Live data from Hacker News

EFF to FinCEN: Stop Pushing for More Financial Surveillance

eff.org

121–130 of 132 posts

Re: EFF to FinCEN: Stop Pushing for More Financial Surveillance

#121
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it a bad thing? Maybe taxes shouldn't be a thing, or should be low enough that it's easier to pay them than to dodge them? One of my problems with taxes is that it's essentially a free, automatically-replenishing pool of money for stupid politicians/government officials to spend recklessly (often prioritizing short-term wins that give them the most political clout) without the "pressure" a typical business in a co…

Very few low-tax countries are pleasant to live in for the average human being. Clamors for low tax are inevitably made by millionaires or misguided people that believe they might one day be millionaires. Taxes exist for a good reason and have a demonstrable positive effect on the societies where they are levied. Trust in politicians doesn't factor into that, as taxes are generally spent by government officials.

Low government spending as a percentage of GDP is strongly correlated with higher rates of economic growth [1], which is a strong indication of a well-functioning society.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/upl...

Re: EFF to FinCEN: Stop Pushing for More Financial Surveillance

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they have to clamp down on financial privacy because they invented financial crimes the federal crime of "money laundering" requires the state to use public resources in whitelisting every transaction, and having the entire population stigmatize the concept of ever having money themselves let alone actually moving it and that 50 year old absurdity is pretty much what they are doubling down on

If you’ve seen the real harm that caused in the world by money laundering, you would be less inclined to condemn its prevention. I’ve personally seen cases of money laundering where the money comes from sexual exploitation, human trafficking, modern day slavery, organ trafficking, high value thefts (petrol, or digits bank robberies), standard social engineering scams etc These aren’t special one of events, this happe…

Giving government agents the ability to conduct warrantless dragnet surveillance on the population's private financial transactions is extremely dangerous, even if it is a tool government officials can use to combant malevolent criminal behavior.

This type of mass-surveillance concentrates power in the hands of the few, and gravely endangers both private property rights and political freedoms.

No one should have this power in a free society. Not you, not me, not the most trustworthy individual in society. And with all due respect to the countless men and women who honorably carry out their duty in law enforcement agencies, we don't even have law enforcement agencies with unblemished reputations, to be giving awesome illiberal powers to.

In the Silk Road case, two agents, from two different agencies, conspired to steal BTC, and they only got caught because of the mistakes they made due to the novelty of the financial technology. It's any one's guess how much corruption goes undetected.

Giving mass-surveillance powers to a select subsection of society is just asking for massive corruption and abuse.

Mass-surveillance makes government in general too powerful even ignoring employee-level corruption by those who administer the surveillance programs.

The government should not have so much information on the populace that it could enforce any conceivable law. There should be widespread use of privacy-enhancing technologies, like end-to-end encrypted communication, cash and cryptocurrency, so that some laws are hard to enforce, and the government's ability to micromanage people's lives is inherently limited. Absent that, dystopia is only one bad election away. Non-political checks on government powers, like widespread use of cash and its electronic corollaries, are an important institution of a free society, as a failsafe in case of a failure of the political system.

Re: EFF to FinCEN: Stop Pushing for More Financial Surveillance

#123
post #88
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sexual exploitation, human trafficking, modern day slavery, organ trafficking, high value thefts (petrol, or digits bank robberies), standard social engineering scams etc That kind of logic can be used to justify putting government cameras and microphones inside everyone's homes too.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that going to the very opposite extreme is the right response. Nobody is itching to emigrate to Somalia.

Having laws requiring the state to get a warrant from a court to conduct a search, is not an extreme. Instituting warrantless mass-surveillance, like monitoring every transaction above a certain size, is the extreme.

Re: EFF to FinCEN: Stop Pushing for More Financial Surveillance

#124
post #32
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With cryptocurrency you can travel across a border with a million $ worth, by just keeping a 12-word recovery phrase on you. Cryptocurrencies can never be stopped, and will more likely outlive governments than vice versa. Long live tax evasion! Vive la liberté!

The problem isn't tax evasion per-se, but rather logic inconsistencies. For example, I've met quite a bit of people that don't want to pay any taxes. Yet they all want for them and their goods to be able to use roads for free, roads that are built and maintained with taxes. That's actually ok: two incompatible goals just means you have to make a trade-off; welcome to engineering. The problem is that none of them unde…

I’d absolutely pay the subscription for roads, conflict resolution insurance (Justice as a Service), health insurance (deregulated unlike in USA), etc. I never asked for government to violently enforce monopolies in these markets where I live.

Re: EFF to FinCEN: Stop Pushing for More Financial Surveillance

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can spend a decade developing a provably-anonymous cryptocurrency (which we have indeed now done) Looks like I've been out of the loop. Which cryptocurrency are you referring to?

Monero (XMR) is the most notable example, but there are other coins that implement the same technology of truly anonymous and untraceable transactions. FinCEN will not change their course. From their perspective, they would rather try to kill or stifle all cryptos than allow illegal activity to be done within that market without an ability to seize assets or trace funds. Right now they have total control over traditi…

> enforce things like OFAC and sanctions.

This all the way. Not being able to just reach into your financial affairs would be seen as a huge affront. This is similar to how law enforcement believes encryption is a major impediment to building a case.

Years ago, at a time when money was tight, a bank transfer to my landlord for rent disappeared. OFAC seized the funds. The best reason I can come up with is that my landlord has a Muslim-sounding name (I don't actually know his nationality or religion).

It took many calls to my bank to learn this information. The whole thing was shrouded in messaging that it was delayed and would post "tomorrow," day after day. Finally, someone at a branch had some compassion and spent some time figuring it out.

I received a case number or incident number and was told that I could contest the seizure. A family member helped me cover the rent. I sent a form contesting the seizure and switched to depositing post office money orders into my landlord's local branch, which was a huge inconvenience.

Eventually, I received a letter from OFAC stating some excuse that I can't even remember why my case was moot. This was after maybe six months. I gave up.

It wasn't worth it, to me, to fight the government bureaucracy that I knew would be involved. Sorta like paying a traffic ticket that you know you could beat in court because it's easier than going to court. They can basically do whatever and get away with it by making things a pain in the ass to fight.

Re: EFF to FinCEN: Stop Pushing for More Financial Surveillance

#126
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if all >1000€ transactions need to be reported, that means that they need to be recorded in an electronic system. That data is recorded for the purpose of sharing with various institutions and agencies, and you do not know who will see that data or how long it will be shared for. There is basically no privacy for transactions above 1000€. Worse, that data can be hacked and leaked to the internet. Eg. Criminals wil…

> you do not know who will see that data or how long it will be shared for. Of course I know, these things are regulated separately. Sure, my bank could share it illegally but they could already have done that even without mandatory recording. > Worse, that data can be hacked and leaked to the internet. As could my fiscal declaration, my bank statement or all records of my transactions with any sellers. I personally…

You're either naive or ignorant.

You're personally fine, until your transactions are posted to the internet along with the address to where you live. Period.

As for the regulation, things like the recent GDPR helped a little - if you are an EU citizen, you can now legally request them to provide a list of the time someone accessed your details. I recently did that with a financial provider and had a very unpleasant experience when I found out who they share the data with - basically companies and institutions I've never heard of, like credit score providers & other financial information data mining companies.

Re: EFF to FinCEN: Stop Pushing for More Financial Surveillance

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if all >1000€ transactions need to be reported, that means that they need to be recorded in an electronic system. That data is recorded for the purpose of sharing with various institutions and agencies, and you do not know who will see that data or how long it will be shared for. There is basically no privacy for transactions above 1000€. Worse, that data can be hacked and leaked to the internet. Eg. Criminals wil…

It's similar where I live, but with a lower limit... Most transactions over US$100 are required to be linked to your ID number.

That's basically financial oppression.

Re: EFF to FinCEN: Stop Pushing for More Financial Surveillance

#128
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you should be travelling with the 24 word recovery phrase. That one should be encrypted, backed up, and stored in a safe place

Brain Wallet? You could easily memorize the 24 words.

If so, don't use anything from literature or too easy to remember, see https://www.coindesk.com/brainwallet-bitcoin-wallet-shouldnt...

I guess for the purpose of travel, and you really need to, you can always use symmetric encryption to encrypt your seeds with a strong passphrase, then travel with that.

Re: EFF to FinCEN: Stop Pushing for More Financial Surveillance

#129
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I don’t get. Great, you can transfer Bitcoin to anyone for cheap, anywhere in the world. But that Bitcoin is useless to you or whoever you give it to unless it’s converted to currency. That’s where the gov’t puts it’s grip. Move as much Bitcoin wherever you want. Who cares. Want to convert to dollars or Euros or Yen? That’s where the gov’t steps in and say fine - prove who you are for this transaction. W…

It doesn't need to be convertible to cash to have economic value. As long as people are willing to trade bitcoins for other goods, they have value. So even if it could never be converted to another currency, that wouldn't necessarily mean it's useless.

Are you sure? At some point someone along the line needs to convert it to currency. The only time that wouldn’t be true is if there was a big enough marketplace that anything you might ever want can be purchased in Bitcoin. Otherwise you’d need some way to convert to currency to access other goods and services.

Re: EFF to FinCEN: Stop Pushing for More Financial Surveillance

#130
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I don’t get. Great, you can transfer Bitcoin to anyone for cheap, anywhere in the world. But that Bitcoin is useless to you or whoever you give it to unless it’s converted to currency. That’s where the gov’t puts it’s grip. Move as much Bitcoin wherever you want. Who cares. Want to convert to dollars or Euros or Yen? That’s where the gov’t steps in and say fine - prove who you are for this transaction. W…

Just wrap your Bitcoin into renBTC on Ethereum, and exchange it for DAI stablecoin. Then, deposit it into a zero knowledge mixer contract called tornado.cash and withdraw to a fresh address. Now you've broken the link. An entirely decentralized process of converting BTC into a stablecoin without an intermediary while maintaining some privacy.

Right, so how do I convert stable coin to cash to pay my rent?

I’d need to go through a registered money exchange and the gov’t will have a record of my name and the cash I received in the exchange. If it’s enough cash they will ask about the source of funds.

Post reply on HN