5 ms·

>>Taler's ability to audit merchant income streams is meaningfully different from a clipper chip and they should not be compared to each other, regardless of wh

>>Taler's ability to audit merchant income streams is meaningfully different from a clipper chip and they should not be compared to each other, regardless of what umbrella term you think they both fall under. Taler is designed to deprive people of financial privacy from the state: https://taler.net/en/features.html https://taler.net/en/features.html >>Customers can stay anonymous, but merchants can not hide their income through payments with GNU Taler. This helps to avoid tax evasion and money laundering. It is explicitly anti-privacy for a subset of users. The comparison to Clipper Chip, outside of pedantic bad-faith misinterpretations of the qualities being compared, is entirely appropriate. >>the majority of people looking at Taler are saying its design around auditability isn't a backdoor; therefore it's not, because language is descriptive and not perscriptive. Citation needed. >>Citation needed. My assertion is based solely on common sense. Why on Earth would a person want to lose privacy vis-a-vis the state? >>You're just making things up now. What part of what I said are you alleging is incorrect?

danShumway 5y ago
> Taler is designed to deprive people of financial privacy Taler is designed to make it harder to avoid taxes, it is orthogonal whether or not that impacts privacy. The comparison to the clipper chip is wildly inappropriate, there is a difference between taxation and the ability of the state to monitor literally all encrypted messaging between parties. There is obviously a difference between those two things. > the majority of people looking at Taler are saying its design around auditability isn't a backdoor; therefore it's not, because language is descriptive and not perscriptive. [...] Citation needed. That language is descriptive and not perscriptive? Merriam Webster and Ludwig Wittgenstein. That people widely aren't looking at Taler's design as a backdoor? This comment thread and the responses of security professionals and prominent privacy advocates. Your original comments about a backdoor wouldn't be this far down the page if the community agreed with them. The response to GNU Taler from people embedded in the Free/Libre software movement would be different if people thought this was a covert spying operation. They don't. > Why on Earth would a person want to lose privacy vis-a-vis the state? They might like living in a society with public roads. This might be difficult to hear, but the majority of people in the US don't want taxation abolished, that's not a popular political position. It's fine for you to believe that taxation is theft and it's fine for you to advocate that taxation is theft, but even you sincerely believe that taxation is theft you still have to be able to go into these kinds of conversations understanding that's a minority position, even among a lot of people producing and selling goods.

danShumway 5y ago

> Taler is designed to deprive people of financial privacy Taler is designed to make it harder to avoid taxes, it is orthogonal whether or not that impacts privacy. The comparison to the clipper chip is wildly inappropriate, there is a difference between taxation and the ability of the state to monitor literally all encrypted messaging between parties. There is obviously a difference between those two things. > the majority of people looking at Taler are saying its design around auditability isn't a backdoor; therefore it's not, because language is descriptive and not perscriptive. [...] Citation needed. That language is descriptive and not perscriptive? Merriam Webster and Ludwig Wittgenstein. That people widely aren't looking at Taler's design as a backdoor? This comment thread and the responses of security professionals and prominent privacy advocates. Your original comments about a backdoor wouldn't be this far down the page if the community agreed with them. The response to GNU Taler from people embedded in the Free/Libre software movement would be different if people thought this was a covert spying operation. They don't. > Why on Earth would a person want to lose privacy vis-a-vis the state? They might like living in a society with public roads. This might be difficult to hear, but the majority of people in the US don't want taxation abolished, that's not a popular political position. It's fine for you to believe that taxation is theft and it's fine for you to advocate that taxation is theft, but even you sincerely believe that taxation is theft you still have to be able to go into these kinds of conversations understanding that's a minority position, even among a lot of people producing and selling goods.