Loading market data...

Police Union Opposes Developer Shield in CLARITY Act, Citing Crypto Crime Concerns

Police Union Opposes Developer Shield in CLARITY Act, Citing Crypto Crime Concerns

The core complaint

Section 604 is meant to protect open-source developers — people who build privacy tools, non-custodial wallets, or mixing software — from being classified as money transmitters based on how users deploy their code. The FOP doesn't object to owning or trading digital assets. But Yoes argued the exemption goes too far, letting developers off the hook even when their tools end up central to criminal schemes. The union wants to preserve existing enforcement pathways.

" Translation: "

Hovedklagen

Seksjon 604 er ment å beskytte åpen kildekode-utviklere – personer som bygger personvernverktøy, ikke-forvaltende lommebøker (non-custodial wallets) eller mikseprogramvare – fra å bli klassifisert som pengeoverførere basert på hvordan brukere benytter koden deres. FOP har ikke innvendinger mot å eie eller handle med digitale eiendeler. Men Yoes argumenterte for at unntaket går for langt, og lar utviklere slippe unna selv når verktøyene deres blir sentrale i kriminelle opplegg. Forbundet ønsker å bevare eksisterende håndhevingsmuligheter.

" Note: "non-custodial wallets" - I'll keep "non-custodial wallets" in English or translate? Better to use "ikke-forvaltende lommebøker" with English in parentheses for clarity. "mixing software" -> "mikseprogramvare" is fine. Third paragraph: "

What the bill's backers say

Supporters of the CLARITY Act, including several Republicans on the Banking Committee, say Section 604 is about shielding innovators from liability for others' actions. Without it, they argue, small teams building code could face crushing regulatory risk. But the FOP's letter flips that script, warning the provision could tie investigators' hands just as crypto-related crime is drawing more scrutiny.

" Translation: "

Hva lovforslagets støttespillere sier

Tilhengere av CLARITY Act, inkludert flere republikanere i bankkomitéen, sier at seksjon 604 handler om å skjerme innovatører fra ansvar for andres handlinger. Uten den, hevder de, kan små team som bygger kode møte knusende regulatorisk risiko. Men FOPs brev snur det argumentet på hodet, og advarer om at bestemmelsen kan binde etterforskeres hender akkurat når kryptorelatert kriminalitet får økt oppmerksomhet.

" Fourth paragraph: "

Political odds

No Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee are expected to back the CLARITY Act. Analysts predict the bill will advance on a party-line vote. Meanwhile, banking trade groups have their own gripe with the legislation — they oppose the stablecoin-rewards provision, arguing it could let crypto firms pull deposits out of insured banks. That's a separate fight.

" Translation: "

Politiske odds

Ingen demokrater i Senatets bankkomité forventes å støtte CLARITY Act. Analytikere spår at lovforslaget vil gå videre på en partilinjeavstemning. I mellomtiden har bankbransjeforeninger sine egne innvendinger mot lovgivningen – de motsetter seg stablecoin-belønningsbestemmelsen, og argumenterer for at den kan la kryptofirmaer trekke innskudd ut av forsikrede banker. Det er en separat kamp.

" Fifth paragraph: "

What happens Thursday

The committee's markup is scheduled for May 21. If the CLARITY Act clears that hurdle, it heads to the full Senate floor — where its fate is far from certain given the bipartisan opposition on key pieces.

" Translation: "

Hva skjer på torsdag

Komitéens markering er planlagt til 21. mai. Hvis CLARITY Act klarer den hindringen, går den videre til fullt senat – hvor skjebnen er langt fra sikker gitt den tverrpolitiske motstanden mot sentrale deler.

" Note: "bipartisan opposition" -> "tverrpolitisk motstand" is fine. Meta description: "The largest US police union warns Section 604 of the CLARITY Act would hamper crypto crime enforcement. Senate Banking Committee markup set for Thursday." Translation: "Det største politiforbundet i USA advarer om at seksjon 604 i CLARITY Act vil hindre håndheving av kryptokriminalitet. Senatets bankkomités markering er satt til torsdag." Now assemble JSON. Ensure valid JSON. Use double quotes. Escape any quotes inside strings. The content HTML has quotes, but we can use single quotes or escape. In the translation, I used double quotes inside the

tags. Need to escape them with backslash. For example: "argumenterer for at bestemmelsen vil frata påtalemyndigheten viktige verktøy for å spore kryptorelatert kriminalitet." That's fine. But in the HTML, there are no double quotes inside attributes. The HTML is just tags and text. So no need to escape. However, the JSON string for content must have escaped double quotes if any appear. I see in my translation I used double quotes in the text? I used double quotes for "non-custodial wallets" but I wrote it as "ikke-forvaltende lommebøker (non-custodial wallets)" - that has parentheses, no extra quotes. Actually I wrote: "ikke-forvaltende lommebøker (non-custodial wallets)" - no double quotes