[clippablematt]

Ah yes, arrest developers of open source privacy code and blame them for North Korea money laundering rather than going after the people actually committing crimes. Sounds about right.

Privacy is not a crime, it’s a human right! Sorry that it makes the polices job harder, but our rights are more important.

And didn’t we go through all this already in the 90s? Are we now gonna start arresting all cryptographers?

This is because they don’t like money that is independent from state control. They hate the idea of bitcoin and eth not being $ or €. The large majority of money laundering happens through banks, who just pay a fine and sweep it under the rug.

[clucas]

If the international law enforcement community is really trying to go after "all cryptographers" why do you think we haven't seen more arrests? Why do you think they only arrested this guy?

I get that you really want to defend crypto, but I think a simpler explanation is that they have good reasons to believe that this guy was doing more than just the stuff you're trying to defend (making privacy code).

It would be like... if two dozen people were picketing outside of a big corporation, and the police came and arrested one dude. You would be the guy saying "they're coming for the protesters!" and I'm the guy saying "Well, if they're really after protesters why didn't they arrest all of them? And isn't that the guy they were investigating for a bank robbery?"

Defending literally every crypto guy is short-sighted if you're a true proponent of the tech. It's possible that there are bad people involved in crypto, and you'll be a lot more credible as an advocate if you acknowledge that possibility and wait for the facts.

[dcolkitt]

> If the international law enforcement community is really trying to go after "all cryptographers" why do you think we haven't seen more arrests? Why do you think they only arrested this guy?

Because the standard playbook for "cracking down" is to first win cases against the least sympathetic, most prosecutable targets. Once that's under your belt, you gradually expand outwards to increasingly ordinary people. It's why slippery slope is such a big deal in civil liberties and constitutional law.

When drug prohibition started, they started by arresting kingpin gangstas not students with dime bags. As abortion laws restart, states won't begin by arresting anyone who's ever donated to Planned Parenthood. But if left unchecked, some will eventually get there.

[game-of-throws]

If that were true, it would be so easy for them to swing public opinion in their favor by saying so.

Headline: Arrest of developer with suspected ties to North Korean money laundering

Body: He has also previously contributed to Tornado Cash.

But all we know is what they decided to tell us... he's a developer of privacy tech. If the facts change, I'll change my mind.

[formerly_proven]

> It would be like... if two dozen people were picketing outside of a big corporation, and the police came and arrested one dude. You would be the guy saying "they're coming for the protesters!" and I'm the guy saying "Well, if they're really after protesters why didn't they arrest all of them? And isn't that the guy they were investigating for a bank robbery?"

Weird take because taking one or a few persons out of a large crowd is a standard LE tactic for attacking protests and similar stuff.

[peyton]

One fact is that it’s Dutch law enforcement, not international law enforcement. A second fact is that Dutch law enforcement have stated “multiple arrests are not ruled out,” so we’re not talking about “just one guy” anymore.

Finally, I’m not optimizing for credibility when stating my opinion, nor am I defending a single person. I do not think arresting developers is an effective solution for preventing money laundering. It matters not to me who the “bad people” may be.

[photochemsyn]

The 'compare and contrast' case is that of not a single HSBC employee or executive being arrested for helping the Sinaloa drug cartel launder over $2 billion in profits.

> "Across the world, HSBC likes to sell itself as ‘the world’s local bank,’ the friendly face of corporate and personal finance. And yet, a decade ago, the same bank was hit with a record U.S. fine of $1.9 billion for facilitating money laundering for ‘drug kingpins and rogue nations.’"

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/61349754-too-big-to-jail

[gfodor]

> think a simpler explanation is that they have good reasons to believe that this guy was doing more than just the stuff you're trying to defend

This isn't a simpler explanation than the even simpler one that goverments have decided that cracking down on crypto is a good idea for a wide variety of reasons, and are executing on this decision. The way governments do this kind of thing is by starting to prosecute people who they think they have the best chance of willing a case against. This doesn't mean the case, ultimately, has merit, just that they've decided it's the most likely success.

[kazinator]

> Why do you think they only arrested this guy?

Because he was working on something specialized, where he was in effect a supplier to a single customer. Thus, he's turned into a ready scapegoat.

You can't easily scapegoat someone if their pieces of code (or ideas) are also used, say, in every browser for securing connections, or whatever.

If you're closer than arm's length from some people who are engaging in criminal activity, an in particular doing exclusive work for them, you are prosecutable.

[bufferoverflow]

That's a straw man argument. They don't have to arrest all to scare most into doing what they want them to do.

[Kiro]

No hacker should support this. Period. Don't let your hate for crypto blind you.

[tgflynn]

It could be the first of many. Up until yesterday we lived in a world (by which I mean the Western World) where no one had ever been arrested just for writing open source code. It appears that this is no longer the case. This is how the Overton window gets moved, one step at a time, not in huge leaps. And clearly there are powerful forces interested in moving it in a direction that would likely be detrimental to many of us here.

[Sir_Liigmaz]

I work in AML/BSA, they want it under their control. Higher ups talk about how banks shouldn't necessarily cut off (derisk) customers they think are breaking the law because then they can't keep tabs on them.

Banks and financial institutions are happily privatizing Big Brother.

[sangnoir]

> Ah yes, arrest developers of open source privacy code and blame them for North Korea money laundering

I have questions: did money laundering happen on the platform? Did the developer financially benefit from the money laundering? If the answer to both is "yes", then it sounds like the developer could be in a world of trouble, which is not related to crypto.

If I build a picture-sharing board with no moderation, and I profit from illegal pictures being shared, I would be in trouble for facilitating crime, that doesn't go away because I implement the picture-sharing on a blockchain. Using crypto to implement any system doesn't make it kosher: as far as the law is concerned,a system is what it does, not how it does it.

[ABeeSea]

They were also asked to implement some basic money laundering preventions. They did nothing.

[biglearner1day]

And it is always under the guise of anti-money laundering, anti-terrorism or whatever other reason they can find to excuse their inexcusable actions. Take mass government surveillance for example.

[spaceman_2020]

HN in its current avatar would probably cheer on if the Patriot Act was enacted today.

Been on this site for a decade. Never seen it this filled with Big Gov and Big Tech apologists.

[seanw444]

Biggest one is probably "think of the children."

[threeseed]

> rather than going after the people actually committing crimes

Actually they go after the people committing the crime AND those facilitating it.

> Privacy is not a crime, it’s a human right

(a) Not a human right, (b) not enshrined in any country's law, (c) does not absolve illegal behaviour.

[RansomStark]

> Not a human right

The UN disagrees. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks". [0]

You can argue what the right to privacy means and the limitations of that freedom in respect of non-arbitrary interference are acceptable, but to claim privacy is not a human right is simply incorrect.

[0] https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

[dimensionc132]

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948, Article 12: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966, Article 1: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

[spaceman_2020]

Ah, the famed “Hacker” News users advocating for the Big State and against privacy.

[BobbyJo]

Privacy is very much enshrined in US law, it's the 4th amendment to our constitution.

[cjg]

https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/ri...

[biglearner1day]

> Actually they go after the people committing the crime AND those facilitating it.

But only if it is in their interest. We don't see other services and platforms sanctioned for facilitating illegal activity. Furthermore, the Data Protection Directive does give users the (human!) right to privacy, considering that crypto isn't a currency, it's merely your private data which is also protected by GDPR.

[kube-system]

The right to privacy ends at the moment that it is used as an excuse to evade the law. Every country recognizes warrants for this reason.

[eric_cc]

> The right to privacy ends at the moment that it is used as an excuse to evade the law.

With your logic we’d lose 100% of our privacy.

Privacy of your own home? You could setup a drug lab.

Privacy of your own phone/computer? Can run an illegal operation.

Privacy of your own USD cash? Could be used for illegal transactions.

The better question: what privacy is there that couldn’t theoretically be used to evade the law?

[dlubarov]

Encrypted communication protocols are also useful for evading the law; do you think they should also be banned and the developers arrested?

[WFHRenaissance]

> The right to privacy ends at the moment that it is used as an excuse to evade the law.

Sufficiently good use of sufficiently good privacy technology would make this judgement impossible. What happens then? Good luck not becoming a police state.

[duncan_idaho]

Fuck the law when civil asset forfeiture and qualified immunity exist.

[dimensionc132]

Except the Seychelles. There is a reason why dirty money and shell companies make the Seychelles their home as well as the wealthy elites mentioned in the Pandora Papers.

[gfodor]

That's not how universal rights work. You can say privacy is not a universal right. But if it is, governments have no say on if it ever "ends."

[dcolkitt]

You've obviously never heard of the Fifth Amendment. It's actually quite the opposite, the Constitution enhances your right to privacy (by refusing to talk about something) when doing so could be used to prosecute you for a crime.

[epolanski]

Financial privacy is not a human right.

Moreover the kind of financial privacy you think of is from other citizens to not know your financial movements, it doesn't apply to nation states for obvious tax reasons and money laundering purposes.

[akimball]

Financial privacy is definitely a right. The question is whether that right is respected by any given institution. Since it is against the interests of existing institutions to do so, they will not unless compelled by a greater force. Cryptography allows individuals to use the force of mathematical law, superior to all other law, to enforce their privacy rights .

(Tornado cash, like most mixers, leaves too many loopholes in its contract to be proof against a concerted attack in typical practical applications - they usually leak too much partial information.)

[highwaylights]

or the purposes of funding terrorism, narcotics, human trafficking, weapons, uranium, endangered wildlife and/or biohazardous material.

There's a point at which if you undermine law enforcement enough there's no point in continuing to try to enforce laws, which means there's no point in having laws at all. The hype mob either doesn't see this or doesn't care, which is incredibly naive either way.

[JohnHaugeland]

This isn't open source privacy code. Whether or not someone else does something bad with it isn't relevant.

Until you can face what it really is, you aren't going to come to terms with what's happening.

This is like making unlicensed guns that don't follow safety or tracking regulations, then complaining "but I'm not the burglar, I didn't kill anyone" when you get shut down.

This is and always has been the obvious explicit purpose of this code. This has nothing to do with "privacy" and you don't actually legally have the right to hide your financial transactions besides.

[zomglings]

What do you think the purpose of this code is?

There are people operating on blockchains in which transaction parameters are a matter of public record who: 1. May not want individual amounts and recipients to be publicly inspectable. 2. And are not criminals.

It may not be a right, but Tornado Cash is absolutely a tool to increase privacy. It is not solely for criminals to liquidate blockchain assets.

[sneed-oil]

> you don't actually legally have the right to hide your financial transactions besides

Maybe you don't, but that's what happens by default when using cash

[notch656a]

>This is like making unlicensed guns that don't follow safety or tracking regulations,

That is actually legal in the nation that was in the news for sanctioning Tornado Cash.

[naet]

I'm in favor of privacy, but if you're profiting off designing and operating a system that you know is being used to facilitate large amounts of criminal money laundering (some going to known foreign government agents), you're more or less asking to be arrested.

You can pose an argument that your service has some positive impact in certain cases, but you can't flat deny any negative impact or responsibility for consequences of your service. This is true of any and all services, whether they relate to privacy or not.

[a4isms]

In my jurisdiction, if I operate a pawn shop, I am required by law to record transactions, collect ID, and make good faith attempts to prevent people from laundering stolen goods through my shop.

Does "privacy is a human right" trump the law in my jurisdiction? Can we say it is improper for the government to require me to collect ID from people selling me goods? Can we say it is improper of the government to require me to keep records of who sold me what?

I take the proceeds from my pawn shop to the bank. They are required by law to collect my ID. If I deposit large amounts of cash, they have additional reporting requirements. Does "privacy is a human right" trump these laws that exist to prevent the laundering of criminal proceeds through banks?

I also have discomfort over how much data the government collects in the name of preventing the laundering of stolen goods and criminal proceeds.

But in the large, I accept that freedom is not an absolute, it is a set of careful tradeoffs between:

1. The freedom for citizens to do as they please without society limiting what we're allowed to do, versus; 2. The freedom for criminal cartels to do as they please, preying upon citizens.

The latter is important, because when criminals prey upon citizens, they reduce our freedom as well. I want the freedom to own nice things. The easier it is for criminals to steal and fence my things, the less freedom I actually have to enjoy them

I also want the freedom to run a business. When criminals can prey upon businesses with ransomware and launder the proceeds through TornadoCash, the less freedom I actually have.

A "Libertarian Paradise" where criminals are free to do as they please because we don't want to impinge upon any citizen's freedom whatsoever, is free in name only. We may not like all of the current set of tradeoffs, but we must accept that if we don't make some tradeoffs, we will not be free in any real sense.

[eric_cc]

> if I operate a pawn shop

Tornado Cash is not a company and nobody operates it. It is a privacy protocol.

Better to say “If I am a HTTPS”…

[puszczyk]

> This is because they don’t like money that is independent from state control.

Who is “they”?

[ABeeSea]

Helping criminals launder money is not a human right.

[spaceman_2020]

Guess that makes every government money printer complicit in money laundering, seeing how the majority of it happens through cash.

[biglearner1day]

I would challenge you to prove that they actively advertised their service as such. Stop spreading misinformation.

[antiverse]

>Are we now gonna start arresting all cryptographers?

There are more cryptogrifters than there are cryptographers.

[desindol]

Privacy is a human right? citation needed.

[implements]

(From Wikipedia) The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ensures that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

(Also) Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

It’s generally understood that without privacy people are effectively disenfranchised politically, because any expression of an contentious opinion or association with subversive or dissident thinkers becomes potentially so harmful that wise people would avoid both and keep almost entirely to themselves or family.

[josu]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

>Article 12

>No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

[eric_cc]

It certainly is an ideal if not a legally protected right. Before slaves were free, they could still say “freedom is a human right”.

[seanw444]

Privacy not being a human right is acceptable?