Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:40PM   Printer-friendly
from the gonna-need-more-wallets-and-aliases dept.

The European Commission – the executive arm of the European Union – has proposed a directive aimed [at] preventing the use [of] the financial system for terrorist financing which includes a central database for bitcoin and virtual currency users' identities and wallet addresses accessible to government financial intelligence units (FIUs).

The proposal seeks to require member states to bring into force the regulations necessary to comply with this directive by Jan. 1, 2017.

[...] To counter the risks related to the anonymity, national FIUs should be able to associate virtual currency addresses to the identity of the owner of virtual currencies. In addition, the possibility to allow users to self-declare to authorities voluntarily should be considered.

The proposal defines "virtual currencies" as "a digital representation of value that is neither issued by a central bank or a public authority, nor necessarily attached to a fiat currency, but is accepted by natural or legal persons as a means of payment and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically."

Source: CCN.LA


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 04 2016, @10:58PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 04 2016, @10:58PM (#384291) Journal

    I'm as libertarian and pro-anonymity as you can find in a place like this

    followed by:

    yet I'm not sure doing away with financial oversight is such a good idea. There's clearly a system in place meant to stop criminals from using their money. They circumvent it by laundering it in semi-legit businesses, so the system isn't perfect, but there's gonna be consequences for dropping it entirely.

    So no, I think we can do better than that. This is just the typical case of vague FUD triggers call to restrict liberty and gather information about innocent people, a thing which is quite the opposite of libertarianism and pro-anonymity?

    And as you note, the criminals with money circumvent the system. So what really is the good of this system?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05 2016, @08:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 05 2016, @08:31AM (#384420)

    Being libertarian doesn't mean I'm uncritical of libertarian thought. If I had to choose today whether bitcoin lives or dies, I'd want it to be more widely used. Despite that I wanted to see some discussion about pros and cons of these issues - instead we usually get blind "freedom over everything" jubilation like the post below yours.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 05 2016, @08:06PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 05 2016, @08:06PM (#384608) Journal

      Despite that I wanted to see some discussion about pros and cons of these issues - instead we usually get blind "freedom over everything" jubilation like the post below yours.

      Where is this nuance supposed to be? There isn't much government interest in stopping money laundering or the criminal activity which generating that cash flow else we'd see real punishments for it. Meanwhile the poorer citizens gets a variety of indignities, including brazen theft (seizure of their cash), just because they handle moderately large amounts of cash in a way that pops up on some authority's radar.

      As to your remarks about the "blind 'freedom over everything' jubilation", I see it's a blatant strawman. This is what was actually written:

      Maybe removing the government's ability to look at money flow is a good thing

      If your primary concern is catching bad guys, you have already failed to understand the value of freedom. I do not want to live in a perfectly safe society and am more than willing to accept risks in the name of freedom.

      but I can't help but see parallels to how the sexual revolution destroyed the traditional family without even considering that it may be good for something

      Right, The Traditional Family. The thing that didn't exist.

      And I find I agree with this poster on the first point. Catching crooks (Especially crooks that you created in the first place through bad law and government/societal discrimination! And especially crimes that the authorities don't try to catch except when they want to make an example of someone!) should not be a higher priority than the freedom of the society.

      As to the second point, the decline of the "traditional family" has more to do with the fact that a lot of people just aren't interested and simply don't choose to have that lifestyle. I'm fine with that and I'm fine with the fact that you aren't. But the possible drawbacks of this decline is a lousy argument for the current intrusive monitoring by government of our economic activities, especially given that you can't think of any benefits, but merely assume something must be out there.

      Let us remember the fundamental problem of freedom: when you let someone have freedom, then they have the freedom to do things you don't like.