FYI, in case I'm misquoted later on.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:     Re: CoinDesk journalist query for Mike
Date:     Fri, 10 Oct 2014 01:47:33 +0200
From:     Mike Gogulski <mike@???>
To:     Danny Bradbury <danny@???>

Hi Danny. We just spoke briefly on the phone. I thought I'd rough out
some responses meanwhile. See below, inline.


On 10/08/2014 11:14 PM, Danny Bradbury wrote:
> Mike,
>
> I'm writing for CoinDesk. There is news of a European operation called
> the Illegal Trade on Online Marketplaces (ITOM) that seems to be
> targeting deep web activities online. It originates in the
> Netherlands, and it's been leaked to their paper, Volkskrant. The
> leaked statement from the Dutch ministry specifically suggests looking
> into bitcoin users, and ITOM is a multi-country operation in Europe.
>
> I'm putting together a piece on this, and would welcome your views,
> given your involvement with Ulbricht's defense fund. I had tried
> contacting you months ago on another story, but didn't hear back from you.
>
> I am hoping to get some answers to my questions by the end of the day
> on Friday, October 10. Could you help, either with a telephone
> interview, or with written responses via email? I am on Pacific time.
>
> Countries in the EU currently implement 'know your client' and
> anti-money-laundering laws when dealing with bitcoin exchanges. Are
> there inadequacies in these laws and how might they be addressed?

Yes, there are inadequacies in the law, but I don't care if or how they
are addressed. In fact, I wish these laws would go away, along with the
creatures who promulgate and enforce them. Bitcoin Foundation Executive
Director Jon Matonis called anti-money-laundering laws "financial
thoughtcrime" just last year:
http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/money-laundering-is-financial-thoughtcrime-1058902-1.html

"It's like buying a drive-thru donut in a stolen vehicle. The theft of
the vehicle may have been illegal and immoral but the act of purchasing
a donut is not."

Let's finally recognize that financial commerce is speech, and that it
is speech worth of all the protections that "freedom of speech"
attracts: (my piece)
http://bitcoinmagazine.com/5027/freedom-of-speech-in-financial-commerce/

> In this presentation on ITOM's activities, the organisation mentions
> the bitcoin community as a potential partner to help crack down on
> dark market activity in Europe. Should the bitcoin community help?

I'm not sure who the "bitcoin community" is, at this point. I know that
if a certain person decides to collaborate with the
INTERPOL-Pan-European anti-"money laundering" authority, they are no
longer my ally. I support dark markets 100%, even though I don't support
all of their consequences. What I do not support is the
nanny/protector-state's arrogation of power with respect to instruments
of financial freedom, no matter what or who the enemies of the day might be.

> Is ITOM a futile gesture?

Certainly not. I expect that this effort will yield friuts in the form
of unexpected prosecutions in unexpected jurisdicions before the end of
2014.

> Can dark markets be stopped?

No, they can not. But that doesn't mean that many people will try, with
bad intentions or good. What is pathetic, to me, is that so many people
give police and bureaucrats the benefit of the doubt, and completely
ignore the consequence of supporting their institutions over those of
the common people, who merely wish to enjoy a whiff of prohibited smoke
or the peaceful crossing of an imaginary border without molestation. To
boil down to a familiar situation: if you discovered your daughter with
heroin in her room, are you going to call the police? If so, why don't
you just lock her in a cage yourself? And, if she attempts to resist,
why not just kill her, and blame the whole thing on "resisting arrest"
or some other sort of antisocial thing? And if you are /not /willing to
do that, personally, to the drug addict in your family, how can you
sleep at night knowing that you advocate for the same thing being done
to others, by complete strangers, whose claim to legitimate authority is
more tenuous than that of Grand Moff Tarkin or Darth Vader?



> Can you help? Please let me know.
>