7 ms·

the term "money laundering" is the anti-euphemism of "financial privacy". It's a highly successful attack on privacy. It's been drilled into our heads that priv

the term "money laundering" is the anti-euphemism of "financial privacy". It's a highly successful attack on privacy. It's been drilled into our heads that privacy is bad, and it won't stop there.

MattPalmer1086 3y ago
No, it's not an attack on privacy, it's an attempt to block criminal activity and funding terrorism. The effect is that you can't have full financial privacy. I worked on financial and messaging privacy tech and cryptography. I came to the conclusion that there were very few genuine and good reasons for complete anonymity and privacy in finance. This doesn't mean that everything should be completely public, but equally everything being completely hidden is not a desirable state for society either, unless you are a criminal.
- bouncycastle 3y ago
  There are plenty of genuine reasons. One reason off the top of my head is that you cannot pay bounties to informants for rewards if they give reliable tip-offs. You need full anonymity for that. So crime / terrorist fighting is actually being hampered. Poor privacy weakens security in general, doesn't matter what type of data it is. Meanwhile breaking privacy does not stop terrorists or criminals. They always find a way. again, "money laundering" is really data privacy when you distil the issue, and the term certainly is an anti euphemism, specifically made up to attack privacy.
  - MattPalmer1086 3y ago
    I would respectfully disagree with most of what you said. Security and privacy are not the same thing. In some cases, privacy is also a security concern (e.g. criticising the state in repressive regimes) but mostly absolute privacy is not required, only partial privacy. In most cases, a lack of privacy does not massively weaken security. For the record, I am passionate about privacy. I intensely dislike surveillance capitalism and think that the state should not be able to conduct mass surveillance. Warrants for targeted surveillance should be controlled by the courts. However, this has to be balanced against real money laundering and other criminal enablement concerns (such as ransomware and other crimes enabled by untraceable payments). Money laundering is simply how organised crime take the proceeds of their activity and legitimise it. It is extremely naive to frame attempts to detect and control this as an attack on privacy, even if this is an undesirable effect of it. My point is that absolutism in privacy is as bad as absolutism tends to be anywhere else it appears. The real world needs balance. We definitely need privacy, but not absolute privacy at the cost of everything else. Update: I would just like to respond to your point that these controls have not stopped terrorism or money laundering, and that they will always find a way. I don't disagree with that, but having no control at all over this would enable them to a far greater extent and lower their costs substantially.
    - bouncycastle 3y ago
      You're arguing that we should not have privacy. I am saying that everyone should have privacy 100% of over their data, no matter what data it is, and there is no middle ground. Obviously we won't change each other's views, no matter what we type. However, one thing is certain: The invented term of "money laundering" has been a very successful attack on privacy, and because of the campaign (to protect the children, fight terrorists, cybergangs, bogeyman etc), many people highly agree that loss of privacy good, including you. Privacy is already a lost cause.
mkipper 3y ago
The US government was passing AML legislation more than 50 years ago. Mass surveillance wasn't exactly practical back then, so I'm pretty sure those laws were passed as a real attempt to stop criminals rather than to erode the rights of US citizens. So no, I don't think the term money laundering is some thinly veiled cover for privacy violations. This is sorta like saying the US government introduced the Communications Act of 1934 because they had predicted the internet and wanted to normalize the idea of wiretapping so there would be less friction to introducing mass surveillance 75 years later. The US government does do a lot of horrible things that violate the rights of its citizens, but they also really don't like organized crime and terrorism. Not everything is an explicit attack on privacy.

the term "money laundering" is the anti-euphemism of "financial privacy". It's a highly successful attack on privacy. It's been drilled into our heads that privacy is bad, and it won't stop there.

MattPalmer1086 3y ago

No, it's not an attack on privacy, it's an attempt to block criminal activity and funding terrorism. The effect is that you can't have full financial privacy. I worked on financial and messaging privacy tech and cryptography. I came to the conclusion that there were very few genuine and good reasons for complete anonymity and privacy in finance. This doesn't mean that everything should be completely public, but equally everything being completely hidden is not a desirable state for society either, unless you are a criminal.

bouncycastle 3y ago
There are plenty of genuine reasons. One reason off the top of my head is that you cannot pay bounties to informants for rewards if they give reliable tip-offs. You need full anonymity for that. So crime / terrorist fighting is actually being hampered. Poor privacy weakens security in general, doesn't matter what type of data it is. Meanwhile breaking privacy does not stop terrorists or criminals. They always find a way. again, "money laundering" is really data privacy when you distil the issue, and the term certainly is an anti euphemism, specifically made up to attack privacy.
- MattPalmer1086 3y ago
  I would respectfully disagree with most of what you said. Security and privacy are not the same thing. In some cases, privacy is also a security concern (e.g. criticising the state in repressive regimes) but mostly absolute privacy is not required, only partial privacy. In most cases, a lack of privacy does not massively weaken security. For the record, I am passionate about privacy. I intensely dislike surveillance capitalism and think that the state should not be able to conduct mass surveillance. Warrants for targeted surveillance should be controlled by the courts. However, this has to be balanced against real money laundering and other criminal enablement concerns (such as ransomware and other crimes enabled by untraceable payments). Money laundering is simply how organised crime take the proceeds of their activity and legitimise it. It is extremely naive to frame attempts to detect and control this as an attack on privacy, even if this is an undesirable effect of it. My point is that absolutism in privacy is as bad as absolutism tends to be anywhere else it appears. The real world needs balance. We definitely need privacy, but not absolute privacy at the cost of everything else. Update: I would just like to respond to your point that these controls have not stopped terrorism or money laundering, and that they will always find a way. I don't disagree with that, but having no control at all over this would enable them to a far greater extent and lower their costs substantially.
  - bouncycastle 3y ago
    You're arguing that we should not have privacy. I am saying that everyone should have privacy 100% of over their data, no matter what data it is, and there is no middle ground. Obviously we won't change each other's views, no matter what we type. However, one thing is certain: The invented term of "money laundering" has been a very successful attack on privacy, and because of the campaign (to protect the children, fight terrorists, cybergangs, bogeyman etc), many people highly agree that loss of privacy good, including you. Privacy is already a lost cause.

mkipper 3y ago

The US government was passing AML legislation more than 50 years ago. Mass surveillance wasn't exactly practical back then, so I'm pretty sure those laws were passed as a real attempt to stop criminals rather than to erode the rights of US citizens. So no, I don't think the term money laundering is some thinly veiled cover for privacy violations. This is sorta like saying the US government introduced the Communications Act of 1934 because they had predicted the internet and wanted to normalize the idea of wiretapping so there would be less friction to introducing mass surveillance 75 years later. The US government does do a lot of horrible things that violate the rights of its citizens, but they also really don't like organized crime and terrorism. Not everything is an explicit attack on privacy.