4 ms·

I don't understand what you mean, can you explain?

inigyou 3mo ago
Let's say I invented a genius way to use cryptography to send anonymous payments, I'd go to jail for doing that (Tornado Cash). Let's say I made a secure messenger, I'd go to jail for that (Telegram, EncroChat, SkyECC) or narrowly avoid jail (Session) or be forced to add a backdoor (Anom). Let's say I made an operating system that didn't spy on you, I'd be threatened with jail for that (GrapheneOS). And of course there are more things, for which there will be more consequences (mostly jail) but for things that haven't been done yet there are obviously no examples offhand. Basically everything that fits outside of existing patterns is illegal one way or another. Only people who are naïve to these consequences will ever be motivated to make these things.
- filoleg 3mo ago
  > Let's say I invented a genius way to use cryptography to send anonymous payments, I'd go to jail for doing that (Tornado Cash) This is just a disingenuous take. Tornado Cash founder didn't get criminally convicted for "a genius way go use cryptography to send anonymous payments." He got convicted for operating a money-laundering service. The fact that his service utilized "a genius way to use cryptography to send anonymous payments" is entirely orthogonal to the actual crime he got in trouble for. He would have gotten convicted just the same regardless of the cryptography usage, because the actual crime here was operating a money-laundering service.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    Yeah, like I said, a genius way to use cryptography to send anonymous payments. The cops call that money laundering. That isn't an orthogonal crime, it's a different name for the exact same thing.
    - filoleg 3mo ago
      Sure, and "manufacturing novel types of explosive devices, with evidence of them having been used in destructive acts of terror" is just a different name used by cops for "innovative applied chemistry". The criminal law must be truly just hating on the innovators in sciences.
      - inigyou 3mo ago
        What you said is actually a name for "innovative applied chemistry, and then blowing up parliament with it". If I invented a new type of explosive and didn't blow up parliament, but the cops somehow found out, I'd go to jail. Edit: correction, you didn't even say I was the one who blew things up. You just said someone blew up things with my new explosives. Which is exactly what I'm talking about. If guns weren't already old technology, the government would hold Mr Smith & Mr Wesson accountable for every gun death.
- xpct 3mo ago
  Please don't frame these as technological crimes, nobody has yet been prosecuted for that specifically.
  - inigyou 3mo ago
    What do you think the Tornado Cash people were prosecuted for if not offering technology?
    - red-iron-pine 3mo ago
      they were money laundering for the N Koreans not just "offering technology"
- pibaker 3mo ago
  Telegram and Session are never secure by any means. Honestly I'd consider both of them to be intelligence and law enforcement honeypots given how aggressively they marketed themselves as the "secure" option and how little they actually deliver. I would trust WhatsApp before I trust telegram.
- drcongo 3mo ago
  "Here's a list of things that have got some people in trouble, and therefore everything is illegal." Where's your list of things that nobody got in trouble for? Presumably you didn't include that because a trillion things happen every day without anyone getting arrested for them. Amazing. It turns out that not everything is illegal.

Let's say I invented a genius way to use cryptography to send anonymous payments, I'd go to jail for doing that (Tornado Cash). Let's say I made a secure messenger, I'd go to jail for that (Telegram, EncroChat, SkyECC) or narrowly avoid jail (Session) or be forced to add a backdoor (Anom). Let's say I made an operating system that didn't spy on you, I'd be threatened with jail for that (GrapheneOS). And of course there are more things, for which there will be more consequences (mostly jail) but for things that haven't been done yet there are obviously no examples offhand. Basically everything that fits outside of existing patterns is illegal one way or another. Only people who are naïve to these consequences will ever be motivated to make these things.

filoleg 3mo ago
> Let's say I invented a genius way to use cryptography to send anonymous payments, I'd go to jail for doing that (Tornado Cash) This is just a disingenuous take. Tornado Cash founder didn't get criminally convicted for "a genius way go use cryptography to send anonymous payments." He got convicted for operating a money-laundering service. The fact that his service utilized "a genius way to use cryptography to send anonymous payments" is entirely orthogonal to the actual crime he got in trouble for. He would have gotten convicted just the same regardless of the cryptography usage, because the actual crime here was operating a money-laundering service.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  Yeah, like I said, a genius way to use cryptography to send anonymous payments. The cops call that money laundering. That isn't an orthogonal crime, it's a different name for the exact same thing.
  - filoleg 3mo ago
    Sure, and "manufacturing novel types of explosive devices, with evidence of them having been used in destructive acts of terror" is just a different name used by cops for "innovative applied chemistry". The criminal law must be truly just hating on the innovators in sciences.
    - inigyou 3mo ago
      What you said is actually a name for "innovative applied chemistry, and then blowing up parliament with it". If I invented a new type of explosive and didn't blow up parliament, but the cops somehow found out, I'd go to jail. Edit: correction, you didn't even say I was the one who blew things up. You just said someone blew up things with my new explosives. Which is exactly what I'm talking about. If guns weren't already old technology, the government would hold Mr Smith & Mr Wesson accountable for every gun death.
xpct 3mo ago
Please don't frame these as technological crimes, nobody has yet been prosecuted for that specifically.
- inigyou 3mo ago
  What do you think the Tornado Cash people were prosecuted for if not offering technology?
  - red-iron-pine 3mo ago
    they were money laundering for the N Koreans not just "offering technology"
pibaker 3mo ago
Telegram and Session are never secure by any means. Honestly I'd consider both of them to be intelligence and law enforcement honeypots given how aggressively they marketed themselves as the "secure" option and how little they actually deliver. I would trust WhatsApp before I trust telegram.
drcongo 3mo ago
"Here's a list of things that have got some people in trouble, and therefore everything is illegal." Where's your list of things that nobody got in trouble for? Presumably you didn't include that because a trillion things happen every day without anyone getting arrested for them. Amazing. It turns out that not everything is illegal.