4 ms·

This is an overreach, and it is going to backfire. The target here is a software package, essentially speech so, one step down That hill. At least congress is

This is an overreach, and it is going to backfire. The target here is a software package, essentially speech so, one step down That hill. At least congress isn't deluded, corrupt, and senile enough to try this. Edit: further, it seems they're going to have to shut down Ethereum too, because Tornado Cash's contract is a person, and subgroup of Ethereum under the definition of entity which falls under the definition of person. [1] Apparently Treasury is also accusing this tiny piece of code of being engaged in activities that form "... a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability ..." [1]: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-engaging-significant-m https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/0...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Bedon292 4y ago
If the software is performing actions that are illegal, such as money laundering, for an entity that is a threat to national security, that is no longer covered by free speech. Right? Having or writing the code may be covered by free speech but actually using it to do something is not the same thing. I don't believe that EO is related to this case. These are OFAC sanctions against the entity Tornado Cash and its related ETH addresses. A US person or Entity cannot interact with them any more. But that does not sanction the entire ETH network. That would be like shutting down an entire bank, or the entire banking network, because a couple accounts were sanctioned. That's not what happens. Or are you more concerned with additional sanctions against the entire ETH network coming in the future?
- tremon 4y ago
  If the software is performing actions that are illegal But no software is performing any action; A system running said software could, but the software by itself cannot. And regarding a system performing actions: didn't the USPTO similarly declare that an AI (=software system) can never be qualified as an inventor, because it has no agency?
  - Bedon292 4y ago
    A bit of an over simplification on my part. The comment I responded to said "the target here is a software package, essentially speech" I was trying to point out that the speech part of the software wasn't the target. The facilitation of illegal actions was. Having or writing code is one thing but actually using it to do something illegal is different.
- meltyness 4y ago
  The EO is the authority which Treasury is invoking, stated explicitly in the Treasury release. To rephrase, since Ethereum network, which is an person in the context of the EO, facilitates Tornado Cash's contract, it is "complicit" with the activities as well.
  - Bedon292 4y ago
    I seem to have gotten the EOs mixed up and thought they were different. You are correct. EO 13694 was amended by EO 13757. [1] And section 1.a.ii reads: "any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be responsible for or complicit in..." and 1.a.iii has similar wording. It requires the Treasury and Attorney General to make a determination on the entities being sanctioned. It does not expand the sanctions beyond the entities that are named. So as it stands I can't see how it would require shutting down the ETH network. Sanctioning a sub group does not mean the sanction applies to the parent group. The sanction means US entities cannot interact with the named entities and nothing more. It does not apply to any parent groups and it does not mean other non US entities cannot interact with it. And I don't think the ETH network would count as a US entity. If the argument is that they could further sanction the entire ETH network, then I suppose they could do that. But that isn't what this sanction does. [1] https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/E.O.%2013694%2C%20as%20amended%2C.pdf https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/E.O.%2013694%2C%2...
tomjen3 4y ago
If it is used by e.g North Korea to evade sanctions then that claim isn't that much of a stretch. However it is clean that we, the programmer community, needs some way to stop projects from being sanctioned (as opposed to companies or specific persons). One obvious way would be to amend open source licenses to not permit them to be used by the US government if it attacks any other project in that group or something similar. I am sure something better could come up, but we have lots of power if we were willing to come together and use it.
throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
>and it is going to backfire it isn't. the sheep have been bleating "corporations can do whatever they want" for 10 years now. the pigs will be fine.
- dotnet00 4y ago
  Plenty of them in this very thread even.
- meltyness 4y ago
  In this case, maybe on the administrator with Monero holdings, or by drawing attention to this still-effective system.
- meltyness 4y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32399495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32399495 it's backfiring already!

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Bedon292 4y ago

If the software is performing actions that are illegal, such as money laundering, for an entity that is a threat to national security, that is no longer covered by free speech. Right? Having or writing the code may be covered by free speech but actually using it to do something is not the same thing. I don't believe that EO is related to this case. These are OFAC sanctions against the entity Tornado Cash and its related ETH addresses. A US person or Entity cannot interact with them any more. But that does not sanction the entire ETH network. That would be like shutting down an entire bank, or the entire banking network, because a couple accounts were sanctioned. That's not what happens. Or are you more concerned with additional sanctions against the entire ETH network coming in the future?

tremon 4y ago
If the software is performing actions that are illegal But no software is performing any action; A system running said software could, but the software by itself cannot. And regarding a system performing actions: didn't the USPTO similarly declare that an AI (=software system) can never be qualified as an inventor, because it has no agency?
- Bedon292 4y ago
  A bit of an over simplification on my part. The comment I responded to said "the target here is a software package, essentially speech" I was trying to point out that the speech part of the software wasn't the target. The facilitation of illegal actions was. Having or writing code is one thing but actually using it to do something illegal is different.
meltyness 4y ago
The EO is the authority which Treasury is invoking, stated explicitly in the Treasury release. To rephrase, since Ethereum network, which is an person in the context of the EO, facilitates Tornado Cash's contract, it is "complicit" with the activities as well.
- Bedon292 4y ago
  I seem to have gotten the EOs mixed up and thought they were different. You are correct. EO 13694 was amended by EO 13757. [1] And section 1.a.ii reads: "any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be responsible for or complicit in..." and 1.a.iii has similar wording. It requires the Treasury and Attorney General to make a determination on the entities being sanctioned. It does not expand the sanctions beyond the entities that are named. So as it stands I can't see how it would require shutting down the ETH network. Sanctioning a sub group does not mean the sanction applies to the parent group. The sanction means US entities cannot interact with the named entities and nothing more. It does not apply to any parent groups and it does not mean other non US entities cannot interact with it. And I don't think the ETH network would count as a US entity. If the argument is that they could further sanction the entire ETH network, then I suppose they could do that. But that isn't what this sanction does. [1] https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/E.O.%2013694%2C%20as%20amended%2C.pdf https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/E.O.%2013694%2C%2...

tomjen3 4y ago

If it is used by e.g North Korea to evade sanctions then that claim isn't that much of a stretch. However it is clean that we, the programmer community, needs some way to stop projects from being sanctioned (as opposed to companies or specific persons). One obvious way would be to amend open source licenses to not permit them to be used by the US government if it attacks any other project in that group or something similar. I am sure something better could come up, but we have lots of power if we were willing to come together and use it.

throwaway0x7E6 4y ago

>and it is going to backfire it isn't. the sheep have been bleating "corporations can do whatever they want" for 10 years now. the pigs will be fine.

dotnet00 4y ago
Plenty of them in this very thread even.
meltyness 4y ago
In this case, maybe on the administrator with Monero holdings, or by drawing attention to this still-effective system.
meltyness 4y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32399495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32399495 it's backfiring already!