This is a clip from The Breakdown newsletter. To read the full editions, Subscribe.
“Every person’s home is like his fortress and fortress.”
—Sir Edward Coke, Attorney General of England, 1604
In 1604, the Court of King’s Bench decided what is now known as the Case of Seamin in favor of the defendant Richard Gresham. Gresham refuses to open his door to the city’s sheriff, who seeks to seize the goods in Gresham’s possession to cover a debt.
Establishing what would become a fundamental principle of privacy – the home as a protected haven – Sir Edward Coke stated that “every man’s home is to him his castle and his fortress.”
But even as Cook built those castle walls, he left a gate open for the king’s men to breach: the court held that officers of the law, if they were seeking to investigate criminal matters, were permitted to break down doors if they had to (but only after first announcing themselves).
421 years later, that’s still where things are.
The Semayne case is the age-old reason why American law enforcement today is required to knock on your door and announce their presence when they have some business there — and also the reason they can, in some circumstances, come knocking.
The Fourth Amendment protects your castle from being searched and your goods seized, but only if it is unreasonable to do so.
This is roughly the current state of financial privacy as well: your banking transactions are private, meaning your bank keeps them behind closed doors for only you to see.
But if law enforcement comes knocking, they need to open it.
However, in the world of cryptofinance, “privacy” has taken on a different, more absolute meaning.
For many in the industry, “private” transactions are ones that cryptography makes invisible to anyone but the user — a veritable financial castle with no backgate that the king’s men can enter at will.
This is a return to the roots of cryptocurrencies: absolute financial privacy, guaranteed by code.
But how far will things really go in the crypto world?
Sometimes, the answer seems to be very — as when SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce defines himself as “an advocate of the ultimate liberty.”
As such, pers Applauds New focus on privacy: “We have to reframe the narrative around privacy mechanisms, because it’s become the assumption that if you want to keep your transactions private, you’re doing something wrong.”
This is a statement that seems very strange for a government regulator.
But what exactly do you mean by “private”?
“People in this country have the right to keep their financial transactions private without being suspected of involvement in some illegal activity,” Pearce continues.
And if there is He is Suspicion of illegal activity?
““There are ways governments can access information to bring claims.”
In other words, nothing has really changed since 1604: “privacy” is the ability to keep your information private from everyone except the government that thinks it has good reason to see it.
Perhaps surprisingly, a lot of people who care about cryptocurrencies agree – including some people who work in the crypto space.privacy the people.
Here, for example, is how Elie Ben-Sasson succinctly defines privacy on the site The last episode Empire: “People who shouldn’t see your stuff can’t see it.”
This seems to mean that to some people He should Do you see that – like a law enforcement representative with a warrant, perhaps?
Ben Sasson was the founding scientist of Zcash, the most popular project in the cryptocurrency space, so his privacy credentials are unimpeachable.
But to him identification Privacy isn’t particularly radical: it’s “just like your everyday definition of privacy,” he said on Empire.
It is worth noting that this seems to include our daily use of banks: “Everyone is aware of privacy in financial applications.”
So, is this all this renewed enthusiasm for encryption-enabled privacy? Are we recreating the degree of privacy we already have with banks?
Maybe not.
Shaul Kfir’s definition of privacy, also shared on Empire, includes something more: “Privacy,” he says, “is where I can choose who sees my stuff.”
So, no Like banks then!
You can’t choose whether law enforcement sees your banking stuff or not, of course. The bank won’t even tell you when they do this.
Kfir, who led the development of the privacy protocol Canton networkPrivacy, however defined, is both a “human right” and a “business need,” he says.
I’m sure Ben Sassoon would agree.
I’m also sure he would agree with Kfir’s stricter definition of privacy, even though it differs from his own – because Kfir is a better description of what Zcash does: Zcash enables users to pick and choose who sees their stuff.
In contrast, the service provided by the Canton Network does just that no It seems to fit Kfir’s definition of privacy: “We weren’t trying to solve the problem, like, ‘Hey, I can move money in my bank account at Chase without Chase seeing it.’
He also doesn’t think there’s much need for it: “It’s not a real problem (for our users),” Kfir says. “It’s an imagined problem.”
This means that the Canton Network fits our everyday banking definition of privacy, where stakeholders who “should” see your transactions can, too.
In other words—perhaps paradoxically—Kfir’s definition of privacy fits better with what Ben Sasson has built and Ben Sasson’s definition fits better with what Kfir has built—a convenient example of the confusion about what “privacy” really is.
Ben Sassoon told the empire about it “It’s a bit of a mystery[as to]why this is an issue in the cryptocurrency space.”
But is a blockchain only “private” if its disclosure is completely voluntary, as is the case with Zcash?
Or does the more institutionally compliant model of the Canton Network also qualify?
Either way, the age-old issue of privacy has given the cryptocurrency industry a renewed sense of purpose.
Now we just have to decide what that means.
Get news in your inbox. Explore Blockworks newsletters:
