4 ms·

HN thinks KYC and subpoena access is great for bank accounts. Information is even more dangerous than money. We should know who says what where it is going and

HN thinks KYC and subpoena access is great for bank accounts. Information is even more dangerous than money. We should know who says what where it is going and be able to subpeona the underlying information. It could be criminal activity, communication to terrorists, etc and even just producing non-criminal information aids these criminals by hiding it in the noise.

atemerev 4y ago
No, we don’t. Which is one if the reasons we are building crypto.
developer93 4y ago
People who aren't doing anything wrong should not be penalised, there's the presumption of innocence which is an underlying principal of a free state. Should police have keys to every house in case of domestic violence?
- notch898a 4y ago
  Nah battering rams are fine and more fun. It's also a good excuse for them to toss a flash-bang in the crib on the way in. If somehow an un-pickable lock were the only way to get into a house and a sizeable portion of houses could practically be built that way, you can bet the courts would invent a reason why the government has to have the key in basically every anglo-sphere country. It would only take a few news stories about "women beaten to death while police desperately and futilely attempt entry" or "terrorist hiding in London house, alive and well years after attack but unable to be arrested" before half the public would start begging for something to be done about it.
  - developer93 4y ago
    That's not a analogous scenario though, because a) afaik police still need a warrant for a battering ram, they can't just enter, and b) battering rams are kind of a 1 time thing and very very obvious. The key is more like the police can just let themselves in at any time to check that there's no dv going on. If you're not home you don't even know if they were there. And incidentally some silverware has gone missing... That's closer to the scenario we're talking about.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      The scenario you proposed was domestic violence. It's actually a myth police have to have a warrant in the US. There are a couple other options 1) Hot pursuit 2) Exigency Domestic violence falls under the second. Battering ram can come out.
      - developer93 4y ago
        Actually I'm in UK although it might be the same here. Second point still stands though: you can't tell if someone has been into your house. Edit: to elaborate on "the silverware", "the police" having access means effectively anyone has access. It's not just 1 infallible person, you're giving that key to the whole station, and it's being kept somewhere, which makes it (more) vulnerable to theft, especially since a large cache of such keys is going to be much more attractive to a criminal than a single key.
jacooper 4y ago
Ah yes, as if terrorists care about what the law says? Encryption is illegal guys, let's meet in the cafe/s
- notch898a 4y ago
  The law doesn't do dick to stop criminals, it's to punish them after they break it. Hence laws regulating drugs, guns, etc which all can trivially be broken.
  - developer93 4y ago
    The point is this only inconveniences/penalises law abiders. If there's a terrorist whatever what they're doing is already illegal, we don't need more laws to penalise them after the fact. And actually I think the bill is about forcing companies that make messenger services to backdoor encryption, rather than individuals.
qu4z-2 4y ago
I bitch about KYC laws every time I run into them.

atemerev 4y ago

No, we don’t. Which is one if the reasons we are building crypto.

developer93 4y ago

People who aren't doing anything wrong should not be penalised, there's the presumption of innocence which is an underlying principal of a free state. Should police have keys to every house in case of domestic violence?

notch898a 4y ago
Nah battering rams are fine and more fun. It's also a good excuse for them to toss a flash-bang in the crib on the way in. If somehow an un-pickable lock were the only way to get into a house and a sizeable portion of houses could practically be built that way, you can bet the courts would invent a reason why the government has to have the key in basically every anglo-sphere country. It would only take a few news stories about "women beaten to death while police desperately and futilely attempt entry" or "terrorist hiding in London house, alive and well years after attack but unable to be arrested" before half the public would start begging for something to be done about it.
- developer93 4y ago
  That's not a analogous scenario though, because a) afaik police still need a warrant for a battering ram, they can't just enter, and b) battering rams are kind of a 1 time thing and very very obvious. The key is more like the police can just let themselves in at any time to check that there's no dv going on. If you're not home you don't even know if they were there. And incidentally some silverware has gone missing... That's closer to the scenario we're talking about.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    The scenario you proposed was domestic violence. It's actually a myth police have to have a warrant in the US. There are a couple other options 1) Hot pursuit 2) Exigency Domestic violence falls under the second. Battering ram can come out.
    - developer93 4y ago
      Actually I'm in UK although it might be the same here. Second point still stands though: you can't tell if someone has been into your house. Edit: to elaborate on "the silverware", "the police" having access means effectively anyone has access. It's not just 1 infallible person, you're giving that key to the whole station, and it's being kept somewhere, which makes it (more) vulnerable to theft, especially since a large cache of such keys is going to be much more attractive to a criminal than a single key.

jacooper 4y ago

Ah yes, as if terrorists care about what the law says? Encryption is illegal guys, let's meet in the cafe/s

notch898a 4y ago
The law doesn't do dick to stop criminals, it's to punish them after they break it. Hence laws regulating drugs, guns, etc which all can trivially be broken.
- developer93 4y ago
  The point is this only inconveniences/penalises law abiders. If there's a terrorist whatever what they're doing is already illegal, we don't need more laws to penalise them after the fact. And actually I think the bill is about forcing companies that make messenger services to backdoor encryption, rather than individuals.

qu4z-2 4y ago

I bitch about KYC laws every time I run into them.