yeah from the way they're talking in that text, they even want to help
make this possible "for the greater good" (to use their words).

On 10/24/2014 11:01 AM, Kyle Torpey wrote:
> We definitely still need to remain vigilant when it comes to how
> governments will try to use these new identity systems in an Orwellian
> way. There is no doubt in my mind that politicians will soon be
> claiming that merchants may only accept payments from verified
> addresses. In fact, a softer version of this is already implemented at
> Coinbase and Circle. I imagine they'll eventually be forced to block
> transactions from unverified bitcoin addresses. In fact, Coinbase
> blocks Tor, which means you cannot use their services anonymously.
>
> This is why supporting open-source bitcoin projects is a much better
> course of action than supporting bitcoin companies. This is why I
> think you guys are doing an awesome service to humanity with Dark
> Wallet. Also a great reason for Monetas to be based in Switzerland :)
>
> Anyway, as I alluded to above, it seems that the real battleground
> will be how often governments try to force people to use PII-connected
> digital identities. For now, it seems that regulators in the US are
> sticking with forcing KYC/AML on exchanges. bitcoin banks, etc.
> Definitely need to watch for the point where they want to force
> merchants to only accepted payments from validated bitcoin addresses.
>
> -@kyletorpey <http://twitter.com/kyletorpey>
>
> On 10/23/2014 11:38 PM, Amir Taaki wrote:
>> Thanks Kyle, an identity system is indeed very useful and an
>> important component to have for future Bitcoin. My concern is the
>> type of reasoning they are employing for their decision making, and
>> the talk of self-regulating gatekeepers.
>
>> On 10/23/2014 07:37 PM, Kyle Torpey wrote:
>>> I've reached out to a few of the entities listed as supporters of
>>> the Windhover Principles for clarification on the AML/KYC points.
>>> The original guidelines actually seem quite good:
>>> https://idcubed.org/home_page_feature/the-windhover-transition/
>>>
>>> It seems that they're interested in creating a general online
>>> identity/reputation system. This isn't bad at all. We're using
>>> digital identities in this mailing list right now. Obviously,
>>> governments can use this system to tack a social security number
>>> or some other sort of PII to a digital ID. Having said that,
>>> there's nothing to prevent from individuals also having
>>> pseudonymous IDs in the same system.
>>>
>>> I'm reaching out to ID3 for further clarification, but it really
>>> just seems like the inevitable blockchain reputation system that
>>> was going to be created by someone someday anyway. Seems quite
>>> similar to Namecoin. Any online reputation system would
>>> eventually be corrupted by governments for the purposes of tying
>>> real-world identities to IDs in certain situations.
>>>
>>> -@kyletorpey <http://twitter.com/kyletorpey>
>>>
>>> On 10/22/2014 07:17 PM, odinn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Julia Tourianski wrote:
>>>>> can someone please use ripple's code to build something
>>>>> sinister. then the regulators or banks wont want anything to
>>>>> do with them.
>>>
>>>> Julia, and everyone else Unsystem: This identity bit is
>>>> clearly something that's been silently in the works for a while
>>>> - and I believe those companies have been pressured to adopt
>>>> something like the Windhover proposal for some time (and in
>>>> light of TISA and FATCA deadlines coming up, some of the
>>>> companies may have agreed to comply with identity-oriented
>>>> regulation for fear of having their domains seized, which has
>>>> happened before).
>>>
>>>> We must deal with this like the community dealt with
>>>> CoinValidation - (which we defeated successfully, by garnering
>>>> support for CoinJoin):
>>>
>>>> [[[ We must kill the Windhover Principles with fire ~ ]]]
>>>
>>>> [[[ by creating software-based solutions which ensure that
>>>> there will be an alternative rooted in anonymity and to ensure
>>>> that there will never be consensus favoring Windhover proposals
>>>> (whether amongst miners, end users, and anyone else). ]]]
>>>
>>>> This is part of why I make such a big noise about migrating
>>>> business models away from websites and getting it really
>>>> decentralized (or if remaining with server-and-website model,
>>>> implementing zero knowledge privacy so that you know nothing
>>>> about the person using your service). Unfortunately, very few
>>>> companies even grasp what zero knowledge privacy is, and fewer
>>>> still are willing to implement it.
>>>
>>>> But perhaps I was wrong to suggest that this
>>>> regulation-coupled-with-decentralized-identity thing has been
>>>> altogether a silent and secretive effort -- for as I've
>>>> pointed out recently on a different list, the three letter
>>>> agencies and their corporate shills have been trying very hard
>>>> to keep certain types of crypto from being used in WebCrypto -
>>>> namely, a curve used in bitcoin, and another that is used in
>>>> BCN (schnorr ring sig, etc) called curve25519, which is also
>>>> used in a nearly uncountable number of software applications
>>>> already (even in Apple and Chromium worldwide distributions):
>>>> https://cpunks.org//pipermail/cypherpunks/2014-October/005721.html
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> This matter of the WebCrypto bit that I brought up on cypherpunks
>>>> has not only implications for the use of crypto that is common
>>>> in decentralized systems, but as well I believe that the
>>>> attempt of some people in the working groups to carry it to
>>>> last call without bringing the curves into definitions, was
>>>> timed to try to frustrate implementation of decentralized
>>>> identity that would not be tied to regulatory proposals.
>>>> However, the WebCrypto issue (thanks to eyes on it from
>>>> @puellavulnerate and others, has largely been resolved as of
>>>> today: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25618#c62
>>>> (with some minor details left to be worked out). The main thing
>>>> was to keep NSA people from delaying incorporation of needed
>>>> curves in WebCrypto API and to raise the issue about the NSA's
>>>> presence at CFRG. That's all done. I don't feel a need to
>>>> shove that back into the socmedia sphere again, personally.
>>>
>>>> One of the first things we need to do is resolve to close our
>>>> accounts for any companies that back the Windhover Principles,
>>>> as I've suggested here:
>>>
>>>> https://twitter.com/AnonyOdinn/status/525051241286475776
>>>
>>>
>>>> I've also pointed out in recent days that FATCA and TISA alone
>>>> are reason enough to bail out of web-based wallets and
>>>> exchanges that are subject to influence from institutions that
>>>> have to deal with these extremely oppressive laws:
>>>> https://twitter.com/AnonyOdinn/status/524786163916087296
>>>> https://twitter.com/AnonyOdinn/status/524787141084061696 "You
>>>> Have Been Warned:"
>>>> https://twitter.com/AnonyOdinn/status/524792838723104768
>>>
>>>> (I should note that I did get a favorable response back from
>>>> Coinkite's CEO on the matter...)
>>>> https://twitter.com/nvk/status/524664009434619904
>>>
>>>> I realize that Windhover Principles are backed at this point
>>>> over 21 organizations and growing, including BitPay(!). I was
>>>> pleased with BitPay's decision to develop CoPay, a multisig
>>>> wallet one could have direct control over and run from browser,
>>>> and I am stoked about 37Coins approach of bringing bitcoin to
>>>> the masses through text-based solution on not-smart phones, but
>>>> these companies and others have chosen a course that we cannot
>>>> follow - they have chosen to back Windhover. I cannot support
>>>> them in any way in their endeavor, but I do suggest that to the
>>>> extent they have open source code (as both above examples do)
>>>> that we use their code to do better things with than they can.
>>>> For example, we can use 37coins' code to make lightweight
>>>> versions of things that will have greater privacy protections
>>>> and that won't ever require that identities you use in tandem
>>>> with the applications/implementations be "lawful" or
>>>> "compliant."
>>>
>>>> I can't accept any regulatory organization serving whether
>>>> directly or indirectly as some kind of Sharia court over our
>>>> identities or regulating what they are or how data will be
>>>> managed in the context of my authentication with sites or in
>>>> fact with anything at all. Not even slightly. We're supposed
>>>> to be building a way out of the corporation-state controlled ID
>>>> morass - identifying us in any way, shape or form within the
>>>> context of regulation is the whole basis for how societies have
>>>> been enslaved. We have a better way now, and a chance to build
>>>> something new that serves all facets of identity while freeing
>>>> them from any regulatory controls or mandates whatsoever.
>>>
>>>> I have a discussion started around this topic here:
>>>
>>>> https://forum.unsystem.net/t/interoperability-and-trans-identical-identity-decentralization-proposals-thoughts-for-review/333
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> If you would like, please add your thoughts there for further
>>>> technical development of alternative, trans-identical
>>>> proposals. I must state, however, that while I do have an open
>>>> mind on the subject of how people manage their identities, I do
>>>> not want to be part of anything that would involve regulation
>>>> or law in the context of bit-identity or trans-identical
>>>> proposals. I have chosen a fork in the road.
>>>
>>>> "Two paths diverged in a wood, and I... I took the one less
>>>> traveled by... and that has made all the difference."
>>>
>>>
>>>> -Respect, Odinn
>>>
>>>> https://keybase.io/odinn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> For the secrets and lies, my PGP key:
>>>>> https://libbitcoin.dyne.org/julia_tourianski.pgp.asc
>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Julia Tourianski <
>>>>> juliatourianski@???> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> "Gifford added that the project, if successful, could
>>>>>> demonstrate how regulators and innovators can
>>>>>> collaboratively address issues for the greater global
>>>>>> good."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.coindesk.com/20-bitcoin-companies-backing-new-deal-digital-identity/?utm_content=buffer9043b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
> :|
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For the secrets and lies, my PGP key:
>>>>>> https://libbitcoin.dyne.org/julia_tourianski.pgp.asc
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM
>>>>> mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
> -- http://abis.io ~ "a protocol concept to enable decentralization
>>>> and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
>>>> https://keybase.io/odinn
>>>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM
>>>> mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>>
>>>
>>>>
> _______________________________________________
>>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>>>
>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
>> list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>