<story><title>Infrastructure bill cryptocurrency surveillance provision is a privacy disaster</title><url>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/cryptocurrency-surveillance-provision-buried-infrastructure-bill-disaster-digital</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>1cvmask</author><text>This is more than a privacy disaster. It is so far so vaguely worded (maybe deliberately?) that the government can target everyone in the ecosystem with penalties:&lt;p&gt;While the language is still evolving, the proposal would seek to expand the definition of “broker” under section 6045(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include anyone who is “responsible for and regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets” on behalf of another person. These newly defined brokers would be required to comply with IRS reporting requirements for brokers, including filing form 1099s with the IRS. That means they would have to collect user data, including users’ names and addresses.&lt;p&gt;The broad, confusing language leaves open a door for almost any entity within the cryptocurrency ecosystem to be considered a “broker”—including software developers and cryptocurrency startups that aren’t custodying or controlling assets on behalf of their users. It could even potentially implicate miners, those who confirm and verify blockchain transactions. The mandate to collect names, addresses, and transactions of customers means almost every company even tangentially related to cryptocurrency may suddenly be forced to surveil their users.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>pembrook</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;I fail to see how this is a &amp;quot;privacy disaster.&amp;quot; It looks like crypto brokers are going to be treated like all other brokerages.&lt;p&gt;Do you also call it a &amp;quot;privacy disaster&amp;quot; when your bank account requires your name and address so they can report interest payments to the government? Or when Robinhood&amp;#x2F;Schwab&amp;#x2F;Vanguard&amp;#x2F;Etc send the IRS a list of all your stock transactions for the year in a form 1099?&lt;p&gt;Bitcoin is basically digital gold, and just like with gold, when you chose to buy or sell it the convenient way (eg. through an ETF instead of actual physical gold), it gets reported to everybody.&lt;p&gt;You can always custody your own bitcoin and find partners to transact with directly and choose not to report it (like with physical gold), but, similar to physical gold, it will be extremely cumbersome, risky, and not worth your time to do so.</text></comment>
<story><title>Infrastructure bill cryptocurrency surveillance provision is a privacy disaster</title><url>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/cryptocurrency-surveillance-provision-buried-infrastructure-bill-disaster-digital</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>1cvmask</author><text>This is more than a privacy disaster. It is so far so vaguely worded (maybe deliberately?) that the government can target everyone in the ecosystem with penalties:&lt;p&gt;While the language is still evolving, the proposal would seek to expand the definition of “broker” under section 6045(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include anyone who is “responsible for and regularly providing any service effectuating transfers of digital assets” on behalf of another person. These newly defined brokers would be required to comply with IRS reporting requirements for brokers, including filing form 1099s with the IRS. That means they would have to collect user data, including users’ names and addresses.&lt;p&gt;The broad, confusing language leaves open a door for almost any entity within the cryptocurrency ecosystem to be considered a “broker”—including software developers and cryptocurrency startups that aren’t custodying or controlling assets on behalf of their users. It could even potentially implicate miners, those who confirm and verify blockchain transactions. The mandate to collect names, addresses, and transactions of customers means almost every company even tangentially related to cryptocurrency may suddenly be forced to surveil their users.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>pjc50</author><text>This should be read along with &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=28042185&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=28042185&lt;/a&gt; &amp;quot;Wealthy Americans Targeted by U.S. in Panama Tax-Fraud Probe&amp;quot;. The fundamental question is &amp;quot;should paying tax be optional for rich people?&amp;quot; Large parts of the crypto ecosystem believe that the answer should be &amp;quot;yes&amp;quot;. The US government believes the answer should be &amp;quot;no&amp;quot;.</text></comment>