Today at The New York Times online, under the headline "More Bitcoin Regulation Is Inevitable," this proclamation:
No one supports creating an anonymous bazaar for dealing in drugs and other illegal goods and services—except, perhaps, the criminals themselves.
While the rest of the piece is more or less boilerplate Bitcoin coverage, this is an odd interjection of the old "why do you need privacy if you have nothing to hide" canard.
Bitcoin is technically psudenomyous, not anonymous, since there is a record of every transaction. But the idea that no one would want an additional layer privacy in their online purchases "except, perhaps, the criminals themselves," is odd.
I talked about good reasons why ordinary people might want to keep information about what you're buying or selling private on Stossel awhile back:
Comments