remote communicating entity is who it is claimed to be? (Mohamed, 2020, np). In this project, StatCan wants to help users determine the validity of a source through an authentication process. Cryptographic algorithms support authenticated encryption, meaning that users can be sure the source is authentic (Mohamed, 2020). This verification also instills integrityit means they can know that the information has not been modified unless StatCan employees changed it through proper authorization (Mohamed, 2020). Evidently, record keeping, confidentiality, trust and authentication are significant factors in this project. Next, we provide examples in Canada that demonstrate this technology in use.

Many examples were found in our research of the Canadian government incorporating blockchain into specific projects. In a policy book published by the Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation at the University of Toronto, Urban and Pineda (2018, p. 6162) list many Canadian government agencies experimenting with blockchain, such as Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat; and the National Research Council Canada (NRCC). In January 2018, the Industrial Research Assistance Program in the NRCC used an Ethereum blockchain to proactively publish grants and contribution data in real-time (Industrial Research Assistance Program, 2019). This project was an experiment that ran for one year and concluded on March 1, 2019. While the experiment is not ongoing, this work has provided constructive insight into the potential for this technology and how it may be used for more open and transparent operations for public programs (National Research Council Canada, 2018).

Multiple levels of government have moved toward using blockchain for permits, including the Government of Ontario, the City of Toronto and the Government of British Columbia (Urban and Pineda, 2018, p.62). One article lists a variety of ways that governments are using blockchain, including for digital identity, the storing of judicial decisions, financing of school buildings and tracing money, marital status, e-voting, business licenses, passports, criminal records and even tax records (lnes, Ubacht, and Janssen, 2017, 357). The Government of Ontario also ran a blockchain hackathon that generated a number of ideas for other blockchain applications in government (Urban and Pineda, 2018, p.62). Supporting pilot projects that use blockchain is an effective way for the government to begin using these new technologies successfully (Urban and Pineda, 2018, p.67). Governments are using blockchain in many areas, and StatCan can use this knowledge and build upon their work in this project.

In addition to government agencies implementing blockchain and distributed ledger technology, health care is moving rapidly toward blockchain and digital health care records. Storing electronic health records on a blockchain is not only improving record keeping but also giving patients greater control over their own health and medical treatments (Urban and Pineda, 2018, p.42). Doctors, nurses, hospitals and other health care institutions are using blockchain to certify the health of patients (DeFilippi, 2018, p.112). It is being used to store encoded personal health records (Zheng, Zhu, and Si, 2019, p.17). The blockchain can provide access to specific individuals, so a persons health records can be secure and confidential when stored in a distributed ledger (Zheng, Zhu, and Si, 2019). Lemieux writes, the underlying conditions in Canada are particularly well-suited to leading blockchain research and implementation Canada has a vibrant, highly active blockchain technoscape, with a diversity of start-ups and consultancies doing innovative work (2016b, p.5). We are excited to add to this work in our project.

Multiple papers called on governments to move toward new technology to better secure their data. Urban and Pineda argue that blockchain can offer governments the possibility of improved transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness (2018, p.42). While blockchain is not a new technology, its use in government is relatively new, so the level of blockchain expertise and capacity within Canadian governments and regulators is currently limited (Urban and Pineda, 2018, p.61). They claim that one of the first things the Canadian government should do is what we are doing currently in this project: building up groups of technologists and policymakers within government who understand the technology, its implications, and the potential opportunities and challenges that flow from it (Urban and Pineda, 2018, p.61). While Urban and Pineda (2018) are pushing for more blockchain in government, lnes, Ubacht and Janssen emphasize that the government should shift from a technology-driven to need driven approach with blockchain applications (2017, p.355). They argue that blockchain will lead to innovation and transformation of governmental processes (lnes, Ubacht, and Janssen, 2017, p.355). Considering the ease with which digital files can be altered (Bell et al., 2019, p.6), we argue that this project is driven by a need for authentication on the StatCan website.

According to DeFilippi, governments have established and stewarded a variety of systems and institutions designed to enhance social welfare and provide the foundational infrastructure for economic and political growth throughout history (2018, p.107). In an article on cryptography and government, Aljeaid et al. argue that e-government acts as a communication bridge between government to citizen, or government to government, or government to business in efficient and reliable ways (2014, p.581). The authors emphasize the importance of data security in government related to potential vulnerability if left unsecured. They claim that end users need robust security solutions to achieve assurance when dealing with e-government systems (Aljeaid et al., 2014, p.581). Creating a tamper-resistant and resilient repository for public records (DeFilippi, 2018, p. 107108) using cryptography and blockchain can help the government avoid data leaks, data loss and other vulnerabilities. We agree with this call to action and believe that this project will improve public trust in StatCan and the Government of Canada.

While the call to action is significant, we also want to take the time to investigate any potential concerns regarding blockchain. We have summarized our findings into four categories: environmental impact, public image and potential backlash, a lack of regulation, and the potential to be blinded by the hype of blockchain technology.

There have been many claims about the environmental impact of new blockchain technology. In November 2021, a blockchain project called Solana contracted Robert Murphy, a climate and energy advisor, to publish an energy use report (Solana, 2021). They compared common activities that involve energy consumption with one Solana transaction, one Ethereum transaction and one Bitcoin transaction (Solana, 2021). While they did not include all of the blockchain options that we have chosen to investigate, it is helpful to consider how blockchain transactions compare with everyday activities. Conducting a single Google search uses 1,080 joules of energy, working on a computer with a monitor for an hour uses 46,800 joules, and using one gallon of gasoline uses 121,320,000 joules (Solana, 2021). By comparison, one Solana transaction uses 1,837 joules of energy, one Ethereum transaction uses 692,820,000 joules, and one Bitcoin transaction uses 6,995,592,000 joules (Solana, 2021). According to Huang, ONeill, and Tabuchi for The New York Times, the process of creating Bitcoin to spend or trade consumes around 91 terawatt-hours of electricity annually, more than is used by Finland, a nation of about 5.5million (2021). While we are not using Bitcoin for our project, these numbers are staggering.

Many of the big players in blockchain, including Ethereum, are using an astonishing amount of energy because of their proof-of-work (PoW) consensus mechanism. PoW requires network participants on the blockchain to expend large amounts of computational resources and energy on generating new valid blocks (Chandler, 2021). In comparison, proof of stake (PoS) requires network participants on the blockchain to stake cryptocurrency as collateral in favor of the new block they believe should be added to the chain (Chandler, 2021). Chandler argues that PoW, such as Ethereum, can be more secure and decentralized, but also uses an immense amount of electricity, is slower and is less scalable (Chandler, 2021). By contrast, PoS, such as Avalanche, Cardano and Solana, has a smaller environmental impact and allows for faster transactions and better scaleability, but it is a newer form of technology and may not be as secure or tamper-resistant as proof of work (Chandler, 2021). Evidently, both PoS and PoW have advantages and disadvantages, and we consider the specific environmental impact of five blockchains (Ethereum, Avalanche, Cardano, Hyperledger and Solana) in the chart below.

There have been multiple examples of companies and organizations that received backlash when attempting to use blockchain. In December 2021, Kickstarter announced that it was moving to blockchain (Plunkett, 2021). The blog post, titled Lets Build Whats Next for Crowdfunding Creative Projects, received many critiques and complaints from creators (Plunkett, 2021). Kickstarter responded by providing a frequently asked questions section, where it claims it is confident that a crowdfunding protocol built on top of Celo will not significantly negatively impact our carbon emissions given its underlying architecture (Kickstarter, 2022). Still, many creators and backers have claimed that they will no longer be using Kickstarter, given this information (Morse, 2021).

Similar to Kickstarter, the digital communication platform Discord tweeted about integrating Ethereum into its platform in November 2021 (Pearson, 2021). The founder and chief executive officer of Discord, Jason Citron, quickly backed off the project two days later, after public backlash (Pearson, 2021). Pearson states that people in the game industry hate blockchain either because of the environmental impact of proof-of-work tokens on Ethereum, the idea that blockchain collectibles are a grift based on mythical thinking, or both (2021). Many users unsubscribed from the platforms premium Nitro paid service or threatened to do so (Jiang, 2021). Given that both of these examples took place recently, in November and December 2021, it is difficult to consider what the public opinion might be regarding StatCan and this project. However, it is important to be aware of these examples and recognize that backlash is a potential outcome.

Another concern is the decentralized and unregulated nature of blockchain. Given that control and decision making about the blockchain is not conducted by a single entity, this is an area of concern for StatCan. Rather than putting trust in one entity, trust is put in mathematical algorithms. Given that there have been other blockchain projects by Canadian governments, they should be used as a guide for StatCan policies regarding this project. Between the five blockchains we look at below, each has different regulations, goals and abilities. It can also be difficult to scale, depending on the blockchain chosen. This may be a concern because it has not yet been decided how many StatCan products will be available for authentication. Since we looked at trust and confidentiality earlier in this literature review, the lack of regulation is less worrisome than the impact on the environment and public image. In fact, this project is an opportunity to be an early example and leader in blockchain implementation regulations, and we hope that we will be able to incorporate new policies into our project.

The overall hype of blockchain technology needs to be addressed. According to Victoria Lemieux, we need to address the shortcomings in designs and implementations of blockchain record keeping so as to be better able to realize the worthy vision of blockchains (Lemieux, 2019). She writes, claims associated with use of blockchain technology for recordkeeping are, in a number of cases, overhyped. As an example, blockchain solutions that claim to provide archival solutions do not actually preserve or provide for long-term accessibility of records (Lemieux, 2016b, p.4). She claims that the biggest danger in blockchain comes from blindly trusting it (2016b, p.23). However, critically investigating these limitations is the key to successfully leveraging technological innovations like the blockchain for the benefit of all Canadians (Lemieux, 2016b, p.8). While blockchain technology does not solve every problem that it has been claimed to, it is a useful technology that will continue to be used in industry and is deserving of further research and experimentation (Ruoti et al., 2020, p.53). While this relatively new technology is exciting, and considering risks can bring up fears of stifling innovation (Lemieux, 2016b, p.5), it is imperative that we are critical of the potential limitations and concerns about blockchain technology to have the best possible outcome in this project.

For this project, we chose to evaluate and compare five different blockchains, with specific considerations. We decided to look at Ethereum, Avalanche, Cardano, Hyperledger and Solana. Ethereum is one of the most popular blockchains, yet it conducts the fewest transactions per second and has significant energy consumption compared with other options because it uses proof of work (PoW). PoW means that a majority of users need to vote on each new blockchain, and this takes more time and effort than proof-of-stake (PoS) blockchains. We also included Avalanche and Cardano, which are both PoS public blockchains. While Avalanches environmental impact is carbon neutral, its transaction rate per second is the highest, compared with the other four blockchains we analyzed. Meanwhile, Cardano is less energy efficient and slower than Avalanche. We also chose to include Hyperledger, as it is a private blockchain that uses Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance as its consensus mechanism. It is a private blockchain, which means that it is centralized. This potentially impacts trust, as fewer nodes can make the network less secure. Finally, we included Solana because it is carbon neutral, uses PoS and has provided a report on energy consumption in comparison with blockchains such as Ethereum. All of the blockchains outlined below have advantages and disadvantages. Upon reviewing them, we have decided to use Avalanche for this project. Avalanche is an open-source PoS blockchain with the highest transaction rate per second, at 4,500. Additionally, it is a public network that is carbon neutral, an important consideration for us.

Figure 1 displays an overview of five blockchains in a chart: Ethereum, Avalanche, Cardano, Hyperledger and Solana. In the chart, we provide general information about each blockchain, the transaction per second rate, the type of consensus mechanism that each blockchain uses, whether the blockchain is public or private, and the environmental impact of each blockchain. We also include a link to the website for each blockchain.

Our research team has designed a solution that incorporates blockchain technology using the knowledge gained from our literature review and pre-existing technical experience. This section outlines system details and the recommended solution for enabling users to authenticate documents downloaded from the StatCan website. We will begin by introducing three technical elements that are the pillars of our solution: digital signatures, hash functions and secure tunnels. These three technical elements interact as follows: a hash computed over the file that belongs to StatCan is used to make sure the file has not been tampered with; a digital signature over this hash proves that the file is owned by StatCan, and the secure tunnel ensures secure communication between the user and the StatCan website. In this section, we explain how these building blocks work and how they are integrated into our proposed solutions.

When users download a file from the StatCan website, there are two questions that they may have. First, do the data actually belong to StatCan? And second, have the data been tampered with?

To address this question, we propose using a digital signature. The idea is similar to signing a document with a penif you receive a signed letter or document from x, you can check whether the signature on the document belongs to x and consequently whether the document is theirs. In a digital signature scheme, a private-public key pair is used to sign a document and verify the signature over a documents hash. There are three steps to a digital signature scheme: StatCan needs to (1) generate the public-private key pair, so that (2) it can sign the hash of the document with its private key, and (3) any user with the public key can verify the signature.

Step1: Key generation.

Using a function that generates keys, StatCan can obtain a public-private key pair. The public key is shared on the website for users to download and use during the signature verification. StatCan would not share the private key, as it might lead to a malicious actor using the private key to forge StatCans signature on documents. It is important to note that key generation is a one-way function, which means that it is infeasible to compute the private key, given the public key. StatCan would use its private key to generate the signature over a documents hash rather than the document itself, as it is faster and more efficient, and the resulting signature is shorter. Consider the signature generation as a function that asks the user to provide their private key and hash of the document and generates a file that contains the signature.

Step2: Signing the hash of a document

To create the signature, StatCan needs its private key and the hash of the document. It is infeasible to compute a signature on the hash of a document if the private key is not known. The resulting signature is kept in a separate file. StatCan would upload the signature file and its public key on its website, so that users can download (1) the file they want to use, (2) the signature file created over the hash of that document and (3) StatCans public key. Consider the signature verification as a function that asks the user to provide the three files that they downloaded from the website.

Step3: Verifying a signature

Any user can verify the validity of the signature by providing (1) the file they want to check, (2) the signature file created over the hash of that document and (3) StatCans public key. If the signature is verified, the user can be sure that the file actually belongs to StatCan.

Public key infrastructure binds public keys with identities. This is done through a registration process where a certification authority (CA) issues certificates by signing StatCans public key. As a result, a CA verifies that the public key really belongs to StatCan. CAs are entities that issue certificates used to verify the ownership of a public key. Any user with access to the CAs public key can verify the certificate issued over StatCans public key. The certificates are valid for a specific amount of time.

Hash functions are used to create a unique fingerprint for the input message. This technology gives StatCan the ability to hash a document (such as a CSV file) and create a unique fingerprint of it in the form of a fixed-size hash. Once StatCan computes the hash of the file, it uploads it to the website. When users download a file, the document is hashed. The resulting hash is compared with the uploaded value to make sure that the file has not been tampered with. This part of the process is handled by the application itself. We will explain this in more detail in the proposed solutions.

To solve users concern about the authentication of their downloaded file, along with digital signatures, we must use hash functions in our solution. This is common practice in cryptography, as hash functions are known to be secure (Al-Kuwari, Davenport, and Bradford, 2011). They are used against malicious parties that may try to change data deliberately. Using hash functions fills a demand in our proposed system, because an attacker should not be able to create a file with a particular hash and replace it with a file from StatCan. For the hash functions to operate effectively, they require certain properties. For example, when two people hash the same document using the same hash function, they get the same hash value. The hash function produces the same output for a given input (which is also called pre-image); this means that hash functions are deterministic. Even if a single letter is added to a single cell in the document, the resulting hash will be different (see Figure2). The determinism property is relevant in the context of guessing the pre-image. Input to the hash function cannot be computed by just looking at the hash value. However, one can try to guess the pre-image, hash it and compare it with the hash value. Consider user authenticationpasswords are generally stored as hashes. If an attacker can access this database of hashes, they can pick a password (for example, one of the most commonly used passwords), hash it and compare it against the database to see whether there is a match.

Figure 2 is an illustration of how hashing works. The image shows a document with the word Hello, pointing toward a centre black box with the words hash function. On the right side of the image, there is a randomly generated list of numbers and letters. Below, there is a document with the word Hello! pointing toward the hash function black box. Because this document includes an exclamation mark, the hash output is distinct as well. When a document is hashed, a fixed-size output is created. Each distinct document has its own distinct output, even if only a single character is different.

Note: This image illustrates how hashing works. Document1 contains the word Hello, and the hash function creates Hash 1 over this document. The second document differs from Document1 by one character: Hello! The hash function creates Hash 2 over Document2. Hash 1 and Hash 2 have different values, as Document1 and Document2 are different. Hash 1 and Hash2 are the same size, as the hash function produces fixed-size outputs.

Most relevant to our project, it is imperative to note that we expect a hash function to have the collision resistance property, meaning that it is infeasible to find any two different messages that have the same hash. In other words, an adversary cannot find another CSV file with different content that has the same hash as the original document and cannot replace the original document with another one.

For the sake of a comprehensive understanding, we must also mention the other two properties that a hash function should have. To ensure clarity, note that a message to be hashed is known as the pre-image, and the resulting hash is known as an image. Pre-image resistance implies that given the hash of a message, it is infeasible to find a corresponding message. Weak collision resistance states that given a message, it is infeasible to find another message with the same hash. As previously mentioned, the hash function is also needed for the signing operation. StatCan signs the hash of the document, rather than the document itself, to have a shorter signature. This increases efficiency, as signing the hash is much faster. Since the hash is used in the signature function, we need the collision resistance property.

There are well-known hash functions, such as MD5, SHA1, SHA2 and SHA3. However, not all are secure. MD5 and SHA1 are proven to be insecure, as they do not have the collision resistance property. While it takes longer to attack SHA1 than MD5, both are currently considered weak. Hash functions can break over time, but they get replaced with secure ones. For now, we know that SHA2 and SHA3 are secure (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2015). As SHA3 is more secure than SHA2, we propose using SHA3 in our solution.

The proposed solutions require a secure tunnel between the user and the StatCan website for communication. In both the offline and hybrid solutions found below, the user has to download an application from the StatCan website. The user has to make sure they get the actual application, and a secure tunnel is needed between the user and StatCan for that purpose. Also, in the online solution, the user communicates with the StatCan website using the secure tunnel. Https provides a secure tunnel, meaning that if an attacker observes the traffic in the tunnel, they will not know the content of the message being transmitted. All an attacker can observe is that there is traffic between two parties.

The secure tunnel provides

There are three potential solutions that could be implemented using the previously mentioned technology to resolve user needs to authenticate a StatCan document. Offline and hybrid solutions require the creation of an application that is downloaded by the user. In these solutions, the user interacts with the application to check the validity of a document.

Figure 3 is a detailed image of our offline solution. It displays the setup of the solution, which includes how Statistics Canada will hard-code the keys into the application, and an illustration of the secure tunnel between Statistics Canada and the application. The figure continues onto the next page and displays how the solution is used. This section involves a user uploading a .csv file to the application, the application computing the hash, the user providing the signature file to the application and the application checking whether the signature is verified over the hash.

In this solution, the user downloads an application from the StatCan website through the secure tunnel. This enables the user to ensure that the application they download belongs to StatCan. The application checks the validity of the users document. The user takes the CSV file and signature file they downloaded from the website together, then drags and drops the CSV file into the app. The app computes the hash over the file, then prompts the user to provide the corresponding signature file computed over the hash of the CSV file. The application checks whether the signature is verified over the hash. To do so, the StatCan keys must be hard-coded into the app (setup phase in Figure3). The key is needed to verify the signature over a file.

Figure 4 is a detailed illustration of our online solution. In this image, the setup involves the list of hashes on the Statistics Canada server and a secure tunnel between the Statistics Canada website and the user. Then, the figure displays the use of the online solution, which involves the user dragging and dropping a file they want to check into the Statistics Canada website through the secure tunnel. Next, the website computes the hash client-side over the file. Then, the website compares the hash with the list of hashes, and finally, the application prompts the user whether the file is valid.

In this solution, StatCan maintains a page on its website for the user to check document validity. The user communicates with the StatCan website using the secure tunnel, and they drag and drop a file that they want to check. Since the website knows the list of hashes of all files, it can compute the hash client side over the file provided by the user and compare it with the list; StatCan maintains a server where the list of hashes is kept. The user then learns whether the file they uploaded is valid. If valid, the file has not been tampered with and belongs to StatCan. Compared with the offline solution, this approach offers a more straightforward experience for the user, as they only have to provide the products file. However, this solution requires the user to be online, unlike the previous application that runs offline.

Figure 5 is a detailed illustration of the hybrid solution. In this image, the setup is more complex. Statistics Canada adds file hashes to the Statistics Canada server, which then get pushed to the website and application through a secure tunnel. The Statistics Canada server updates the list of hashes every three days. There is an illustration below of how the hybrid solution is used. It shows how the user uploads the .csv file to the application, how the application computes the hash, then how the application compares the hash against the updated list of hashes, and finally how the application prompts the user whether the file is valid.

In the hybrid solution, the user must download an application (similar to the offline solution) over the secure tunnel. The app has a list of hashes of files that belong to StatCan. To authenticate the document, the user uploads the file to the app, which computes the hash and compares it with the list. Then, the app informs the user whether the file is valid. The app occasionally connects to the StatCan website to update the list of hashes; StatCan maintains a server where the list of hashes is kept. While we suggest that the app connect every three days, the duration can be greater or shorter, depending on how frequently StatCan shares files. Every three days, the app receives the updated list of hashes that is kept on the server to have the most recent list. A signature over a hash proves ownership. Receiving the list of hashes over the secure connection means that StatCan is the owner of the hashes. This solution eliminates the step of providing the signature file, if the hash of the file that the user offers appears in the list of hashes. If the hash is not in the list, the app prompts the user to provide the signature file over the hash, so the app can compute the hash and verify the signature over the file. This situation might occur if a user tries to authenticate a file before the app has the opportunity to connect to the StatCan website and update the list of hashes.

Figure 6 is a detailed illustration of our recommended solution, which is the hybrid solution with the addition of blockchain. For the setup, Statistics Canada adds the hash of the file to the Statistics Canada server, and it is logged on the blockchain. This, in turn, gets pushed to the Statistics Canada website and then through a secure tunnel to the application. The list of hashes is updated every three days in the application. In the illustration of how the hybrid solution is used, the user uploads the .csv file to the application, the application computes the hash, then the application compares the hash against the updated list of hashes, and finally, the application prompts the user whether the file is valid. The image of the users experience is the same as Figure 5. It shows how the user uploads the .csv file to the application, how the application computes the hash, then how the application compares the hash against the updated list of hashes, and finally, how the application prompts the user whether the file is valid.

All three solutions offer users the opportunity to authenticate data from the StatCan website. However, they do not all equally meet the standards we set in our objectives for the project. While the offline solution meets our objective of allowing users across the digital divide to authenticate data, it requires the user to submit the corresponding signature file to the app. With regard to the online solution, the user only needs to provide the CSV file, minimizing the number of downloads for the user. Therefore, the online solution offers better usability compared with the offline solution. However, the online solution does not meet the requirement to provide an accessible method of authentication, regardless of the users access to the Internet.

For these reasons, we have decided that the hybrid solution is ideal because it provides a usability level comparable to the online solution and does not require the user to be online to check the file they have. This solution addresses the barriers discussed above regarding consistent access to the Internet. Adding blockchain to the hybrid solution provides improvements; it affects a subcomponent of the proposed solutionthe way the hash of a file is stored. StatCan creates the hash of a file and logs this hash on the ledger. When compared with Figure5, the hashes are logged on the blockchain, and the app receives the updated list of hashes from it. The added element of blockchain increases trust between StatCan and the public: StatCan cannot change the data once it is posted. If StatCan changes the data, a history of that change is recorded. Another benefit of including blockchain is that hashes can still be reached if the StatCan website is down, as they are recorded on the blockchain. Blockchain also offers better archival properties, as it ensures that the recorded data are reachable over a longer period than if the data are stored on a server. The server may go down or may not be continuously maintained, making the data unreachable. Blockchain provides provenance over the data (hash of the file) for a long time, but does not actually archive files. A possible drawback of incorporating blockchain into the hybrid solution is that if the ledger nodes manipulate the list of hashes, StatCan cannot do anything about ita global network has control over the data. Ledger nodes are the entities in this network that accept or reject a block of transactions based on their validity; they broadcast these transactions so all of the nodes stay up to date. However, in the hybrid solution without blockchain, StatCan maintains exclusive control.

Al-Kuwari, S., Davenport, J. H., and Bradford, R. J. (2011). Cryptographic Hash Functions: Recent Design Trends and Security Notions. Short Paper Proceedings of Inscrypt 10, 137. Retrieved 2022, from https://eprint.iacr.org/2011/565.pdf.

Aljeaid, D., Ma, X., and Langensiepen, C. (2014). Biometric identity-based cryptography for e-Government environment. Proceedings of 2014 Science and Information Conference, SAI 2014. 581-588. https://doi.org/10.1109/SAI.2014.6918245.

Batista, D., Kim, H., Lemieux, V.L., Stancic, H., and Unnithan, C. (2021). Block and provenance: How a technical system for tracing origins, ownership and authenticity can transform social trust. In V. Lemieux and C. Feng (eds.) Building decentralized trust: Multidisciplinary perspectives on the design of blockchains and distributed ledgers (First ed., pp. 111128). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54414-0.

Bell, M., Green, A., Sheridan, J., Collomosse, J., Cooper, D., Bui, T., Thereaux, O., & Higgins, J. (2019). Underscoring archival authenticity with blockchain technology. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 32. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A594619025/AONE?u=anon~eafb9693&sid=googleScholar&xid=e1544e71

Canadas Public Policy Forum. (2014). Northern Connections: Broadband and Canadas Digital Divide. Public Policy Forum: Reports. Retrieved January 27, 2022, from https://ucarecdn.com/68b98fff-32c9-4904-904c-09b1d98cdd2e/

Chandler, S. (2021, December 22). Proof of stake vs. proof of work: Key differences between these methods of verifying cryptocurrency transactions. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/proof-of-stake-vs-proof-of-work

Chowdhury, N. (2019). Inside blockchain, Bitcoin, and cryptocurrencies. Auerbach.

Communications Security Establishment Canada. (2021, December 6). Ministers urge Canadian organizations to take action against Ransomware. Canada.ca. Retrieved January 26, 2022, https://www.canada.ca/en/communications-security/news/2021/12/ministers-urge-canadian-organizations-to-take-action-against-ransomware.html

Computer Security Resource Center. (n.d.a). Certification authority. In Computer Security Resource Center: Glossary. Retrieved from, https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/certification_authority

Computer Security Resource Center. (n.d.b). Collision. In Computer Security Resource Center: Glossary. Retrieved from, https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/collision

Computer Security Resource Center. (n.d.c). Collision resistance. In Computer Security Resource Center: Glossary. Retrieved from, https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/collision_resistance

Computer Security Resource Center. (n.d.d). Key generation. In Computer Security Resource Center: Glossary. Retrieved from, https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/key_generation

Computer Security Resource Center. (n.d.e). Message digest. In Computer Security Resource Center: Glossary. Retrieved from, https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/message_digest

Computer Security Resource Center. (n.d.f). Node. In Computer Security Resource Center: Glossary. Retrieved from, https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/node

Computer Security Resource Center. (n.d.g). Preimage. In Computer Security Resource Center: Glossary. Retrieved from, https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/preimage

Computer Security Resource Center. (n.d.h). Preimage resistance. In Computer Security Resource Center: Glossary. Retrieved from, https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/preimage_resistance

Computer Security Resource Center. (n.d.i). Public key infrastructure (PKI). In Computer Security Resource Center: Glossary. Retrieved from, https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/public_key_infrastructure.

De Filippi, P. D. F. (2018). Blockchain and the law: The rule of code. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674985933

Hirose, S. (2004). Yet another definition of weak collision resistance and its analysis. In Lim JI., Lee DH. (eds) Information Security and Cryptology - ICISC2003. ICISC2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.2971. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24691-6_8

Huang, J., ONeill, C., and Tabuchi, H. (2021, September 3). Bitcoin uses more electricity than many countries. How is that possible? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/03/climate/bitcoin-carbon-footprint-electricity.html

Industrial Research Assistance Program. (2019). Blockchain publishing prototype. National Research Council of Canada. Government of Canada. https://nrc-cnrc.explorecatena.com/en

Ipsos Public Affairs for Canadas Centre for International Governance Innovation. (2019). Global Survey Internet Security & Trust. CIGI-Ipsos Global Survey Internet Security Trust Part I & II: Internet security, online privacy & trust. Retrieved from, https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019%20CIGI-Ipsos%20Global%20Survey%20-%20Part%201%20%26%202%20Internet%20Security%2C%20Online%20Privacy%20%26%20Trust.pdf

Jiang, S. (2021, November 9). Discords hints about crypto, NFTs are tearing its community apart. Kotaku. https://kotaku.com/discords-hints-about-crypto-nfts-are-tearing-its-commu-1848023955

Katz, A., & Dash, S. (n.d.). Error correcting codes. Brilliant Math & Science Wiki. Retrieved January 27, 2022, from https://brilliant.org/wiki/error-correcting-codes/

Read more here:
Investigating the Use of Blockchain to Authenticate Data from the Statistics Canada Website - Statistique Canada

6 Technological Innovations in the New York Sports Betting Industry – Qrius

Posted on by

As you know, New York has been among the top states in the United States to make it to the peak of gambling. To blend it with digitization and modernity, online gambling has incorporated multiple technological benefits to make their way stronger for the future.

The sports betting industry has evolved over the last decade, and this transformation knows no boundaries. Gambling operations over the digitized platform need a convergence of technology, website security, player privacy, convenient payment options, etc. The emerging New York sports betting apps have promised to cover all these needs and bring more to the gamblers. Looking ahead to the industry, these apps will become the sectors future, and the continued innovations are bound to elevate the domain further and make the experience even more seamless. Read along to know more about some of these technological advancements simultaneously revolutionizing the entire industry.

It is essential to understand the imagination of players and bring them to reality. Computer-generated reality does precisely the same. It empowers online sports betting websites to catch gamblers thought processes or originality. They tend to understand these players challenges and eliminate them while hosting an online event.

Considering virtual reality, one can watch multiple games with VR headsets and dive deep into the three-dimensional approach of the event. One can wager as well as enjoy the computer-generated events happening around the globe. The innovation has allowed bookmakers to captivate the players with hundreds of opportunities. These games are the best for players asking for something more than random stuff.

Blockchain technology has been a massive change for the world, and the gambling industry has significantly impacted its operations. When cryptocurrency took charge over the online betting market, people started feeling relaxed about their modes of payment. By the time cryptography started making establishments worldwide, the gambling sector had already fostered them.

Not only gambling, but numerous organizations are also engaging their work culture with cryptos and crypto payments to make transactions safe and secure. Safety in payments is one of the significant lookouts of any person scrolling through the internet. This is why betting operators have shifted to cryptographic forms to make deposits and withdrawals easy for bettors.

The creation of virtual reality and live streaming services is one of the achievements of online sports betting operators. It is a valuable asset to keep bettors loyal and engaged to the operator. And this means no harm to them as it brings out several options for them to explore.

Having an opportunity to watch the sports event or the match live and perhaps wager on it through the app itself is exciting. Live streaming has paved the way for endless opportunities. These options are increasingly valuable for players wishing to invest in live in-play betting markets.

One of the biggest reasons to think twice before making online transactions is to doubt the payment method or the provider. However, gambling operators worldwide use encryptions to protect the players financial information. Also, these encryptions make it easy for the players and the operator to encode and decode. All betting apps these days are encrypted, making it impossible for hackers to steal any information from an individuals account. Companies sometimes use systems to make a trade over your data. This stores a users unique information in their memory. Try to be smart when you make payments and check for encryptions.

VR is no more a new thing to this world. VR lets you explore your imaginative ends quickly and conveniently in the comfort of your homes when out of reality. All you need to gather is a VR headset, a glass, and perhaps a set of gloves. VR takes you to a different zone, immersive a realistic, three-dimensional experience associated with gaming. It acts as a catalyst for the entire gambling industry as gamers enjoy the real-life experience by not taking the pain of traveling to traditional gambling platforms. VR has gathered a total number of audiences over the last decade.

You already know VR and how it functions. The metaverse is another relevant thing to consider when it comes to technology. It is the future iteration of technology or the internet. Online gambling is expected to live within this metaverse in the future.

Virtual realities and physical changes will be blended to provide gamers with new experiences. This will allow a considerable number of players to interact with each other virtually on global terms. Payments would be conducted seamlessly and securely. Metaverse would allow an expansion of the entire gambling sphere. It brings a common currency within the space, eliminating translational complexity among the players.

Online sports betting has significantly evolved due to technological advancements in New York and worldwide. Gamblers these days are no more interested in traveling to traditional platforms. They take an interest in wagering online with the comfort of emerging betting apps and improvements in technology. However, to make the best use of these apps, one must be aware of the evolving technology.

Stay updated with all the insights.Navigate news, 1 email day.Subscribe to Qrius

View post:
6 Technological Innovations in the New York Sports Betting Industry - Qrius

Excessive Secrecy and the Deep State: Is there Cause for Concern? – LA Progressive

Posted on by

Whatever your feelings about former President Trump, there are reasons to be skeptical when government officials say it was necessary to raid his Florida home to recover classified documents that threatened national security.

Like the former president, I was once accused by the government of mishandling classified information connected to my representation of a detainee at Guantanamo Bay. There was nothing in my clients file that posed any danger to national security. My client was an innocent shopkeeper who was sold to the Americans back in 2003 when the U.S. was paying bounties to corrupt Afghan warlords to turn in Al Qaeda or Taliban fighters, and then shipping those men 8,000 miles to our newly built prison camp in Cuba. The government decided to classify every document in the detainee files as secret, not to protect national security, but so it could lie with impunity and tell the American people that the prisoners at Gitmo were the worst of the worst, and terrorists captured on the battlefield.

I never revealed any classified information. I got into trouble after writing an article criticizing the governments practice of classifying certain evidence above the security clearance level of the detainees lawyer, making it impossible to challenge. Following a hearing at the Department of Justice, I was allowed to keep my security clearance long enough to see my client released back to his home and his family after 12 years of unjust imprisonment.

I was never in serious legal jeopardy. But the experience opened my eyes to the ways that our government abuses its power to classify information as secret to protect its own officials from embarrassment or criminal exposure. Since 9/11, the people most aggressively pursued for mishandling classified materials are whistleblowers, not traitors.

Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange revealed official crimes such as the murder of unarmed Iraqi civilians and journalists. Daniel Hale revealed that our drone assassination program regularly slaughters innocent civilians, contrary to public statements about surgical strikes. John Kiriakou revealed inconvenient facts about our torture program. Edward Snowden revealed an illegal mass surveillance program. All these truth-tellers were aggressively pursued under the Espionage Act. Assange may die in prison for telling the truth about the crimes of our leaders.

While Trump may not fit the mold of a selfless whistleblower, there is still cause for concern. First, the official justifications for the raid on Mar-a-Lago are highly suspect. Initially we were told that Trump possessed classified documents relating to nuclear weapons that he might sell to a foreign government like Saudi Arabia. This shocking accusation has been quietly dropped. Now we are told that the government has grave concern that Trump might blow the cover on clandestine human sources described in the mainstream media as the lifeblood of our intelligence community. Disclosure could jeopardize the life of the human source, a former legal adviser to the National Security Council told the New York Times.

This second justificationto protect sourcesis also dubious. The DOJ has been in negotiation with Trumps lawyers since he left the oval office with his boxes of documents. If the government was just concerned about protecting its informants, a deal could have easily been struck wherein government lawyers would go to Mar-a-Lago and redact the lines in the documents that identify informants without the need for a full-blown raid.

The sudden concern in the mainstream media about protecting informants in order to take down Trump is short-sighted. The U.S. has a long and sordid history of using corrupt, lying informants to launch disastrous policies like the Iraq War. In 2002-03, we were told by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell that the government had solid intelligence that the Iraqi regime possessed mobile production facilities for biological and chemical weapons. Had ordinary Americans then had access to the intelligence reportsleaked years later, after the disastrous war was in full flightwe would have learned that the solid intelligence about mobile weapons labs came from a single informant named Curveball, who had been described by his handlers as crazy and probably a fabricator and his intelligence as highly suspect. Had some brave patriot leaked these reports in real time, millions more Americans would have taken to the streets in 2002 to stop the planned invasion of Iraq.

The media should be demanding more information from our government, especially about its use of informants, and not more secrecy. It is a basic rule of journalism that governments lie, and they often bribe (and sometimes torture) informants to support those lies.

Many innocent men, including my client, were sent to Guantanamo Bay on the word of informants who were bribed with large cash rewards. If these informants are the lifeblood of our intelligence service, then that service should be defunded.

A more plausible explanation for the Mar-a-Lago raid was provided by two high-level U.S. intelligence officials who told Newsweeks William M. Arkin that the true target of the raid was a personal stash of hidden documents that Justice Department officials feared Donald Trump might weaponize. This stash reportedly included material that Trump thought would exonerate him of any claims of Russian collusion in 2016 or any other election-related charges. Trump was particularly interested in matters related to the Russia hoax and the wrong-doings of the deep state, one former Trump official told Newsweek.

This explanation is corroborated by former senior director for counterterrorism Kash Patel, who prepared a key House report that revealed significant intelligence tradecraft failings in connection with the Intelligence Communitys Assessment on Russian interference. But the CIA has blocked the release of Patels report by classifying it as secret.

Kash Patel, who is a current board member of Trump Media and Technology Group (TMTG), began his career in government under President Obama as a national security prosecutor and later held several positions in the Trump administration. In April 2017, he was picked to lead a team of investigators for the House Intelligence Committee, chaired by Republican Devin Nunes (now CEO of TMTG), and tasked with evaluating the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian interference. Although the media touted the ICA as the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies, it was in fact a rushed job completed in the final days of the Obama administration by a small group of CIA analysts led by then-CIA Director John Brennan.

Scroll to Continue

Patels team obtained and reviewed the key documents underlying the ICAs conclusions, and interviewed around 70 witnesses under oath. His demands that intelligence agencies produce relevant documents caused a stir among deep state officials unaccustomed to being called to account for their actions. As the Washington Post reported, Democrats criticized the unusual direct requests to the agencies by Patels team of investigators. Patel, a former public defender, apparently believed that even the intelligence community should be subject to the rule of law.

In March 2018, Patels team produced a report that found serious flaws in the CIAs Russia investigation and called into question the intelligence communitys key claims that Russia ordered a cyber-hacking and interference campaign to help Trump. The CIAs response to Patels report was to classify it as secret and block its release.

During the next three years, Patel and others, including then-President Trump and Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, pushed for declassification of Patels report on the ICA. But the heads of the intelligence agencies continued to obstruct, claiming that releasing the report would compromise intelligence sources and methods and cause harm to national security, including specific harm to the military. Trump eventually backed down.

Then in December 2020, according to the Post, Trump tried to fire Gina Haspel as CIA director for resisting efforts by Trump and Patel to declassify Patels report. But once again, Trump backed down and the document still remains under lock and key. Not surprisingly, in its article about Patels battle with the intelligence community, the Washington Post sides with the CIA, describing CIA Director Haspel and her colleagues, who demanded that Patels report criticizing their work be kept secret, as courageous officials who sought to protect the government.

Patel has publicly voiced his frustration with the CIA for blocking release of his report on the ICA. I think there were people within the IC [Intelligence Community], at the heads of certain intelligence agencies, who did not want their tradecraft called out, even though it was during a former administration, because it doesnt look good on the agency itself, Patel said in an interview. Patel also said he has been threatened with criminal prosecution just for talking to the media about his classified report. The power of government officials to say, we have classified your report and if you even talk about it to the media we might put you in jail, is the power of a despot.

In an interview with the Grayzones Aaron Mat, Patel disputed the claim that releasing his report harms national security, noting that his committee released similar reports of its other investigations and we didnt lose a single source, we didnt lose a single relationship, and no one died by the public disclosures we made, because we did it in a systematic and professional fashion.

For example, in January 2018, Patel authored a report that showed serious abuses by the FBI in the Carter Page investigation, which caused a former FBI lawyer to plead guilty to falsifying information that was used to apply for warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This report criticizing the FBI was released to the public, suggesting that it is still permissible to criticize the FBI, but not the CIA.

Patels public statements suggest his agreement with Newsweeks report that the true motivation for the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago was seizing documents relating to the Russia investigation that Trump took with him when he left the White House. In a recent interview with Real Clear Politics, Patel noted that the same corrupt FBI government gangsters, the same agents that were involved in Russiagate, the same counterintelligence agents that were involved in making the bad false call on Hunter Bidens laptop, are also involved in the raid on President Trumps home, with the intent to make sure the American public never gets the full story on Russiagate.

The saga of the Mar-a-Lago raid sheds some light on the important question of who really controls what we are permitted to see about the inner workings of our own government. While the sitting president may in theory have unilateral authority to declassify and release information to the American people, the deep state bureaucracy still holds the power to obstruct the president. As one former bureaucrat told CNN, the process for declassification must include signoff from the agency that classified the information in the first place in order to protect the intelligence-gathering process, its sources and methods.

Whatever one thinks of Trump, is it really in the public interest to have a deep state controlling what information gets out to the public? In 1953, the CIA directed a military coup that overthrew democratically elected Iranian leader Mohammad Mosaddegh, and in 1973, the CIA helped overthrow democratically elected Chilean leader Salvador Allende. These leaders were targeted not because they were unfriendly to the American people but because they were unfriendly to international oil and copper interests that wanted to exploit those countries resources. And while the people of Iran and Chile knew in real time who was responsible, the American people were kept in the dark for decades until key historical documents were finally declassified.

Many scholars believe the CIA was complicit in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Yet 60 years later, thousands of key documents remain redacted or under seal. President Trump came to office promising to release those records, as required by the JFK Records Act. But deep state bureaucrats opposed the release, claiming it would cause potentially irreversible harm to our Nations security. Trump backed down, quite possibly recalling the fate of the last president to go to war with the CIA.

Its not necessary to side with Trump to oppose excessive secrecy. Its our government. We have a right to see whatever secrets Trump had hidden in his basement. And if government bureaucrats are truly concerned that one of their informants might be outed, they can redact those few lines from the reports. But show us the rest.

Independent Media Institute

This article originally appeared on ScheerPost and is distributed in partnership with Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

See the original post here:
Excessive Secrecy and the Deep State: Is there Cause for Concern? - LA Progressive