8 ms·

I agree with your analysis. Ex post facto criminal laws are barred by the constitution for good reason. Retroactive punishment leaves people guessing what actio

I agree with your analysis. Ex post facto criminal laws are barred by the constitution for good reason. Retroactive punishment leaves people guessing what actions might or might not be punished.

PeterisP 4y ago
Well, Github blocking an account is not considered "punishment" according to criminal law or constitution, only standard contract law would apply and I believe Github has the right to terminate such contracts if they wish. This consideration would apply if and only if the government would actually pursue criminal charges against someone who contributed to TornadoCash - which they possibly would if someone would do stuff after these sanctions e.g. try to circumvent this GitHub block, make and advertise a replacement service, etc; do not do this if US laws apply to you.
- mananaysiempre 4y ago
  > Github blocking an account is not considered "punishment" according to criminal law or constitution I understand this to be the case. I don’t understand how anyone considers this to be even remotely sane.
  - junon 4y ago
    Sanctions are orders to cease providing service, aid, goods or funding. Which part is unclear?
- oliwary 4y ago
  I agree - GitHub can block whoever they want. But doing so despite not being required to by law is a valid reason to criticize them.
  - blagie 4y ago
    No. I disagree. Github should not be able to block anyone they want. We went through this about a century ago with railways, antitrust, and Standard Oil. I won't step through the details, but can provide more background if anyone cares. We landed with the concept of a "common carrier." Railways, as well as telecommunications companies, ISPs, public airlines, bus lines, taxicab companies, phone companies, cruise ships, motor carriers, freight companies, and others CANNOT discriminate. As an individual or a small business, ones does not have an alternative to Microsoft Word, github, or Facebook. If these companies are allowed to discriminate, we'd be in a position where, again, monied entities can shut down individual small businesses, or ostracize individuals, as they see fit. Once you provide a sufficiently central service, you should not be allowed to discriminate.
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      > As an individual or a small business, ones does not have an alternative to - Microsoft Word — Google Docs? Apple Pages? Zoho Docs? OpenOffice? - GitHub — GitLab? sourcehut? Bitbucket? Gitea? - Facebook — Twitter? Instagram? TikTok? SnapChat? The thing about Git is that it's free software. Anyone can run their own server for very little money. If you get banned from the railroad, you can't just get your own train.
      - peterbraden 4y ago
        So what if the company you work for requires github?
        acdha 4y ago
        That’s between you and your boss, and likely your GitHub account rep. It’s still not a monopoly just because someone voluntarily chooses not to use alternatives.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        andsoitis 4y ago
- nuclearnice1 4y ago
  Well, you misunderstood me. I agree that GitHub’s actions are not regulated by the constitution or criminal. Additionally I imagine Guthub’s contract terms are such that they can cancel at any time for any reason. What I intended to say is “I agree the poster who complains of retroactive account deletion. We can look to the constitutional process for some reasons why retroactive punishment might be a bad idea.” I did not mean to imply that GitHub’s actions were unconstitutional. They were bad actions for the same reasons that the constitution bars retroactive punishment. It’s hard to guide current behavior based on future law. They were likely legal.
- nuclearnice1 4y ago
  Well, you misunderstood me. I meant to offer the constitutional reasoning as a source for why retroactive punishment is problematic. Not as the binding legal principle. I agree GitHub CAN do this. My post offered the opinion GitHub should NOT do this.
itsoktocry 4y ago
>Ex post facto criminal laws are barred by the constitution for good reason. I think your analysis is flawed. They didn't come up with some new law and apply it to these people ex post facto. These accounts were contributing to the money laundering (per accusations, albeit indirectly). Another way to look at it: if these people were contributing knowingly to a project that was laundering money, should they be punished? Of course.
- thalassophobia 4y ago
  This is a anonymous token. It can be used for a plethora of things, including earning passive income. If we apply this line of thinking, everyone who has ever contributed to Monero and Tor should be punished because both are widely used for criminal activity.
- nuclearnice1 4y ago
  I agree with this analysis. If they are being punished for money laundering committed in the past while money laundering was illegal, that’s good enforcement. If they are being punished for previous lawful contribution to an entity that was in the future sanctioned, that’s bad enforcement.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

I agree with your analysis. Ex post facto criminal laws are barred by the constitution for good reason. Retroactive punishment leaves people guessing what actions might or might not be punished.

PeterisP 4y ago

Well, Github blocking an account is not considered "punishment" according to criminal law or constitution, only standard contract law would apply and I believe Github has the right to terminate such contracts if they wish. This consideration would apply if and only if the government would actually pursue criminal charges against someone who contributed to TornadoCash - which they possibly would if someone would do stuff after these sanctions e.g. try to circumvent this GitHub block, make and advertise a replacement service, etc; do not do this if US laws apply to you.

mananaysiempre 4y ago
> Github blocking an account is not considered "punishment" according to criminal law or constitution I understand this to be the case. I don’t understand how anyone considers this to be even remotely sane.
- junon 4y ago
  Sanctions are orders to cease providing service, aid, goods or funding. Which part is unclear?
oliwary 4y ago
I agree - GitHub can block whoever they want. But doing so despite not being required to by law is a valid reason to criticize them.
- blagie 4y ago
  No. I disagree. Github should not be able to block anyone they want. We went through this about a century ago with railways, antitrust, and Standard Oil. I won't step through the details, but can provide more background if anyone cares. We landed with the concept of a "common carrier." Railways, as well as telecommunications companies, ISPs, public airlines, bus lines, taxicab companies, phone companies, cruise ships, motor carriers, freight companies, and others CANNOT discriminate. As an individual or a small business, ones does not have an alternative to Microsoft Word, github, or Facebook. If these companies are allowed to discriminate, we'd be in a position where, again, monied entities can shut down individual small businesses, or ostracize individuals, as they see fit. Once you provide a sufficiently central service, you should not be allowed to discriminate.
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    > As an individual or a small business, ones does not have an alternative to - Microsoft Word — Google Docs? Apple Pages? Zoho Docs? OpenOffice? - GitHub — GitLab? sourcehut? Bitbucket? Gitea? - Facebook — Twitter? Instagram? TikTok? SnapChat? The thing about Git is that it's free software. Anyone can run their own server for very little money. If you get banned from the railroad, you can't just get your own train.
    - peterbraden 4y ago
      So what if the company you work for requires github?
      - acdha 4y ago
        That’s between you and your boss, and likely your GitHub account rep. It’s still not a monopoly just because someone voluntarily chooses not to use alternatives.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - andsoitis 4y ago
nuclearnice1 4y ago
Well, you misunderstood me. I agree that GitHub’s actions are not regulated by the constitution or criminal. Additionally I imagine Guthub’s contract terms are such that they can cancel at any time for any reason. What I intended to say is “I agree the poster who complains of retroactive account deletion. We can look to the constitutional process for some reasons why retroactive punishment might be a bad idea.” I did not mean to imply that GitHub’s actions were unconstitutional. They were bad actions for the same reasons that the constitution bars retroactive punishment. It’s hard to guide current behavior based on future law. They were likely legal.
nuclearnice1 4y ago
Well, you misunderstood me. I meant to offer the constitutional reasoning as a source for why retroactive punishment is problematic. Not as the binding legal principle. I agree GitHub CAN do this. My post offered the opinion GitHub should NOT do this.

itsoktocry 4y ago

>Ex post facto criminal laws are barred by the constitution for good reason. I think your analysis is flawed. They didn't come up with some new law and apply it to these people ex post facto. These accounts were contributing to the money laundering (per accusations, albeit indirectly). Another way to look at it: if these people were contributing knowingly to a project that was laundering money, should they be punished? Of course.

thalassophobia 4y ago
This is a anonymous token. It can be used for a plethora of things, including earning passive income. If we apply this line of thinking, everyone who has ever contributed to Monero and Tor should be punished because both are widely used for criminal activity.
nuclearnice1 4y ago
I agree with this analysis. If they are being punished for money laundering committed in the past while money laundering was illegal, that’s good enforcement. If they are being punished for previous lawful contribution to an entity that was in the future sanctioned, that’s bad enforcement.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]