evoorhees

Mr. Lawsky, thank you for doing this AMA. I respect that.

Question: Do you believe, from an ethical/moral perspective, that an individual has a right to financial privacy? Specifically, ought every individual be compelled to reveal their transactions and holdings of wealth to the United States government?

Ultimately, it is to this moral question that the Bitcoin debate, and all policy surrounding it, will come.

At our hearing, it was clear the use of tumblers was something that had created issues for law enforcement in their investigations.

So does the US Constitution. Let's remember the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and let's respect that privacy is a basic human right. Tumblers should be permitted for the same reason you permit locks on doors, and curtains on windows.

I was also trying to emphasize that money laundering is not to be taken lightly -- in many ways it is the lifeblood of terrorism around the world.

You're confusing a symptom with the disease. The "lifeblood" of terrorism, at least in the US context, is US foreign militarism, the perception of unethical US political influence in the region, and of course the continual murder of civilians perpetrated by the US in the name of the "war on terror." Those constitute the lifeblook of terrorism. Money laundering is merely a symptom.

there is an important competing value in preventing money laundering which often requires that those engaging in financial transactions (especially when large) provide some identifying information

Thank you for the answer.

So you're saying that financial privacy ought to be respected -unless- a transaction is over a certain amount, perhaps.

I hope that you remain consistent with this view, which would require tolerance for "tumblers" and other means of maintaining financial privacy so long as the amounts are under your threshold. We may disagree on the proper threshold number, but I could respect and appreciate your consistency if so.