I think you're both ignoring one key factor here: intent.
If this was simple service for moving/spending money privately. Sure, probably nothing wrong then. But the indictment specifically states that they knew the service was being using by sanctioned entities and didn't try to prevent it. That's makes a big difference.
They knew that because it's a public information and they didn't prevent it because it's already deployed smart contract. They have no ability to prevent a specific party from using it, it's already deployed to the network and note that it's still impossible to change it even now.
As an example, since now it's under US agencies control and they know that sanctioned entities are using it, why they still don't try to prevent it? Are they supporting NK?
Fair enough. But the indictment reads as if they were knowingly profiting off of illegal transactions and we may be looking at the case where that line in the sand is drawn.
As a counter example, should the US government not try to stop the cartels from using Swiss banks for money laundering because some arbitrary contract was already in effect?
In other words: Monero might be getting some friends on the Fed's crypto blacklist over this case.
"contract" is a wrong term, that's what I always arguing, because it has nothing to do with the legal meaning of the term. Here it's a public (i.e., "deployed") code. It just exists.
Regarding "profiting", it is a good question, and that's what I don't understand in this case. To my understanding there is no direct fees in Tornado Cash. But there are Relays, which, to my understanding, allow to withdraw to a fresh address and take a small fee for that. Anyone can run a Relay, and the use is optional. I think those guys were running one of them too.
A Relay doesn't know who is who and cannot limit withdrawals of money deposited by a sanctioned entity. But as they were told that some of transactions are likely illicit, even though they don't know which particular, they knowingly profiting off it in general. That's very broad and later can be applied to anyone.
Similar can be applied to mining. In general ETH, miners do know the addresses and they do not accept transactions that include sanctioned addresses. So they are fine. But for Monero example, it's the same problem. Even though they don't know the transactions participants, they may make profits off illegal transactions.
This is what I've been wondering. Does Fair Use apply here at all? Sure, the models were trained on copyrighted material. But wouldn't the generative part of the AI count as transformative?
A lot of people I've met that reverse malware for a living started out cracking copy protections. It's basically the same skill set. The old SnD forums had an entire section dedicated to it. They even had decompiled Stuxnet samples before anyone really knew what a Stuxnet was.
That entire scene is people just wanting to break protections for the challenge. Not necessarily just copy protections. The InfoSec, and RCE worlds in general, would not be where it is today if it wasn't for them cracking those old games and whatnot.
More specifically: All of the binaries are just Inno Setup files - even the proxy itself.
Which means it should be easy to wipe out with the next MSRT/Windows update. Considering unpacking Inno and decompiling that weird Pascal(?) scripting it uses has been a thing forever now (innounp). Meaning you can also fully reverse engineer this with a single CLI command and Notepad++ lol
Although this is super clever. I'll give them that.
I really do miss the days where candor was seen as a sign of respect. Now it's just seen as being contrarian or even insulting. All because you "ruined" their virtue-fueled dopamine drip.
It's not a genuine interaction, at all. It's a town hall full of shit posters, some of which you went to school with or just happen to be related to. There are literal families divided right now because Becky went full "nobody asked, stay off my profile" mode on her Uncle Steve. Which is just nuts.
Really makes me worry about where we'll be in 20-30 years, socially speaking.
> All because you "ruined" their virtue-fueled dopamine drip.
You are ignoring how peoples diet have changed over the decades. Life activities were more directed towards survival, even things like growing vegetables in the back garden or allotment were hobbies to help put the icing on the cake for an otherwise functional world.
Today, with food aplenty and technological gains like mobile phones, the internet, not just social media, is perhaps best seen as a mirror of the human psyche, a mirror of the regional, national and global collective ego's.
This may well be a golden age for the advancement of psychology.
I honestly don't get it either. Why does he even care about Russia at this point? They can't directly attack the satellites, as that would be an act of war against the United States and Russia isn't that stupid. They're heavily sanctioned and basically a dead market now that the Ruble has crashed. So there shouldn't be any business considerations.
Not to mention ITAR, which the entire constellation falls under.
I'm just dumbfounded why he gives them the time of day. Does he not know that he can ignore their emails or something?
The reason for Musk's behavior is that he has decided to Fight the Establishment. As a reminder, the Establishment is that poorly defined group of people and interests, centered on the left and right coasts of the US, that exists to promote the success of the American experiment. For a number of reasons, over the past few years, Musk has grown dissatisfied with it, and actively uses propaganda to weaken it. Musk admires Putin because he's an unapologetic power-leader and Musk wishes he could be, too. In Musk's mind, if we just put a small number of really bright people in charge, we'd be able to solve some hard problems like multi-homing humanity to deal with existential risks.
We should all be thankful that Elon is taking his money and burning it, because in doing so, he reduces the likelihood that he can have a significant negative effect on the stability that the Establishment brings.
If the Establishment exists to promote the success of the American Experiment, why did the American Experiment do better between January 20th 2017 and January 19, 2021 than it has since under the control of the establishment?
You think 2017 to 2021 was a better span than, say, 1990 to 1995 or 1950 to 1955? That's beyond preposterous, bordering on mental illness. I also don't recall the "establishment" ceding control at any point. Most of Congress and the judiciary existed before that short presidency and continued to wield power after it.
It's the same stupidity that has Trump boasting that he's 'the apple of Putin's eye'. There is a belief in an ideological affinity. It's absurd, because if Putin could wipe out the US without any consequences he would do it in a heartbeat, he wouldn't even think twice about doing so. He has a truly profound hatred for the United States that is layered with feelings of humiliation over Russia in the 1990s.
It was started by the Navy way back in the '90s for secure communication online. Then the source was released like a year after being made public and development was funded by the EFF until the Tor Project itself was officially founded.
They still do (or did?) get grants from a few federal agencies though. But they had no strings attached. This is probably what you're thinking of.
Source: Hung out with a few Tor devs in Berlin a few years back. Including He Who Shall Not Be Named.
I think they meant it's believed that most/some exit nodes are run by US intelligence to spy on people. Not that development has anything to do with them now.
If this was simple service for moving/spending money privately. Sure, probably nothing wrong then. But the indictment specifically states that they knew the service was being using by sanctioned entities and didn't try to prevent it. That's makes a big difference.