Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 256 posts

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#131

Post by lelandfe »

megous wrote: post #108
commoner wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

North Korea has Rodong Sinmun, which has an online edition in English. People interested in North Korean politics do read this newspaper. - Website: http://www.rodong.rep.kp/en/ - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodong_Sinmun

Hm. So I actually like the form of north korean websites, if these two in this thread are representative of the norm. :) No ads, no trackers, 0 resources blocked in uBlock, no CDNs, clean design not jumping around, to the point without useless stock photos... No modern "design", with thin grayed out unreadable fonts. No webfonts, clean html code. Interesting. :)

...unresponsive, loads articles in pop-up windows, uses http/1.1 so resources are downloaded serially, has all JS in critical path....

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#132

Post by moron4hire »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #57
jxidjhdhdhdhfhf wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who knows. It seems like anything can be interpreted as a crime these days. Hopefully he's got good lawyers advising him.

Agreed. This is immensely foolish on his part. And he can rest assured that his identity is known. One crime does not justify another.

I don't think the North Korean government would have standing in a US court.

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#133

Post by x3n0ph3n3 »

Shank wrote: post #54
ballenf wrote: post #2

I would have advised him to stay quiet about this. Not out of fear of the North Koreans, but out of fear of our own security agencies seeing the activity as interfering in international relations. Also the vagueness of our hacking laws probably make what he did a crime. But I also am immensely proud that we have people willing to take things into their own hands when needed. Also, I feel like the 2nd amendment should…

The 2nd amendment already has interpretation questions around the first half -- the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," clause. It could go in any number of directions, from expanding "arms" to include "digital arms" to reducing the right only to "as part of a well regulated militia." See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment But I wouldn't bet money on the right e…

"A healthy breakfast, being necessary for a productive day, the right to eat eggs shall not be infringed"

Would you interpret _that_ as meaning we could only eat eggs for breakfast?

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#134

Post by [deleted] »

heavyset_go wrote: post #72
ballenf wrote: post #2

I would have advised him to stay quiet about this. Not out of fear of the North Koreans, but out of fear of our own security agencies seeing the activity as interfering in international relations. Also the vagueness of our hacking laws probably make what he did a crime. But I also am immensely proud that we have people willing to take things into their own hands when needed. Also, I feel like the 2nd amendment should…

You can't own a firearm if you consume marijuana, so using the 2nd amendment for things like encryption might get interesting. The 2nd amendment allows for heavy regulation of arms.

[deleted]

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#135

Post by moron4hire »

archontes wrote: post #104
CircleSpokes wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't just FFLs. The Gun Control Act (GCA) defines a list of people who aren't allowed to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms of ammo. This includes any person "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);" [1]. Since cannabis is federally illegal still if you use it you can't legally even pos…

Admittedly, it's hard to kill another person by voting, or receiving due process. And we do restrict speech when it verges on violence (imminent lawless action, fighting words).

But when people do succeed in killing others through the vote, it's usually a LOT more than they could have ever hoped to do with a firearm.

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#136

Post by snowwrestler »

voakbasda wrote: post #97
snowwrestler wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2nd Amendment says the government can’t infringe your right to possess arms. It does not say that it’s legal for you to use your arms against others to make a point. “Digital arms” are legal to possess in the U.S. as far as I know. Again, that is not the same thing as legalizing any use of them.

Not being able to use arms absolutely is an infringement of the right to bear them. I mean, how would it be different if we claimed that you can own a gun but not shoot it? One point that gets lost about the 2nd Amendment is that it should be considered an inalienable right. Meaning, it cannot be diminished by any law of man. Consequently, most of the gun laws can be viewed as fundamentally unconstitutional, and any…

Obviously there are limits on what you can shoot your guns at or crimes like murder, for example, would be legal as long as it was accomplished with a gun.

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#137

Post by enkid »

blueflow wrote: post #49
ballenf wrote: post #2

I would have advised him to stay quiet about this. Not out of fear of the North Koreans, but out of fear of our own security agencies seeing the activity as interfering in international relations. Also the vagueness of our hacking laws probably make what he did a crime. But I also am immensely proud that we have people willing to take things into their own hands when needed. Also, I feel like the 2nd amendment should…

That this article exists it a manifest of his failed OpSec... if you are a hacker and you are popular for it, you aren't doing a good job.

He's a pen tester. It's free advertising.

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#138

Post by landemva »

moron4hire wrote: post #132
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. This is immensely foolish on his part. And he can rest assured that his identity is known. One crime does not justify another.

I don't think the North Korean government would have standing in a US court.

Though US government claims standing in UK court to take Assange.

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#139

Post by multiplegeorges »

ballenf wrote: post #2

I would have advised him to stay quiet about this. Not out of fear of the North Koreans, but out of fear of our own security agencies seeing the activity as interfering in international relations. Also the vagueness of our hacking laws probably make what he did a crime. But I also am immensely proud that we have people willing to take things into their own hands when needed. Also, I feel like the 2nd amendment should…

Seems like the 4th Amendment already covers the right to use strong encryption.

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers and effects shall not be violated by unreasonable searches and seizures

Re: North Korea hacked him, so he took down its internet

#140

Post by winstonewert »

x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #133
Shank wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2nd amendment already has interpretation questions around the first half -- the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," clause. It could go in any number of directions, from expanding "arms" to include "digital arms" to reducing the right only to "as part of a well regulated militia." See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment But I wouldn't bet money on the right e…

"A healthy breakfast, being necessary for a productive day, the right to eat eggs shall not be infringed" Would you interpret _that_ as meaning we could only eat eggs for breakfast?

No, but the supreme court might if it served their interests.
Post reply on HN