Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash • Hacker News Board

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#21

Post by dpkirchner » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:22 PM UTC

sam0x17 wrote: post #16

wil421 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should North Korea be allowed to steal and hack from other country’s people and organizations? It should be shut down immediately. I feel like your trying to say NK and Tornado should be able to do illegal activities that harm people. Just because you don’t like the police or something.

Your argument is akin to saying people shouldn't be allowed to drive cars because a car was used one time in a heist.

It's more akin to saying people shouldn't be able to provide banking services if they don't have sufficient KYC practices.

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#22

Post by dsr_ » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:23 PM UTC

jfim wrote: post #8

mikece wrote: post #3

Banning a service because it "might be used for illegal purposes" is insufficient. This is a problem with law enforcement in general: they are lazy and seek to have automated solutions to so much of what used to be called police work. This applies to warrant-less wiretaps, pulling information on people from 3rd party data brokers to side-step warrant and FOIA requirements, and more. I would rather money-launderers ge…

How much of it is used for legitimate reasons versus illicit ones? If the overwhelming majority of the transactions are illicit, it makes sense to ban it.

It makes even more sense to allow it, and regulate it.

The regulation should be the existing Know Your Customer requirements plus a 100% traceable log subject to inspection, auditing and subpoena.

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#23

Post by lampshades » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:23 PM UTC

yunohn wrote: post #19

ballenf wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what's the value of drugs trafficked over public highways? Or illegal activity coordinated over SMS? Using volume of illegal activity cannot be the primary factor in categorizing a platform.

You’re right, a crypto mixer primarily used to launder money or evade taxes is *exactly the same* as highways and SMS.

No post body was provided.

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#24

Post by JustLurking2022 » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:24 PM UTC

mikece wrote: post #3

Banning a service because it "might be used for illegal purposes" is insufficient. This is a problem with law enforcement in general: they are lazy and seek to have automated solutions to so much of what used to be called police work. This applies to warrant-less wiretaps, pulling information on people from 3rd party data brokers to side-step warrant and FOIA requirements, and more. I would rather money-launderers ge…

It's a service specifically designed to facilitate money laundering. It's a bit like running a business that produces paperwork to make stolen cars indistinguishable from legal ones - there's no reason such a service should be allowed to exist.

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#25

Post by toolz » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:24 PM UTC

jfim wrote: post #8

mikece wrote: post #3

Banning a service because it "might be used for illegal purposes" is insufficient. This is a problem with law enforcement in general: they are lazy and seek to have automated solutions to so much of what used to be called police work. This applies to warrant-less wiretaps, pulling information on people from 3rd party data brokers to side-step warrant and FOIA requirements, and more. I would rather money-launderers ge…

How much of it is used for legitimate reasons versus illicit ones? If the overwhelming majority of the transactions are illicit, it makes sense to ban it.

if central powers stop being lazy then nothing was illicit. No violence can be inflicted from trading digital currencies. It's lazy policing to try and control resources rather than stop the actual violence.

If someone owns a resource, no matter who they are, why shouldn't they be able to utilize it? If that resource was acquired with violent means such as human trafficking - then maybe our policing efforts should be to catch the perps trafficking humans, then they'll have everything they need to confiscate any and all resources those perps have.

This roundabout, lazy method of hurting innocent people in hopes that you only mostly hurt guilty people doesn't sit well with me and I don't think it's good for society to allow this kind of behavior.

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#26

Post by speedylight » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:25 PM UTC

mikece wrote: post #3

Banning a service because it "might be used for illegal purposes" is insufficient. This is a problem with law enforcement in general: they are lazy and seek to have automated solutions to so much of what used to be called police work. This applies to warrant-less wiretaps, pulling information on people from 3rd party data brokers to side-step warrant and FOIA requirements, and more. I would rather money-launderers ge…

You could also say that Silk Road was an E-commerce business that might’ve been used to sell drugs, who knows!

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#27

Post by programmarchy » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:26 PM UTC

If Tornado Cash could be banned, couldn't the same logic be used to ban Tor?

The former obscures financial transactions, and the latter obscures communications, but there's a similar principle in play.

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#28

Post by x86x87 » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:26 PM UTC

sam0x17 wrote: post #14

cguess wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was used for tumbling, to the tune of $450m by the North Koreans. It's not a theoretical situation.

If that's the cost of a freer internet that's fine with me. I don't care if it's $10t.

That's a very limited way of looking at things. You're fine with banning X and Y because you don't see them impacting you. When Z is banned and you care about Z you'll have a rude awakening.

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#29

Post by whatisweb3 » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:27 PM UTC

cguess wrote: post #4

mikece wrote: post #3

Banning a service because it "might be used for illegal purposes" is insufficient. This is a problem with law enforcement in general: they are lazy and seek to have automated solutions to so much of what used to be called police work. This applies to warrant-less wiretaps, pulling information on people from 3rd party data brokers to side-step warrant and FOIA requirements, and more. I would rather money-launderers ge…

It was used for tumbling, to the tune of $450m by the North Koreans. It's not a theoretical situation.

450m is a whopping 6% of all deposits on Tornado Cash[1]. The total percentage of illicit activity on the protocol is reported to be in the 10-30% range[2].

What percentage of activity in an E2EE chat application like Matrix is illicit? If a significant but minority percentage of its use is facilitating criminal discussion, should those open protocols also be sanctioned?

[1] https://dune.com/poma/tornado-cash_1

[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/08/code-speech-and-tornad...

Re: Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

#30

Post by devoutsalsa » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:28 PM UTC

JustLurking2022 wrote: post #24

mikece wrote: post #3

Banning a service because it "might be used for illegal purposes" is insufficient. This is a problem with law enforcement in general: they are lazy and seek to have automated solutions to so much of what used to be called police work. This applies to warrant-less wiretaps, pulling information on people from 3rd party data brokers to side-step warrant and FOIA requirements, and more. I would rather money-launderers ge…

It's a service specifically designed to facilitate money laundering. It's a bit like running a business that produces paperwork to make stolen cars indistinguishable from legal ones - there's no reason such a service should be allowed to exist.

So are casinos, banks, money exchanges, and hot dog stands. There are tons of reasons for wanting privacy that have nothing to do with money laundering. Avoiding kidnapping & ransom because someone can’t see the size of your crypto wallet for example.