3 ms·
I'm quite sure what the outcome of a poll in the US and EU would be that asked: Should it be legal to offer, or use, a service that masks the origin and destin
by lokar 4y ago
I'm quite sure what the outcome of a poll in the US and EU would be that asked:
Should it be legal to offer, or use, a service that masks the origin and destination of currency transactions from law enforcement who have obtained a proper court order.
Don't kid yourself, the tech/crypto crowd is not anywhere near average sentiment.
- zaphar 4y agoA mixer doesn't fit that definition. Even if they obtained a court order they may not be able to provide the information. You are moving the goal posts.
- qeternity 4y agoSome laws state things you must not do, and others state things you must do. Financial regulations tend to fall into the latter. Thus a service that cannot comply with these things is illegal. It's not moving the goal posts. It's just the real world.
- lokar 4y agoLaw exists to support social goals. If rules and "goal posts" must be changed to achieve the goals, they will be.
- gfodor 4y agoThat’s just one frame on the question at hand, that tilts the poll in one direction. The principle at hand here is if online transactions ought to have a floor on visibility by law enforcement higher than using cash. So there are other versions of the question that would get you different answers.
- game-of-throws 4y agoYou can tilt any poll any way you want with exaggerated language. Surely you know this, and it's why you biased the question the way you did. > Should phone carriers be required to divulge text messages to law enforcement who have obtained a proper court order? vs. > Should government workers be allowed to spy on your dick pics? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M