[kevingadd]

Be realistic here, are you distributing oss that exists for the sole purpose of money laundering?

I don't have a strong opinion on whether tornado cash should be allowed to exist, but it's obvious that it violates US law.

Similarly if you distribute OSS viruses don't act shocked if people want to harass you over it - distributing viruses is illegal in some places

[capableweb]

> Be realistic here, are you distributing oss that exists for the sole purpose of money laundering?

I am not, and neither are the authors of Tornado Cash. There is legitimate purposes to use privacy-preserving services. As long as I file my taxes correctly, I should be able to use them as I wish.

> but it's obvious that it violates US law

Since they got added to the SDN list, it's obvious yes. But before that, why it is obvious? Again, as long as I file my taxes correctly with the IRS, there shouldn't be a problem with using services like this.

[phpisthebest]

Unfortunately a large percent of the population believes the false narrative of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" so they believe only criminals have the desire for privacy

these are the same people that will be SHOCKED when something they use, love, or do is ruled illegal or "obvious" violation of US Law,

[Fatnino]

Like bittorrent clients

[kevingadd]

This is a poor comparison, BitTorrent has lots of obvious legal uses even if it is popular with pirates. It actually gets used extensively for those legal purposes. Products like LimeWire or Napster explicitly marketed for piracy reasons are another matter. It is possible to use BT without breaking the law.

Maybe a decade ago when I worked at a game studio our IT department got mad at me for being connected to a torrent tracker. What was the tracker for? Patches for one of our games, because the updater used BT.

[phpisthebest]

So what Percentage of BitTorrent Traffic would need to be "illegal" for it to fall under the classification of "obvious violation of US law" or "primarily used for illegal purposes" thus justifying targeting the technology instead of the individuals using the technology?

I have a feeling in this instance your bias is in favor of allowing bittorrent to exist because you have a personal use for that technology that is not illegal, and you do not have a personal use for the Tornado Cash technology, thus you have no ability to see legal uses for that tech.

I have found it to be an exceedingly rare trait for people to be able to externalize, and understand other people's worldviews. If they personally do not need, desire, or have a use for X, then they have no problems with the government clamping down, regulating or banning it. Never coming to the wider understanding that the government may (and likely will) turn it gaze to them.

[capableweb]

Sounds like a apt comparison to Tornado Cash then, as exactly the same applies with it. It's used for obviously legal use cases too. Just because some groups use it for less legal things, doesn't mean the thing itself should be illegal.

[eli]

Well, they were unable or unwilling to prevent North Korea from using the service to launder money, which is illegal

[capableweb]

It's not a service, it's a tool. North Korea probably used Rust at one point, should we sanction individuals who contributed to Rust as well?

[eli]

yeah they’d probably ban Rust if a sizable percentage of the Rust usage was to avoid NK sanctions

[ziddoap]

>Similarly if you distribute OSS viruses don't act shocked if people want to harass you over it - distributing viruses is illegal in some places

Plenty of legitimate software can be used for nefarious things (and sometimes the legitimate code is indistinguishable from malicious code, e.g. remote viewers).

We should probably focus on the people and the actions those people take, rather than code itself, or we might end up in a bit of a pickle. Ban encryption because it's used in ransomware. Ban tech-support software like TeamViewer or QuickAssist because it is used in scams.

[kevingadd]

Tornado Cash exists for money laundering. That's the thing it does. You can believe money laundering should be legal, or that there are legitimate uses for the software, but the fact is that the software appears to be against US law, so nobody should be surprised that the authors got sanctioned.

The vast majority of OSS software does not have this hazard and it does everyone a disservice to pretend that the situation is identical. There are a bunch of other things OSS maintainers should be worrying about before US sanctions.

[capableweb]

> Tornado Cash exists for money laundering

Maybe you don't know exactly what "money laundering" is. That you want to hide whatever you are doing doesn't mean that what you're doing is illegal, which is a prerequisite for something to be "money laundering". Just like E2E doesn't exists solely for hiding criminals doing criminal things.

[ziddoap]

>You can believe money laundering should be legal, or that there are legitimate uses for the software, but the fact is that the software appears to be against US law, so nobody should be surprised that the authors got sanctioned.

I'm not sure if you understood my comment. I don't care about the authors and whether or not they were sanctioned. My point was about the code itself. If we started to force GH and the like to remove any code that has been used in an illegal activity, there's going to be very little code left on GH.

[froh_away]

Right, and also note that plenty of "nefarious" software can be used for legitimate things.

Just think of malware analysis or feeding malware to the machine-learning monster.

In the end, it's just information and can be interpreted in a myriad of ways and for all kinds of purposes, including the good ol' simple satisfaction of intellectual curiosity. But many people in this thread seem to have a zero bit mind. By that I mean that they have a single bit dichotomy good(allow)/bad(ban) world that invariably has the value "bad(ban)".