Normal view

There are new articles available, click to refresh the page.
Before yesterdayMain stream

Federal CIOs want AI-improved CX; customers want assured security

20 January 2026 at 15:50

 

Interview transcript:

Terry Gerton Gartner’s just done a new survey that’s very interesting around how citizens perceive how they should share data with the government. Give us a little bit of background on why you did the survey.

Mike Shevlin We’re always looking at, and talk to people about, doing some “voice of the customer,” those kinds of things as [government agencies] do development. This was an opportunity for us to get a fairly large sample voice-of-the-customer response around some of the things we see driving digital services.

Terry Gerton There’s some pretty interesting data that comes out of this. It says 61% of citizens rank secure data handling as extremely important, but only 41% trust the government to protect their personal information. What’s driving that gap?

Mike Shevlin To some extent, we have to separate trust in government with the security pieces. You know, if we looked strictly at the, “do citizens expect us to secure their data?” You know, that’s up in the 90% range. So we’re really looking at something a little bit different with this. We’re looking at, and I think one of the big points that came out of the survey, is citizens’ trust in how government is using their data. To think of this, you have to think about kind of the big data. So big data is all about taking a particular dataset and then enriching it with data from other datasets. And as a result, you can form some pretty interesting pictures about people. One of the things that jumps to mind for me, and again, more on the state and local level, is automated license plate readers. What can government learn about citizens through the use of automated license plates readers? Well, you know, it depends on how we use them, right? So if we’re using it and we’re keeping that data in perpetuity, we can probably get a pretty good track on where you are, where you’ve been, the places that you visit. But that’s something that citizens are, of course, concerned about their privacy on. So I think that the drop is not between, are you doing the right things to secure my data while you’re using it, but more about, okay, are you using it for the right purposes? How do I know that? How do you explain it to me?

Terry Gerton It seems to me like the average person probably trusts their search engine more than they trust the government to keep that kind of data separate and secure. But this is really important as the government tries to deliver easier front-facing interfaces for folks, especially consumers of human services programs like SNAP and homeless assistance and those kinds of things. So how important is transparency in this government use of data? And how can the government meet that expectation while still perhaps being able to enrich this data to make the consumer experience even easier?

Mike Shevlin When I come into a service, I want you to know who I am. I want to know that you’re providing me a particular service, that it’s customized. You know, you mentioned the search engine. Does Google or Amazon know you very well? Yeah, I’d say they probably know you better than the government knows you. So my expectation is partly driven out of my experience with the private sector. But at the same time, particularly since all the craze around generative AI, citizens are now much more aware of what else data can do, and as a result, they’re looking for much more control around their own privacy. If you look at, for example in Europe with the GDPR, they’ve got some semblance of control. I can opt out. I can have my data removed. The U.S. has an awful lot of privacy legislation, but nothing as overarching as that. We’ve got HIPAA. We’ve got protections around personally identifiable information. But we don’t have something as overarching as that in Spain. In Spain, if I deal with the government, I can say yes, I only want this one agency to use my data and I don’t want it going anywhere else. We don’t have that in the U.S. I think it’s something that is an opportunity for government digital services to begin to make some promises to citizens and then fulfill those promises or prove that they’re fulfilling those promises.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Mike Shevlin. He’s senior director analyst at Gartner Research. Well, Mike, you introduced AI to the conversation, so I’m going to grab that and privacy. How does AI complicate trust and what role does explainable AI play here, in terms of building citizen trust that their privacy will be protected?

Mike Shevlin I think AI complicates trust in part from generative AI and in part from our kind of mistrust in computers as a whole, as entities, as we start to see these things become more human-like. And that’s really, I think, the big thing that generative AI did to us — now we can talk to a computer and get a result. The importance of the explainable AI is because what we’ve seen is these answers aren’t right from generative AI. But that’s not what it’s built for. It’s built to make something that sounds like a human. I think the explainable AI part is particularly important for government because I want to know as a citizen, if you’re using my data, if you’re then running it through an AI model and coming back with a result that affects my life, my liberty, my prosperity, how do I know that that was the right answer? And that’s where the explainable AI pieces really come into play.  Generative AI is not going to do that, at least not right now, they’re working on it. But it’s not, because it builds its decision tree as it evaluates the question, unlike some of the more traditional AI models, the machine learning or graph AI, where those decision trees are pre-built. So it’s much easier to follow back through and say, this is why we got the answer we did. You can’t really do that right now with gen AI.

Terry Gerton We’re talking to folks in federal agencies every day who are looking for ways to deploy AI, to streamline their backlogs, to integrate considerations, to flag applications where there may be actions that need to be taken, or pass through others that look like they’re clear. From the government’s perspective, how much of that needs to be explained or disclosed to citizens?

Mike Shevlin That’s one of the things I really like about the GDPR: It lays out some pretty simple rules around what’s the risk level associated with this. So for example, if the government is using AI to summarize a document, but then someone is reviewing that summary and making a decision on it, I have less concern than I have if that summary becomes the decision. So I think that’s the piece to really focus on as we look at this and some of the opportunities. Gartner recommends combining AI models, and this will become even more important as we move into the next era of agentic AI or AI agents, because now we’re really going to start having the machines do things for us. And I think that explainability becomes really appropriate.

Terry Gerton What does this mean for contractors who are building these digital services? How can they think about security certifications or transparency features as they’re putting these new tools together?

Mike Shevlin The transparency features are incumbent upon government to ask for. The security pieces, you know, we’ve got FedRAMP, we got some of the other pieces. But if you look at the executive orders on AI, transparency and explainability are one of the pillars that are in those executive orders. So, certainly, government entities should be asking for some of those things. I’m pulling from some law enforcement examples, because that’s usually my specific area of focus. But when I look at some of the Drone as a First Responder programs, and I think it was San Francisco that just released their “here’s all the drone flights that we did, here’s why we did them,” so that people can understand: Hey, yeah, this is some AI that’s involved in this, this is some remote gathering, but here’s what we did and why. And that kind of an audit into the system is huge for citizen confidence. I think those are the kinds of things that government should be thinking about and asking for in their solicitations. How do we prove to citizens that we’re really doing the right thing? How can we show them that if we say we’re going to delete this data after 30 days, we’re actually doing that?

Terry Gerton So Mike, what’s your big takeaway from the survey results that you would want to make sure that federal agencies keep in mind as they go into 2026 and they’re really moving forward in these customer-facing services?

Mike Shevlin So my big takeaway is absolutely around transparency. There’s a lot to be said for efficiency, there’s lot to be said for personalization. But I think the biggest thing that came from this survey for me was, we all know security is important. We’ve known that for a long time. Several administrations have talked about it as a big factor. And we have policies and standards around that. But the transparency pieces, I think, we’re starting to get into that. We need to get in to that a little faster. I think that’s probably one of the quickest wins for government if we can do that.

The post Federal CIOs want AI-improved CX; customers want assured security first appeared on Federal News Network.

© Federal News Network

U.S. Government Denies Sale of Forfeited Samourai Wallet Bitcoin, Says BTC Will Remain in Strategic Bitcoin Reserve

16 January 2026 at 14:11

Bitcoin Magazine

U.S. Government Denies Sale of Forfeited Samourai Wallet Bitcoin, Says BTC Will Remain in Strategic Bitcoin Reserve

Members of the U.S. government have denied reports that bitcoin forfeited by Samourai Wallet developers was liquidated in violation of President Trump’s executive order mandating the retention of government-held bitcoin.

In a brief statement on X on January 16, Patrick Witt, Executive Director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets and Deputy Director at the Department of War’s Office of Strategic Capital, said the Department of Justice (DOJ) has confirmed that the forfeited digital assets “have not been liquidated and will not be liquidated” pursuant to Executive Order 14233. 

According to Witt, the bitcoin will remain on the U.S. government’s balance sheet as part of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve (SBR).

“We have received confirmation from DOJ that the digital assets forfeited by Samourai Wallet have not been liquidated and will not be liquidated,” Witt said. “They will remain on the USG balance sheet as part of the SBR.”

The clarification follows reporting by Bitcoin Magazine earlier this month that raised questions about whether the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), acting under DOJ direction, had sold approximately 57.55 bitcoin — worth roughly $6.3 million at the time — using Coinbase Prime in November 2025. 

That reporting cited an “Asset Liquidation Agreement” and on-chain data suggesting the forfeited bitcoin may have been transferred directly to a Coinbase Prime address that later showed a zero balance, fueling speculation that the assets had already been sold.

BREAKING: 🇺🇸 President Trump Executive Director says the government has not sold any bitcoin forfeited by Samourai Wallet and the bitcoin will NOT be sold.

The bitcoin will be added to the US strategic reserve. pic.twitter.com/80vZymPmqK

— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) January 16, 2026

The Samourai BTC will stay in the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve

If true, such a sale would have potentially violated EO 14233, which explicitly states that bitcoin acquired by the U.S. government through criminal or civil forfeiture “shall not be sold” and must instead be retained as part of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. 

The executive order was designed to reverse the long-standing practice of liquidating seized bitcoin and to formally recognize bitcoin as a strategic reserve asset of the United States.

The Samourai Wallet case has been closely watched within Bitcoin and crypto policy circles, not only because of the forfeiture issue but also due to broader concerns about continued prosecutions of developers of noncustodial software. 

Samourai developers Keonne Rodriguez and William Lonergan Hill pleaded guilty and were charged in 2025 to conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business, a charge critics argue is incompatible with the noncustodial nature of the software.

Those concerns have been heightened by what many view as inconsistencies between DOJ actions and guidance issued under the Trump administration, including Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s April 2025 memo calling for an end to “regulation by prosecution” of noncustodial crypto tools, according to Bitcoin journalist Frank Corva

If true, the administration’s confirmation that the Samourai bitcoin remains intact and earmarked for the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve will likely be seen as a win for proponents of the bitcoin industry. 

This post U.S. Government Denies Sale of Forfeited Samourai Wallet Bitcoin, Says BTC Will Remain in Strategic Bitcoin Reserve first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.

Did DOJ Prosecutors Violate Trump’s Executive Order by Selling the Forfeited Samourai Wallet Bitcoin?

5 January 2026 at 14:03

Bitcoin Magazine

Did DOJ Prosecutors Violate Trump’s Executive Order by Selling the Forfeited Samourai Wallet Bitcoin?

It seems that the U.S. Marshall Service (USMS) has sold the $6.3 million worth of bitcoin that Samourai Wallet developers Keonne Rodriguez and William Lonergan Hill paid the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as a fee that was part of their guilty plea.

In doing so, it has potentially violated Executive Order (EO) 14233, which mandates that bitcoin acquired via criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceedings should be held as part of the United States’ Strategy Bitcoin Reserve (SBR).

If the Southern District of New York (SDNY), the federal judicial district in which the Samourai case was to be tried, did, in fact, violate EO 14233, it would not be the first time employees of the SDNY have acted in defiance of direction from the federal government.

What Happened to the Bitcoin?

According to a document titled “Asset Liquidation Agreement”, which has been obtained exclusively by Bitcoin Magazine and has not until now been made public, the bitcoin that Rodriguez and Hill forfeited is to be sold — or already has been.

As per the document, the defendants agreed to transfer $6,367,139.69 worth of bitcoin — 57.55353033 bitcoin at the time the final party signed the agreement, which was Assistant United States Attorney Cecilia Vogelon November 3, 2025 — to the USMS.

The bitcoin, which was sent from address bc1q4pntkz06z7xxvdcers09cyjqz5gf8ut4pua22r on November 3, 2025, seems to have bypassed any direct custody by the USMS. Instead, it seems to have been sent directly to Coinbase Prime address 3Lz5ULL7nG7vv6nwc8kNnbjDmSnawKS3n8 (Arkham Intel attributes this address to the brokerage), presumably to be sold.

This Coinbase Prime address currently has a zero balance, indicating that the bitcoin may have already been sold.

Violating Executive Order 14233

If the USMS has sold the forfeited bitcoin, it likely contravened EO 14233, which orders that bitcoin acquired by the U.S. government via criminal forfeiture, termed “Government BTC” in the EO, “shall not be sold” and should be contributed into the U.S. SBR.

If the USMS sold the bitcoin, they did so at their own discretion and not as a legal mandate, which indicates that certain members of the DOJ may still view bitcoin as a taboo asset to be offloaded as opposed to a strategic asset that President Trump has directed government agencies to retain.

Given that the Samourai prosecution originated under the previous administration, which was notoriously hostile toward noncustodial crypto tools and their developers, the decision to ignore EO 14233 and sell the bitcoin despite a mandate from the executive branch fits a pattern of treating bitcoin as something that should be removed from government balance sheets as soon as possible.

Legal Details Regarding the Forfeiture and Liquidation

According to a legal source close to this matter, the Samourai developers’ forfeited their bitcoin under 18 U.S. Code § 982(a)(1), which stipulates that any offense that violates 18 U.S. Code § 1960, the statute that prohibits the operation of unlicensed money transmitting businesses, orders that person to forfeit to the United States any property involved in the offense.

Judging by § 982 and its incorporation of 21 U.S.C. § 853(c), a criminal forfeiture statute that stipulates that “property that is subsequently transferred to a person other than the defendant may be the subject of a special verdict of forfeiture and thereafter shall be ordered forfeited to the United States,” the bitcoin that Rodriguez and Hill forfeited fits the EO’s definition of “Government BTC”.

Neither § 982 nor the incorporated § 853 requires that property that is forfeited as part of a criminal offense be liquidated. Furthermore, the fund forfeiture statutes cited in section three of the EO — 31 U.S.C. § 9705 and 28 U.S.C. § 524(c) — regulate where forfeiture proceeds are deposited and how they may be used; they do not require that forfeited bitcoin be converted to cash rather than held in kind.

The EO also stipulates that “Government BTC” falls under the umbrella of “Government Digital Assets” and states that “the head of each agency shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any Government Digital Assets” except in certain scenarios, none of which apply in the Rodriguez or Hill cases and, in all of which, the U.S. attorney general would play a role in determining what should be done with the forfeited digital assets.

The Sovereign District of New York

When taking EO 14233 and the statutes cited in this article into account, the SDNY seems to have acted in a manner that defies the EO 14233’s mandate to transfer bitcoin obtained via criminal forfeiture to the U.S. SBR.

This would not mark the first time that the SDNY has acted in such a manner. 

The judicial jurisdiction, sometimes colloquially referred to as “Sovereign District of New York,” has earned a reputation for operating independently and unilaterally, despite being part of a federal system.

The fact that the SDNY proceeded with the cases against Rodriguez and Hill as well as the case against Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm, is further evidence of this.

On April 7, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche issued a memo entitled “Ending Regulation By Prosecution” in which he stated “the Department [of Justice] will no longer target virtual currency exchanges, mixing and tumbling services, and offline wallets for the acts of their end users…”

The SDNY seemed to disregard the language in this memo, though, as it proceeded with the Samourai Wallet or Tornado Cash cases.

And when the defense team for Hill and Rodrguez learned as per a Brady request that two high-ranking members of the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) “strongly suggested” that Samourai Wallet wasn’t serving as a money transmitter due to the noncustodial nature of the service, the prosecution proceeded anyway.

When it comes to criminal cases tried within the federal court system, over 90% of defendants are convicted and sentenced, with as little as 0.4% being acquitted some years. And the prosecution for SDNY cases has a reputation for having an even higher win rate.

Rodriguez was aware of these statistics, as well as the fact that Judge Denise Cote, the judge who presided over his and Hill’s cases, has a reputation for harsh sentencing.

He told me as much the morning before he pleaded guilty to the conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitter business charge.

Is the War on Crypto Really Over?

Many Bitcoin and crypto proponents who voted for President Trump in 2024 as well as the crypto industry, which supported the president in his reelection, are now beginning to question whether or not President Trump really does want to see an end to the war on crypto.

For this to happen, the DOJ under President Trump must honor what is mandated in EO 14233 and follow Deputy Attorney General Blanche’s guidance to stop prosecuting developers of noncustodial crypto technology.

To the latter point, President Trump recently stated that he is considering a pardon for Rodriguez.

His pardoning Rodriguez as well having the DOJ look into why it sold the bitcoin that the Samourai developers forfeited would send a signal that the president is quite serious about his pro-Bitcoin and pro-crypto stance.

This post Did DOJ Prosecutors Violate Trump’s Executive Order by Selling the Forfeited Samourai Wallet Bitcoin? first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Frank Corva.

❌
❌