[nybble41]

Yeah, so? Most acts of "money laundering" consist of nothing more or less than the basic principles of privacy applied to financial transactions. The fact that the government has somehow managed to normalize intrusive mass surveillance in the domain of finances does not justify extending the surveillance to other areas.

[zepto]

So this statement: “See encryption is just math, and you can't really outlaw or limit how math is used.”

Is false.

[nybble41]

A sufficiently authoritarian regime can outlaw pretty much anything they want, if they're willing to be heavy-handed about the enforcement and make a mockery of the justice system in the process—both of which can be observed in the anti-money-laundering regulations. Enforcement won't be 100% effective, of course, and the collateral damage would be enormous. It won't have nearly as much effect on the actual "bad guys" as it will on ordinary civilians. However, nothing prevents them from passing bad laws banning encryption. Which is exactly why such disastrous policies need to be strongly opposed.

[zepto]

Exactly, that’s why statements like “you can’t outlaw math” are counterproductive and wrong.

You can outlaw math, and the result will be really bad.