7 ms·

Tornado Cash repo+website taken down as well[0], and so have many of the GH accounts that were contributors to the repo[1]. [0] https://twitter.com/w_y_x/statu

by wyxuan 4y ago

Tornado Cash repo+website taken down as well[0], and so have many of the GH accounts that were contributors to the repo[1]. [0] https://twitter.com/w_y_x/status/1556716055296294914?s=21&t=3ce_KjS5AwTb-SP9hiqF-Q https://twitter.com/w_y_x/status/1556716055296294914?s=21&t=... [1] https://twitter.com/bantg/status/1556721709931175937?s=21&t=3ce_KjS5AwTb-SP9hiqF-Q https://twitter.com/bantg/status/1556721709931175937?s=21&t=...

altairprime 4y ago
Related, today: “U.S. Treasury Sanctions Virtual Currency Mixer Tornado Cash” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32386189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32386189 Specifically: > all property and interests in property of the entity above, Tornado Cash, that is in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons is blocked and must be reported to OFAC.
- capableweb 4y ago
  This is the first time open source tool/software (not even a business) has been put on the SDN list. Previous entries have all been either people or businesses. I don't live in the US, but if I were, I'd reconsider publishing OSS right now. I don't know all the users of my software, and I wouldn't want to risk being put on any lists like the SDN.
  - kevingadd 4y ago
    Be realistic here, are you distributing oss that exists for the sole purpose of money laundering? I don't have a strong opinion on whether tornado cash should be allowed to exist, but it's obvious that it violates US law. Similarly if you distribute OSS viruses don't act shocked if people want to harass you over it - distributing viruses is illegal in some places
    - capableweb 4y ago
      > Be realistic here, are you distributing oss that exists for the sole purpose of money laundering? I am not, and neither are the authors of Tornado Cash. There is legitimate purposes to use privacy-preserving services. As long as I file my taxes correctly, I should be able to use them as I wish. > but it's obvious that it violates US law Since they got added to the SDN list, it's obvious yes. But before that, why it is obvious? Again, as long as I file my taxes correctly with the IRS, there shouldn't be a problem with using services like this.
      - phpisthebest 4y ago
        Unfortunately a large percent of the population believes the false narrative of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" so they believe only criminals have the desire for privacy these are the same people that will be SHOCKED when something they use, love, or do is ruled illegal or "obvious" violation of US Law,
        Fatnino 4y ago
        Like bittorrent clients
        kevingadd 4y ago
        This is a poor comparison, BitTorrent has lots of obvious legal uses even if it is popular with pirates. It actually gets used extensively for those legal purposes. Products like LimeWire or Napster explicitly marketed for piracy reasons are another matter. It is possible to use BT without breaking the law. Maybe a decade ago when I worked at a game studio our IT department got mad at me for being connected to a torrent tracker. What was the tracker for? Patches for one of our games, because the updater used BT.
        capableweb 4y ago
        Sounds like a apt comparison to Tornado Cash then, as exactly the same applies with it. It's used for obviously legal use cases too. Just because some groups use it for less legal things, doesn't mean the thing itself should be illegal.
    - ziddoap 4y ago
      >Similarly if you distribute OSS viruses don't act shocked if people want to harass you over it - distributing viruses is illegal in some places Plenty of legitimate software can be used for nefarious things (and sometimes the legitimate code is indistinguishable from malicious code, e.g. remote viewers). We should probably focus on the people and the actions those people take, rather than code itself, or we might end up in a bit of a pickle. Ban encryption because it's used in ransomware. Ban tech-support software like TeamViewer or QuickAssist because it is used in scams.
      - kevingadd 4y ago
        Tornado Cash exists for money laundering. That's the thing it does. You can believe money laundering should be legal, or that there are legitimate uses for the software, but the fact is that the software appears to be against US law, so nobody should be surprised that the authors got sanctioned. The vast majority of OSS software does not have this hazard and it does everyone a disservice to pretend that the situation is identical. There are a bunch of other things OSS maintainers should be worrying about before US sanctions.
        capableweb 4y ago
        > Tornado Cash exists for money laundering Maybe you don't know exactly what "money laundering" is. That you want to hide whatever you are doing doesn't mean that what you're doing is illegal, which is a prerequisite for something to be "money laundering". Just like E2E doesn't exists solely for hiding criminals doing criminal things.
        ziddoap 4y ago
        >You can believe money laundering should be legal, or that there are legitimate uses for the software, but the fact is that the software appears to be against US law, so nobody should be surprised that the authors got sanctioned. I'm not sure if you understood my comment. I don't care about the authors and whether or not they were sanctioned. My point was about the code itself. If we started to force GH and the like to remove any code that has been used in an illegal activity, there's going to be very little code left on GH.
- dcow 4y ago
  I understand that GitHub is just taking immediate actions in a way they perceive as being compliant with the law. The question is more existential: since source source code is speech, can the government even sanction it? And should GH fight this if they want to remain a reliable platform for publishing code? What even is GH required to do in response to this sanction, or are they just being overly cautious since we’re in uncharted waters?
  - 323 4y ago
    ISIS recruiting manuals and videos are also free speech. According to your view YouTube/Microsoft should not remove them. Beside the fact that GH is a private company that maybe doesn't want to be associated with some stuff.
    - dcow 4y ago
      That is not my view. I am not talking about what GH is at liberty to do; clearly they can do whatever they want. I’m asking about what they’re legally bound to do as a result of these sanctions. I find the precedent here more fascinating and troublesome (as an open source author myself) than the instance of the code in question.
      - gerikson 4y ago
        The linked Treasury doc references Executive Order 13694, which has its own wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13694 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13694.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - lysergia 4y ago
        Code is a form of speech. It’s the way the code was used that frightened the authorities. Just the way certain forms of cryptographic code were reframed as a ‘munition’ in the first crypto war.
      - 4y ago
- CoolGuySteve 4y ago
  Are there any other cases where source code has been censored by the government? Since code is copyrightable, is this a first amendment violation?
  - f38zf5vdt 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
  - edent 4y ago
    See, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States There is a long history of "the land of the free" carving out exceptions from freedom.
  - capableweb 4y ago
    Yes, this happened at least once before, when the Spanish government asked GitHub to take down repositories related to applications helping citizens to organize focused protests: https://github.com/github/gov-takedowns/blob/master/Spain/2019/2019-10-23-GuardiaCivil.md https://github.com/github/gov-takedowns/blob/master/Spain/20... The group that was focused in the take down requests was "Tsunami Democràtic", which you can find some background information about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Tsunami https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Tsunami
    - angio 4y ago
      Why does that page not contain tornado cash under the government takedowns?
      - capableweb 4y ago
        Probably GitHub acted in their own interest here, or Microsoft has received a gag-order not to publish anything.
  - DennisP 4y ago
    Yes, the government considered strong cryptography to be a munition and said it was illegal to put the source code of PGP on the internet. Courts ruled against the government in Bernstein vs. United States, saying source code was speech protected by the First Amendment. That's why we can all use strong cryptography today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States

by wyxuan 4y ago

altairprime 4y ago

Related, today: “U.S. Treasury Sanctions Virtual Currency Mixer Tornado Cash” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32386189 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32386189 Specifically: > all property and interests in property of the entity above, Tornado Cash, that is in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons is blocked and must be reported to OFAC.

capableweb 4y ago
This is the first time open source tool/software (not even a business) has been put on the SDN list. Previous entries have all been either people or businesses. I don't live in the US, but if I were, I'd reconsider publishing OSS right now. I don't know all the users of my software, and I wouldn't want to risk being put on any lists like the SDN.
- kevingadd 4y ago
  Be realistic here, are you distributing oss that exists for the sole purpose of money laundering? I don't have a strong opinion on whether tornado cash should be allowed to exist, but it's obvious that it violates US law. Similarly if you distribute OSS viruses don't act shocked if people want to harass you over it - distributing viruses is illegal in some places
  - capableweb 4y ago
    > Be realistic here, are you distributing oss that exists for the sole purpose of money laundering? I am not, and neither are the authors of Tornado Cash. There is legitimate purposes to use privacy-preserving services. As long as I file my taxes correctly, I should be able to use them as I wish. > but it's obvious that it violates US law Since they got added to the SDN list, it's obvious yes. But before that, why it is obvious? Again, as long as I file my taxes correctly with the IRS, there shouldn't be a problem with using services like this.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      Unfortunately a large percent of the population believes the false narrative of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" so they believe only criminals have the desire for privacy these are the same people that will be SHOCKED when something they use, love, or do is ruled illegal or "obvious" violation of US Law,
      - Fatnino 4y ago
        Like bittorrent clients
        kevingadd 4y ago
        This is a poor comparison, BitTorrent has lots of obvious legal uses even if it is popular with pirates. It actually gets used extensively for those legal purposes. Products like LimeWire or Napster explicitly marketed for piracy reasons are another matter. It is possible to use BT without breaking the law. Maybe a decade ago when I worked at a game studio our IT department got mad at me for being connected to a torrent tracker. What was the tracker for? Patches for one of our games, because the updater used BT.
        capableweb 4y ago
        Sounds like a apt comparison to Tornado Cash then, as exactly the same applies with it. It's used for obviously legal use cases too. Just because some groups use it for less legal things, doesn't mean the thing itself should be illegal.
  - ziddoap 4y ago
    >Similarly if you distribute OSS viruses don't act shocked if people want to harass you over it - distributing viruses is illegal in some places Plenty of legitimate software can be used for nefarious things (and sometimes the legitimate code is indistinguishable from malicious code, e.g. remote viewers). We should probably focus on the people and the actions those people take, rather than code itself, or we might end up in a bit of a pickle. Ban encryption because it's used in ransomware. Ban tech-support software like TeamViewer or QuickAssist because it is used in scams.
    - kevingadd 4y ago
      Tornado Cash exists for money laundering. That's the thing it does. You can believe money laundering should be legal, or that there are legitimate uses for the software, but the fact is that the software appears to be against US law, so nobody should be surprised that the authors got sanctioned. The vast majority of OSS software does not have this hazard and it does everyone a disservice to pretend that the situation is identical. There are a bunch of other things OSS maintainers should be worrying about before US sanctions.
      - capableweb 4y ago
        > Tornado Cash exists for money laundering Maybe you don't know exactly what "money laundering" is. That you want to hide whatever you are doing doesn't mean that what you're doing is illegal, which is a prerequisite for something to be "money laundering". Just like E2E doesn't exists solely for hiding criminals doing criminal things.
      - ziddoap 4y ago
        >You can believe money laundering should be legal, or that there are legitimate uses for the software, but the fact is that the software appears to be against US law, so nobody should be surprised that the authors got sanctioned. I'm not sure if you understood my comment. I don't care about the authors and whether or not they were sanctioned. My point was about the code itself. If we started to force GH and the like to remove any code that has been used in an illegal activity, there's going to be very little code left on GH.
dcow 4y ago
I understand that GitHub is just taking immediate actions in a way they perceive as being compliant with the law. The question is more existential: since source source code is speech, can the government even sanction it? And should GH fight this if they want to remain a reliable platform for publishing code? What even is GH required to do in response to this sanction, or are they just being overly cautious since we’re in uncharted waters?
- 323 4y ago
  ISIS recruiting manuals and videos are also free speech. According to your view YouTube/Microsoft should not remove them. Beside the fact that GH is a private company that maybe doesn't want to be associated with some stuff.
  - dcow 4y ago
    That is not my view. I am not talking about what GH is at liberty to do; clearly they can do whatever they want. I’m asking about what they’re legally bound to do as a result of these sanctions. I find the precedent here more fascinating and troublesome (as an open source author myself) than the instance of the code in question.
    - gerikson 4y ago
      The linked Treasury doc references Executive Order 13694, which has its own wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13694 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13694.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - lysergia 4y ago
      Code is a form of speech. It’s the way the code was used that frightened the authorities. Just the way certain forms of cryptographic code were reframed as a ‘munition’ in the first crypto war.
    - 4y ago
CoolGuySteve 4y ago
Are there any other cases where source code has been censored by the government? Since code is copyrightable, is this a first amendment violation?
- f38zf5vdt 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
- edent 4y ago
  See, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States There is a long history of "the land of the free" carving out exceptions from freedom.
- capableweb 4y ago
  Yes, this happened at least once before, when the Spanish government asked GitHub to take down repositories related to applications helping citizens to organize focused protests: https://github.com/github/gov-takedowns/blob/master/Spain/2019/2019-10-23-GuardiaCivil.md https://github.com/github/gov-takedowns/blob/master/Spain/20... The group that was focused in the take down requests was "Tsunami Democràtic", which you can find some background information about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Tsunami https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Tsunami
  - angio 4y ago
    Why does that page not contain tornado cash under the government takedowns?
    - capableweb 4y ago
      Probably GitHub acted in their own interest here, or Microsoft has received a gag-order not to publish anything.
- DennisP 4y ago
  Yes, the government considered strong cryptography to be a munition and said it was illegal to put the source code of PGP on the internet. Courts ruled against the government in Bernstein vs. United States, saying source code was speech protected by the First Amendment. That's why we can all use strong cryptography today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States