Re: Definitional Level Setting

Michael, Many thanks for your thoughts, and for sharing these resources.  I couldn’t agree with you more!

Best wishes,
Vicki.
On Apr 19, 2017, at 9:27 AM, Michael D. Palage <michael@palage.com<mailto:michael@palage.com>> wrote:

Hello All,

I just wanted to follow-up on today’s call in which Vicki provided a constructive update on her work on definitional level setting, see http://arstweb.clayton.edu/interlex/blockchain/browse.php .

I also wanted to revisit a previously post about my concerns regarding how inconsistent definitions of blockchain/distributed ledger technology could lead to conflicts between technologists, businesses and legislatures. To highlight these previous concerns please consider the following news articles from the state of Arizona.

Arizona recently pass a law recognizing the legality of smart contracts, see http://www.swlaw.com/blog/data-security/2017/04/04/arizona-authorizes-smart-contracts-on-a-blockchain/ The specific language of the bill which was enacted into law is available here, https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/HB2417/id/1497439 You will notice in this law how the Arizona legislature defined “blockchain” and “smart contracts”:

1.  "Blockchain technology" means distributed ledger technology that uses a distributed, decentralized, shared and replicated ledger, which may be public or private, permissioned or permissionless, or driven by tokenized crypto economics or tokenless.  The data on the ledger is protected with cryptography, is immutable and auditable and provides an uncensored truth.

2.  "Smart contract" means an event-driven program, with state, that runs on a distributed, decentralized, shared and replicated ledger and that can take custody over and instruct transfer of assets on that ledger.

Now while I think it is constructive for legislative bodies to recognize this evolution within contract law to encompass blockchain technology, this is where my concerns about definitional level setting become more heightened.

I believe (still need to double confirm) but it appears that the governor of Arizona signed ANOTHER bill into law yesterday 18-April-2017 involving blockchain, but this time prohibiting the use of blockchain technology in the creation of a firearm database, see http://www.coindesk.com/arizonas-blockchain-gun-tracking-bill-close-becoming-law/ and
https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/HB2216/2017


2.  "Electronic firearm tracking technology" means a platform, system or device or a group of systems or devices that uses a shared ledger, distributed ledger or block chain technology or any other similar form of technology or electronic database for the purpose of storing information in a decentralized or centralized way, that is not owned or controlled by any single person or entity and that is used to locate or control the use of a firearm.� Electronic firearm tracking technology does not include a law enforcement database, including the adult probation enterprise tracking system, the juvenile online tracking system, the justice web interface, the Arizona criminal justice information system, the national crime information center, the national integrated ballistic information network and a local records management system that is used to manage or process stolen, lost, found, stored or evidentiary firearms.

While I believe it is prudent for us to avoid the merits of these initiatives because of the highly polarized nature of the subject matter, I think it reinforces the need for us to promote definitional level setting so that we minimize potential unintended consequences.

Best regards,

Michael