5 ms·

> The argument probably is that they assisted a sanctioned entity by providing a contribution i.e. service to it. And what if they did so before the sanctions?

> The argument probably is that they assisted a sanctioned entity by providing a contribution i.e. service to it. And what if they did so before the sanctions? Is the US so happy to retroactively punish people who literally did nothing wrong?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> people who literally did nothing wrong? What on earth did people think a tumbler like Tornado Cash was going to be used for and by?
- dingleberry420 4y ago
  Not sure, thoughtcrime is a thing now in modern America?
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > thoughtcrime is a thing now in modern America? Nothing wrong with writing code. Code is speech, that's settled law. But the Tornado Cash team wasn't just publishing. They were building a tool. Semenov styled himself as a co-founder and the group advertised open positions on its website.
    - dingleberry420 4y ago
      Okay, how does that relate to open source contributors? Can you retroactively read their minds and determine their intent? Why does their intent even matter? What they were doing was not illegal at the time, and now they are being punished by the US.
      - bad416f1f5a2 4y ago
        > now they are being punished by the US. The US didn't mandate deletion of their Github account. The US isn't punishing them – you can tell because they didn't put them explicitly on the SDN list. Microsoft made the choice to remove their accounts. Their compliance team likely looked and said "$ we make from these devs < $$$ we'd pay to our lawyers to simply decide if we should keep them on our platform."
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > Why does their intent even matter? It doesn’t. Tornado was used to launder money. That’s all that matters. My guess is the only people in real legal jeopardy are those who kept working on it after its involvement in laundering was exposed. (I’m assuming they weren’t in on the laundering.) For GitHub, figuring out who those people are is impossible. So they’re being cautious and cutting ties more broadly. There is a creep problem to sanctions. Some companies in Russia are banned. Suddenly everyone from Cyprus is under extra scrutiny, since you don’t want to be the dupe they used to launder their money. Tornado and its developers were those dupes. But it has been illegal to help North Koreans launder money since before Tornado was founded. It remained illegal when it became known North Korea used Tornado to launder money. Anyone going into money services knows, or is negligent in not knowing, that these laws apply to them. It’s tough to have sympathy for anyone who kept ties. Particularly when the punishment, so far, is simply ostracism.
    - 8note 4y ago
      Is that settled law? Have the anti-circumvention parts of the DMCA been struck down?
- toolz 4y ago
  You ask this as if there are only non-legitimate uses. Do you think businesses often give away their revenue data to their competitors for free? Of course not, so if you want to do business on an open ledger then you have to have a way to obscure transactions so that your competition doesn't get to know exactly what your revenue stream looks like. There's nothing sinister about privacy. It would be a logical fallacy to assume that just because sinister things happen in private that privacy itself is sinister.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > nothing sinister about privacy Totally agree. One damning aspect of Tornado is we know it was used to launder money. Criminals used it. This was publicly reported and certainly known to the Tornado team. If you know your product is being used by criminals to do crime and you respond by shrugging your shoulders, I’m not sure what the expected outcome is supposed to be other than getting dinged.
    - toolz 4y ago
      I like to ask myself what money laundering even is and whether it makes sense and ideally it wouldn't even be illegal. Money laundering isn't the crime - it's just a convenient tool to dissuade crime. Ideally there would be no crime without violence and there is nothing but consenting individuals involved in money laundering. The crime happened before the laundering and that's what we should be preventing. Otherwise you end up in situations like this where innocent people are going to get screwed over because they utilized a tool that criminals utilized. This isn't fair or just by any standard and I personally don't accept the collateral damage as worthy. This doesn't even begin to touch on the vast majority of laundering that happens in fiat across international banks . That would take a while just to list all the infractions that are constantly happening, yet those entities are still not only operating in the free market, but they have federal insurance and backing.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > what money laundering even is Hiding illegal gains. > crime happened before the laundering and that's what we should be preventing Covering up a murder is a crime because we don’t want people helping murderers cover up. > like this where innocent people are going to get screwed over because they utilized a tool that criminals utilized People who used Tornado Cash aren’t getting screwed. Even the developers aren’t. They aren’t personally sanctioned. Their work, which has been used to launder money, is. Third parties, like Microsoft, are choosing not to associate with them. (The developers who knew about the laundering, e.g. through the public announcements law enforcement made, and kept working on it are far from innocent.) > doesn't even begin to touch on the vast majority of laundering that happens in fiat across international banks Yes, there are other crimes. People laundering money through banks get sanctioned and jailed. When banks make a habit of laundering money, they too get sanctioned. There is ample historical record of all of this.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> people who literally did nothing wrong? What on earth did people think a tumbler like Tornado Cash was going to be used for and by?

dingleberry420 4y ago
Not sure, thoughtcrime is a thing now in modern America?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > thoughtcrime is a thing now in modern America? Nothing wrong with writing code. Code is speech, that's settled law. But the Tornado Cash team wasn't just publishing. They were building a tool. Semenov styled himself as a co-founder and the group advertised open positions on its website.
  - dingleberry420 4y ago
    Okay, how does that relate to open source contributors? Can you retroactively read their minds and determine their intent? Why does their intent even matter? What they were doing was not illegal at the time, and now they are being punished by the US.
    - bad416f1f5a2 4y ago
      > now they are being punished by the US. The US didn't mandate deletion of their Github account. The US isn't punishing them – you can tell because they didn't put them explicitly on the SDN list. Microsoft made the choice to remove their accounts. Their compliance team likely looked and said "$ we make from these devs < $$$ we'd pay to our lawyers to simply decide if we should keep them on our platform."
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > Why does their intent even matter? It doesn’t. Tornado was used to launder money. That’s all that matters. My guess is the only people in real legal jeopardy are those who kept working on it after its involvement in laundering was exposed. (I’m assuming they weren’t in on the laundering.) For GitHub, figuring out who those people are is impossible. So they’re being cautious and cutting ties more broadly. There is a creep problem to sanctions. Some companies in Russia are banned. Suddenly everyone from Cyprus is under extra scrutiny, since you don’t want to be the dupe they used to launder their money. Tornado and its developers were those dupes. But it has been illegal to help North Koreans launder money since before Tornado was founded. It remained illegal when it became known North Korea used Tornado to launder money. Anyone going into money services knows, or is negligent in not knowing, that these laws apply to them. It’s tough to have sympathy for anyone who kept ties. Particularly when the punishment, so far, is simply ostracism.
  - 8note 4y ago
    Is that settled law? Have the anti-circumvention parts of the DMCA been struck down?
toolz 4y ago
You ask this as if there are only non-legitimate uses. Do you think businesses often give away their revenue data to their competitors for free? Of course not, so if you want to do business on an open ledger then you have to have a way to obscure transactions so that your competition doesn't get to know exactly what your revenue stream looks like. There's nothing sinister about privacy. It would be a logical fallacy to assume that just because sinister things happen in private that privacy itself is sinister.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > nothing sinister about privacy Totally agree. One damning aspect of Tornado is we know it was used to launder money. Criminals used it. This was publicly reported and certainly known to the Tornado team. If you know your product is being used by criminals to do crime and you respond by shrugging your shoulders, I’m not sure what the expected outcome is supposed to be other than getting dinged.
  - toolz 4y ago
    I like to ask myself what money laundering even is and whether it makes sense and ideally it wouldn't even be illegal. Money laundering isn't the crime - it's just a convenient tool to dissuade crime. Ideally there would be no crime without violence and there is nothing but consenting individuals involved in money laundering. The crime happened before the laundering and that's what we should be preventing. Otherwise you end up in situations like this where innocent people are going to get screwed over because they utilized a tool that criminals utilized. This isn't fair or just by any standard and I personally don't accept the collateral damage as worthy. This doesn't even begin to touch on the vast majority of laundering that happens in fiat across international banks . That would take a while just to list all the infractions that are constantly happening, yet those entities are still not only operating in the free market, but they have federal insurance and backing.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > what money laundering even is Hiding illegal gains. > crime happened before the laundering and that's what we should be preventing Covering up a murder is a crime because we don’t want people helping murderers cover up. > like this where innocent people are going to get screwed over because they utilized a tool that criminals utilized People who used Tornado Cash aren’t getting screwed. Even the developers aren’t. They aren’t personally sanctioned. Their work, which has been used to launder money, is. Third parties, like Microsoft, are choosing not to associate with them. (The developers who knew about the laundering, e.g. through the public announcements law enforcement made, and kept working on it are far from innocent.) > doesn't even begin to touch on the vast majority of laundering that happens in fiat across international banks Yes, there are other crimes. People laundering money through banks get sanctioned and jailed. When banks make a habit of laundering money, they too get sanctioned. There is ample historical record of all of this.