Actually that's a problem for a lot of libertarian minded tech, it starts being thought of as enabling freedom from oppressive governments and ends up being adopted by criminals - Bitcoin, Tor, etc.

In the tech industry you also find a bend of very economically self interested version of privacy, which is that giving privacy to your users is a great way to claim you didn't know anything bad was happening. I'm pretty sure that, not high minded ideals, is why Meta invests so much in e2e encryption and privacy for WhatsApp, and publicizing it - when the next horrible thing is planned using Whatsapp, it lets them disclaim all responsibility for moderating what's happening on their platform

▲

AnthonyMouse 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Actually that's a problem for a lot of libertarian minded tech, it starts being thought of as enabling freedom from oppressive governments and ends up being adopted by criminals - Bitcoin, Tor, etc.

This is such a sham though.

You have some privacy-protecting technology everyone would benefit from. Ordinary people don't really understand it but would use and benefit from it if it was the default.

Laws are passed that make it illegal to use or otherwise highly inconvenient, e.g. you have to fill out an onerous amount of paperwork even if you're not doing anything wrong. Ordinary people are deterred from using it and ordinary systems don't adopt it. Criminals continue using it because they don't care about breaking the paperwork laws if they're already breaking the drug laws.

Then people say look at this evil technology that only criminals use! As if the reason others don't use it wasn't purposeful.

▲

derektank 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not disagreeing with your general point but in the specific case of Bitcoin I can't think of any laws that have been passed which make it highly inconvenient to use relative to other financial assets. If anything, it seems like legislators (at least in the US) have taken something of a laissez faire attitude toward the technology. Regulators have been more aggressive (e.g. the Treasury) but they're largely just enforcing existing laws which, again, apply to other financial assets.

	▲	AnthonyMouse 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I'm not disagreeing with your general point but in the specific case of Bitcoin I can't think of any laws that have been passed which make it highly inconvenient to use relative to other financial assets. The issue is that it's treated as a "financial asset" to begin with, which de facto inhibits its use as a currency. You want to pay for a sandwich with cash? Hand them bills, get sandwich. You want to pay with cryptocurrency? File securities paperwork. Who is going to do that? By comparison, things like foreign currencies that float against the dollar aren't reported when the transaction amount is below a threshold.

▲

lazyasciiart 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Criminals use privacy protection that is not illegal too.

▲

AnthonyMouse 4 days ago | parent [-]

Indeed, criminals use things like HTTPS and ad blockers and lock the doors to their cars and homes. But so does everybody else?

▲

lazyasciiart 4 days ago | parent [-]

Yes. I am disagreeing with your assumption that all "libertarian minded tech" must be illegal and only used by criminals. VPNs, Signal, ...

	▲	yujzgzc 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Using HTTPS to check Gmail and send messages isn't what I'd call libertarian tech. You're still communicating everything in cleartext to Google, whoever you're emailing with, and whoever subpoenas Google or the other provider.

▲

xp84 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> starts being thought of as enabling freedom from oppressive governments and ends up being adopted by criminals - Bitcoin, Tor, etc

Yes. Both are real facets of this type of tech. For all the handwringing about "but what if fascism" that we have here in the US, I'm pretty sure 90% of the actual worries American cryptocurrency users have in their hearts is either about tax evasion, money laundering, or using crypto to buy/sell something illegal (Granted, there are some things illegal to buy/sell that there could be an ethical argument shouldn't be illegal -- probably certain drugs for instance). If someone has made bitcoin transactions to say, donate to EFF, Planned Parenthood or ACLU, I would take a bet of 5 Bitcoin that he isn't going to be imprisoned for that fact in this country. Yes, even though Trump is President.

But I think we who believe in privacy make ourselves look bad if we try to pretend that there isn't a ton of that stuff going on.

It's a reasonable opinion to say that privacy is good, but I think the thing to argue and "prove" is that it outweighs the fact that this technology also enables all this bad stuff. Which is a value judgment and thus you need to convince people, rather than just point to the word "Freedom" and assert.

▲

ipaddr 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Donating in public associates you with that charity. If that charity happens to be politically different from people in power it can use it against you.

We have to decide what kind of society we want. One with locks on doors or a world where that is illegal. Bad guys use locks and so do regular people. Taking away everyone's freedom and safety because it makes it easier to catch "bad guys" is not worth the tradeoffs in terms of safety / privacy or creating a society worth living in.

▲

feoren 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If someone has made bitcoin transactions to say, donate to EFF, Planned Parenthood or ACLU, I would take a bet of 5 Bitcoin that he isn't going to be imprisoned for that fact in this country. Yes, even though Trump is President.

Yet. They want to execute people for being trans in Florida, by separately passing laws that child abusers get executed, and that being trans == child abuse. It's not hyperbolic to worry that donating to a trans rights organization could make you a governmental target. Scammers might steal some of my money, but they're not going to abduct me off the street into unmarked vans in front of my kids.

▲

xp84 a day ago | parent [-]

Nobody thinks that "being trans == child abuse." They do argue that encouraging children to do permanent elective surgeries is child abuse. We don't let them get tattoos and piercings. Some people believe we should also not let them sterilize themselves as minors. Other people don't. But I'll refrain from discussing this off-topic subject further.

	▲	feoren a day ago \| parent [-]
		Literally every sentence you said is based on lies and misinformation. > Nobody thinks that "being trans == child abuse." Yes, they pushed laws that say that "cross dressing" in the presence of a minor should be considered child abuse, and they define "cross dressing" as wearing clothing not appropriate to your birth sex, so a trans woman wearing a dress in public would count as child abuse. In the media they talked about "drag shows" but the bill would have effectively made trans people dressing as their gender a felony. > We don't let them get tattoos and piercings. Many ear piercing salons will pierce the ears of children as young as 6. Some infants get their ears pierced. Many children do not even need the consent of their parents to get piercings. Tattoos I'll grant you. > They do argue that encouraging children to do permanent elective surgeries is child abuse. Nobody is encouraging children to get permanent elective surgeries. Children are not receiving permanent surgeries. Gender reassignment surgeries are only done on people 18+ except in extreme cases (which apply to both trans- and cis-gendered people), and only after years of other care and treatment. Puberty blockers are not permanent -- that is their entire point. These "drive-through" gender reassignment surgeries are a total fabrication of anti-trans groups. Many more cis-gendered children receive puberty blockers (e.g. for those entering puberty way too early) and other gender-related care than trans-gendered kids. Conservatives do not argue that children should not receive these surgeries, they only argue that trans children should not receive these surgeries. The exact same care is either classified as legal or illegal depending on whether its purpose is to reaffirm birth sex or not. Nobody is trying to outlaw any of these treatments or care, they are only trying to outlaw its use in trans people. Nobody objects to the care, they object to the existence of trans people. > Some people believe we should also not let them sterilize themselves as minors. This is not a thing that happens. > But I'll refrain from discussing this off-topic subject further. "Let me just spread complete disinformation, but you're not allowed to reply to any of it, or you're being off-topic, and I refuse to engage with you." This is an extremely bad-faith way to end your post. You are spreading misinformation. Stop it.

▲

heavyset_go 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This is archaic thinking, today all it takes is the president tweeting about your donations for your family to have to go into hiding forever.