Behind the sanctions against Tornado Cash: Code is speech has become a false proposition?

Original author: Badbrothers, encrypted KOL

Original compilation: Leo, BlockBeats

Today, OFAC imposed sanctions on Roman Semenov, one of the three founders of the Tornado Cash virtual currency mixer, for providing substantial support to Tornado Cash and the Lazarus Group, a state-level hacking group backed by North Korea. The U.S. Treasury Department said that since its creation in 2019, Tornado Cash has been used to launder money for criminals, including for the Lazarus Group hackers to cover up hundreds of millions of dollars in virtual currency theft.

But the problem is that the reason for this sanction bypasses the user privacy layer and directly targets the protocol layer, so should protocol freedom be regulated? This behavior has also once again sparked conflicts between encryption supervision and protocol technology, encryption KOLBadbrothersThe author commented on the incident, which BlockBeats compiled as follows:

Code is speech

Today, the United States once again imposed sanctions on cryptocurrencies. The founders of Tornado Cash Roman Storm and Roman Semenov became official US political prisoners for writing code, but this sanction involves not only attacks on cryptocurrencies, but also speech itself. s attack.

Lets go back to the 90s, when there was Bernstein v. Department of Justice. This is one of the first major successful cases of the code is speech law established by the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation).

BlockBeats Note: In 2015, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an American non-profit organization, celebrated its 25th anniversary. The EFF official website published an article reviewing a major legal victory. That is, the case of Bernstein v. the U.S. Department of Justice ”, a landmark case that established that code is speech and changed U.S. export controls on encryption software. At that time, Daniel J. Bernstein, a PhD student in mathematics at Berkeley, wanted to publish the encryption algorithm he developed, the source code of the program to run the algorithm, and a mathematical paper describing and explaining the algorithm. Due to U.S. government laws and regulations at the time, Bernstein had to submit his idea, register as an arms dealer, and then apply for an export license. However, the U.S. State Department warned him that even if he applied for a license, he would be officially rejected on the grounds that his encryption technology was too secure. Subsequently, EFF assembled a capable legal team and sued the US government on behalf of Bernstein in February 1995. On April 15, 1996, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the Northern District of California issued the crucial first ruling, holding that code is speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment.

The case roughly describes the restrictions and supervision of encryption software in the United States. In the early 1990s, for national security purposes, the US government classified encryption software as a kind of arms and imposed strict restrictions and supervision on it. Bernstein fought and won the fight to legitimize code is speech and prevent the U.S. from restricting encryption software exports, as well as facilitate the flourishing of e-commerce.

Since the birth of encryption technology, U.S. officials have been cracking down on encryption technology, from the previous attempt to install backdoor chips in every electronic device, to the recent attempt to allow companies such as Apple to install software backdoors for national security.

But what if you encounter a virus or something?

Lets review what freedom of speech does not cover. Oft-repeated lies like You cant talk about a fire in a crowded theater come from Schenk v. United States in 1919, a poor ruling against the terrible speech laws of the time.

Of course, the case has nothing to do with fires or crowded theaters. Instead, it was used during World War I to imprison anti-war protesters who distributed anti-draft (slavery) pamphlets, according to the recently passed Espionage Act. Woodrow Wilson (the 28th President of the United States) was the worst.

This loophole was eventually overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio and established the position in the United States today that speech advocating unlawful conduct is protected by the First Amendment unless the speech is likely to immediately incite the public to wrongdoing.

For example, its like were going to kill everyone who likes pineapple pizza, but the guy in the blue shirt likes pineapple on his pizza, were going to kill him too, its not Tornado Cash who likes pineapple people.

Applying this logic to code would mean that it is illegal to create viruses/malware etc. with the intention of infecting and causing damage to a users system. However, simply creating one in a closed network as a test/experiment wont do.

Another notable similar case is that of Cody Wilson (American Crypto Anarchist) with the US State Department over the legality of 3D printed gun codes, which they are trying to prosecute under ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) regulations.

3D printing will do for the right of self-defense what the internet did for free speech and what Bitcoin did for the freedom of transaction. In my opinion, Cody and Satoshi Nakamoto will be immortalized as heroes for freedom.

Cody is a crypto-anarchist and a loyal supporter of Bitcoin. In 2013, he released the documents of the first 3D printed gun The Liberator. Export arms to Mexico.

ITAR regulations were also used to investigate PGP founder Phil Zimmermann, but ITAR ultimately dropped the investigation because of the Bernstein case. However, the case between Cody and the U.S. Department of State regarding the printing of firearms finally came to an end in 2018. The case ended in an out-of-court settlement. The U.S. Department of Justice ruled that from August 1, 2018, possessing or publishing 3D printed gun designs will be illegal in the United States. deemed legal. Defense Distributed (the organization created by Cody) also received US$40,000 in legal compensation from the US official.

Go back to the Tornado Cash case. We have established the long-term legitimacy of code is speech. Tornado Cash’s statement stated that the project is not directly related to the hacker group that uses it, but is simply exploited by the hacker group.

The argument in the case boils down to by not implementing KYC or AML procedures, Tornado Cash knowingly assisted criminals in laundering money. This represents a direct attack on cryptocurrency and free speech. The official stated that creating a privacy protocol that can be used by criminals is criminal behavior.

Tornado Cash is not a CEX. Tornado Cash is a privacy solution for Ethereum’s zero-knowledge proofs: a smart contract that accepts Ethereum transactions so that assets can be withdrawn in the future without reference to the original transaction.

This case also means that the battle between privacy, free speech, cryptocurrency and our basic natural rights and regulation has escalated again. The founder of Tornado Cash is now included in the list of countless other political criminals in the United States, like Ross Ulbricht and Julian Assange before him.

Now we have to stand up and express our support for these founders. This is also the meaning of Bitcoin and blockchain from the beginning to the present.

Finally, if Roman is convicted due to this ridiculous legal standard, I think the United States may also prosecute Satoshi Nakamoto for the same reasons and logic, or even anyone who contributed to Monero or anyone who tried to put a privacy layer on People on Bitcoin, they all face the same risks.