Slashdot Mirror
Early Bitcoin User Interviewed By Federal Officers
MrBingoBoingo (3481277) writes Recently a Bitcoin user reports being interviewed over their past use of a now defunct exchange service by agents from the FBI and Treasury Department. This encounter raises concerns that earlier Bitcoin users who entered the space inocuously and without ties to Dark Markets or The Silk Road might need to prepare for Law Enforcement questioning about their early Bitcoin related activities.
A Law Enforcement Encounter: If you ran a Bitcoin related service before the thing hit $100 you prolly ought to be somewhat concerned and/or prepared
The rest of the article suggests he was only interviewed because of that service as well. So unless every single early user of bitcoin started up an exchange service, the part we have on slashdot is almost entirely fictional.
Let's not overstate this. The account given by Bingo is a good one, and on the facts it shows two law enforcement officers just doing their job: gathering background information, and they're doing it in a way to minimise the hassle for the ordinary member of public they're interviewing. Bingo mentions no powerplays beyond them identifying themselves as LEOs.
And doing the research how Silk Road grew out of the early BitCoin scene (or if it even did) is a legitimate avenue of inquiry.
I am not a fan of the bullies that populate far too many police forces, so this is a welcome change of pace.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Both the summary and headline (on slashdot - it's different on TFA) are a bunch of horseshit. Here's what the headline looks like on TFA:
A Law Enforcement Encounter: If you ran a Bitcoin related service before the thing hit $100 you prolly ought to be somewhat concerned and/or prepared
The rest of the article suggests he was only interviewed because of that service as well. So unless every single early user of bitcoin started up an exchange service, the part we have on slashdot is almost entirely fictional.
Yep, my take on the article was what you said, and that they have crappy records for that service, so they were on a fishing expedition to see if they could find anything good/relating to the silk road stuff. In all honesty, it sounded like due diligence to me, in other words, the Feds were doing the detective work they needed to be doing.
Be seeing you...
Every US based bitcoin user is going to be asked about their bitcoin activities ... by the IRS since the IRS has figured out how to tax bitcoins, as an asset.
Seriously, this is no joke. As an asset you will be expected to declare a gain or loss on the coins you used to purchase that cup of coffee. The gain or loss with respect to the change of value between the day you received those coins and the day you used them in the purchase.
This is why it is incredibly important whether the IRS considers bitcoins to be a currency or an asset. As an asset the reporting requirements would seem to become similar to that of buying, selling and trading stocks. Its not at all like spending dollars.
Yeah. And if I were just a small-time user of some bitcoin service, my "preparing" for questioning by law enforcement would be to get ready to tell them to get stuffed if they got pushy.
So says an armchair warrior on the internet. In reality at the first suggestion of an IRS audit you'll be copying every log file you have or can download from an exchange onto a memory stick for them. You know why law enforcement gets pushy, because it works.
Preparing for Law Enforcement questioning is no big deal:
Be unfailingly polite, and DON'T ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS! You are not required to answer any questions.
Don't be Ein Dickus Maximus about it, don't stick a camera in their snouts, just don't answer.
Freedom in action.
This guy actually talked to the federal agents who came knocking on his door? Stupid, stupid...
Assuming these were probably FBI or Secret Service agents, my understanding is that the only record allowed of the interview consists of their handwritten notes. You are not allowed to make a recording. This means that, afterwards, they can put any spin on the interview that they want. If you disagree, they can and will throw you in jail for lying to a federal officer.
The only possible reply to these officers should be "I have nothing to say to you".
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
America used to be a country which respects the Rule of Law
No more !
Nowadays the government of the United States of America can lie to the congress, can trample the rights of the citizens, can haul up people without any valid reason, in fact, it can do anything it likes --- and we have you, Sir, and your fellow fascists, to thank !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
If the police catches a car thief, they will likely visit anyone buying a car from him. They can't know that you bought his car that he purchased before he started his thieving career, or the car which he purchased himself with money he made from thieving (which would then be legally yours, unlike a stolen car that you bought off the thief), until they ask you.
That's the purpose of interviewing that man - to figure out if he had anything to do with illegal activities or not. Apparently he didn't. So what's the problem?
If you had any sense, you'd understand that regardless of the reason(s) you've found yourself interacting with the police, the only sensible course of action would be to have all communications handled by your lawyer(s). Don't worry, you're far from alone in your lack of sense, and that is precisely why fairly rudimentary law enforcement pressure (rightly or wrongly) works as often as it does.
Write failed: Broken pipe
If you werent aware, Slashdot is a game whereby you figure out WHICH pieces of the headline and summary are BS.
Congrats on your first win!
No, as you say, it's a fishing expedition.
Sorry, officer, do you have some evidence of wrong doing on my behalf, or are you just asking around to see if you can find out anything you can use?
The answer, in both cases, is talk to my lawyer and come back with a warrant. Because when the police are on a fishing expedition, the last place you want to be is innocently answering questions they'll twist against you.
With parallel construction and every other dirty trick law enforcement is using, you have to start from the premise they're either lying to you, or hoping you'll slip up. Because, quite frankly, they probably are.
Even if there's no evidence you committed a crime or otherwise broke the law, you're still quite likely to get screwed over. Answering open ended questions is a terrible idea, because they're just as likely to use it to fabricate something about you.
Law enforcement is no longer trustworthy. Stop treating them like they are. Even if they're smiling at you, they're probably hostile to your best interests.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say or do may be held against you.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
AND its worth noting.....should anything ever go to court....
NOTHING you said can be used to help you. While anything you say can be considered a confession and used against you, anything you say that is not used against you is hearsay.
So you have nothing to gain by speaking if it ever does go to court.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
You think you are free because you can say what you want but you are not free. You cannot trade with anyone, anywhere, anytime. For some reason freedom to trade was never considered a basic human right. From a functionalist perspective trade is to the modern state what speech was to the church. Both affect revenue.
That's not how it works. They will come to talk to you. They will make problems for you. And you will talk, or you will have HUGE problems.
Ever!
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Anything you don't say may also be held against you. Once you become a target, all you can do is enjoy the ride.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I was giving an example of someone who hadn't committed a crime, but talked to the FBI without a lawyer present, and as a result was convicted of a crime. He was tricked into confessing a crime, and possibly even tricked into committing a crime.
I read about it in Science, and some of the other publications that were following the case. I know that Peter Agre and several scientific societies investigated it and concluded that Butler hadn't committed a crime. They convinced me.
I also wasn't convinced that he lied -- that he knowingly told the FBI something false. He may have thought at first that they were stolen, or that they were possibly stolen. After talking it over with the FBI, they may have convinced him to change his mind and decide that they weren't stolen, and that he must have destroyed them. That's what it sounded like to me.
There was no underlying crime, and there was no crime at all until the FBI created one. So that's another reason for not talking to the cops without a lawyer: even if you're innocent when you start talking to them, they may trick you into committing a crime in talking to them.
The case was also complicated by a civil litigation that Butler was having with the university at the same time. The university didn't defend him, but instead elevated their civil case into criminal charges, and merged that into the FBI charges.
If there wasn't any recording of the conversations, then we'll never know with certainty what Butler and the FBI said. Lawyers who deal with false convictions, like The Innocence Project, say that all criminal interrogations should be recorded.
At any rate, I was arguing that you should never talk to the cops without a lawyer present (if at all). I think this proves my case.
The parent said, "So what's the problem?" That's the problem.
actually, if you were dealing in bitcoin in 2012, you're probably wealthy enough so that you should just bail out of the u.s. and go to a civilized country.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
It seems likely it is better to close your mouth and let them think you're guilty, rather than open it and remove all doubt.
No, it really makes no difference one way or the other. If they want you, you are fucked ,the written law means squat.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”