The problem represented by privacy corners, cryptocurrency with a high rate of confidentiality, it continues to agitate the US political world and beyond. As demonstrated by what happened during a session of the Subcommittee of the Chamber on National Security, International Development and Monetary Policy. During which some cryptographic experts were questioned on the delicate aspects connected to them.
What was discussed in the House of Representatives
The Chamber Subcommittee on National Security, International Development and Monetary Policy of the United States gave birth to an extremely interesting session. In the course of which experts were questioned on the methods of financing terrorism and how digital money was used during the revolt of the past 6 January, which culminated in the assault of the far right on the Capitol.
The session had been requested by a group of deputies precisely to try to clarify what happened before the attack on Capitol Hill. Also in the light of what was revealed by Chainalysis immediately after the events. That is the transfer of Bitcoin for a total of over half a million dollars to various personalities of the far right. Some of which had then been identified among the demonstrators during the riot of January 6.
The link between the far right and cryptocurrencies
The event promised to be interesting starting from the title: "Dollars Against Democracy: Domestic Terrorist Financing in Aftermath of Insurrection".
From the first question, expressed by Jim Himes, it was clear how digital money would be the great protagonist of the discussion. Has been Daniel Rogers, CTO of Global Disinformation Index, to point out that digital assets have been widely used to provide substantial funding to the groups responsible for the assault on Parliament. A modus operandi made necessary by the fact that the same organizations have found their way blocked by the traditional economic circuit.
Rogers himself, however, also pointed out that the problem is not to be recognized in the anonymity coveted by privacy coins. Who it can be easily bypassed by law enforcement.
The statements of Daniel Glaser
Other statements of great interest then came from Daniel Glaser, former assistant secretary for terrorist financing and financial crimes. He began by recalling how the Treasury collects information on subversive groups precisely through their use by exchange. Which are obliged to provide them as they are money services activities.
Faced with a question of Stephen Lynch, Chairman of the Financial Technology Task Force, relating precisely to the possibility that the privacy profiles of some cryptocurrencies can favor subversion, Glaser then added how the same Janet Yellen recognized their potential for financial inclusion. That is, he invited the world of politics not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Privacy coins should be banned, according to Glaser
Glaser himself then specified that, if it is true that digital assets can prove to be problematic in terms of financing for terrorism, a careful use of the law enforcement tools available to law enforcement could prove decisive in this sense. But closing with a very specific request: that of ban cryptocurrencies expressly designed to circumvent anti-money laundering regulations. A request which seems to be getting wider and wider in the stars and stripes politics.