[Cryptography] Privacy, Code, and the Future

[Andrew Lee]

On Aug 8, 2025, at 9:29 AM, John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
> 
> It appears that Andrew Lee <andrew at joseon.com> said:
>> John,
>> 
>> You're making a dangerous assumption here, that people who want privacy are likely committing crimes, and that those who build or buy tools enabling privacy
>> are complicit.
> 
> When the "privacy" involves hiding money, it's a quite reasonable assumption.

I can think of many legitimate reasons to privately engage in commerce from health privacy among other things.

> 
> You don't have to like it, but that's how it's been for a long time.
> 
>> If we follow that logic, everyone who's ever made or sold anything that could be misused, from computers, to web browsers, to encryption itself, should be in jail.
> 
> Sorry, but saying that over and over again doesn't make it true.
> 
> Having been involved in some actual lawmaking, I can assure you that slippery slope arguments
> are unpersuasive.  Judges have no trouble telling the difference between a web browser and
> a crypto mixer.
> 
> R's,
> John
> 

If a statement is true, it’s true.

Narrow-minded lawmakers may ignore slippery slope arguments, and that’s where bad laws are born.

But anyone building laws for the long term will absolutely account for that slope.

Lawmaking is a balance: too strong laws and you’re paralyzed by regulation, but too weak and you’re paralyzed by anarchy.

Make no mistake, we’re sliding toward regulatory paralysis.

-Andrew