[csee]

It's a mistake to think this article is just a rehash of the classic arguments for crypto. The Canadian response is the first piece of hard evidence we have seen that such arguments aren't just fanciful theoretical speculations that could never apply to wealthy, liberal democracies. It is good and useful to point this out. Even if the rest of the piece is ideologically motivated, we shouldn't then close off to this important nugget of truth.

[landemva]

Cypress closed their banking and did forced bail-in. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/everyth...

Anyone paying attention has some btc just in case.

[xiphias2]

That was the the time when I bought BTC as well. People are too attached to their political views to see that it could be them as well sending $25 to their favourite protest (for example BLM, where there was looting involved as well).

[defaultname]

>The Canadian response is the first piece of hard evidence

For two decades the US has frozen and seized accounts in the hundreds of thousands -- billions of dollars in assets -- often with little oversight or checks. Civil forfeiture is rampant. Whole political groups have been declared "terrorist affiliated" and any correlation at all can lead to extremely unpleasant outcomes. No fly lists are flippant and casual.

And you think Canada using financial tools, primarily motivated by large external contributions to illegal activities, is the example?

It's maybe an example, sure. A weak one to me, but sure. It's certainly no precedent. To use this as the kick off point for some crypto advocacy seems...pernicious.

[csee]

You are correct that freezing accounts and assets is far from unprecedented. It has been used (and abused) as a tool against suspected drug dealers, money launderers, ISIS supporters, and so on.

The difference here is its blank check authority against a reasonable protest objective as a response to certain bad actors within that broader objective and movement. Not everyone involved is creating criminal levels of noise pollution, trying to burn down apartment buildings, or blocking trade routes. Many of them just want good faith protest. If we could just arrest the bad faith actors quickly, and allow the good faith actors to continue protesting, we can simultaneously protect the right to valid protest while protecting the community within which the protest is happening. When you start freezing accounts without due process, that all flies out the window. This is what is importantly different about this particular action by Canada. It is uniquely chilling to the right to political protest in a way that unduly seizing the assets of suspected drug dealers isn't (although I am very much against that too).

The BLM protest movement can be used as an analogy. Would it be reasonable for all BLM support to be effectively criminalized by carte blanche freezing of accounts of people "involved"? No, of course not. The reasonable thing is to arrest those people who are looting or setting up CHOP or whatever, and to allow the real protestors to keep protesting.

[xiphias2]

,,To use this as the kick off point for some crypto advocacy seems...pernicious.''

There were people who could only afford to pay a lawyer to get back their money taken away from them by civil forfeiture because they had some Bitcoin as well in their portfolio. They got all their money back, as they were innocent, but they would have had to ask lots of money from their friends just to be able to afford a lawsuit. So no, this is not the first time having some Bitcoin is advised against civil forfeiture.