ACE

Category: ACE Research

  • Understanding the FTC’s Data Breach Response Plan

    Understanding the FTC’s Data Breach Response Plan

    A data breach is defined as an incident with loss of control, compromise, or unauthorized disclosure/access of Personally Identifiable Information (PII). PII includes Social Security Numbers, financial accounts, license and passport numbers, credit card numbers, and personal address information. Losing control over PII increases the risk for identity theft and fraudulent activity. A data breach differs from a cyberattack, which is any malicious attempt to breach computer system, network, or device security with the intention to steal data, disrupt operations, cause damage, and/or gain unauthorized access to sensitive information. A data breach is a specific outcome of a cyberattack where PII is exposed, accessed, or distributed by unauthorized entities. 

    Data breaches are occurring with increasing frequency, especially against corporations. In today’s digital age, companies collect and store consumer information to gain an analytical business advantage, which results in an increased chance of data breaches. Corporations like Target and Yahoo had breaches which put millions of consumers at risk and cost millions of dollars. A data breach response plan is highly recommended for businesses because they have a responsibility to protect consumer data and a professional reputation to uphold. Preparedness is crucial to mitigate further breach consequences like financial loss, reputation damage, legal action, operation downtime, and further data loss/compromisation. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) developed a data breach response plan to assist businesses. Their online document outlines recommended procedures from beginning to end.

    The Pros of the FTC’s Data Breach Response Plan: Responsibility, Consumer Transparency, Prevention, Communication, and Minimizing Damages

    The FTC published an online data breach response plan to aid businesses and explain key principles in navigating a breach. First, the FTC’s plan encourages businesses to be responsible in their reaction and communication. It discusses the importance of planning resources ahead of time and having them on hand to prepare for a potential breach. Additionally, companies received steps to respond promptly and efficiently in resolving the breach, and update consumers. Having a thorough response plan, including adequate communication, protects business reputations. By demonstrating competency and responsibility,  the FTC posits that businesses can regain consumer trust and uphold a professional reputation. The FTC’s plan advocates for consumer transparency through communication. The FTC urges businesses to notify involved parties quickly in addition to adhering to local laws. The FTC gives notification advice and how to lawfully communicate to the public (who’s allowed to know, what information can be released, etc). 

    Second, the FTC response plan discusses prevention tactics. The plan advises companies to look closely at their network and services for vulnerabilities and work with experts to seal them. Businesses should consider things like access privileges, network segmentation, and encryption measures.

    The final benefits of having a data breach response plan is decreasing associated costs and business downtime. Having a regularly trained incident response team leads to significant cost savings. Preparedness will minimize the financial burden. According to an IBM study, breach cost savings were $2.66 million for organizations with an incident response team and regularly tested plan, versus no team or testing. Additionally, a data breach response plan minimizes business downtime. Downtime is the time period when system use is unavailable. Breaches are a common cause. Companies can minimize downtime and have a quick recovery if they are prepared to tackle the breach. 

    The Cons of the FTC’s Data Breach Response Plan: High Expectations, Overstepping Enforcement Measures, and Catering to a Specific Business Type

    First, some businesses can view the response plan as burdensome and are reluctant to engage with FTC guidelines. The FTC wants companies to invest time and resources into preparedness.

    Similarly, there are notification conflicts. The FTC does not legally mandate companies to release breach notification so there are different approaches and potential underreporting. Law enforcement and businesses have different objectives when a data breach occurs; companies want to minimize damage and losses while law enforcement wants to convict the parties responsible. Private companies are less inclined to report a breach because they fear reputational damage—they often prefer to mitigate and cover up before the public notices. However, critics and consumers want to be notified immediately and would prefer an enforced mandation. 

    A final concern is determining who the FTC plan is best for. The FTC guide is useful for smaller-to-medium businesses because large companies likely already have sophisticated plans established. The FTC plan could be an area of conflict for large businesses as they try to fulfill FTC requirements and their regional guidelines, which could create confusion and gaps. Yet, it is important to note that the FTC plan does not replace a legitimate individualized business plan. Despite its guidance, specifically smaller organizations can take the advice but they still have to put it in action. The FTC guide doesn’t cover the potentially burdensome costs and time of creating an official plan, it is merely guidance.

    The FTC’s plan (and data breach response plans in general) will continue to develop. Potential reforms include:

    • Higher emphasis on prevention. Companies should have advanced threat detection and monitoring capabilities, like watching network traffic. For protection, companies should practice minimizing data storage.
    • More focus on incident readiness. Businesses should conduct simulations to test the effectiveness of their response plan, train employees, and identify weaknesses.
  • Pros and Cons of US Aid to Afghanistan

    Pros and Cons of US Aid to Afghanistan

    Providing Aid Since 2002

    After the attacks against the United States on September 11th, 2001, the U.S. launched a “war on terror,” a global counterterrorism campaign to combat al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, as well as to topple the Taliban government in Afghanistan. The United States invaded Afghanistan as a part of this campaign. In 2002, after the surrender of the Taliban, President George W. Bush called for the reconstruction of Afghanistan and compared his plan to rebuild the country to that of the Marshall Plan that helped rebuild Europe after World War II. Since 2002, the United States has been the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and has provided billions of dollars in reconstruction, security assistance, civilian assistance, and humanitarian aid to the country.

    The U.S. Withdraws, The Taliban Takeover 

    In August 2021, the United States withdrew its last remaining troops from Afghanistan, ending the 20-year-long war in the country. Shortly after, the Taliban seized control of the Afghan government. Since their takeover of the government, there have been numerous reports of the Taliban violating the civil and human rights of the Afghan people. In response, the U.S. has changed its approach in Afghanistan to focus on providing humanitarian aid rather than reconstruction. 

    Since August 2021, the U.S. has provided more than $1.1 billion in assistance to meet the basic needs of the Afghan people and to prevent an economic collapse. However, the current Taliban control of Afghanistan raises the question: Should the United States continue to provide aid to Afghanistan with the risk of funding the Taliban?

    Arguments for Continuing Aid: Afghanistan is a Country In Need 

    In Afghanistan, a humanitarian crisis looms over the country. As of 2021, 42% of the population faces acute food shortages, and there is a risk of an economic collapse as the prices of food rise. One analysis by the World Bank found that the price of goods had increased by 42% between 2021 and 2022. The World Bank further states that Afghanistan will need continued international support to fund basic services, support faster economic growth, and consolidate and sustain any potential reduction in violence following a political settlement with the Taliban.

    There are moral arguments that the United States should continue to provide aid. In a statement, the United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres, called upon countries to provide funding for the people of Afghanistan. Calling it their “darkest hour of need.” In terms of the United States, Afghans For A Better Tomorrow, an activist group, claims the United States has a moral obligation to continue to provide aid to Afghanistan after its 20-year war and due to its “messy and irresponsible” withdrawal from the country that has put millions of lives at stake. 

    Arguments Against Continuing Aid: Mismanagement

    According to research and reports, previous aid and reconstruction projects by the United States in Afghanistan lacked collaboration between agencies and had insufficient monitoring, with U.S. agencies rarely coordinating their efforts in the country. Many U.S. officials believed the solution to the insecurity in Afghanistan was pouring more resources into Afghan institutions. However, the lack of progress with the increased resources made it clear that fundamental problems in Afghanistan would not be solved by changing resource levels. According to a SIGAR report, a combination of these issues led to billions of dollars wasted on projects in Afghanistan. Many believe that sending taxpayer dollars without oversight or quantifiable results is irresponsible, and that these aid projects must be accountable to taxpayers as part of the social contract.

    Furthermore, there is no guarantee the Taliban is not diverting the aid money. Since the takeover by the Taliban, the U.S. can not guarantee that the Taliban is not misappropriating the aid money provided to the country. John Sopko, the Special Inspector for Afghanistan Reconstruction, testified, “Nor can I assure you that the Taliban are not diverting the money we are sending for the intended recipients, which are the poor Afghan people.” In fact, there are accusations that the Taliban has already diverted aid money to itself and has begun using it as another revenue stream. This also has moral implications for the U.S., as the Taliban government has significantly rolled back protections for women in the country, as well as committed numerous human rights violations. Foreign aid is a main form of income for the country, and indirectly funding the regime, intentionally or not, may empower the Taliban to continue its violent crackdown.

    The situation in Afghanistan has put the United States in a challenging situation. The United States must decide whether to continue providing aid to Afghanistan, which might increase the likelihood of financial loss and unintentional funding of the Taliban, or to stop such assistance, which could result in a serious humanitarian crisis in the nation.

  • Introduction to US-Ireland Relations

    Introduction to US-Ireland Relations

    Source: CIA World Factbook

    Ireland, known as the Emerald Isle, is home to more than 5 million people and boasts a rich and distinct history. Once a British Empire colony, Ireland has been politically divided since 1921 into Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, and the Republic of Ireland, an independent nation. The Reformation in England and the separation between Henry VIII and the Catholic Church in Rome deeply impacted Ireland. Tensions arose due to King James I’s strategy of urging Protestants to settle in the northern province of Ulster, aiming to prompt the Irish population to convert from Catholicism.

    Today, Ireland maintains strong cultural ties with the United States as a result of mass migration due to famine from 1845-1855. Recent presidents have reiterated the shared sense of cultural identity that extends to many members of the Irish-American community as a result of the diaspora. Ireland has been a member of the United Nations since 1955 and a NATO member since 1973. Brexit, the decision by England to leave the European Union, seemingly re-ignited the debate surrounding the status of Northern Ireland for many politicians and scholars, demonstrating the ongoing tensions between the Republic of Ireland in the south and Northern Ireland. 

    Quick Facts

    Overview of History with the US 

    The foundation of the modern Irish state can be traced back to the 1900s and World War I. The desire for Irish nationhood, similar to other emerging nations, was fueled by the principles outlined in former US President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points and the establishment of the League of Nations. From 1919 to 1921, various factions in Ireland engaged in a violent struggle for independence. Sinn Fein, meaning “We Ourselves,” emerged in 1905 as the political arm of the paramilitary IRA (Irish Republican Army). This group advocated for a unified Irish state and separation from the UK.

    The party proclaimed an Irish Republic, which was met with resistance from the British administration and the predominantly Protestant unionist province of Ulster (now known as Northern Ireland). In reaction, the Irish Republican Army was established to combat the British administration. Since their inception, both Sinn Fein and the IRA have experienced divisions leading to various splinter groups and internal changes. Following negotiations that led to separation from the UK, Ireland’s lower house of parliament, known as Dáil Éireann, became part of the League of Nations in 1923, marking the creation of the Irish Free State. However, the divisions between the northern and southern regions, as well as between Protestant and Catholic communities, persisted.

    During the 1800s, potatoes were vital for sustenance in Ireland. The Potato Famine began when a disease wiped out most of the Irish potato crops. Many believed that the British government provided inadequate assistance, leading to widespread starvation. The scarcity of resources resulted in a severe crisis. Around 1.5 million people emigrated to America between 1845 and 1855. These migrants encountered numerous challenges, including bias and poverty, as they gradually assimilated into American society. The narrative of Irish-Americans progressing from marginalized individuals to holding the highest office in the country remains a source of cultural pride. These connections have played a significant role in American diplomacy with Ireland. Presently, the Irish-American community maintains a strong connection to their Irish heritage. This bond between Ireland and Irish-Americans has impacted American policymaking, prompting leaders to employ diplomatic approaches to address conflicts. As of 2021, over 31 million Americans identified themselves as having Irish ancestry. Several US presidents, including John F.Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Joe Biden, have openly discussed their Irish-American heritage while in office.

    The Troubles, lasting from the 1960s to the 1990s, began with a civil rights movement in Northern Ireland led by the Catholic minority. They faced inequalities compared to the Protestant majority. The situation escalated into violence, with both sides contributing. This conflict heavily impacted Irish politics, especially given the ongoing debate about whether Ireland should secede from the UK—a desire largely held by the Republic of Ireland but not by Northern Ireland. The issue was complicated by acts of terrorism by factions of the IRA and other groups.

    Irish-American communities during that time were torn between backing Irish unification and independence and feeling uneasy about supporting further violence by the IRA. President Clinton and the US government played a pivotal role in the Good Friday Agreement, a significant post-Cold War diplomatic initiative. This agreement successfully involved Sinn Fein in legitimate democratic processes. It achieved important milestones such as the disarmament of all parties and increased representation for the Catholic minority. It allowed Northern Ireland to remain a part of the UK. Although the Good Friday Agreement didn’t completely resolve all tensions among Ireland’s population, it paved the way for a more lasting peace. 

    US Interests 

    Ireland and the United States share deep cultural and economic ties. The two nations have maintained diplomatic ties since 1924, and President Clinton implemented substantial economic cooperation efforts that played a crucial role in stabilizing Ireland. This led to a strong and ongoing economic collaboration that continues to this day.

    • Ireland’s foreign direct investment in the US in 2019 was approximately 343.5 billion dollars.
    • More than 900 US-owned firms operate in Ireland, including Google and Facebook. 

    Ireland has pushed a foreign policy that centers peace, multilateralism, and military neutrality. Through the UN, Ireland has promoted peacekeeping and aid to crises in nations including Afghanistan, Syria, and Ethiopia. These support similar strategic interests of the United States to maintain peacekeeping efforts in these regions. Furthermore, Ireland has also given $134 million in nonlethal aid to Ukraine. 

    Brexit complicated the peace created through the Good Friday Agreement as the UK left the European Union. It necessitated a customs border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which many feared would reignite the conflict by encouraging remilitarization in the area. The crisis was averted with a special trading status, but is not fully resolved. The United States’ strategic interests lie in the larger European communal security and integration as a transatlantic partner. Furthermore, the US has interests in maintaining the agreement as a historic success in American diplomacy.

  • Pros and Cons of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015

    Pros and Cons of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015

    Background

    In February 2015, Anthem became the first major healthcare provider to experience a cyber attack when attackers stole 80 million records from Amerigroup and Blue Cross Blue Shield health plan users. In June 2015, hackers stole the personal information of over 20 million people from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which was the largest cyberattack on the U.S. government at the time. A month later, the hacking group Impact Team stole the user database of the adultery website Ashley Madison to blackmail its parent company Avid Life Media. The hacking group released the private information of its 37 million users as well as the website’s database of corporate emails. The sheer number of cyber incidents in 2015 brought cybersecurity to the forefront of domestic policy, leading to the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015. This law changed the way the private and public sectors tackle cyber threats by prioritizing the sharing of cybersecurity information, and affected the federal government, private software companies, and the consumers who use their products. 

    Summary

    Congress signed the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act into law as Title 1 of the Cybersecurity Act of 2015. The act establishes the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) as the central hub for the sharing of “defensive measures” and “cyber threat indicators” between the private and public sectors for a “cybersecurity purpose.” The act also defines key terms: 

    • Cyber threat indicators: necessary information to identify “listed threats…[and] information on the ‘actual or potential harm caused by an incident, including a description of the information exfiltrated as a result of a particular cybersecurity threat”
    • Defensive measures: something that “detects, prevents, or mitigates a known or suspected cybersecurity threat or security vulnerability.”
    • Cybersecurity purpose: the purpose of protecting an information system or information from a cybersecurity threat/security vulnerability 

    In the past, companies seldom shared valuable cybersecurity information due to concerns about violating numerous regulations. This law altered that situation. It provides a series of protections to encourage companies to voluntarily share information, including federal antitrust exemptions, immunity from federal/state disclosure laws (like open government and freedom of information laws), and a non-waiver of applicable protections for sharing materials. Additionally, under the law, the shared material is treated as commercial, proprietary, and financial information. Moreover, this act grants an ex parte communications waiver, which means that CISA sharing of cyber threat indicators and defensive measures with the federal government is not legally considered communication with a decision-making official, and therefore not bound to the same rules. 

    CISA, housed within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), centralizes the sharing of this information. The main method is the Automated Indicator Sharing (AIS) Initiative. The DHS also specifies information that AIS participants cannot share, in addition to non-cybersecurity threat details, such as: 

    • Protected health information (medical records, lab reports, etc.)
    • Education history
    • Human resource information (hiring decisions, performance, etc.)
    • Financial information (credit reports, bank statements, etc.)

    Arguments in Favor of and in Opposition to the Strategy

    Supporters claim that the policy is beneficial because it reduces liability for companies. Companies could freely share cyber threat indicators, such as malware samples, without worrying about being held liable for criminal charges like antitrust and disclosure law violations. This increases access to cyber threat information and defensive measures.

    Moreover, proponents of the bill argue that the act would provide greater cybersecurity. The increased information sharing would help companies to improve their cybersecurity, which leads to more secure products and greater consumer trust. Also, it reduces the cost of improving cybersecurity. It means that companies can still maximize their profit while not having to sacrifice the security of their products. 

    However, there are also several reservations about the law. Opponents of the bill claim that cyber threat indicators are relatively ineffective and that there is not much evidence that sharing cyber threat indicators would enhance Internet security. In fact, in the years that CISA has been active, some of the indicators were unusable or inaccurate. This is partially due to a lack of expertise and staff at CISA, and the struggle the organization has faced in effectively providing guidance and training to AIS participants. Additionally, others believe that the act is insufficient. As opposed to simply focusing on information sharing, they believe that the U.S. needs a stronger and more expansive cyber strategy to combat the numerous cyber threats it faces.

    Furthermore, many worry that the government’s data collection will expand beyond cyber threat indicators and defensive measures. They point to what they see as dangerously broad language which would allow the government to take much more information than needed to deter cyber threats. Others see it as a way for the government to circumvent search warrants and directly obtain personal information themselves. However, proponents believe that the privacy concerns that opponents of the bill make carry little weight because companies must remove personal identifying data from the shared information, therefore supporters believe there is no feasible opportunity for the collection of unnecessary information. 

    Conclusion

    The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act has been in law for almost a decade and thus far has seen both successes and drawbacks. For example, by 2018, CISA included more than 5.4 million unclassified indicators with governmental and non-governmental entities as well as more than 219 non-federal participants. On the other hand, as stated above, companies have discovered that some of the cyber threat indicators were unusable. AIS participants sometimes found that the shared indicators lacked background information that was vital to using the indicators to deter potential cyber threats. In other cases, the indicators were simply inaccurate. Despite the specific effects, there is no doubt that this act has and will continue to shape the way the public and private sectors respond to cyber threats.

  • US Response to France’s Diminishing Influence in Africa

    US Response to France’s Diminishing Influence in Africa

    Introduction

    Since its decolonization, France has held outsized influence in French-speaking (Francophone) African countries, cemented by its policy of Françafrique, which was designed to keep Francophone countries firmly within France’s sphere of influence. Through this policy, France was able to continue to protect and promote French interests in Francophone Africa.

    However, this sphere of influence has been waning, with France slowly losing its economic influence in the region, and struggling to provide the regional security benefits it once did. Recently, France removed all their soldiers from Mali and Burkina Faso, and was unable to prevent a coup in Niger, despite having troops stationed. With France now seeking a reset of relations within the region as a whole, it provides both opportunity and danger to US interests in Francophone countries, and Sub-Saharan Africa as a whole.

    Background Information

    After World War II, France, along with other European empires, began facing increasing pressure to grant independence to their colonies. France, however, did not want to lose the benefits it gained from its African colonies. As France granted its colonies independence, it also worked to set up a pré carré (translated as one’s little corner) system in their former African colonies that would keep the newly independent nations firmly within France’s influence. This was done by setting up Francophone Africa’s economy in a way that tied the countries to France by creating a regional currency and economic bloc, which allowed France to maintain access to essential resources. France also maintained a military presence in the new countries, which allowed France to intervene militarily within the states to protect France’s interests, and made it the de facto stabilizer of the region.

    This system began to fall apart in the 1990’s, when the French government supported Juvenal Habyarimana’s Rwandan regime despite concerns of increased ethnic tension, which ended up being the cause of the Rwandan genocide. This severely shook Francophone Africa’s trust in France, as the nations viewed France’s support of Rwanda as protecting French interests at the expense of African lives. This concern surrounding France’s reliability and worth as a partner was further enforced by France’s own shifting view of the partnership, as it sought to scale back its military presence on the continent. This reduced trust in governments that had relied on French help to secure their countries. Economic investment also began to shift away from the previous, French dominated, economic system, lowering confidence in France’s value as an economic ally.

    All of these developments have led to a souring of opinion of France in Francophone Africa, and has left the door open for other countries to increase their influence in the region. However, this weakening influence has also decreased the security of the countries, as France struggles to provide regional security as it previously did, and Francophone countries struggle to replace France’s role as a stabilizer in the region. In recent years, France has had to withdraw soldiers from Mali and Burkina Faso, which were stationed in those countries to help fight terrorist groups. France has also watched as regimes supportive of French interests have been overthrown by coups, most recently in Niger.

    US Response

    The US’s response to France’s diminishing influence has been mixed so far, with the US increasingly expanding its economic ties to Francophone African countries, but working with France often on regional security issues.

    On economic issues, the US has been working to increase its economic ties with Sub-Saharan Africa, including Francophone Africa, and have therefore used previously existing acts, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act, to help boost trade and improve economic ties with Francophone African countries specifically. The US has also increased its push for a free trade zone throughout all of Africa, which would undercut France’s regional economic strength with Francophone countries, while increasing US access to resources and goods found in French-speaking African countries.

    When it comes to military and regional security issues, the US has expanded their military footprint in Africa, establishing a military base in Djibouti and creating AFRICOM, the United States Africa Command, which coordinates security efforts and crisis response on the African continent.

    However, US and French interests are more aligned when it comes to security, so the two nations have often found themselves advocating for the same outcome, especially with counterterrorism efforts in the Sahel region. This has often led both countries to push for the same outcomes, such as in response to the coup in Niger, although these efforts have had less success.

    Potential Benefits

    The potential benefits from the US increasing its influence are mostly found in the economic sphere, where it can sell themselves as a strong partner based on a strong record of trading with English-speaking African countries, which are viewed in Africa to generally be a ‘step ahead’ of their Francophone counterparts. The US has also emphasized equal partnerships with African nations, which resonates well with Francophone countries. Increased trade and economic ties with Francophone Africa are beneficial because of the increased access to markets and resources they provide, but also because they provide the US with an ability to demonstrate its value as an economic partner to the developing world, which tends to view US involvement as imperial, rather than as a partnership.

    Another benefit for increased US participation in Francophone Africa is counteracting Russia and China’s influence in the region. China, specifically, has used the ‘Belt and Road’ initiative to increase its influence throughout Africa through loans and investments in infrastructure in the developing world. This program now has 44 Sub-Saharan African countries as partners, and China continues to invest heavily in new infrastructure projects in partner countries, along with seeking to increase trade with the continent. By increasing ties to Francophone countries, the US would limit the chance that those countries would end up becoming more hostile to US interests through an increased alignment with China and Russia.

    Potential Drawbacks

    A major drawback of increasing US influence in Francophone Africa is that security concerns tend to be similar for Western nations. This means weakening France’s sphere of influence further puts US security interests at risk, especially considering the current state of the Sahel region. France is still a strong security partner for Francophone African countries outside of the Sahel, and weakening them further could lead to more instability throughout the entire region, especially considering that the US could struggle to step in as a security partner 

    Furthermore, this action would create an opportunity for geopolitical competitors like Russia and China to expand their security influence in Africa. These countries are already becoming more engaged in the Sahel region and across Africa. They could highlight their recent successes, like Russia’s Wagner Group aiding in stabilizing countries where France and Western nations faced challenges. This could make them more appealing to Francophone African countries as partners, shifting countries away from Western interests. This would run contrary to US goals in the region, especially considering that the US is more aligned with France in most global interests.

  • US Involvement in Central African Mining

    US Involvement in Central African Mining

    Cobalt, originally seen as a simple byproduct of copper or nickel mining, has recently become a critical mineral due to its use in lithium-ion batteries. These batteries are lightweight and rechargeable, and are important features in portable technology and energy grids. Cobalt’s demand is on the rise as eco-friendly technology, made possible with rechargeable batteries, provides an alternative for fossil fuels. The International Energy Association’s special report on critical minerals predicts that cobalt will see over a 60% rise in demand as countries attempt to meet the Paris Agreement’s emission goals. 

    Much of that cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as the central African nation is home to over 70% of the world’s cobalt production. Still, the country’s history of conflict and corruption has stifled economic development, resulting in widespread poverty and a substantial informal sector. These factors complicate involvement. While minerals such as cobalt provide an incentive for external investors and a symbol of potential prosperity, their coveted nature can lead to conflict and further issues for those who participate in its extraction.

    US Energy Demands and Domestic Production

    Recent US policies reflect a demand for green energy and the corresponding necessary resources. In 2021, Biden passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law which included an emphasis on electrical vehicles and clean energy technologies. The following year’s Inflation Reduction act invested in new energy projects and other technology that uses cobalt. Investing in DRC cobalt mines could provide the foundational resources for many of the new projects. As part of these new pieces of legislation, the Biden Administration aims to focus locally and encourage internal markets for clean energy rather than relying on foreign powers with competing interests.

    Because of this, some argue that the US should focus more on mining cobalt domestically. For example, Representative Strauber of Minnesota claimed that investing in Congolese projects both supports the pervasive human rights abuses and sacrifices domestic job opportunity. If the US can mine Cobalt domestically, then this would directly speak to Biden’s goal of a more domestic clean energy industry. However, local mining has been expensive and inefficient with only three projects opening since 2002. One project in the Idaho Cobalt Belt took over 20 years to begin production. Through these mines, the US was able to produce 700 tons of cobalt in 2021, but it still had to import 9,900 tons to match demands. Increasing involvement within the DRC could help address the rising need for cobalt and avoid dealing with potential rivals.

    Competition with China

    The most prominent rival is China, who dominates cobalt mining in the region. Chinese corporations provide infrastructure investments in exchange for mining opportunities as a way to expand influence and secure control over early stages of the energy supply chain. In 2005, then-DRC president, Joseph Kabila, negotiated with China to reach a $6 billion infrastructure deal to fund schools, hospitals, and roads in exchange for copper and cobalt. As of 2023, China owns all but one cobalt mine within the country.

    Even so, the Congolese people often feel exploited by current contracts with the Chinese and hope to secure a more equal partnership. Reflecting this new goal, the DRC is looking to re-negotiate the aforementioned infrastructure-for-minerals deal. In 2022, the DRC government began investigating Chinese mining companies for evading payments. One such investigation resulted in restricting China Molybdenum Co.’s control of the Tenke Fungurume mine. The recent pushback against China may also spur an effort to find new partnerships with countries such as the US.

    In a May 2022 speech, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken characterized the US strategy towards China as one of economic competition for both technology and foreign influence. Investing in the DRC’s cobalt mining would increase US power in both. Currently the US is not a dominant player in either the production or the raw material side when it comes to battery technologies, and the DRC’s dissatisfaction with China is an opportunity for the US to improve its position in the energy supply chain. 

    Already, the US has attempted to expand connections to the DRC through a Memorandum of Understanding focused on electric vehicle batteries. This agreement between the DRC, US, and Zambia expresses a shared interest in improving growth within the African countries’ mining and industrial sectors. However, the memorandum does not include any legally binding components or funding, making the agreement more symbolic than functional. Moreover, the US is starting at a disadvantage when it comes to controlling mines since it sold the one American-owned DRC cobalt mine to China in 2016.

    Human Rights Abuses

    The US is hesitant to increase ties with the DRC’s mining industry because of the many current human rights abuse scandals. NPR has referred to the cobalt mining projects within the DRC as modern day slavery due to the extreme poverty and coercive forces leading people into the mines. New projects displace villages, leaving the people at risk of homelessness and often creating situations where the only economic opportunity is to work in the mines The slave-like conditions are part of a process called artisanal mining which is done informally and without heavy equipment. Artisanal miners then sell their resources to industrial mining companies. The inhumanely acquired resources enter the formal supply chain through money laundering, untraced and unquestioned. 

    To address this issue, the Fair Cobalt Alliance works to improve labor conditions for artisanal miners and harness their production to create a more formal supply chain. American corporations such as Google have invested in the project, suggesting an avenue for US soft power and influence within the region. Other multinational corporations involved in the mining process include Microsoft, who has “committed to responsible and ethical sourcing” of cobalt and Apple, who aims to decrease reliance on mines altogether due to the history of inhumane conditions. These actions by larger companies apply pressure to DRC mines to improve labor standards and lay the groundwork for future relationships.

    Even so, the DRC has not met the US’s standards for eliminating human trafficking and is on the US Department of State’s watchlist. Trafficking also often leads to child labor, which the US has made efforts to address. The Combating Child Labor in the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Cobalt Industry (COTECCO) project focuses on child labor in artisanal mining and trains DRC representatives to combat the issue. By expanding its engagement in the mining sector and at a national level, the US has the potential to tackle issues at both the policy and corporate levels. Such an undertaking is both expensive and time consuming when the US has historically utilized less controversial partners such as Norway and Canada for cobalt.

    FTA Opportunity

    The US could improve trade with the DRC directly through a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) as this would deepen ties between the countries and allow for additional benefits under Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Through expanding trade agreements with the DRC, the US can incentivize closer ties and provide subsidies or tax cuts around targeted resources to ensure American companies are some of the most compelling buyers. As it stands now, the IRA pushes the DRC away because many of the plan’s critical mineral subsidies are restricted to countries with FTAs.

    FTAs can also incorporate explicit incentives to advance specific policy objectives that the US aims to tackle in a given country. For instance, the US’s FTA with Peru contains specific environmental goals to minimize deforestation. An FTA with the DRC could incorporate guidelines that directly address human rights abuses within the mining sector. There is also an incentive to include an environmental component similar to the Peruvian FTA as current DRC mining has resulted in crop death and damaged soil within the surrounding areas due to cobalt’s toxic nature. Expanding mining projects within the Congo Basin also threatens the forest and surrounding ecosystems.

    The cobalt mines within the DRC raise a complicated challenge. While the United States races against China for control of energy sources and technology, the inhumane conditions and ecological threats associated with congolese mining are heavy deterrents. Moving forward, the US must decide how to address the rising demand for cobalt without compromising its foreign policy goals.

  • Understanding the Government Face Surveillance Ban Debate

    Understanding the Government Face Surveillance Ban Debate

    Background

    In modern society face recognition technology (FRT) is a part of many people’s daily lives. One common application of FRT that many are familiar with is using Face ID to unlock a smartphone. FRT captures unique facial measurements for each person, making it an important tool for confirming someone’s identity. In 1996, FRT gained attention from the U.S. government due to its effectiveness in verifying identity compared to fingerprints. That year, the U.S. Department of Defense invested in the FERET project, developing a large-scale face database. Since then, FRT found its way into various government applications with law enforcement being a primary user. This technology, driven by artificial intelligence (AI), enables police officers to compare facial images from patrols (or collected photos and videos) with existing public records such as mugshots, jail booking records, and driver’s licenses as well as commercial databases developed by technology companies.

    According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s report, over 40 federal agencies employed FRT with plans for further expansion into areas beyond law enforcement. For example, Customs and Border Protection uses FRT to cross-reference images of departing passengers at boarding gates and passengers awaiting entry to their visa or passport application photos to assist with verifying identities for national security purposes. The Transport Security Administration also employs FRT at domestic airports.

    Despite the growing potential uses of FRT, concerns regarding its inaccuracy, potential abuse uses, and privacy violation led to movements aimed at banning government use of this technology. At the municipal level, following San Francisco’s lead, 16 other cities adopted bans on FRT for municipal uses between 2019 to 2021. In 2021, Virginia and Vermont banned FRT for law enforcement uses.Virginia later lifted the measure in 2022, citing public safety concerns.

    There remains a general lack of regulation and oversight at the federal level. In response to increasing concerns of the public, major FRT developers including Amazon and Microsoft declared they would not sell their products to police until Congress passed federal legislation to regulate. Currently, Congress is considering the Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act of 2023. If passed, this 2023 bill would prohibit the use of facial recognition and biometric technologies by federal entities, and only Congress could lift the ban. It would also halt federal funding for developing FRT surveillance systems.

    The major topics in this field include the cost of inaccuracy on innocent individuals, suppression of speech, and online privacy concerns.

    The Cost of Inaccuracy

    Supporters of movements banning FRT argue that the risks of FRT’s inaccuracy outweigh its benefits when used by the government. False arrest cases, such as of Ms. Woodruff, Mr. Williams and 5 others, show how FRT’s inaccuracies disproportionately affect marginalized individuals. The NIST’s 2019 report highlighted racial bias, showing false positive matches for African-American and Asian faces were more common than for Caucasian faces, with African-American women particularly impacted. Research also found commercial FRT programs showed higher rates of falsely identifying darker-skinned women compared to white male faces as well as misidentifying non-cisgender individuals. 

    In response, opponents of the ban contend that proper human oversight would resolve the inaccuracy issues over time. They argue against outright banning FRT as it can be an effective tool for maintaining public safety. Law enforcement, in particular, could use FRT for various purposes including facilitating investigative leads, identifying victims, examining forensic evidence, and verifying individuals being released from prison. Law enforcement’s use of FRT demonstrated successful outcomes, such as effectively identifying an armed robber, a rapist, and a mass shooter. According to Pew Research Center’s 2021 survey, the majority of U.S. adults (46%) believe police use of FRT would be a great idea for society, while 27% disagree and 27% are unsure. 

    Speech Suppression 

    Supporters of ban movements also argue that abusive uses of FRT by law enforcement for surveillance raises civil liberties issues. For instance, police could potentially use RFT to target activists, especially in a police reform protest, causing chilling effects that threaten free speech. The fear of having their faces captured at protests by the police would deter people from expressing their political voices. The chilling effects could intensify with the increase in police use of FRT, especially with body cameras. Legal scholars referred to FRT as “the most uniquely dangerous surveillance mechanism ever invented.” 

    On the other hand, opponents of ban movements believe that banning FRT is not necessary to address potential abusive uses of the technology. They advocate for finding a compromise where law enforcement can use FRT with checks and balances. For example, Utah chose to limit law enforcement’s use of FRT with stringent approval requirements instead of banning the technology. Likewise, Massachusetts implemented a requirement for police to have a court order before comparing images with face photos and names in the databases of the Registry of Motor Vehicle, FBI, and state police. Also, with increasing crime rates and staffing shortages in law enforcement, cities and states recently started to partially repeal their FRT bans.

    Online Privacy

    Proponents of the ban argue that developing the technology in itself is a serious invasion of online privacy. They believe that FRT should not be in the hands of the government whose duty is to protect the people. The process of training FRT AI models requires a massive amount of face photos, many of which are available online. This technology caused FRT developers to scrape billions of people’s faces online without their knowledge or  permission. Commentators argue that this practice is a loss of privacy for the affected individuals, as they lose control of their sensitive information for something that could be used against them. 

    However, some argue that banning privacy-invasive technologies may not be an effective solution. That is because the banning legislation “may quickly become irrelevant with the advent of a newer technology not covered by the law.” (See e.g., law review article at 396). To discourage FRT developers from secretly using people’s faces, passing strong biometrics privacy laws—like the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)—could be a more practical solution. Such laws would make it illegal to capture and use face prints and other biometrics without the subjects’ permission. Furthermore, copyright law—though seemingly unrelated—could help slow down unauthorized uses of face photos while waiting for effective FRT legislation to be passed.

    Conclusion 

    Both sides of the debate appear to agree on the need to regulate the government’s use of RFT. However, the disagreement lies in whether to ban or restrict. Proponents of the bans worry that compromises would decrease the likelihood that a ban will ever be passed. Meanwhile, critics of the ban argue that the “ban or nothing” approach is causing the lack of regulations needed to regulate government use of FRT.

  • Understanding Banning Books in Schools and Public Libraries

    Understanding Banning Books in Schools and Public Libraries

    Introduction

    Book banning occurs when an entity like a school, library, or government takes action to remove, censor, or block access to a book due to objections to its content. Throughout history, in the United States, book banning has been employed by such institutions as a means to prevent the spread of information that contradicts or challenges prevailing political or religious viewpoints. This has included instances like early American colonists banning William Pynchon’s “The Meritorious Price of Our Redemption,” which contradicted Calvinist beliefs, and Southern states prohibiting Harriet Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” a book that exposed the horrors of slavery, during the Civil War.

    The First Amendment prevents the US government from outright banning books, but the matter of restricting and removing books from public libraries remains a contentious subject. This debate originated in the early 1900s when books touching on specific political themes like communism, interracial marriage, or the confederacy were taken out of school and public libraries following requests from advocacy groups. This led to disagreements among educators and librarians who felt that these removals deprived students of valuable resources. They stressed that students’ First Amendment rights were consistent both inside and outside of school premises.

    History of Book Banning and Legal Disputes

    Although the First Amendment is designed to safeguard freedom of speech, it does not extend protection to materials deemed obscene. The 1973 Supreme Court case, Miller v. California, established a three-part test for obscenity. This test considers whether a work, according to prevailing community standards, “appeals to the prurient interest,” portrays sexual conduct in an overtly offensive manner as defined by state law, and lacks significant literary, artistic, political, or scientific value when evaluated as a whole. Supporters of banning specific books in schools use this legal precedent as justification. However, what one person views as obscene, another might not.

    Following the banning of books as being “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and explicit,” the 1982 Supreme Court case, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico, ruled that school boards cannot remove books from libraries solely based on their disagreement with the ideas presented. Nevertheless, books could still be removed based on criteria like vulgarity, appropriateness for different age groups, or educational worth. The contemporary debate remains ongoing: Who should determine what information is suitable for children to read?

    During the 2021-2022 school year, research by PEN America revealed that a total of 1,648 book titles were prohibited from school libraries across 32 states. Many of these banned books tackle subjects such as race, sexuality, and activism, and some contain content deemed to be explicit in terms of violence or sexual themes. The most frequently banned book nationwide is “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe, a novel centered around understanding gender identity and sexuality. Other commonly banned books include:

    • “The Hate U Give” by Angie Thomas, a novel about a Black teenager witnessing a police shooting and the ensuing impact on the predominantly white community.
    • “The Kite Runner” by Khaled Hosseini, a novel about two men growing up in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion and rise of the Taliban regime.
    • “The Diary of Anne Frank” by Anne Frank, the nonfiction account of a young Jewish girl forced into hiding in the Netherlands during the Nazi occupation.

    However, this data has been contested. The Heritage Foundation’s investigation revealed that 74% of the titles listed on PEN America’s roster of banned books remained accessible in the libraries that PEN asserted had removed them. The Heritage Foundation accuses PEN America of amplifying their conclusions and fabricating the discourse around book bans. Conversely, other organizations, like the American Library Association, have arrived at findings more aligned with those of PEN America.

    Arguments in Favor

    On one side of the debate, individuals contend that children should be shielded from specific information, particularly content involving violence and sexual themes. The American Society of Pediatrics found that exposure to violent content during childhood can lead to heightened aggression and desensitization. Advocates who strive to eliminate certain books from libraries highlight instances of “graphic” sexual descriptions and references to gay dating websites within materials found in schools and public libraries. They assert that this content aligns with the definition of obscenity. Supporters of book bans maintain that limiting children’s access to particular information and narratives is a means to safeguard them from potentially harmful and detrimental knowledge.

    Given these convictions, numerous parents argue that they merit a more influential role in their children’s education. These parents and communities believe that the ability to shape the values and character of a generation, and consequently an entire nation, rests on what children are taught and the books they have access to. While these groups are sometimes criticized for their approach, proponents argue that due to the substantial impact of books, they advocate for banning certain titles to provide their children with what they perceive as the most suitable and advantageous education.

    Arguments in Opposition

    On the other side, anti-book ban advocates believe that restricting access to books containing “taboo” topics prevents children from learning about valuable information and prevents them from having important conversations. Research has found that young adults who read banned books are more likely to engage in civic behaviors. Meanwhile, other experts have argued that reading about “illicit” or unspoken topics opens up conversations about situations that are already occurring in the world and students may be facing. 

    Further, these groups argue that book bans target minority groups, specifically restricting the stories of non-white and non-straight authors. In 1995, after parents attempted to remove a novel about a romance between two teen girls from schools, the Supreme Court case Case v. United School District No. 233 ruled that just because the story broke the parents’ own ideologies did not mean it could be banned. This pattern of banning certain types of books persists even in contemporary times, with many proponents of book bans labeling materials as “obscene” even when they don’t meet the criteria set by the Supreme Court. Instead, these bans often target books that directly address subjects related to race or sexuality. By some estimates, 41% of banned books directly relate to LGBTQIA+ topics, while 22% directly relate to race. Removing stories like these can be harmful, as consistent accounts reveal these, already less prominent, stories are affirming and positive for LGBTQIA+ and POC youth. 

    Within the realm of law, these conflicting viewpoints are evident as well. In Florida, Governor DeSantis enacted the Parental Rights in Education bill. This legislation prohibits teachers from discussing gender and sexuality, mandates state-certified media experts to evaluate all books, and enhances parental involvement in curriculum matters. School districts in states including Utah, Missouri, Georgia, Iowa, and Texas have also recently banned a significant number of books and introduced laws akin to those in Florida. In addition, House Republicans in Congress have introduced the Parents Bill of Rights. Conversely, in Illinois, the Library Systems Act is set to take effect in January 2024. This act renders any library in Illinois that bans or restricts access to books ineligible for state funding.

    Looking Forward

    In essence, the ongoing discourse surrounding the prohibition of books in schools and public libraries underscores the enduring concern for children’s education and the information accessible to them. Both sides of the argument stem from their individual perspectives on what is in the best interest of students. One camp contends that eliminating content they deem inappropriate safeguards students, while the other believes that granting children access to challenging material exposes them to a broader array of narratives and crucial discussions.

    After years of deliberation on this issue, an increasing number of laws are emerging across the nation either enabling or curtailing the banning of books. As the discussion persists and legal frameworks influence more school districts, comprehending the rationale behind both perspectives becomes progressively vital.

  • Understanding the Critical Race Theory Debate

    Understanding the Critical Race Theory Debate

    Critical race theory began as a legal concept that explained how policies can be used to enforce a system that benefits white individuals while ignoring minorities and people placed at an economic disadvantage, focusing on systemic effects of racism. In public K-12 education, critical race theory can be defined as a method of teaching that addresses the origins of systemic borders for people of color. 

    Arguments in Favor of Teaching CRT in Schools

    Those in favor of discussing CRT in K-12 education argue that these conversations give an uncensored version of history to students, and acknowledge how people of color have been disproportionately systematically affected. This is important because many elements of systemic racism still impact people of color today, leading to lower economic outcomes and opportunities. Some proponents also argue young people sublimely take in messaging that create unconscious biases, and openly discussing issues around race is an important way of addressing and undoing these biases before they have calcified. Prohibiting critical race theory also restricts educators in their teaching abilities. Some educators argue that due to proposed legislation, discussions about the Civil War and slavery might also be inadvertently curtailed and constrained, as certain aspects of what they teach could be categorized as critical race theory.

    Currently, critical race theory is not included in the curriculum of public schools. Nonetheless, 17 states have broadened the scope of topics that educators can address, particularly those connected to critical race theory, indicating a tendency towards integrating elements of critical race theory into public education. Likewise, many have begun to place limitations seemingly against critical race theory. Of the fifty states, 14 have effectively limited how educators can speak on race, and 22 others have taken/plan on taking similar measures. Former President Trump issued several warnings and executive orders against implementation of critical race theory in public K-12 education during his time in office.

    Arguments in Opposition

    Many in opposition to CRT discussions in schools argue that CRT is the wrong method for achieving equality in the United States. They believe that discussing these narratives around unconscious bias and historical racism creates division between students where none need exist. Raising these topics to young children can actually backfire, and make them aware of differences between races. These narratives can also make white children view themselves as oppressors.

    In addition, some believe that conversations about race are inherently personal, and parents have the right to decide how and when those conversations take place. They argue that every family has a different approach to addressing sensitive topics, and that parents are best positioned to lead discussions around race, bias, etc. based on their family values, history, and understanding of their child’s maturity.

    CRT Moving Forward

    As the United States government approaches another crucial election cycle in 2024, the issue of critical race theory in public K-12 education is poised to become a prominent topic, attracting attention and discussions from various political perspectives. Since there isn’t a centralized national curriculum or set guidelines dictating what should be included in education, individual states possess the authority to shape their own education systems. This grants them the ability to decide whether critical race theory or similar concepts are integrated into their respective state’s educational framework. However, President Trump’s efforts to limit CRT in schools via executive action suggest that national education standards might enter the conversation.

  • Pros and Cons of Subsidizing Electric Vehicles

    Pros and Cons of Subsidizing Electric Vehicles

    Introduction

    At both the federal and state level, governments in the United States are using policy to increase the use of electric vehicles (EVs) over gas-powered cars. Some of these policies are subsidies in the form of tax credits for those who purchase EVs, while others take the form of mandates without an economic incentive. One example is California’s Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Sales Requirement program, which states that “automakers will have to gradually electrify their fleet of new vehicles, beginning with 35% of 2026 models sold, increasing to 68% in 2030 and 100% for 2035 models.” Transportation currently accounts for 29% of American CO2 emissions, and switching to EVs is one way to reduce transportation’s environmental impact.

    However, the transition to electric vehicles has met resistance. Even though they may be cheaper in the long run, EVs present a higher upfront cost for consumers than gas-powered cars. In addition, most automakers manufacture primarily gas-powered cars, and moving to electric vehicles would incur high costs in research and development as well as new manufacturing processes.

    Arguments in Favor of Subsidizing Electric Vehicles

    Proponents of EV subsidies argue that increased EV use will bring about important environmental benefits. EVs reduce emissions and improve air quality, which would slow the progression of climate change because CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas responsible for global warming. An analysis of the CA ZEV mandate shows that the increased EV use “will result in cumulative avoided health impacts worth nearly $13 billion… [and] in 2040, greenhouse gas emissions from cars, pickups, and SUVs [will be] cut in half.” Electric vehicles are also cheaper for consumers in the long run, as electricity is less expensive than gasoline. In fact, the economic benefits of the mandate are expected to outweigh the costs by approximately $383 billion, more than half of which comes from savings on gas.

    Furthermore, subsidies that incentivize EV use may address consumers’ and companies’ economic concerns about switching to EVs more directly than mandates do. Tax credits for EV purchases alleviate the higher upfront costs of EVs as opposed to gas-powered cars. Furthermore, subsidies can also decrease America’s reliance on foreign manufacturing, a significant concern not only for electric vehicles (EVs) but also for other renewable energy infrastructure, such as solar panels. The Inflation Reduction Act (passed in 2022) includes tax credits for EVs, but contains specifications on where the components must be manufactured in order for the vehicle to qualify. Mandates, on the other hand, usually do not address the higher upfront cost of EVs or increased demand for foreign components. 

    Arguments Against Subsidizing Electric Vehicles

    Critics of EV subsidies point to the potential negative impacts created by these policies, both environmental and economic. An increase in demand for EVs would also cause an increase in the demand for EV batteries. Currently, these batteries require metals such as lithium, nickel, and cobalt, whose mining is very energy-intensive and often leads to high levels of water and air pollution. Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are dependent on how the electricity they run on is produced. Current US electric grids mainly use a mixture of renewable and fossil fuel sources. An increase in EV usage would put high demands on the electric grids, prompting concerns about lack of infrastructure to accommodate these demands and how electricity production can be increased. 

    Additionally, even among those who support the transition to EVs, there is disagreement about whether subsidizing EVs is the best way to bring it about. Subsidies have been shown to mostly benefit rich and progressive drivers (with the proportion of EV ownership currently much higher in households which earn over $200,000 per year). This limits the potential benefits since these drivers would tend to buy an EV regardless of tax credits or use more fuel-efficient vehicles and drive less. On the other hand, drivers who tend to use the most gasoline have more average income levels, and as such are less likely to make use of a subsidy such as an EV tax credit. Subsidies for EVs may also have detrimental economic consequences, as they distort the marketplace and may disincentivize American EV manufacturers from innovating or lowering prices. 

    Looking Forward

    Ultimately, the future of EVs will be shaped by both environmental and economic forces. California’s ZEV mandate program will be fully implemented by 2035, and can serve as a model for other states to increase EV use as well. Environmental concerns such as increased warming and air pollution may also influence policymakers and consumers towards EVs. While the economic barrier to EVs is currently higher than for gas-powered cars, increased demand may drive prices down and spur innovation. EVs present their own environmental and economic concerns, but transitioning to more environmentally friendly transportation will soon become a necessity, whether it is achieved through subsidies, mandates, or market forces.