Due to its mode of operation, the court considered the software to be “specifically intended for criminals”
Crime is an action a state doesn’t like, not necessarily wrong or evil, but serves interests other than the state. If the state has to authorize everything, then the state is favoring dominance over governance.
When the state has to monitor all transactions it is tyranny.
The state is just the abstraction of the collective will of the governed, if the Dutch people have determined this is a crime against their society, then it is.
The state holds a monopoly on violence, another monopoly isn’t a stretch.
What a fantasy world you live in. Must be nice. In truth, the state is a gang of thugs and parasites. Has nothing to do with the collective will of the people, a concept which doesn’t exist in reality.
Collective will is just the myth that is used to legitimize the state
The state is also so much more than the will of the governed. To say that it is all there is to it would consider governments like those governed by the divine right of kings fo be stateless. Stalin’s Russia, or Kim Jong Un’s DPRK would then be stateless.
money laundering is a big bad no-no word that THEY have stigmatized (conditional brainwashing) in order to get every day people to SUPPORT their regime of THEFT and CONTROL.
“You are trying to keep your money to yourself and stop us from seeing it so that we can’t steal some of it and punish you for using it how you like??? You’re a MONEY LAUNDERER. Money laundering Money laundering Money laundering”
When you control money, you control minds, livelihoods, and monopolize fear itself.
If you read the verdict it says: maximum privacy combined with optimal obfuscation techniques. This implies that the sole role of the software is money laundering. The striving for privacy itself is not in question.
Sounds to me like you need an upgrade. I tried Jerboa, but it felt like it always lagged behind or was buggy for some reason. Then I switched to Voyager, which gets constant updates. Also, it’s a PWA, so I don’t need an app and it can thus be used on mobile, tablet, desktop, etc. Not to mention the theming is one of the best, in my opinion.
Jerboa parses url correctly. Look at RFC1738. hpath is made of hsegments, which are made from arbitrary amount of uchars and other symbols, uchars include unreserved, which includes safe, which includes dot.
So correct way to end sentence with url would be either by escaping url with some characters like [datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1738], or using markdown urls like [display text](url).
This happens with cash too. If you take in a bunch of cash, you have a duty to know what it’s from so that you’re not facilitating terrorism or crime or subverting sanctions. In fact, of you handle cash or finance, you generally have to take training on these laws every year.
This thing is the definition of money laundering and was known for exactly those problems.
But in essence, they are punishing this guy for writing code. And at least in the United States, code is considered speech. And this is a very bad precedent. I know that this is a Dutch court, but still that is not a good thing.
And see, there’s where the problem comes in. He never actually took the currency from the smart contract itself. In fact, it is still online and being used as of this day. And he is getting none of the currency just like he got none of the currency before. What they are going after him for is creating a front-end user interface to access the contract. I believe they did take a fee from that user interface since it made it simpler than interacting with the contract directly. The problem is that they are saying that by taking fees from that user interface, he is money laundering, but not everybody who used that user interface was using it for money laundering. A famous example is the creator of Ethereum used it to donate to Ukraine.
Even had the front end website not been running, that money would have still been laundered. I heard an explanation of it earlier that was saying something to the effect of, imagine a door at the edge of a field. There is no walls, there is no nothing else, just a door at the edge of a field. Anybody can come into that field and use it whenever they wish. Putting a lock on the door will not keep people out of the field.
It’s continental system. Precedents don’t have as much power as in English system. And Netherlands are in ECHR jurisdiction, so it’s likely to be overturned found contradicting European Convention on Human Rights.
There are reasons to use this service that are completely legal. They should sentence the people laundering money, not the people providing privacy tools that happen to be misused.
I don’t think you understand. Banks (or anyone who accepts large amounts of money) has a duty to have some idea of where that money comes from. There are anti money laundering laws.
Go open a bank account right now and try to deposit a briefcase full of $50,000 in cash and see what happens. You might, maybe be able to do it, but there will absolutely be questions.
But, again, the same applies. I deposit btc or cash into a bank, even $50k, then I disclose its source to the authorities, with the paperwork. But by using a privacy service, I can comply with the law and protect myself from malicious actors
Go open a bank account right now and try to deposit a briefcase full of $50,000
I’ve done this. They ask you for the paperwork documenting the source of the funds. Just follow the process. It doesn’t matter if its fiat or crypto.
By this logic every locksmith should be put on trial for making locks, every manufacturer of vaults and safes, every lumber company for making wood used in fences, every costume designer for making halloween masks, every post office for renting PO boxes… etc.
If he had provided the same mixing service using cash, what reasoning could they convict him on? They specifically state that the privacy that the service provides was the issue, not the service itself. However, this level of privacy is a given whan using cash no?
If you do the same thing with cash, put people’s money in a huge stack, never ask for ID, don’t have any account system and just provide people a slip they can trade back for cash when they’re ready to withdraw funds (so possibly some of the same bills but statistically improbable that they would all be the same), then you can get convicted for the same thing, it’s much different from making a deposit at the bank and withdrawing later.
Criminals do get tracked using bank note serial numbers you know, offering to mix their bills so it’s impossible to tell who was the original “owner” is money laundering facilitation.
I dunno. If you manufacture tools designed specifically for killing, for example, you’ve definitely played a part in somebody’s use of your tools for killing.
They’re not necessarily made for killing. Most people defending themself with a pistol (whose only purpose is for shooting humans) would not want to shoot for the head or chest
No, guns are tools designed specifically for killing. They have no use as defense if they can’t kill. They’re not shields. You also can’t hammer a nail with a gun, or cut a steak with a gun.
The fuck? Vets do much, much more than just euthanize animals. What do guns do other than shoot projectiles intended to kill?
How do guns defend without using the threat of violence? How do they act as a physical shield?
Yes, it’s possible to practice using tools designed specifically for killing. Cars are tools designed specifically for transport, and people have contests for driving those, too.
Why is it so hard for you to accept that guns are tools designed specifically for killing? That’s literally just what they are.
The fuck? Vets do much, much more than just euthanize animals. What do guns do other than shoot projectiles intended to kill?
Just using your silly logic…you know vets have captive bolt guns and suppressed firearms as well, does that make their tools pointless because they only kill?
How do guns defend without using the threat of violence? How do they act as a physical shield?
Same way a sword or knife can be used to kill and also defend, its a force multiplier.
Yes, it’s possible to practice using tools designed specifically for killing. Cars are tools designed specifically for transport, and people have contests for driving those, too.
Glad you’re grasping it
Why is it so hard for you to accept that guns are tools designed specifically for killing? That’s literally just what they are.
Because I’m not the one that suggests magically thinking banning them all will make the world a safer place. Do you think the 100lb woman can defend against a 250lb man? Or what about minorities who are threated by a few racist fucks? Or an LGBTQ+ person who has a bunch of bigots trying to kill them? Should these people just not get a gun because it’s designed to kill? What tool do you suggest they use?
This entire thread chain is in place to suggest that only guns which are designed to kill, should have their manufacturs liable for what other people do with the product. No other industry was brought up, just guns. Why? Because at the end of the day, you’re all for complete bans, and no amount of “nuh uh, we’re fine with hunting rifles” or whatever else bullshit, that’s the end goal…you just try and sugar coat it so you can try and gain some support for the idea.
Naa that’s literally the end goal. It’s pointless to sugar coat it.
Because I’m not the one suggesting that companies be liable for what people do with their products. Way more people a year die from alcohol than guns (it’s like a 3xs as many) and alcohol has no other purpose but a vice, yet you’re probably not going to suggest that companies be liable for drunk drivers who kill people, nor are you going to suggest that they cover all the alcohol related health issues…are you.
Yes, it’s possible to practice using tools designed specifically for killing. Cars are tools designed specifically for transport, and people have contests for driving those, too.
Uh, I started this thread, and I brought up other products: electric chairs and the guillotine.
And, no, hunting rifles are the worst kind of guns. They are definitely designed for killing. But my point was that not all guns are designed for killing.
There’s very few products which everyone can objectively say are designed for killing.
Agreed, it’s very rare, guns are absolutely one of those things though. They’re the perfect evolution of the personal handheld killing tool. You just point it at the thing you want dead, push the button, and you’ve got a good chance of deadding it immediately with your first try.
Guns don’t have a secondary use, like how a knife can whittle a tree branch into a nice spoon, or cut some thread, or skin an animal. Guns cause massive damage to whatever they are pointed at, and sometimes to the things around that thing too, if you’re particularly unlucky.
They’re the solution to a problem when you need the solution to be “escalate this situation to 1000% and start killing stuff”.
Gun manufacturers who say they’re made for defence and not killing must be delusional or confused about what their products do, or just lying to their potential customers for… who even knows what reason.
They are made to defend yourself by killing the person you need to be defended from. Pure and simple. They are truly as cut and dry a tool for killing things as there is.
Nobody is out there shooting people defensively with some non-lethal mode built in to their high speed projectile metal lumps that tear through the human body, causing parts of it to explode and massive trauma to the surrounding tissues and organs.
Do guns exist that fire beanbags, or tranquilliser darts, or such? Absolutely, but none of us here are talking about those types of more specialist guns. We’re talking about your standard gun, the kind they sell to lots of civilians in countries like the USA.
That logic they’re using should be burned with fire.
With that logic, cars being highjacked for a crime should make the company liable for the crime (Revolutionary actions would also count as crimes). That gives car manufacturers alot more legal reason for adding kill switches to their vehicles’ engines, which would most likely be used by cops for whatever the fuck they want.
How about DJI’s drones being used to kill individuals in Ukraine? Steam decks are currently also being used by Ukraine to control machine gun turrets remotely, and they’re able to be used that way explicitly because they use regular OS’s (a major boon to its users.)
This type of regulation would only further lead to anti-consumer products, and a stronger police state.
Add comment