51–60 of 526 posts
But this is definitely a bit of a stretch to go after the creator(s) in this way. Reminds me of the US Gov trying to ban/limit all encryption. Didn't seem okay then and this doesn't seem okay now.
This probably protects those users. Contributing to the project at this point opens one up to the international reach of U.S. law enforcement.
You are going to open a huge can of worms if you are going to start prosecuting people for software pull requests. Are we going to prosecute people who manufacture phosphor bombs for the US military as well now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry to disappoint but money laundering is very much a real, federal offense. (most other jurisdictions have equivalent laws) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_Laundering_Control_Act
The point that went right over the head of you and the head of the other authoritarian that he is responding to is that there is no victim, not even a risk of a victim or any other bad "externality" (to use a word I know you people love) to money laundering just as a standalone act. The crime is defined in statute as a matter of convenience for the state because having privacy regarding where money comes from/goes ma…
That said, when I hear "money laundering", I exclusively interpret this as the act of whitewashing money aquired by illegal means (e.g. drug sales, extortion, fencing stolen goods etc.) in order to make it appear legitimate. In that regard, there is nothing that is not bad about money laundering (IMHO).
Of course you could argue that it should be possible to hide the source of your money or even the money itself from the government, but as a consequence, you would have to accept that at the very least, your country would have no longer any means to fight crime.
I get that contributing to the repos would be a violation of the sanctions, but it's not clear to me when the project was sanctioned and whether all the contributors were aware that they were contributing to a sanctioned project. Would it have been enough for GitHub just to remove the projects?
I ask as someone who has a lot of developer friends from Cuba who run into problems with accounts on platforms being deleted all the time. IIRC there was an episode awhile ago when accounts were being deleted simply for logging in from Cuba.
It seems like the legal obligation would be to block logins from Cuba (and/or Cuban people), but deletion of accounts seems more like a CYA move than a strict obligation.
People on Twitter are either wilfully dumb or simply ignorant. GitHub had to do this. It was required of them by law. Tornado was sanctioned . > These prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person. This is, unambiguously, di…
I have no sympathy for crypto whatever and I really don't care about who sanctioned whom and for what reason, but... Sanctioned project's contributors must be deleted from the server - where is that written in the list of things Microsoft has to do since you went out of your way calling everyone on the reply train ignorant?
This is quite simply not how a sanctions regime works. The US government does not make a list of all the sanctioned persons’ assets, then start going after those in court.
Instead, it goes the other way: any company with a US nexus watches those sanction lists carefully. When someone is listed they look at their internal records for hits and denies them service. So no one told Microsoft anything; they self-enforced a sanction that applies to everyone in the US. And I mean everyone: if an individual knowingly violates these sanctions they’re breaking federal law - it’s not just companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no sympathy for crypto whatever and I really don't care about who sanctioned whom and for what reason, but... Sanctioned project's contributors must be deleted from the server - where is that written in the list of things Microsoft has to do since you went out of your way calling everyone on the reply train ignorant?
It's written in the definition of the sanction given by the Department of the Treasury [0], i.e. at the level of US federal law, of which Microsoft must follow as a US company. > Sanctions Implications > These prohibitions include the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any blocked person and the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point that went right over the head of you and the head of the other authoritarian that he is responding to is that there is no victim, not even a risk of a victim or any other bad "externality" (to use a word I know you people love) to money laundering just as a standalone act. The crime is defined in statute as a matter of convenience for the state because having privacy regarding where money comes from/goes ma…
IANAL, not a US citizen and I have no intention to dig into how the US defines money laundering. That said, when I hear "money laundering", I exclusively interpret this as the act of whitewashing money aquired by illegal means (e.g. drug sales, extortion, fencing stolen goods etc.) in order to make it appear legitimate. In that regard, there is nothing that is not bad about money laundering (IMHO). Of course you coul…
Conflating having one less specific statute to prosecute people for violating with "no longer having any means to fight crime" brings to mind a famous Churchill quote about the electorate.
It's ironic, Tornado cash is something closer to the true spirit of "crypto" currency. guess only rich insiders are allowed to launder money.