3 ms·

Ah, so is that something you’re universally against? Say, should you be arrested for warning a shoplifter that police are coming? Or is this only something you’

Ah, so is that something you’re universally against? Say, should you be arrested for warning a shoplifter that police are coming? Or is this only something you’re against when you want to regulate/acquire other people’s money? I notice that much of the “we need to regulate xyz for violating my privacy” crowd stay awfully silent when it comes to the government violating financial privacy, perhaps because their economic policies depend on such control being in place.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> when it comes to the government violating financial privacy Yes, a good way to delineate pragmatic from extreme views on privacy are when they find no exceptions for designated terrorist organizations and Russian criminals.
- logicchains 4y ago
  >designated terrorist organizations Designated terrorist organisation just means someone America doesn't like. The US murdered in cold blood hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq yet nobody's trying to restrict the financial dealing of the US government.
- alphanullmeric 4y ago
  I would support it if: 1. Law enforcement was only targeting terrorist organizations 2. Accessing the account of someone that turned out to be innocent would guarantee they received compensation But that’s not the case. Namely with (1), US regulators are trying to ban currency mixers, privacy coins, derivatives trading, etc so the “muh terrorism” argument is nil. Most of this has nothing to do with terrorism.
  - UtopiaFans 4y ago
    [dead]
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > US regulators are trying to ban currency mixers, privacy coins, derivatives trading, etc so the “muh terrorism” argument is nil In general, sure. Here, specifically: actual, literal, documented terrorist financing. I'm not a fan of our AML/ATF complex. But recent enforcement actions in crypto, e.g. the mixer being used by North Korea or Binance executives texting each other about laundering for Hamas, are so far over the line of reasonable law enforcement that it makes for a poor backdrop for discussing reform.
    - UtopiaFans 4y ago
      [dead]
    - alphanullmeric 4y ago
      No, in this specific case. Read the document the post links to. It has nothing to do with terrorism, regulators are just upset they don't get to control what other people do with their own money. And if you're supporting universal bans of mixers and other privacy preserving tools as the current government is attempting, then you're part of the problem. I will never support the redistribution of consequences, no matter what kind of patriot act talking points you use to justify it. We can talk about punishing terrorists if it's only about punishing terrorists and not "operating a facility for the trading or processing of swaps without being registered as a swap execution facility" (page 5).
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > has nothing to do with terrorism Fair enough. The process violation is Binance saying they wouldn't sell crypto derivatives to Americans and then helping e.g. a Chicago-based client pretend he wasn't American so they could sell them crypto derivatives. No terrorism. But also no privacy/AML angle. (We have good reasons for regulating swaps. There is also zero financial privacy pitch for crypto derivatives bought and sold on a centralized exchange.) That there is also evidence of willful terrorism financing probably pushed this up the CFTC's to-do list, however. > if you're supporting universal bans of mixers Straw man–nobody is proposing a universal ban. The harshest proposals would require KYC at mixers. The best solution is probably something lighter, though pitching financial privacy as a basic right against e.g. the backdrop of the likes of Binance isn't doing the industry any favors.
- lmm 4y ago
  "Designated" by who, following what process, with what kind of oversight and safeguards? If thinking the government shouldn't be able to deprive people arbitrarily of their livelihood without having to follow the same kind of procedures they'd do so to put them in prison makes one an extremist, I guess I'm an extremist. A blacklist that people can be put on without due process is no way for a democratic government to conduct itself.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> when it comes to the government violating financial privacy Yes, a good way to delineate pragmatic from extreme views on privacy are when they find no exceptions for designated terrorist organizations and Russian criminals.

logicchains 4y ago
>designated terrorist organizations Designated terrorist organisation just means someone America doesn't like. The US murdered in cold blood hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq yet nobody's trying to restrict the financial dealing of the US government.
alphanullmeric 4y ago
I would support it if: 1. Law enforcement was only targeting terrorist organizations 2. Accessing the account of someone that turned out to be innocent would guarantee they received compensation But that’s not the case. Namely with (1), US regulators are trying to ban currency mixers, privacy coins, derivatives trading, etc so the “muh terrorism” argument is nil. Most of this has nothing to do with terrorism.
- UtopiaFans 4y ago
  [dead]
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > US regulators are trying to ban currency mixers, privacy coins, derivatives trading, etc so the “muh terrorism” argument is nil In general, sure. Here, specifically: actual, literal, documented terrorist financing. I'm not a fan of our AML/ATF complex. But recent enforcement actions in crypto, e.g. the mixer being used by North Korea or Binance executives texting each other about laundering for Hamas, are so far over the line of reasonable law enforcement that it makes for a poor backdrop for discussing reform.
  - UtopiaFans 4y ago
    [dead]
  - alphanullmeric 4y ago
    No, in this specific case. Read the document the post links to. It has nothing to do with terrorism, regulators are just upset they don't get to control what other people do with their own money. And if you're supporting universal bans of mixers and other privacy preserving tools as the current government is attempting, then you're part of the problem. I will never support the redistribution of consequences, no matter what kind of patriot act talking points you use to justify it. We can talk about punishing terrorists if it's only about punishing terrorists and not "operating a facility for the trading or processing of swaps without being registered as a swap execution facility" (page 5).
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > has nothing to do with terrorism Fair enough. The process violation is Binance saying they wouldn't sell crypto derivatives to Americans and then helping e.g. a Chicago-based client pretend he wasn't American so they could sell them crypto derivatives. No terrorism. But also no privacy/AML angle. (We have good reasons for regulating swaps. There is also zero financial privacy pitch for crypto derivatives bought and sold on a centralized exchange.) That there is also evidence of willful terrorism financing probably pushed this up the CFTC's to-do list, however. > if you're supporting universal bans of mixers Straw man–nobody is proposing a universal ban. The harshest proposals would require KYC at mixers. The best solution is probably something lighter, though pitching financial privacy as a basic right against e.g. the backdrop of the likes of Binance isn't doing the industry any favors.
lmm 4y ago
"Designated" by who, following what process, with what kind of oversight and safeguards? If thinking the government shouldn't be able to deprive people arbitrarily of their livelihood without having to follow the same kind of procedures they'd do so to put them in prison makes one an extremist, I guess I'm an extremist. A blacklist that people can be put on without due process is no way for a democratic government to conduct itself.