4 ms·

Right. And cars manufacturers assist kidnappers and bank robbers escapes. And cell phones can be used as remote detonators. And end-to-end cryptography... no, t

Right. And cars manufacturers assist kidnappers and bank robbers escapes. And cell phones can be used as remote detonators. And end-to-end cryptography... no, this is an abomination, you shouldn't even think of it unless you willingly submit your private keys to the appropriate government agency for safe escrow to aid lawful investigations! (I would have put /s here, but all these lines will be used at face value soon enough).

reitanqild 9y ago
And cars manufacturers assist kidnappers and bank robbers escapes. No. Because there never is any planning between the manufacturer and the bank robbers. Remember: we are talking about money laundering operations here, not accidentally receiving stolen goods without knowing. Can these use be abused? Yes. Very much. Should they still exist? Yes.
- atemerev 9y ago
  Yes. Two questions are: did the BTC-e founder knew that he is helping to legalize proceeds for MtGox hack? Or some general hack? Or just he didn't make due diligence on the source of money and just agreed to help for a fee? And second — what authority the US government has in running the trial? Why the case is not tried in Japanese or Russian or Cyprus courts?
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    I'm of no opinion here.
piaste 9y ago
Money laundering is knowingly assisting criminal activities. You're actively hiding where the money comes from, exactly because you know it comes from illegal sources. (If the source were legal but embarrassing, all you'd need is standard bank privacy, not active laundering.) The car-related analogy isn't a car manufacturer. It isn't even an anonymous, stealth rental car service (although plenty of crimes could benefit from it). The analogy is a taxi service that advertises itself as willing and able to crash through police barricades.
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  Actually, no. Money laundering is generally defined as obscuring the source and/or destination of funds whatever the reason. It is a false equivalence to say that because one wants to hide the source or destination of funds that one knowingly is doing so with an illegal activity being the motivating cause. There is no such thing as "standard bank privacy" when nearly anyone in that organisation can look up your data without explicit justification or judicial review. In an era where, for corporations at least, money is speech, it certainly is limited for us mere mortals who can't setup shell corporations to sacrifice themselves for our causes. Edit: I should be quite clear, I am neither for or against AML regulations. I, however, am for an equal playing field. I would like to see a world where the increasing quantity of money one has doesn't have an increasing effect on how many times one's vote counts at the expense of those who don't have as much. Privacy and the ability to act collectively to support unpopular opinions should not be a commodity that can be bought and sold in the form of a corporate veil.
- atemerev 9y ago
  Like I said before, not everything that is illegal is wrong. In Germany, homeschooling is illegal. In Russia, telling teenagers that some people are gay and that's OK is illegal. The US law is a hodgepodge of contradicting legal statements which are different in different states, and many things can be counted as legal or illegal based on your wealth, political connections, race, or just luck. Law is not a bright shiny source of truth from outer heaven, it is a sketchy framework of hacks and patches written in haste to aid people in resolving their conflicts.
  - s73ver 9y ago
    "Like I said before, not everything that is illegal is wrong." But things that are illegal are... illegal. Nobody in this thread is really debating the morality of illegal actions we're talking about. And while debating morality can be entertaining, it doesn't really change what happened here.
- codedokode 9y ago
  > Money laundering is knowingly assisting criminal activities. You're actively hiding where the money comes from, exactly because you know it comes from illegal sources. (If the source were legal but embarrassing, all you'd need is standard bank privacy, not active laundering.) Building an encrypted messaging app is knowingly assisting crimial activities ... all you'd need is standard communication privacy laws, not actual encryption.

reitanqild 9y ago

And cars manufacturers assist kidnappers and bank robbers escapes. No. Because there never is any planning between the manufacturer and the bank robbers. Remember: we are talking about money laundering operations here, not accidentally receiving stolen goods without knowing. Can these use be abused? Yes. Very much. Should they still exist? Yes.

atemerev 9y ago
Yes. Two questions are: did the BTC-e founder knew that he is helping to legalize proceeds for MtGox hack? Or some general hack? Or just he didn't make due diligence on the source of money and just agreed to help for a fee? And second — what authority the US government has in running the trial? Why the case is not tried in Japanese or Russian or Cyprus courts?
- reitanqild 9y ago
  I'm of no opinion here.

piaste 9y ago

Money laundering is knowingly assisting criminal activities. You're actively hiding where the money comes from, exactly because you know it comes from illegal sources. (If the source were legal but embarrassing, all you'd need is standard bank privacy, not active laundering.) The car-related analogy isn't a car manufacturer. It isn't even an anonymous, stealth rental car service (although plenty of crimes could benefit from it). The analogy is a taxi service that advertises itself as willing and able to crash through police barricades.

justinjlynn 9y ago
Actually, no. Money laundering is generally defined as obscuring the source and/or destination of funds whatever the reason. It is a false equivalence to say that because one wants to hide the source or destination of funds that one knowingly is doing so with an illegal activity being the motivating cause. There is no such thing as "standard bank privacy" when nearly anyone in that organisation can look up your data without explicit justification or judicial review. In an era where, for corporations at least, money is speech, it certainly is limited for us mere mortals who can't setup shell corporations to sacrifice themselves for our causes. Edit: I should be quite clear, I am neither for or against AML regulations. I, however, am for an equal playing field. I would like to see a world where the increasing quantity of money one has doesn't have an increasing effect on how many times one's vote counts at the expense of those who don't have as much. Privacy and the ability to act collectively to support unpopular opinions should not be a commodity that can be bought and sold in the form of a corporate veil.
atemerev 9y ago
Like I said before, not everything that is illegal is wrong. In Germany, homeschooling is illegal. In Russia, telling teenagers that some people are gay and that's OK is illegal. The US law is a hodgepodge of contradicting legal statements which are different in different states, and many things can be counted as legal or illegal based on your wealth, political connections, race, or just luck. Law is not a bright shiny source of truth from outer heaven, it is a sketchy framework of hacks and patches written in haste to aid people in resolving their conflicts.
- s73ver 9y ago
  "Like I said before, not everything that is illegal is wrong." But things that are illegal are... illegal. Nobody in this thread is really debating the morality of illegal actions we're talking about. And while debating morality can be entertaining, it doesn't really change what happened here.
codedokode 9y ago
> Money laundering is knowingly assisting criminal activities. You're actively hiding where the money comes from, exactly because you know it comes from illegal sources. (If the source were legal but embarrassing, all you'd need is standard bank privacy, not active laundering.) Building an encrypted messaging app is knowingly assisting crimial activities ... all you'd need is standard communication privacy laws, not actual encryption.