6 ms·

It is baffling how lawmakers who have so little understanding of the technology write these things into law. Software should be protected with the same rights

by mule1 5y ago

It is baffling how lawmakers who have so little understanding of the technology write these things into law. Software should be protected with the same rights we have with speech. If the Wyden/Toomey/Loomis amendment doesn't pass today this will effectively censor and control the code that an American software dev would have to write to comply with proper reporting. This bill, if passed, should be taken to the courts.

glenvdb 5y ago
> It is baffling how lawmakers who have so little understanding of the technology write these things into law. And this happens constantly, on all types of things, not just technology.
pavlov 5y ago
> ”Software should be protected with the same rights we have with speech.” And also regulated the same way as anything else. If you’re operating as an unlicensed money transmitter, you can’t pretend that it’s legit because your ledgers are printed and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Same applies to “but it’s just code”.
- Taek 5y ago
  Agreed, but the current clause in the infrastructure bill is not about regulating unlicensed money transmitters, the wording of the bill is extremely broad and covers everyone who writes any type of software that handles digital assets, whether or not the author of that code is operating anything. It's basically saying "if you've made a pull request to the bitcoin-core codebase, even just as a bugfix, you may be responsible for providing KYC'd information on all users of Bitcoin and on all Bitcoin transactions, regardless of where they happen or what your relationship to those people is". Which is why the entire crypto ecosystem is up in arms. This bill is an extreme over-reach and would threaten the viability of essentially all crypto startups in the entire US.
  - speeder 5y ago
    The bill is also about "digital assets" and previously even in-game currency has been ruled as such (for example World of Warcraft gold, Second Life currency to buy land, etc...). It also may apply to other non-crypto digital money, although that might be the point of the bill, since it would allow the US more easily to chase anyone evading its sanctions (for example: China is creating digital currency, Iran has some ideas too, they could use this to ignore SWIFT and thus ignore sanctions, this bill would allow US to sanction that thing too)
- brotherofsteel 5y ago
  Why should the transmission of money require a license?
  - otterley 5y ago
    Because money laundering.
    - brotherofsteel 5y ago
      What about it?
      - otterley 5y ago
        See, e.g., https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R46486.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R46486.pdf and https://www.goodwinlaw.com/~/media/Files/Publications/Attorney%20Articles/2003/Risky_Business_State_Regulation_of_Money_Transmitters.ashx https://www.goodwinlaw.com/~/media/Files/Publications/Attorn... Money transfer fraud also goes all the way back to "steamship agents" in the early 20th century. See, e.g., https://digital.library.temple.edu/digital/collection/p16002coll31/id/1985/rec/1 https://digital.library.temple.edu/digital/collection/p16002...
IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
It’s baffling how people here continue to insist that anybody disagreeing with them must be stupid. More specifically: > this will effectively censor and control the code that an American software dev would have to write to comply with proper reporting The idea that software today isn’t already, and has been from the times when bugs were actual insects, been the subject of (or had to account for) regulation is simply absurd. As just the most obvious example, the financial sector is heavily regulated, and that includes the software, from KYC rules similar to those now proposed for cryptocurrencies, to endless requirements for documentation and archival or the exact prescription of the algorithm to be used to settle transactions. The software in your car, plane, phone, or nuclear plant is required to follow a few dozen regulations, ISO standards, and best practice standards elevated to requirements. Every website accepting payments must implement some minimum of consumer and data protection. Your emails should respect the Oxford Dictionary and The New York Times Manual of Style, and the ADA may or may not include some requirements, although I’m not sure how binding they are. What’s happening here is the collision of reality with two fundamental misunderstandings in the crypto community: first, they considered themselves valiant warriors challenging the FED/$/governments, certain to be immediately targeted by “the establishment” trying to defend its mighty power. Then, they expected to win that fight with superior technology. Or, as seems to be happening here, the idea that “it’s online” and thereby outside the jurisdiction of the law. What happened was that for a decade or so, “the establishment” reacted with some mixture of mild interest, bemused looks, and just not giving a shit. Then, when cryptocurrencies had proven worthless except for scams, tax evasion, and CO_2 production, they started cutting it down to size, with maybe a few weeks’ effort at the SEC and probably half a dozen backbenchers’ amendments to the “Stuff We Should Do IDK Could Start To Get Annoying Act of 2022”. I guess what will be most annoying, besides being the last fool sitting on a million $’ worth of random strings, is how maddeningly unspectacular the end will be.
- mule1 5y ago
  Do you sincerely think these 70 year old politicians understand the technology and implications? There can be varying amounts of regulation and oversight for software, but the whole point of a decentralized crypto currency is it's ungovernable. If you're for this increased regulation fine, just understand it will push innovation and capital elsewhere in the world. And despite what you may want, bitcoin will not die.
marcinzm 5y ago
>Software should be protected with the same rights we have with speech. ... you do realize just how many restrictions exist and have historically existed on speech, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_State...
dosman33 5y ago
You're suggesting this is an accident. Lawmakers don't write any laws any more, that happens on K-Street by lobbyists. But the same idea applies to whoever is writing these horrific things. We're still living with the DMCA all these years later too.
kktkti9 5y ago
It’s a shared planet and resources but unfortunately you don’t own any of it. Political ownership calls the shots. Might look different if the politically detached organized against rent seeking and monopoly but you’re all busy building rent seeking startups, easily monopolized blockchains for pump and dumpers funded by nation states. What a shock politics are going fascist. Remember when taxes were high and people were politically engaged, America was held up as a haven. Now it’s mocked as a shit hole.
prirun 5y ago
"It is baffling how lawmakers who have so little understanding of the technology write these things into law." It's actually easy to explain: lawmakers don't write laws; lobbyists write laws and lawmakers rubberstamp them. Lawmakers don't even read laws, eg, they routinely vote on legislation that is hundreds of pages long that was modified and printed the night before they voted on it.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > lawmakers don't write laws; lobbyists write laws and lawmakers rubberstamp them You don’t want generalist lawyers to write laws. You don’t want specialists to write laws and then have generalists debate them, since apparently the current multi-week unfinished legislative process is rubber stamping to you.

by mule1 5y ago

glenvdb 5y ago

> It is baffling how lawmakers who have so little understanding of the technology write these things into law. And this happens constantly, on all types of things, not just technology.

pavlov 5y ago

> ”Software should be protected with the same rights we have with speech.” And also regulated the same way as anything else. If you’re operating as an unlicensed money transmitter, you can’t pretend that it’s legit because your ledgers are printed and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Same applies to “but it’s just code”.

Taek 5y ago
Agreed, but the current clause in the infrastructure bill is not about regulating unlicensed money transmitters, the wording of the bill is extremely broad and covers everyone who writes any type of software that handles digital assets, whether or not the author of that code is operating anything. It's basically saying "if you've made a pull request to the bitcoin-core codebase, even just as a bugfix, you may be responsible for providing KYC'd information on all users of Bitcoin and on all Bitcoin transactions, regardless of where they happen or what your relationship to those people is". Which is why the entire crypto ecosystem is up in arms. This bill is an extreme over-reach and would threaten the viability of essentially all crypto startups in the entire US.
- speeder 5y ago
  The bill is also about "digital assets" and previously even in-game currency has been ruled as such (for example World of Warcraft gold, Second Life currency to buy land, etc...). It also may apply to other non-crypto digital money, although that might be the point of the bill, since it would allow the US more easily to chase anyone evading its sanctions (for example: China is creating digital currency, Iran has some ideas too, they could use this to ignore SWIFT and thus ignore sanctions, this bill would allow US to sanction that thing too)
brotherofsteel 5y ago
Why should the transmission of money require a license?
- otterley 5y ago
  Because money laundering.
  - brotherofsteel 5y ago
    What about it?
    - otterley 5y ago
      See, e.g., https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R46486.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R46486.pdf and https://www.goodwinlaw.com/~/media/Files/Publications/Attorney%20Articles/2003/Risky_Business_State_Regulation_of_Money_Transmitters.ashx https://www.goodwinlaw.com/~/media/Files/Publications/Attorn... Money transfer fraud also goes all the way back to "steamship agents" in the early 20th century. See, e.g., https://digital.library.temple.edu/digital/collection/p16002coll31/id/1985/rec/1 https://digital.library.temple.edu/digital/collection/p16002...

IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago

It’s baffling how people here continue to insist that anybody disagreeing with them must be stupid. More specifically: > this will effectively censor and control the code that an American software dev would have to write to comply with proper reporting The idea that software today isn’t already, and has been from the times when bugs were actual insects, been the subject of (or had to account for) regulation is simply absurd. As just the most obvious example, the financial sector is heavily regulated, and that includes the software, from KYC rules similar to those now proposed for cryptocurrencies, to endless requirements for documentation and archival or the exact prescription of the algorithm to be used to settle transactions. The software in your car, plane, phone, or nuclear plant is required to follow a few dozen regulations, ISO standards, and best practice standards elevated to requirements. Every website accepting payments must implement some minimum of consumer and data protection. Your emails should respect the Oxford Dictionary and The New York Times Manual of Style, and the ADA may or may not include some requirements, although I’m not sure how binding they are. What’s happening here is the collision of reality with two fundamental misunderstandings in the crypto community: first, they considered themselves valiant warriors challenging the FED/$/governments, certain to be immediately targeted by “the establishment” trying to defend its mighty power. Then, they expected to win that fight with superior technology. Or, as seems to be happening here, the idea that “it’s online” and thereby outside the jurisdiction of the law. What happened was that for a decade or so, “the establishment” reacted with some mixture of mild interest, bemused looks, and just not giving a shit. Then, when cryptocurrencies had proven worthless except for scams, tax evasion, and CO_2 production, they started cutting it down to size, with maybe a few weeks’ effort at the SEC and probably half a dozen backbenchers’ amendments to the “Stuff We Should Do IDK Could Start To Get Annoying Act of 2022”. I guess what will be most annoying, besides being the last fool sitting on a million $’ worth of random strings, is how maddeningly unspectacular the end will be.

mule1 5y ago
Do you sincerely think these 70 year old politicians understand the technology and implications? There can be varying amounts of regulation and oversight for software, but the whole point of a decentralized crypto currency is it's ungovernable. If you're for this increased regulation fine, just understand it will push innovation and capital elsewhere in the world. And despite what you may want, bitcoin will not die.

marcinzm 5y ago

>Software should be protected with the same rights we have with speech. ... you do realize just how many restrictions exist and have historically existed on speech, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_State...

dosman33 5y ago

You're suggesting this is an accident. Lawmakers don't write any laws any more, that happens on K-Street by lobbyists. But the same idea applies to whoever is writing these horrific things. We're still living with the DMCA all these years later too.

kktkti9 5y ago

It’s a shared planet and resources but unfortunately you don’t own any of it. Political ownership calls the shots. Might look different if the politically detached organized against rent seeking and monopoly but you’re all busy building rent seeking startups, easily monopolized blockchains for pump and dumpers funded by nation states. What a shock politics are going fascist. Remember when taxes were high and people were politically engaged, America was held up as a haven. Now it’s mocked as a shit hole.

prirun 5y ago

"It is baffling how lawmakers who have so little understanding of the technology write these things into law." It's actually easy to explain: lawmakers don't write laws; lobbyists write laws and lawmakers rubberstamp them. Lawmakers don't even read laws, eg, they routinely vote on legislation that is hundreds of pages long that was modified and printed the night before they voted on it.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> lawmakers don't write laws; lobbyists write laws and lawmakers rubberstamp them You don’t want generalist lawyers to write laws. You don’t want specialists to write laws and then have generalists debate them, since apparently the current multi-week unfinished legislative process is rubber stamping to you.