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

The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

tftc.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 611 posts

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#311

Post by JumpCrisscross »

chaostheory wrote: post #302
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about! We curtail commercial speech relative to political speech to protect against fraud. Regulating financial activity is deeply precedented, especially in contexts where whether it's an individual person or group of people is ambiguated.

Observationist forgot to add a /s to the end of their comment

It wasn't missed. Dodging the slippery-slope surfers is practically table stakes for discussing surveillance.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#312

Post by hedora »

MASNeo wrote: post #152

If there would have been better policing of digital currency by its users against criminal actors, perhaps digital assets would be spared the attention and now regulation. Sadly, increasing adoption and privacy guarantees lure criminals same as legitimate users.

The US is being run by a convicted felon and is in the process of converting to a totalitarian state.

Any upcoming changes to privacy regulations are going to be to further that goal, not to crack down on crime.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#313

Post by gambiting »

shadowgovt wrote: post #222
komali2 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My big ask is, was it always this stupid? Like, all these huge historical events and figures, did it all go down as stupidly and clownishly as the modern USA? Was there an early 20th century fascist Europe equivalent to a man named Big Balls being beat up by children and a fascist police action being triggered as a result? Was there a Napeolonic era equivalent to a media figure known for making light of school shooti…

Details vary but from time-to-time, yes, things do go this wildly off the rails. You could argue that the entirety of Europe declaring war on itself over the death of one royal (and not even a reigning monarch; an heir-apparent) is such an example; tens of millions dead over something as transient as birthright rulership. Others that come to mind are much of the reign of Henry VIII (everyone knew he was dangerously p…

>>You could argue that the entirety of Europe declaring war on itself over the death of one royal (and not even a reigning monarch; an heir-apparent) is such an example

I mean that was just an excuse, in hindsight it's completely obvious that Europe was gearing up for war for years prior to the event. Just like now it seems completely possible that we might end up in a war or even civil war in some countries over a (seemingly) minor event - it's just going to be a spark that sets off the powder keg.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#314

Post by lvass »

stavros wrote: post #236
shaky-carrousel wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're incredibly lucky the 'just an acronym' ended that way then. Had they named it the 'Joining and Reinforcing the Nation by Satisfying Liberties and Guaranteeing Efficient Control Over Surveillance' we would have ended with the JRN SLGECOS Act.

Apparently I forgot to close my sarcasm tag.

Stuff is so Orwellian that it really looks like a joke for those who do not know what USA Freedom Act means.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#315

Post by TheGRS »

I have deep disagreements with my father on this subject. He worked as a federal agent for 30 years, mostly in digital forensics. He does not believe in the right to privacy in any of the same ways I do. Whereas I believe a right to privacy in your tools and communication is essential, he believes they infringe on the government's ability to catch criminals. Classic justification of "if you're not a bad guy, what do you have to hide?"

I just thought this was worth sharing, my dad was a tech guy (though not much of a programmer), the folks on HackerNews and related sites mostly have a privacy-first worldview. But not everyone shares this view, especially those who work in or around law enforcement. Civilians who believe in the right to privacy must stand their ground in the face of this.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#317

Post by yepitwas »

mrguyorama wrote: post #286
yepitwas wrote: post #257

War on Terror AUMF is still in force and is why the President can just decide to bomb whatever country they want without asking for permission, now. All that shit after 9/11 was crazy and dangerous, and some of us said that at the time, and go figure, the fucking obviously true things we were saying have turned out to be... true. What a surprise.

People who protested this horse shit were called unamerican for christs sake. Bush Jr said the literal words "you are either with us, or against us". The right went into utter hysterics about France not wanting to help our BS invasion. The right loves to say that violent rhetoric is the left's fault, while they wished us harm for not wanting to invade a random country in the middle east that wasn't even related to th…

> Meanwhile, all that horseshit with the TSA only ever enriched a couple people connected to the admin.

I'm pretty sure Homeland Security was only created because it was easier to steer a pile of brand-new contracts for a brand-new organization to the "right" places, than it would have been if they'd simply expanded the roles of existing parts of the government that were already supposed to be doing what Homeland was supposedly created for.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#318

Post by yujzgzc »

TheGRS wrote: post #315

I have deep disagreements with my father on this subject. He worked as a federal agent for 30 years, mostly in digital forensics. He does not believe in the right to privacy in any of the same ways I do. Whereas I believe a right to privacy in your tools and communication is essential, he believes they infringe on the government's ability to catch criminals. Classic justification of "if you're not a bad guy, what do…

Actually that's a problem for a lot of libertarian minded tech, it starts being thought of as enabling freedom from oppressive governments and ends up being adopted by criminals - Bitcoin, Tor, etc.

In the tech industry you also find a bend of very economically self interested version of privacy, which is that giving privacy to your users is a great way to claim you didn't know anything bad was happening. I'm pretty sure that, not high minded ideals, is why Meta invests so much in e2e encryption and privacy for WhatsApp, and publicizing it - when the next horrible thing is planned using Whatsapp, it lets them disclaim all responsibility for moderating what's happening on their platform

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#319

Post by HackerNewt-doms »

TheGRS wrote: post #315

I have deep disagreements with my father on this subject. He worked as a federal agent for 30 years, mostly in digital forensics. He does not believe in the right to privacy in any of the same ways I do. Whereas I believe a right to privacy in your tools and communication is essential, he believes they infringe on the government's ability to catch criminals. Classic justification of "if you're not a bad guy, what do…

"if you're not a bad guy, what do you have to hide?"

Your father is subject to a simple but pervasive error: Not every justification who is a good or a bad guy is ethical right in every aspect of life.

Re: The treasury is expanding the Patriot Act to attack Bitcoin self custody

#320

Post by [deleted] »

_9ptr wrote: post #205
shaky-carrousel wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're incredibly lucky the 'just an acronym' ended that way then. Had they named it the 'Joining and Reinforcing the Nation by Satisfying Liberties and Guaranteeing Efficient Control Over Surveillance' we would have ended with the JRN SLGECOS Act.

You can forget about liberties until you come up with a better acronym

[deleted]
Post reply on HN