4 ms·

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

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...

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...