4 ms·
If the government has records that you wrote a service that specifically violates the law, that you contemplated a change that would make it compliant but didn’
by kasey_junk 3y ago
If the government has records that you wrote a service that specifically violates the law, that you contemplated a change that would make it compliant but didn’t because your customers won’t use it, they are right to charge you with a crime.
I’m a privacy advocate, who thinks kyc laws have gone too far. But if you knowingly break a law you can’t cite the unjustness of that law unless you are engaged in an act of civil disobedience. Profits will suffer is not civil disobedience.
- holmesworcester 3y agoWhen Signal becomes illegal in, say, the UK, will you support the extradition of Signal developers to the UK simply because they're knowingly breaking the law? At what point does it matter what's right?
- woodruffw 3y agoWhat about the GP's comment implies that they support extraditing people to foreign countries?
- lolinder 3y agoSignal is threatening to leave jurisdictions where they become illegal rather than comply. They're not threatening to keep operating in violation of the law.
- miracle2k 3y agoWhat does "leaving a jurisdiction" mean? Can Tornado Cash "leave the US jurisdiction" as well and will then be left alone? Will you support the UK if they ask for the extradition of Signal developers, on the basis that say Signal will continue to have UK users accessing their service? Where are your values?
- KptMarchewa 3y ago> What does "leaving a jurisdiction" mean? Can Tornado Cash "leave the US jurisdiction" as well and will then be left alone? You can - by not being inside the US, doing proper KYC and rejecting US customers.
- miracle2k 3y ago> You can - by not being inside the US, doing proper KYC and rejecting US customers. Looking forward to doing KYC on my Signal account then.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Hizonner 3y agoThey're not being charged with "writing a service", because writing software isn't illegal no matter what it does. They're being charged with operating a service. Which they may very well have done. It sounds like they were at least running the front end user interface stuff, and that might be enough. But what makes it interesting is that the real core parts of the whole system were (and still are) autonomous. Those contracts could (and still can) be used without them doing anything at all. So they were not operating those. And it's not so obvious that there is any settled law that applies to those core contracts.
- kasey_junk 3y agoThe government has records (presumably electronic) of the charged individuals making a specific decision not to be compliant to improve their profits. It’s hard to see any precedent being set by that other than “don’t run explicitly illegal services”.