6 ms·
> ... In fact, in our dealings with law enforcement we are sometimes made aware of addresses potentially related to crime and are specifically instructed not t
by yuan43 4y ago
> ... In fact, in our dealings with law enforcement we are sometimes made aware of addresses potentially related to crime and are specifically instructed not to freeze the addresses without the explicit request from law enforcement as this could alert suspects of the law enforcement investigation, cause liquidations or abandonment of funds and jeopardize further connections that might have been established.
I'm not sure what's worse: the fact that an important chunk of Tether can be with blocked with just the slightest due process, or the fact that that the same lack of due process can keep addresses unblocked.
It's also hilarious how different parts of the executive branch seem to be at odds with each other over what to do. Treasury says blacklist now, ask questions later, and DoJ says (or might at least be thinking) wait, wait - don't blacklist, we're following perps on the blockchain.
Those who believe that the long arm of the law is bearing down on Tether might want to consider the possibility that Tether will remain operational much longer than seems reasonable. As revealed in this article, it's become a very useful tool for conducting criminal investigations.
- stormbrew 4y agoThis kind of cognitive dissonance is, I think, not unusual. I once worked for a website that was largely used by teenagers and we cooperated extensively with police to deal with predators on the site, but were largely told to keep that fact hush hush so they could use us as a honeypot. Guess what parents thought of us.
- Griffinsauce 4y agoA honeypot filled with potential victims if you miss one. The parents were right.
- stormbrew 4y agoMaybe. That's a somewhat different issue though. The police had us implicitly make the site more attractive to predators, making it even more dangerous than it could have been at a baseline while still having us work hard to prevent it. On the issue of the baseline, though, I think this is a tricky thing. The alternatives teenagers used at the time were far more lax in their enforcement and moderation policies, but because they were made by bigger companies they got a pass from parents. The idea that we can keep teenagers completely away from dangerous things on social media feels a lot like abstinence education to me. The reality is complicated. But I don't think we were perfect - tbh I don't think we were at all well equipped to the responsibility. But I do think we tried.
- tpxl 4y agoWhy would you comply with a request to keep criminals on your website? I'm sure it made the police's job easier, but I would never comply with something like that for my own, and for my users sake.
- lozenge 4y agoIf you kick them off before they do criminal behaviour then the police can't do anything and you'll just wait to see them back with a new VPN/identity.
- stormbrew 4y agoTo be clear, we didn't leave individual predators on the site. We did whatever we could to remove them and helped the police catch them if there was enough evidence. It's the reputation we let stand.
- tpxl 4y agoDoesn't a reputation of allowing criminals bring in more criminals, putting your users at risk?
- stormbrew 4y agoThat is what I said a few posts up. It's a policy I felt uncomfortable with even then. I just wanted to clear up that we didn't leave individual bad actors on the site to my knowledge.
- weebalow 4y agoThis is the fundamental contradiction at the heart of anti-money laundering compliance, and it's part of the reason I left the field. Part of government wants FIs to shut down accounts / transactions, the other wants to essentially wire tap them. Anyone on the front line of AML work gets stuck in the middle and often has to do the wrong thing as a form of CYA.
- octoberfranklin 4y agoLike the CIA and DEA working against each other...
- sph 4y agoCare to expand any of those acronyms?
- mschuster91 4y agoAML = anti money laundering CYA = cover your ass
- imtringued 4y agoShut them down, wire tapping is immoral.
- TakeBlaster16 4y agoIt would be the biggest twist of the century if we find out the government bailed out Tether to help law enforcement.
- SilasX 4y agoROFL good point! Imagine if this whole time, critics were right, both that Tether is insolvent, and that it’s used for crime, but didn’t realize that (the truths of) these two criticisms “cancel out” and result in keeping Tether alive…
- addicted 4y agoThere’s a conspiracy theory that the CIA created Bitcoin and promoted it as this anonymous secure way of money transfer so they could identify global crime networks. I don’t think that’s true at all, but if the CIA had thought of doing something like that and had done a good job of it, I suspect whatever they would have created would have looked awfully like Bitcoin. It appears anonymous as hell on the surface, but even with the slightest bit of metadata and effort it can be deanonymized. And let’s not forget that the CIA and friends are legally allowed to collect metadata in situations such as wiretaps, etc. and have massive troves of it at their disposal. In the meanwhile, every transaction is public.
- capableweb 4y agoIn a system where every transaction is public, how on earth would anyone think "it appears anonymous as hell on the surface"? One of the main features is the public ledger, and it's one of the first things you learn if you try to understand blockchains.
- GTP 4y agoStill, many people do think it is anonymous. Maybe it's because on the blockchain you have a long number instead of your name and surname, so some people think that the number isn't traceable back to them.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoI think, and I might paraphrasing someone said on this forum before, that it indicates the government is not a monolithic entity, but rather a collection of various institutions each with its own mandates, goals and related agendas. Since I am, for better or worse, part AML industry, I get to see some of the contradictions and opposing demands. Just the other week, I was listening to a guy complaining banks don't make SARs useful to to LEOs and not long before that regulator making a banks defend its non-submission of some SARs effectively forcing banks everywhere to adopt defensive SAR filing. It is truly weird to watch from a distance.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 4y agoYou are just describing a tradeoff between two competing goals. It's not hypocritical to have those. In fact it's entirely unavoidable to juggle such situations all day, every day, your whole life: go to bed now or work a bit longer? Buy the beach house or the boat? If you appoint one person to manage your sleep and another to get you to exercise, the everyday tradeoff will be represented by different people, just like Tether is experiencing it. It is not, however, best practice to react to government requests by explaining to them that there are other strategies that they could pursue, and that you believe them to be much better to get at these darn criminals, and that you will therefore ignore the request. If they truly believe in their argument, they would sue and make it in court.
- thraxil 4y agoYeah, it's really not even a tradeoff in the same area in this case. The OFAC sanctions on TC are because they believe that it was being used by and enabling North Korea and various foreign terrorist organizations. DOJ asking Tether not to interfere with other investigations is presumably because they are tracking some fraud or other crimes and want to use that intel to either identify the culprits or to build up a solid body of evidence that they can use to prosecute. They already know who North Korea and various terrorist organizations are and the DOJ can't exactly prosecute them. Claiming or implying equivalence between OFAC sanctions and DOJ investigations is either stupid or disingenuous.
- gadders 4y agoAs I understand it, Tornado Cash was used to launder money and all of the money laundering elearning I've ever done (due to working in a bank) has emphasised the fact that "tipping off" - letting someone know they are being looked at for money laundering - is an offence in itself.