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

Investors sue Treasury Department for blacklisting crypto platform Tornado Cash

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 544 posts

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

#31

Post by angrycontrarian »

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.

People should have a right to privacy. That includes financial privacy.

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

#32

Post by Forrest7778 »

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 not a black and white issue; things aren't getting banned because they might be used for illegal purposes, that is even explicitly stated in the article.

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

#33

Post by x86x87 »

yunohn wrote: post #20
mikece wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very fact (or assumed fact) that we know North Korea is using this undercuts the argument that we need to shut this down because it allows for anonymous money laundering. (By definition: the only way money laundering can be "dangerous" is if it cannot be detected or the players identified.)

No, in this, the authorities had the time/money to track down the hackers. The vast majority of tornado transactions are mostly illegal, but nobody cares enough to spend their efforts on them.

What a world we are living in. Mostly illegal. Huh.

Do you have any data to back this claim? Also, should banks be banned if their customers are doind shady things outside of using their services?

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

#34

Post by kibwen »

programmarchy wrote: post #27

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.

The US military itself uses Tor. They don't want to ban it, because even if the traffic on Tor is illicit, it still serves to mask the military's own traffic. Don't forget that Tor was originally developed by the US Navy.

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

#35

Post by realce »

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.

Then produce distinct legislation that bans the specific practices used, otherwise it's just giving preference to currently entrenched forms of money laundering.

It's not illegal whatsoever to mix up my dollar bills with a group of other people and get the same amount out that I put in. Such a statement is ridiculous.

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

#36

Post by houstonn »

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.

It's a service specifically designed for privacy. A human right.

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

#37

Post by Closi »

lampshades wrote: post #23
yunohn wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Quoted post unavailable.

Let's imagine for a second that I owned a physical bricks-and-mortar business with a shopfront that took physical cash (USD banknotes), then mixed it up in a big laundry machine with banknotes from other customers, and then I give you back some other banknotes which are totally random (less a fee).

Let's also say I don't do any Know Your Customer checks (KYC).

Do you think that should be legal (like highways and SMS) or illegal (like money laundering)?

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

#38

Post by woodruffw »

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…

"Might be used for illegal purposes" is a significant understatement. The chief selling point of Tornado Cash is money laundering, which is in and of itself a crime in both the US and Netherlands.

Normally, there'd be an aspect of plausible deniability: torrent index operators can, for example, rightfully claim that they're facilitating legal filesharing, or that they're entirely agnostic to the content being shared (if all they're doing is sharing URLs). What's key in this case is that law enforcement claims that Pertsev was aware of the crimes his service was being used for. Whether or not that's actually true is up to a court to decide.

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

#39

Post by zeusk »

devoutsalsa wrote: post #30
JustLurking2022 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're really saying; banks, money exchanges and hot dog stands have no other utility other than to "wash" money?

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

#40

Post by peyton »

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.

Can’t law enforcement use search warrants in their own jurisdiction?
Post reply on HN