7 ms·
US sanctions on mixers in the past have been associated with an individual, not a piece of code. This is the first sanction to target an open source and non-cus
by whatisweb3 4y ago
US sanctions on mixers in the past have been associated with an individual, not a piece of code. This is the first sanction to target an open source and non-custodial mixer.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- sva_ 4y agoA piece of code that has been actively maintained by a group of people.
- whatisweb3 4y agoYes. Like putting a sanction on the open Matrix protocol, and blocking any user who has interacted with it.
- matthewdgreen 4y agoMaintaining code is, in the US, likely a 1st Amendment-protected activity. Operating live services like a mixer (including any RPCs needed for Tornado) is not. (And yes I know this arrest was not made in the US, so that might be the distinction.)
- sangnoir 4y ago> Maintaining code is, in the US, likely a 1st Amendment-protected activity. How did the 1A defense work out for sharing "Ghost gun" CAD files?
- matthewdgreen 4y agoYou can take a look at the Wikipedia site for Defense Distributed, which filed suit against the state department for blocking the distribution of CAD files under export control rules. It hasn't been smooth sailing, but many of the legal cases seem to be breaking in the direction of DD. Of course that case is more complicated given that there is both a 1A and a 2A argument. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Distributed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Distributed