8 ms·

So a software developer is held responsible for the software. If the software is largely SaaS, then I can see the sense in that. A software developer of SaaS is

• 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Being arrested is not that big of a deal- it merely means they suspect that you committed a crime and want to question you. I would also wait and see what they are accused of, maybe there is more to it than simply contributing to an open source project.
  • rascul 4y ago
    It can easily turn into a big deal if the arrest means you're locked in a cell for awhile.
    • 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      What is the alternative?
      • rascul 4y ago
        I guess the alternative is to not be arrested and locked in a cell? That's kind of up to someone else.
      • throwaway0a5e 4y ago
        Summons the person to court and only issue an arrest warrant if they fail to appear. This is SOP for the bulk of nonviolent crimes in the US.
  • retcore 4y ago
    In the UK arrest is lawful simply to ensure that your statement or interview can be obtained, entirely without any kind of suspicion. Still will disqualify you for automatic entry in the US however.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• phphphphp 4y ago
  If you design software to do a thing and then the software is used to do that thing, it follows that you’re responsible. Whether you believe that the sanctions make sense or not is one thing, but to argue that the developer of tornado cash is not responsible for… the behaviour tornado cash… feels like a hard sell.
  • rabf 4y ago
    Do you believe that the sam applies to encypted messaging protocols which facilitate criminals and terrorists to communicate privately? The developer of Tornado Cash is not responsible for who uses it and for which reasons, just are knife makers are not responsible for murders.
  • tiborsaas 4y ago
    Should knife makers be held responsible if someone stabs someone? TC was designed for privacy and bad actors _also_ took advantage of that. Prosecutors basically need to prove that privacy is bad, good luck with that.
    • l-lousy 4y ago
      Have there not been quite a few bills/laws proposed recently that also advocate for privacy being bad?
    • ChrisLomont 4y ago
      >Should knife makers be held responsible if someone stabs someone? Not a valid comparison. Courts and law have long held the completely reasonable position that if the main intent of a product is not to commit crime, that those using it for a crime are held responsible, not the producer. Conversely, if a product is designed to facilitate crime, or is used significantly more for crime than not, then the liability starts to shift to the producer (as well as the users). This is the latter case. If the courts show that the producers knew the product was used for crime and added features to assist that on purpose, then they should be held liable. According the to article, 14% of money moved through the mixer was of criminal origin. If any bank did that, they'd rightfully get hammered by the law (and they do, for vastly smaller ratios of criminal activity). There are laws about facilitating criminal money laundering.
• vecio 4y ago
  In this case, will the Tornado developer benefit from the smart contracts? I think the service charge about 0.3%, so that money mainly go to the TORN holders?
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• rvnx 4y ago
  It seems reasonable to expect that Ethereum operators share responsibility in case of usage of their network for malicious or criminal activity. They have the technical means to control what goes on there or not. Otherwise it's like if you run P2P nodes and claim pedo pictures aren't your problem.
  • fzfaa 4y ago
    > Otherwise it's like if you run P2P nodes and claim pedo pictures aren't your problem. If the network is completely p2p, they really aren't. OTOH, it seems foolish to develop/run a p2p network and publish your real name along with it. It's asking for trouble.
  • ajhurliman 4y ago
    You mean the miners? Mining Ethereum doesn’t allow for much inspection of what you’re validating in each block. It’s just a program that runs and guesses a bunch of salts that hopefully result in a hash that meets some particular parameters (e.g. starts with 5 zeros). You want to be the first to guess correctly so you win the reward for that block, so any sort of investigation doesn’t make sense. From what data was stored on-chain in that block and whether it may be problematic (or even what the data represents), to which contracts were involved (and whether they have criminal ties), it’s just not reasonable for any miner to take responsibility for the block chain operating as expected. I think this is the core issue with the block chain, is that society has always expected there to be some moral agent that you could hold responsible. Except in cases of natural disasters, you can normally blame someone. But with blockchains, it’s a lot harder to place blame on someone, or link a physical person to the online identity. Similarly with the 2008 GFC, everything was abstract enough that almost nobody got in trouble for a situation that was most certainly man-made, but hard to place the blame. At least then, though, the government had some amount of control over the banks and also relied on them to return society to normal. Through the government’s eyes, block chain doesn’t appear necessary for society to operate and is very difficult to regulate, so I’m sure their tolerance is a lot lower for blockchains when financial crimes crop up from it.
    • legutierr 4y ago
• redandblack 4y ago
  Just like Boeing/Airbus were held responsible for 911 attacks by developing and building the planes
  • rvnx 4y ago
    The big difference: Airbus and Boeing do everything to prevent attacks and hijacking and it is against their fundamental interest and the interest of their customers. Whereas, for a crypto network, the more funds flows in, the better for the operators and eventually for the developers (who gets paid by node operators via increased coin value or donations). The less compliance or questions asked, or the more anonymity = the more shady flows.
    • DocTomoe 4y ago
      > Airbus and Boeing does everything to prevent attacks and hijacking and it is against their fundamental interest and the interest of their customers. They do today. Back in 2001, flying was a lot different. For starters, there was no such thing as an armoured door between the flight deck and the passenger compartment, mostly because such a door is heavy and costs extra fuel.
      • landemva 4y ago
        > mostly because such a door is heavy and costs extra fuel. Those doors are not heavy. It's not a flying tank. Removal of printed in-flight seatback magazines would offset the weight. Until 9/11, flight deck door procedures were lax.
      • tzs 4y ago
        ...and when experience showed that the existing system was not adequate they beefed it by adding those doors. That's one big difference between those whose products can be used for both good and bad who do not get in legal trouble over the bad use and those that do. There's some threshold for a given type of produce of tolerable bad use. When they product is approaching or exceeding that they make changes to lower it, or if it can't be fixed abandon the product.
• oefrha 4y ago
  From TFA: > It is suspected that persons behind this organisation have made large-scale profits from these transactions. I’m sure a judge can look at more concrete evidence in the form of financial gains.
• koheripbal 4y ago
  I suspect they have direct evidence that this developer coordinated specifically with criminals to help guide them on how to use the system for money laundering. This would be similar to the developer of the encrypted phones that everyone defended initially until it became known that he flew to other countries to train drug dealers how to use the phones. In this crypto business, it is not enough to just build the system and expect people to magically know that it's for them and how to use it - 50% of the work is selling and training people on the system. This is all speculation based on previous similar cases.