[splittist]

So the offense is, essentially, not arranging your affairs in a way so as to leave them open to easy scrutiny by the state. With decades of precedent allowing such laws how can strong cryptography possibly be permissible?

[maxerickson]

No, the essence of the offense is to be aware of a certain type of scrutiny and arrange your affairs specifically to avoid it.

[Zigurd]

Actually, some people here will argue that, in fact, the state HAS an inherent power to inspect anything at all. Math and physics be damned.

[maxerickson]

I don't understand why that is an actually.

The financial reporting regulations surrounding structuring are pretty specific, it really isn't the sort of thing you would use as a salvo in a war to inspect everything.

[Zigurd]

No, it isn't. But some people think the Hobbesian PoV means outlawing strong encryption is exactly what the government should do.