Surprise: DOJ Is Not a Big Fan of Privacy-Preserving Cryptocurrencies

Privacy is a right, not a “high risk” and “possibly criminal” activity


The Department of Justice has been busy thinking about how to deal with cryptographic technologies. This past month, DOJ has issued two major statements on privacy-preserving tech, one of them an international rallying cry to build government backdoors into secure communications and the other a "clarification" of federal policy surrounding cryptocurrency applications. Unsurprisingly, both documents view privacy-preserving technologies as impediments to DOJ operations.

The encryption statement was mostly a reiteration of long-standing government issues with secure communications, this time wrapped in the packaging of saving children from criminals. Signatories from the Anglo governments ("Five Eyes") plus India and Japan again asserted that "public safety [can] be protected without compromising privacy or cyber security." This is obviously true in the abstract, but not when the "protection" in question is a government backdoor that necessarily compromises privacy and security. No new ground was broken here.

The cryptocurrency report, on the other hand, does give new insight into the developing priorities of federal bodies grappling with the rise of cryptocurrency. It's not a lawmaking document, but rather a backgrounder laying out how cryptocurrency works and where certain applications might run afoul of established agency guidance. Still, it provides a valuable look into where the next battles in the war between privacy and surveillance will be fought. Specifically, DOJ has indicated a strong unease with "anonymity enhanced cryptocurrencies" (AECs), more commonly known as privacycoins, such as Monero and Zcash, as well as coin-mixing techniques.

The report, "Cryptocurrency: An Enforcement Framework" begins with a brief description of blockchain technologies before sparing an even briefer few words for the "breathtaking possibilities for human flourishing" that distributed ledger technologies may raise. The reader will be treated to two curt paragraphs discussing limited "legitimate uses," including eliminating the need for a financial intermediary, minimizing transaction costs, providing an inflation shelter and micro-payments, and improved security controls. Even then, these are caveated.

This perfunctory nod to positive use cases dwarfs in comparison to the roughly fourteen pages of horribles that follow. The report recounts in exhausting detail every possible crime that could be or has been committed using cryptocurrency. There are three major categories: 1) financial transactions used to commit crimes, e.g. drug trafficking and terrorism; 2) money laundering to hide crimes or tax evasion; and 3) cryptocurrency scams and hacks.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that America's top cops would spend more time fearmongering on worse case scenarios than describing, say, how cryptocurrencies have been a lifeline to people in tyrannical or failing states. But a bit of context would have provided much needed clarity.

For example, the first page of the report states that "cryptocurrency is increasingly being used to buy and sell lethal drugs … contributing to an epidemic that killed over 67,000 Americans by overdose in 2018 alone." The citation just leads to the CDC statistics on total overdose deaths, yet the claim makes it seem like it was mostly cryptocurrency that directly caused these deaths.

There is no attempt to establish exactly what proportion of cryptocurrency use is linked to overdoses or even the drug trade in general, let alone how that compares to traditional financial channels. In fact, blockchain forensics suggests that around one percent ($600 million) of global cryptocurrency transactions are linked to criminal darknet markets, which involve not only drugs but also things like forgeries and identity theft. Compare this to the some $150 billion that Americans alone spend on illegal drugs using boring old money each year. Perspective matters.

Similar problems permeate throughout. The report gives examples of serious crimes involving cryptocurrency, but there is rarely an attempt to contextualize these crimes in terms of what proportion of cryptocurrency activity is involved in such deeds and how that compares to traditional finance. An alien reading this document would come away thinking that cryptocurrency is a kind of Mos Eisley Cantina of transacting, with nary a good reason for getting involved.

This is a shame, as many of the beneficial uses of cryptocurrency could greatly aid the victim groups the DOJ rightly seeks to protect. Good guys need privacy, too—often more than anyone else. A source seeking to expose a planned terror attack might use encryption and cryptocurrency to coordinate with authorities while limiting the risk of reprisal, for instance. Having an unbalanced picture of the risks and benefits of any technology can limit the use cases that would actually further stated goals.

The report admits that most of the described crimes are and have been committed using good old-fashioned cash, yet it maintains that the scale and ease that cryptocurrency affords makes crime that much easier. Worse yet, the privacy options and nested communities of cryptocurrency makes these crimes all the opaquer to law enforcement.

There is no question that criminals may choose to use cryptocurrency, and this requires new law enforcement strategies. The DOJ extols several crackdowns on criminal activities: There is Operation DisrupTor, which took down international darknet drug markets, the Welcome to Video bust of child exploitation merchants, and the dismantling of terrorist financing campaigns. It is fantastic that violent criminal enterprises have been taken down, and blockchain forensics play a large role in these law enforcement successes.

In other words, like with encryption in general, while cryptocurrency does create new challenges for law enforcement, it also offers new opportunities for creative yet constitutional investigations of clearly anti-social criminal activities.

As someone who thinks a lot about privacy and security holes with cryptocurrency, it's interesting to see outsider perspectives that assume things like bitcoin offer strong privacy by default. As a series by privacy researcher Eric Wall makes clear, perfect cryptocurrency anonymity is almost comically hard to achieve even with custom-built "privacycoins" offering stronger anti-surveillance tools. There are so many ways that users can leak identity data to powerful and motivated adversaries like the DOJ—if the blockchain doesn't get you, your IP address, wallet software, poor address hygiene, and even your sleep schedule trivially could. It's no wonder the DOJ can boast of so many crypto-seizures.

And the DOJ is far from the only sheriff in town. The report provides a helpful overview of the current regulatory landscape, which is well-regulated indeed. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) manages financial surveillance under the Bank Secrecy Act, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) enforces international financial sanctions, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) oversees banks providing cryptocurrency custodial services, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chases after illegal securities trading under the guise of "initial coin offerings" (ICOs) or "decentralized finance" (DeFi), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sniffs out dodgy derivatives trading, and of course there is the good old IRS to hunt down what Uncle Sam thinks is his. This doesn't even get into state and international regulators. Needless to say, cryptocurrency is hardly a wild west.

That's not good enough for the DOJ. One of the most concerning sections comes towards the end of the report when discussing privacycoins like Monero and Zcash. These are distributed networks like bitcoin that integrate stronger privacy techniques like ring signatures and zk-SNARKs by default. Because they are not centralized, they should be treated in the same legal bucket as bitcoin.

But the DOJ says that it considers "the use of AECs to be a high-risk activity that is indicative of possible criminal conduct." This default suspicion of Americans who choose to exercise their right to privacy is not only alarming, it is contrary to our values as an open society.

It's also slippery policy language: regulated exchanges must maintain financial surveillance on customers by law regardless of cryptocurrency type. For example, Gemini, a U.S.-based cryptocurrency platform, offers Zcash trading to customers in a compliant manner.

Similar problems arise when the report discusses general privacy hygiene techniques. It specifically discusses centralized mixers and "chain hopping," which is the practice of shuffling money among different cryptocurrencies to frustrate chain analysis.

Centralized mixers already violate established law (besides being just dumb to use from a privacy and security standpoint), and in fact FinCEN just took action against one last week. But there's nothing inherently wrong with keeping transactions discreet through decentralized means like CoinJoins and avoiding address reuse—things that FinCEN has clarified do not violate financial surveillance law.

Is DOJ confused or muddying the waters? In the worst-case scenario, governments could waste time targeting legal and secure decentralized privacy techniques when they should be focused on central parties illegally providing these services to criminal enterprises.

Since criminals often aren't the brightest people in the world, they might tend to make a good number of identity-leaking mistakes with cryptocurrency. The DOJ should focus its attention on learning these pitfalls so they can get the biggest bang for their buck. Casting clouds of suspicion over law-abiding and innocent privacy-minded cryptocurrency users is not only contrary to our values; it wastes precious resources that could be spent sharpening effective and legal forensics tools against real crypto-criminals.

NEXT: Shrooms Are on the D.C. Ballot  

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I am getting $120 to $150 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 5 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you…
    check this lin-k >>>>> USA JOBS EARNING

    1. How long til Facebook is completely worn down?

      1. January 22nd, 2015.

        1. I quit working at shop rite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t qwe exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier So i try use.

          Here’s what I do…>>Easy work to Home

          1. Google easily work and google pays me every hour and every week just $5K to $8K for doing online work from home. I am a universty student and I work n my part time just 2 to 3 hours a day easily from home. Abn Now every one can earn extra cash for doing online home system and make a good life by just open this website and follow instructions on this page… Visit Here

  2. Never forget when Repubs and Dems scream about Big Tech they are coming for encryption. That is the end goal of the “Deep State”, they can’t abide an average citizen having secrets.

    1. My Georgia Senator Kelly Loeffler is the first cryptocurrency Senator in Congress.

      Bakkt is her experience base in cryptocurrency.

      1. I’m pretty sure both of my California Senators have received a lot more cryptocurrency donations off the record than your Senators have.

        1. She worked at a crypto currency company with her husband.

  3. Here is the part I have never quite understood about cryptocurrency. Whence does it derive it’s value? What tangible thing guarantees the soundness of cryptocurrency?

    Maybe someone can explain this to me.

    1. Like all currency it has the value that two or more people agree it has. Nothing more, nothing less

      1. The principle applies to tangible things as well (or pretty much anything since anything can act as a currency). Paradox of diamonds and water, one man’s trash is another man’s treasure and all that…

    2. As far as I know, which admittedly isn’t much, cryptocurrency is just fiat money, there’s nothing tangible backing it up. There are however, at least in some of them that I’ve looked at, regular rules for increasing the money supply, they can’t just print up an unlimited supply of money.

      1. Bitcoin and some other cryptocurrencies limit or cap the quantity created, but there’s nothing limiting the number of offered cryptocurrencies from approaching infinity.

        What gives them value is that people want to use them as a unit of account, a means of exchange, and/or a store of value. People have confidence that the exchanges are honest, and that the currency can be converted to US dollars (minus a hefty conversion fee) at any time, and US dollars have value because you can pay your taxes with them, and stay out of jail.

        1. When the CSA were conquered by the USA, Confederate currency was still handy for exchange and suddenly had a very fixed supply, but it rapidly became worthless since there was no more CSA offering or collecting payments with it.

      2. Do you know what “fiat” means? It means ‘decree”. So now you know that crypto is absolutely NOT like “fiat”, as it trades by mutual agreement, not by the decree of some “authoriteh”. (You are probably confusing use value with exchange value. Both fiat and crypto have only exchange value, as precious metals have both use and exchange value)

        ALL value is subjective.

    3. The value comes in decentralization, security from theft and governments, convenience in spending online, and Bitcoin controls hyperinflation thru having finite quantity.

      1. Bitcoin controls hyperinflation thru having finite quantity

        Disagree. Find me a definition of hyperinflation and bitcoin, as a currency, has almost certainly violated it. Bitcoin hedges against hyperinflation intrinsically, but there’s little/no evidence that this is more effective than other exogenous controls (Government, bank, or other).

        1. “CASH is increasingly being used to buy and sell lethal drugs … contributing to an epidemic that killed over 67,000 Americans by overdose in 2018 alone.”

          FTFY. Ban cash!

          1. That is in the cards already.

            1. That was 5 years ago.

        2. hy·per·in·fla·tion
          monetary inflation occurring at a very high rate.

      2. ^Perfectly stated lc1789 – Trust is what keeps any fiat currency afloat having no intrinsic value. And governments fiat-trust is declining rapidly due to “bailouts”, “stuffing supplies” and “borrowed liabilities”.

  4. If the government wants to compete with cryptocurrency, just bring back the higher denomination Federal Reserve Notes: 500 or 1000 or 10,000 or 100,000 bills are a lot more private and convenient than a duffel bag full of Benjamins. A hundred bucks now is about what a twenty was worth when I was a kid. Should go back to 1,000 USD being the common note for large private payments, just for convenience.

    1. That will make the civil asset forfeiture guys happy, lighter loads when they rob you.

  5. “It [government] covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” ~ Alexis de Tocqueville
    “As the interned American citizens of Japanese descent learned, the Bill of Rights provided them with little protection when it was needed.” ~ Glenn Harlan Reynolds

  6. >>The Department of Justice has been busy thinking about how to deal with cryptographic technologies.

    should be busy investigating the Biden Criminal Faction.

  7. And the real reason the DOJ is going after cryptocurrency —-

    “We ate all the green-grass the USD could possibly give us; time to conquer and consume the next one….”

  8. What DOJ and the rest of the Feds seem to have forgotten: WHERE are they charged, in our Constitution, with the tsk of “keeping us safe” or “protecting us” in anything beyond protecting our God-given LIBERTIES?

    There are ways enough for them to catach and prosecute TRUE criminals, those doing harm to the rest of us. But in far too many cases, they FAIL at that. Meanwhile they lock up and imprison folks that never should have been arrested. They put the Hamond,s Father and Son, from Harney County Oregon, in prison because they lit a back-fire to prevent their HOME from being burned in a range fire BLM (the government not the commies, or is there much difference anymore?)had set to DELIBERATELY burn down their home, That fire was diverted by the back-burn they set, but did go up the hill and destry their neighbours house and barn. Hammonds were charged with arson, wich always involves a sructure, not the range grass THEY burned, and did nothing about the BLM goons that TRIED to burn out the Hammonds and instead DID burn out their neighbours.

    Fed assets need to be expended in locating true criminals, not falsely charging innocents and imprisoning them.

    They do stuff like this, then go on a whinge because they can’t access MY cell phone and email legally because I MIGHT be “up to something they don’t like”. Well, ever hear of the INNOCENT UNTIL PRoVEN GUILTY? Or how’s about no searches except on PROBABLE CAUSE being the basis of sworn testimoney that I AM INDEED up to something illegal. FedGov need to go on lockdown with respect to ninety percent of what they do. Just think of the lives and money saved, and the workforce released to do something PRODUCTIVE? Tx Freedom Day is now some time in July. In other words, we work until midJuly for government at all levels, THEN we get to work for ourselevs. This is not “sustainable”.

  9. Pitiful, DOJ. You just slandered all of free America.

    Whenever free Americans execute trades, other Americans remain within their rights (at their own discretion) to presume innocence until proven guilty.

    Why must the DOJ play so with reversing the presumption? Isn’t that a bit irresponsible?

    But I suppose you can drill anyhoo you like if it could at least free up a little spare change.

    Every time a law officer sticks his finger in a piece of cotton candy or doughnut hole and tests for intensive concentrations of imported Souther Mexican territory, his faith in innocent until proven guilty empowers his discretion.

  10. Pitiful, DOJ. You just slandered all of free America.

    Whenever free Americans execute trades, other Americans remain within their rights (at their own discretion) to presume innocence until proven guilty.

    Why must the DOJ play so with reversing the presumption? Isn’t that a bit irresponsible?

    But I suppose you can drill anyhoo you like if it could at least free up a little spare change.

    Every time a law officer sticks his finger in a piece of fresh cotton candy or doughnut hole and tests for intensive concentrations of imported Souther Mexican territory, his faith in innocent until proven guilty empowers his discretion.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.