Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 526 posts

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#461

Post by rwiggum »

clucas wrote: post #394
moritonal wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it hypocritical to celebrate when platforms kick off the people we don't like, then mourn when they kick off the ones we do?

No it isn't. Here's an analogy: Is it hypocritical to say "we shouldn't punish people who sell marijuana," but also say "we should punish people who sell heroin?" Maybe you disagree with the person's preference for what should be punished, but saying "we should punish this behavior but not that behavior" doesn't make a person a hypocrite.

Free speech is free speech though. Either it's free or it's not free. You are arguing for "not free". I am not a fan of that ideology. This isn't shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. This is restricting access to speech (code) simply because the gov doesn't approve of what the code does.

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#462

Post by loktarogar »

tiahura wrote: post #458
akiselev wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actual prison time wasn't on the table until the federal prosecutors took over and tried to make an example of him [1]. Until then, everyone expected a slap on the wrist. I remember those events clearly and even JSTOR, the "victim" in the case, backpedaled on the prosecution before he committed suicide. He was driven to suicide by an overzealous federal prosecutor trying to make a career for themselves. [1] https://w…

He made the choice. No one else. Or, if you blame the prosecutor for driving him, do you also blame his friends and family for not being supportive enough?

No-one exists in a vacuum.

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#463

Post by Beltalowda »

dogman144 wrote: post #330
Bedon292 wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its important to make a distinction between GitHub attempting to ensure they are in legal compliance with a sanction and approving of the sanction happening at all. You can disagree with the sanction while still being understanding of GitHub trying to cut ties with the sanctioned entity. Or be critical of them being heavy handed in their compliance but agree with the sanction in general.

You’d be on the “be reasonable” side of this I suppose. Plenty of organizations in the past have chosen what side of this conceptual line to stand on. One can end up looking like the EFF with a long term, very strong reputation of standing up for clear boundaries of what’s right in the legal code context and go to court over it, or you can end up looking like GitHub.

> One can end up looking like the EFF with a long term, very strong reputation of standing up for clear boundaries of what’s right in the legalcode context and go to court over it, or you can end up looking like GitHub.

There's a massive difference between "nope, I won't comply with the law" and "I think this law is a bad idea, let's go to the courts to see if we can do something about it". And GitHub has done the last, too, to restore access to Iranian developers for example.

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#464

Post by DoctorOW »

rwiggum wrote: post #461
clucas wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn't. Here's an analogy: Is it hypocritical to say "we shouldn't punish people who sell marijuana," but also say "we should punish people who sell heroin?" Maybe you disagree with the person's preference for what should be punished, but saying "we should punish this behavior but not that behavior" doesn't make a person a hypocrite.

Free speech is free speech though. Either it's free or it's not free. You are arguing for "not free". I am not a fan of that ideology. This isn't shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. This is restricting access to speech (code) simply because the gov doesn't approve of what the code does.

> when platforms kick off the people we don't like

Is not a comment on free speech or not. There are rumors of government sanctions for this specific case, but the typical deplatforming is more like getting kicked out by the bouncer.

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#465

Post by Beltalowda »

jdpedrie wrote: post #124
forgotpwd16 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>2. Motivate people contribute to it, see DigitalOcean hacktoberfest. Can skip this step. Just make fake commits ( https://github.com/asizikov/gang/graphs/contributors ).

Always sign your commits! gpg is a pain but once you set it up you never have to think about it again.

You can use ssh keys to sign commits too, since git version some-time-last-year. GitHub should have support for it sometime this month (not that this is required to verify signatures).

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#466

Post by throwawaylinux »

ensignavenger wrote: post #417
salawat wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not an act of ex-post facto lawmaking by a legislature. This is the executive doing what it has been tasked with doing under a mandate supplied by Congress in accordance with it's role as laid out by the Constitution. The Courts are not likely to be swayed by this argument. I doubt the legislature will touch anything that enables money laundering with a 12 foot pole. The novelty here is that prople are being…

I was not making an argument in front of courts, I was stating why many Americans may find this action distasteful. As far as I can tell, the executive branch was not mandated to delete anyone who contribted to/was a "member" of the github tornado dev group.

Lots of things that some find distasteful are accepted though. Recently, along a similar vein, the whole "they're private companies, they can censor who they like" crowd made that clear. Hopefully none of them will be surprised or upset by this action.

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#467

Post by Bedon292 »

meltyness wrote: post #432
Bedon292 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the software is performing actions that are illegal, such as money laundering, for an entity that is a threat to national security, that is no longer covered by free speech. Right? Having or writing the code may be covered by free speech but actually using it to do something is not the same thing. I don't believe that EO is related to this case. These are OFAC sanctions against the entity Tornado Cash and its rela…

The EO is the authority which Treasury is invoking, stated explicitly in the Treasury release. To rephrase, since Ethereum network, which is an person in the context of the EO, facilitates Tornado Cash's contract, it is "complicit" with the activities as well.

I seem to have gotten the EOs mixed up and thought they were different. You are correct.

EO 13694 was amended by EO 13757. [1] And section 1.a.ii reads: "any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, to be responsible for or complicit in..." and 1.a.iii has similar wording.

It requires the Treasury and Attorney General to make a determination on the entities being sanctioned. It does not expand the sanctions beyond the entities that are named. So as it stands I can't see how it would require shutting down the ETH network. Sanctioning a sub group does not mean the sanction applies to the parent group. The sanction means US entities cannot interact with the named entities and nothing more. It does not apply to any parent groups and it does not mean other non US entities cannot interact with it. And I don't think the ETH network would count as a US entity.

If the argument is that they could further sanction the entire ETH network, then I suppose they could do that. But that isn't what this sanction does.

[1] https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/126/E.O.%2013694%2C%2...

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#468

Post by Bedon292 »

tremon wrote: post #351
Bedon292 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the software is performing actions that are illegal, such as money laundering, for an entity that is a threat to national security, that is no longer covered by free speech. Right? Having or writing the code may be covered by free speech but actually using it to do something is not the same thing. I don't believe that EO is related to this case. These are OFAC sanctions against the entity Tornado Cash and its rela…

If the software is performing actions that are illegal But no software is performing any action; A system running said software could, but the software by itself cannot. And regarding a system performing actions: didn't the USPTO similarly declare that an AI (=software system) can never be qualified as an inventor, because it has no agency?

A bit of an over simplification on my part. The comment I responded to said "the target here is a software package, essentially speech" I was trying to point out that the speech part of the software wasn't the target. The facilitation of illegal actions was. Having or writing code is one thing but actually using it to do something illegal is different.

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#469

Post by dingleberry420 »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #353
dogman144 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d be on the “be reasonable” side of this I suppose. Plenty of organizations in the past have chosen what side of this conceptual line to stand on. One can end up looking like the EFF with a long term, very strong reputation of standing up for clear boundaries of what’s right in the legal code context and go to court over it, or you can end up looking like GitHub.

EFF doesn't have >$100Bn of profits per year. When you're a donation based non-profit, it's easy to "stand up for clear boundaries". In fact, it's literally your purpose. When you've got >$100Bn of profits on the line, it's a little harder - and you have a different purpose (i.e. to make money).

So you're saying that microsoft has more money to work with? Everything I know about the legal system shows that the more money you have, the easier it is to get your way.

Re: GitHub deleted accounts of people who contributed to Tornado Cash repos

#470

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

dingleberry420 wrote: post #469
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EFF doesn't have >$100Bn of profits per year. When you're a donation based non-profit, it's easy to "stand up for clear boundaries". In fact, it's literally your purpose. When you've got >$100Bn of profits on the line, it's a little harder - and you have a different purpose (i.e. to make money).

So you're saying that microsoft has more money to work with? Everything I know about the legal system shows that the more money you have, the easier it is to get your way.

Their way is to make money - not to fight for political issues.
Post reply on HN