4 ms·

Should knife makers be held responsible if someone stabs someone? TC was designed for privacy and bad actors _also_ took advantage of that. Prosecutors basicall

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.
- arbol 4y ago
  > and added features to assist that on purpose Unless the service was redeployed (unlikely) or operating behind a proxy contract, it wouldn't have been possible to add new features.
- koolba 4y ago
  > This is the latter case. How is privacy not a legitimate use case? > According the to article, 14% of money moved through the mixer was of criminal origin. I’m pretty sure the majority of duffel bags sold in cartel controlled areas of Mexico are used to transport drugs or drug money, that doesn’t mean selling them should be a crime.
  - csydas 4y ago
    I think you're missing the intent part of crime. Someone selling a duffle bag or producing one for production is likely not selling it for the purpose of facilitating crime, they just are selling a bag. The question with guns/knives/Tornado Cash is "what is the motivation behind the producers/service provider once put under scrutiny?" A textile mill producer who gets an order for 5000 duffle bags likely has no vision in mind for the use of the bag beyond "sell to N stores at X price for profit". The storeowner who buys the duffle bag likely also has no criminal motive and instead just wants to sell inventory at profit. Tornado Cash devs will be scrutinized to understand their main goals, and their communications/advertising strategies, likely as well as any correspondences will be considered for this determination.
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    >I’m pretty sure the majority I'm pretty sure that's not true. 1-1 we tied :) And again , not equivalent. If local duffel bag makers knew duffel bags were used significantly for crime, and added features to facilitate crime, and ignored laws requiring tracking criminals (which is what money processors have to follow), then the duffel bag maker would be criminally liable. In the cast at hand, the company processes the transactions for criminals. That is vastly different than selling a duffel bag. And it runs afoul of criminal money laundering laws that all processors have to follow, and for good reason. This is why the courts are the place to hash such stuff out - internet opinions are vastly inferior to people performing investigations using evidence.
    - dlubarov 4y ago
      What could "features to facilitate crime" be in this particular case? Tornado is a simple contract with a singular purpose, to provide financial privacy for its users. It simply doesn't have any features that facilitate a more specific use case, be it money laundering, personal safety, or anything else.
    - diogenes1 4y ago
      Source - ChrisLemont get off your high horse, use of tornado cash is quite common among crypto natives, otherwise it's like broadcasting your pepsi purchases on instagram
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lukeramsden 4y ago
  > This is the latter case. You're stating this as if it's fact when it's really not. Tornado Cash was certainly not designed with the intent of criminal activity, but for privacy - and as for "significantly more for crime than not", I've not seen any actual evidence for this, only evidence to the contrary. People claim it's mostly used for crime, but those are purely conjecture, at least the ones I've seen are.
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    >Tornado Cash was certainly not designed with the intent of criminal activity, but for privacy Again, claims of privacy is not enough magic to make them free from legal requirements for money laundering laws. Privacy claims do not make banks immune from money laundering. Privacy claims do not make anyone free from meeting legal requirements. >those are purely conjecture The above states ~1/7 of all money flowing through can be tied to criminal behavior. If true, that's an astounding ratio that would rightfully put a bank out of business and key players in prison.
simion314 4y ago
>Should knife makers be held responsible if someone stabs someone? Only if you made and advertised a "human killing knife", so in this case I have no idea how this software was advertised by the devs and community. I think the intention is important in this case, what was the purpose and who benefited the most , if 99% of knives are used for bad things then you would probably have some ideas about that issues.
- tiborsaas 4y ago
  I've seen (but never used) TC before. The site was totally neutral with minimal explanation. I've made the comparison because both are really simple tools.
csydas 4y ago
I would be hesitant to get into the knife/gun comparisons. The charge isn't the anonymization of the money, it's specifically the concealment of money produced by criminal activity, and whether or not that's something that is allowed based on NL law is really the question, as is the motive of the developer/service providers. This next part is from a US perspective, but remember that there are multiple aspects to law besides just the actual act. There has to be a motive as well. The reason as I understand it that knife/gun manufacturers aren't really held responsible is because (arguably) their goal is not for persons to commit illegal acts.† Thus the illegal act is an exception and independent of the intention of why the product is produced, and there is not a motivation to empower illegal activity from the manufacturers. With Tornado cash, it becomes a bit murkier I think and I suppose this is why it's being sent for examination as opposed to outright finding the person guilty. I would imagine what the judge wants to find out are things like: 1. Who was the primary audience/user for Tornado Cash (TC)? Not generalized, but who was actually using it? 2. Were there communications between the team behind TC and other entities that can be identified or no? 3. Did the TC team have awareness of who their main customers were and where the coins mainly came from? 4. Was there any campaigning by the TC team that can be found which shows they were specifically catering to people doing illegal activities? 5. Likely, a court and FIOD would want to investigate if any regional activity can be tied to Tornado Cash††, and if a known sanction region was utilizing the service, were actions taken to prevent this. I understand that the goals of cryptocoins and the goals of Governments are opposed by design, and likely there will be constant conflicts like this for a long time with cryptocoins and governments; one wants to circumvent monetary rule, the other imposes the monetary rule. I have no personal judgement on TC or cryptocoins, but the court decisions will be interesting to read. † - I do realize that this line blurs a lot depending on the type of knife being sold, and even worse with gun manufacturers. Unironically, the Borat movies (I forget which one) show this pretty well when Borat asks which gun is best for "stopping Jews", and the gun owner doesn't blink. Gun manufacturers I would suggest walk a fine line in their advertising, as do proponents of gun rights. I know responsible gun owners so I'm not here to case a wide net on all things gun related, but my take on a lot of weapons advertising is that it sells a violence fantasy. †† I'm not as familiar with ETH or even how probable it is that they can find who used a service, but it's something that the teams will try to figure out. Whether or not this is a good idea long term is not the point I want to make, it's more that I think this is something governments will be interested in. Very likely, there is a vested from these governments in ensuring specific sanctioned countries cannot use cryptocoins to circumvent sanctions. I don't really agree with this ultimately, but it is important to understand the entire thought process beyond just "governments hate cryptocoins".

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.

arbol 4y ago
> and added features to assist that on purpose Unless the service was redeployed (unlikely) or operating behind a proxy contract, it wouldn't have been possible to add new features.
koolba 4y ago
> This is the latter case. How is privacy not a legitimate use case? > According the to article, 14% of money moved through the mixer was of criminal origin. I’m pretty sure the majority of duffel bags sold in cartel controlled areas of Mexico are used to transport drugs or drug money, that doesn’t mean selling them should be a crime.
- csydas 4y ago
  I think you're missing the intent part of crime. Someone selling a duffle bag or producing one for production is likely not selling it for the purpose of facilitating crime, they just are selling a bag. The question with guns/knives/Tornado Cash is "what is the motivation behind the producers/service provider once put under scrutiny?" A textile mill producer who gets an order for 5000 duffle bags likely has no vision in mind for the use of the bag beyond "sell to N stores at X price for profit". The storeowner who buys the duffle bag likely also has no criminal motive and instead just wants to sell inventory at profit. Tornado Cash devs will be scrutinized to understand their main goals, and their communications/advertising strategies, likely as well as any correspondences will be considered for this determination.
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >I’m pretty sure the majority I'm pretty sure that's not true. 1-1 we tied :) And again , not equivalent. If local duffel bag makers knew duffel bags were used significantly for crime, and added features to facilitate crime, and ignored laws requiring tracking criminals (which is what money processors have to follow), then the duffel bag maker would be criminally liable. In the cast at hand, the company processes the transactions for criminals. That is vastly different than selling a duffel bag. And it runs afoul of criminal money laundering laws that all processors have to follow, and for good reason. This is why the courts are the place to hash such stuff out - internet opinions are vastly inferior to people performing investigations using evidence.
  - dlubarov 4y ago
    What could "features to facilitate crime" be in this particular case? Tornado is a simple contract with a singular purpose, to provide financial privacy for its users. It simply doesn't have any features that facilitate a more specific use case, be it money laundering, personal safety, or anything else.
  - diogenes1 4y ago
    Source - ChrisLemont get off your high horse, use of tornado cash is quite common among crypto natives, otherwise it's like broadcasting your pepsi purchases on instagram
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lukeramsden 4y ago
> This is the latter case. You're stating this as if it's fact when it's really not. Tornado Cash was certainly not designed with the intent of criminal activity, but for privacy - and as for "significantly more for crime than not", I've not seen any actual evidence for this, only evidence to the contrary. People claim it's mostly used for crime, but those are purely conjecture, at least the ones I've seen are.
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >Tornado Cash was certainly not designed with the intent of criminal activity, but for privacy Again, claims of privacy is not enough magic to make them free from legal requirements for money laundering laws. Privacy claims do not make banks immune from money laundering. Privacy claims do not make anyone free from meeting legal requirements. >those are purely conjecture The above states ~1/7 of all money flowing through can be tied to criminal behavior. If true, that's an astounding ratio that would rightfully put a bank out of business and key players in prison.

simion314 4y ago

>Should knife makers be held responsible if someone stabs someone? Only if you made and advertised a "human killing knife", so in this case I have no idea how this software was advertised by the devs and community. I think the intention is important in this case, what was the purpose and who benefited the most , if 99% of knives are used for bad things then you would probably have some ideas about that issues.

tiborsaas 4y ago
I've seen (but never used) TC before. The site was totally neutral with minimal explanation. I've made the comparison because both are really simple tools.

csydas 4y ago

I would be hesitant to get into the knife/gun comparisons. The charge isn't the anonymization of the money, it's specifically the concealment of money produced by criminal activity, and whether or not that's something that is allowed based on NL law is really the question, as is the motive of the developer/service providers. This next part is from a US perspective, but remember that there are multiple aspects to law besides just the actual act. There has to be a motive as well. The reason as I understand it that knife/gun manufacturers aren't really held responsible is because (arguably) their goal is not for persons to commit illegal acts.† Thus the illegal act is an exception and independent of the intention of why the product is produced, and there is not a motivation to empower illegal activity from the manufacturers. With Tornado cash, it becomes a bit murkier I think and I suppose this is why it's being sent for examination as opposed to outright finding the person guilty. I would imagine what the judge wants to find out are things like: 1. Who was the primary audience/user for Tornado Cash (TC)? Not generalized, but who was actually using it? 2. Were there communications between the team behind TC and other entities that can be identified or no? 3. Did the TC team have awareness of who their main customers were and where the coins mainly came from? 4. Was there any campaigning by the TC team that can be found which shows they were specifically catering to people doing illegal activities? 5. Likely, a court and FIOD would want to investigate if any regional activity can be tied to Tornado Cash††, and if a known sanction region was utilizing the service, were actions taken to prevent this. I understand that the goals of cryptocoins and the goals of Governments are opposed by design, and likely there will be constant conflicts like this for a long time with cryptocoins and governments; one wants to circumvent monetary rule, the other imposes the monetary rule. I have no personal judgement on TC or cryptocoins, but the court decisions will be interesting to read. † - I do realize that this line blurs a lot depending on the type of knife being sold, and even worse with gun manufacturers. Unironically, the Borat movies (I forget which one) show this pretty well when Borat asks which gun is best for "stopping Jews", and the gun owner doesn't blink. Gun manufacturers I would suggest walk a fine line in their advertising, as do proponents of gun rights. I know responsible gun owners so I'm not here to case a wide net on all things gun related, but my take on a lot of weapons advertising is that it sells a violence fantasy. †† I'm not as familiar with ETH or even how probable it is that they can find who used a service, but it's something that the teams will try to figure out. Whether or not this is a good idea long term is not the point I want to make, it's more that I think this is something governments will be interested in. Very likely, there is a vested from these governments in ensuring specific sanctioned countries cannot use cryptocoins to circumvent sanctions. I don't really agree with this ultimately, but it is important to understand the entire thought process beyond just "governments hate cryptocoins".