Cody Monk of the National Intelligence University and The Naval Postgraduate School recently co-authored a paper entitled Shadowy Figures: Tracking Illicit Financial Transactions In The Murky World of Digital Currencies, Peer-to-Peer Networks, and Mobile Device Payments with John Vaillasenor (Brookings Institute) and Christopher Bronk (Baker Institute at Rice University).
In the paper, the authors argue for massive government regulation and clandestine surveillance in all digital currency markets, declaring that “The US government should establish an inter-agency government/industry working group or expand the charter of an existing group to focus specifically on emerging financial threats” and that those groups should focus on “identifying and eliminating vulnerabilities in financial transactions systems that might be exploited to delete or alter records of illicit transactions.” In other words, government needs to create a regulatory and intelligence framework that prevents any anonymous transactions in digital currencies from occurring.
The article goes on to define the regulatory attacks government bureaucracies should play out:
Second, information processing methods that can appropriately detect and trace illicit financial transactions should be developed or, if they exist already in other fields or applications, adopted. One useful precedent lies in methods for anonymizing customer data to allow analysis while simultaneously preserving privacy in more traditional consumer Internet applications. Similarly anonymized data could be generated for transactions conducted using MMT or virtual currencies, and only under proper legal authority could attempts be made to reduce the anonymity of a particular transaction.
They also argue for making it illegal to conduct a cash-for-digital transaction without the transaction being recorded on video tape.
The paper concludes by arguing that the State should create “collaborations, regulatory frameworks, and technologies” that allow the State to track the movements of digital currencies.
Of course, the authors frame their argument for the total destruction of privacy under the auspices of preventing “terrorism”, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that the real reason they want total control over the currency markets is because they want to make sure the government can loot the people that use them.
If a currency market is totally anonymous, government looters don’t know who they should threaten with violence in order to collect their “protection” money.