4 ms·
The wording “free to” implies that the victim feels like they’re doing something voluntary rather than coerced. Think of it this way - let’s suppose you make i
by landryraccoon 7y ago
The wording “free to” implies that the victim feels like they’re doing something voluntary rather than coerced.
Think of it this way - let’s suppose you make it a crime to give your wallet to a mugger with a gun. Is that going to end up with less crime, or just more people shot, and some innocent victims going to jail just because they didn’t want to get shot?
- bryanrasmussen 7y agoit is however a crime to give money to terrorist organizations. So the wording "free to" really means do you think it should be legal to do so.
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y agoBut how are we supposed to tell whether a given bitcoin wallet is controlled by terrorists?
- xorcist 7y agoYou seem to presume all of these cases are involuntary. This seems like an excellent way to siphon public funds. Get infected by "malware", pay "ransom". Voilà, public funds are now some cryptocurrency under your control. It would surprise me if this has never happened.
- icebraining 7y agoReplacing regular corruption, which is often "unethical but legal" or "barely punished", with a federal crime that is known to be harshly prosecuted doesn't seem like a great idea to me.
- landryraccoon 7y agoYou have a good point that the standards could be different for individuals vs organizations. My point is simply that Grandma shouldn’t go to jail or be punished because she got hacked and a hacker made her pay to get her grandkids photos back. If you’re saying we shouldn’t let state governments do the same I think that’s reasonable.