> it is being used by itself to go after a piece of software that provides general financial privacy to anybody, and not merely financial privacy for criminals
The archetypal laundromat also does normal folks’ laundry. It just also launders money for criminals. I’m sure they would happily layer money for non-criminals but nobody does that.
> banking analog would be if the feds went after brick and mortar banks for allowing customers to deposit checks and withdraw cash
If they did that without checking anyone’s identity and then, after learning—from law enforcement no less—that criminals were using them to launder money, kept going, business as usual, hell yes they’d be shut down and arrested.
> I’m sure they would happily layer money for non-criminals but nobody does that.
This thread is full of these blind assertions that nobody except criminals wants financial privacy. They are patently false.
> If they did that without checking anyone’s identity and then, after learning—from law enforcement no less—that criminals were using them to launder money, kept going, business as usual, hell yes they’d be shut down and arrested.
You're basically saying that once a service gets used by a criminal, then operating that service becomes illegal because it is furthering criminal acts. This seems like yet another Godelesque everything-is-criminalized result, and your appeal that one can avoid persecution by electing to perform blanket investigation on all one's customers isn't particularly redeeming.
Like sure I get the traditional banking industry has been practically inundated with these type of invasive heavyhanded regulations to make things easier for law enforcement, but that's not a particularly compelling argument.
> You're basically saying that once a service gets used by a criminal, then operating that service becomes illegal because it is furthering criminal acts.
If the operators know that people are using their service to launder money, and they keep operating their service without doing anything to prevent that, then… yes? What do you think should happen? They just get to keep doing crime?
Try applying your argument to the electric company. If a service operator has knowledge of a specific crime being committed one can make the argument that they're obligated to report the known details. But in general knowing that nonspecific criminals may be using your service does not imply that you have to shut your service down to hinder those criminals.
Tornado Cash isn't an electric company, though. There are different rules. Financial institutions are often subject to KYC rules that require them to proactively vet their customers.
You're writing as though this were uncharted legal territory, trying to reason from first principles when you can truly consider a business a criminal enterprise, but we've had laws on the books for decades for the express purpose of stopping people from doing exactly what Tornado Cash does.
The traditional financial system has coasted along on having two different sets of rules - one for consumer-facing things where you can do whatever you want with anonymous cash up to a certain amount, and one for Big Serious Transactions. The distinction between those two regimes is breaking down, and I don't want to see consumer privacy get left behind. Thus it's appropriate to reason from first principles about what ought to be, and not simply what regulations law enforcement has been able to get pushed through to make their own jobs easier. Individuals should not have everything we purchase be permanently recorded in order to convince us to buy more crap or price discriminate or whatever. Financial privacy is a key part of that.
The archetypal laundromat also does normal folks’ laundry. It just also launders money for criminals. I’m sure they would happily layer money for non-criminals but nobody does that.
> banking analog would be if the feds went after brick and mortar banks for allowing customers to deposit checks and withdraw cash
If they did that without checking anyone’s identity and then, after learning—from law enforcement no less—that criminals were using them to launder money, kept going, business as usual, hell yes they’d be shut down and arrested.