3 ms·

IANAL, but as far I understand, "money is speech" relates to the 1st amendment, whereas wiretapping and key escrow relate to the 4th amendment. Which legal theo

IANAL, but as far I understand, "money is speech" relates to the 1st amendment, whereas wiretapping and key escrow relate to the 4th amendment. Which legal theory could be reasonably applied to map from "ban/regulation of crypto-currencies" to "ban/regulation of E2EE communication"? I'm specifically asking for a legal theory, not a political framing, because your explicit mention of the Supreme Court implies a scenario where politics will ban/regulate one of both things, and then courts will employ the "money is speech" argument to map the ban/regulation of that one thing onto the other thing.

politician 4y ago
Good question. When you look at the original tweet, he said that systems that lack recoverable credentials are not “safe”. From there, it’s easy to argue that if we want “safe” systems, then we need recoverable credentials. Recoverability in a cryptocurrency context necessarily implies mandatory key escrow or algorithm backdoors. This is my line of reasoning. Whether he dislikes cryptocurrency or not is irrelevant, but the argument that you cannot have a safe system with private credentials was what I found objectionable. EDIT: Re legal theory: The idea that cryptographic systems are unsafe is likely to result in a weakening of protections for such systems. Cryptocurrency is an easy target because it’s essentially 100% cryptography and because it has no patron. The banning on cryptocurrencies can be extended to a ban on private keys via the safety argument. Closest analogue might be gun control (Encryption is legally considered a munition). Last edit, I promise: this creates a situation where a cryptocurrency wallet is simultaneously a munition (2nd amendment), speech (1st amendment), and secure papers (4th). Legislators could use this nexus to move between domains to expand the scope of any bans.

politician 4y ago

Good question. When you look at the original tweet, he said that systems that lack recoverable credentials are not “safe”. From there, it’s easy to argue that if we want “safe” systems, then we need recoverable credentials. Recoverability in a cryptocurrency context necessarily implies mandatory key escrow or algorithm backdoors. This is my line of reasoning. Whether he dislikes cryptocurrency or not is irrelevant, but the argument that you cannot have a safe system with private credentials was what I found objectionable. EDIT: Re legal theory: The idea that cryptographic systems are unsafe is likely to result in a weakening of protections for such systems. Cryptocurrency is an easy target because it’s essentially 100% cryptography and because it has no patron. The banning on cryptocurrencies can be extended to a ban on private keys via the safety argument. Closest analogue might be gun control (Encryption is legally considered a munition). Last edit, I promise: this creates a situation where a cryptocurrency wallet is simultaneously a munition (2nd amendment), speech (1st amendment), and secure papers (4th). Legislators could use this nexus to move between domains to expand the scope of any bans.