[ashleyn]

Or assume the government has unlimited resources to throw at a problem, and not commit crimes.

Most of these headlines describe something that would require nation-state resources to crack. If you wanna hide paying for something legal, it's probably still sufficient.

[klmr]

“Not commit crimes” is a good maxim when you’re living in a liberal democracy (and even then …). It’s less easy when the state outlaws things unjustly. Like being gay. Or being (a)religious. And to give just two examples that apply to (otherwise) liberal democracies, most people would include “personal, recreational drug use” in the same category. And there are Western democracies that outlaw certain sexual acts between consenting adults (e.g. Germany, which outlaws any incest, even between consenting adult siblings), which also rubs many people the wrong way.

In sum, “not [committing] crimes” isn’t always straightforward.

[tessierashpool]

I was with you every step of the way, then suddenly you were defending incest and I was like “how the hell did I end up here?”

Also, while “many” is a subjective term, I don’t think you’re using it correctly here. The idea that you should not regulate sex between consenting adults in general is very popular, but most countries carve out exceptions for sex work. Not saying they should, but many do. And I definitely think the incest legalization lobby must be very, very small, even though it probably has a sympathizer in the Oval Office.

[klmr]

> then suddenly you were defending incest and I was like “how the hell did I end up here?”

… Which nicely illustrates what different people find acceptable. But I agree that sex work would have been a better example. Either way, you felt it necessary to add the qualifier “in general”, and many (…) people, though certainly a relative minority, would fundamentally disagree with this qualifier (while talking about consenting adult without power imbalance in their relationship).

[cyphar]

> not commit crimes

If you take the US as an example (I assume you're American), then did you know that the US Supreme Court doesn't actually know how many laws apply at a particular time to a particular person[1]? The US code has an immense amount of laws that are all equally legally binding, but have different levels of "obviousness" as "don't murder people". If a US Supreme Court judge cannot be sure what laws apply in any given case, what chance does a layperson have to understand the tens of thousands of federal crimes in the US?

For instance 16 U.S.C 3372 (the Lacey Act):

> It is unlawful for any person [...] to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law

So if you have ever bought or been gifted a fish, animal or plant that at any point broke Indian tribal law (even if you didn't know about it, even if it wasn't the law where you received it, and even if the plant or fish is legally farmed and sold in another area) you have broken a federal law and you're now a criminal.

In short, "don't commit crimes" is not as simple as you may think in all cases. You even have cases where the US government has retroactively applied new laws (in violation of the charter of human rights) for things that were not crimes at the time (such as "copyright infringement" for a work that used to be public domain). Very few criminals were tried under these strange laws, but they are still just as illegal as more common crimes.

[1]: https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=279

[redblacktree]

OK, but this is theory. Can you point to any practical examples of people who were charged with a crime under the Lacey Act for a common, harmless transaction?

[Zak]

As with crypto for personal communications or mobile devices, I think it's reasonable for people to expect things claiming to be secure to be secure, or to more clearly explain the attack surface area. Someone using a technology should be able to determine what sort of protection they have if they use it for something opposed by a nation state.

As for using Monero to break laws, it's probably pretty low risk to buy some MDMA to have a very good weekend, and fairly high risk to receive millions of dollars in payment for a ransomware attack against a government.