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

191–200 of 256 posts

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

#191

Post by boomboomsubban »

gunfighthacksaw wrote: post #18
mrkstu wrote: post #11

I would imagine the intelligence services aren't happy he's providing them free pen-test services. He's taking potential tools out of their toolbox when they may need/want them in a future time of conflict.

So if the reds start parachuting down over your community you should just sit pretty lest you interfere with your military’s operations? The equivalence is not a false one in my eyes because a cyberattack against a US national’s systems should be seen as an attack on a US national’s property.

>So if the reds start parachuting down over your community you should just sit pretty lest you interfere with your military’s operations?

I imagine you would be told to evacuate if possible but I'm sure the military would prefer you just don't get involved. Civilians should stay out of warfare.

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

#192

Post by [deleted] »

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #177
whakim wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not being able to use arms absolutely is an infringement of the right to bear them. That doesn't follow. The right to own something does not imply the right to use 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 a…

> That doesn't follow. The right to own something does not imply the right to use it. That's like saying "The right to own a pair of pants does not mean you have the right to wear them." or "The right to own that Rembrandt doesn't mean you have the right to look at it". What, if not to use or consume an item, is the purpose of ownership at the fundamental level? > The Constitution does not and cannot bestow inalienab…

[deleted]

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

#193

Post by SeanLuke »

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…

> 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?

Do you have the right to shoot at someone's house? Do you have the right to fire in a crowded theater? Do you have the right to fire your weapon right next to someone's ear?

Just because you own a gun does mean your use of that gun cannot be restricted by law, indeed severely so. The only issue is to what degree your usage may be curtailed. This is not black and white.

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

#194

Post by SeanLuke »

hawski wrote: post #9
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…

Encryption was considered a weapon previously, which resulted in an export ban. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_...

No. Encryption was considered to be a munition. Wikipedia is being loose in its terminology and could benefit from some revision here.

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

#195

Post by chc4 »

doublerabbit wrote: post #187
jokoon wrote: post #84

What do they mean "north korea hacked him" ? Does NK hire hackers? How is it possible for NK to have competent hackers?

> he opened a file sent to him by a fellow hacker, who had described it as an exploitation tool. Is it not potentially their mistake in the first place? They opened themselves to becoming exploited via social engineering. And if that is the real reason why, they were not really hacked. So can we stop using the term "hacked" so ambiguously?

Respectfully, you have no clue what you are talking about and should read https://blog.google/threat-analysis-group/new-campaign-targe...

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

#196

Post by wolverine876 »

> he nonetheless felt deeply unnerved by state-sponsored hackers targeting him personally—and by the lack of any visible response from the US government.

> Aitel agrees, though, that the government response to North Korea's campaign has been lacking.

From a certain perspective I'm not surprised: We're accustomed to the US government being hands-off the Internet, going back to the Internet's early idealistic libertarian days, and in the past lacked the technical abilities.

But we need to be surprised: Fraud, scams, theft, damage, hacking, ransoms, etc., etc. are commonplace. The Internet is highly insecure, yet the US government hasn't yet taken responsibility for enforcing the law and protecting the innocent there. It's just crime; it's not a special situation anymore.

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

#197

Post by voakbasda »

SeanLuke wrote: post #193
voakbasda wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? Do you have the right to shoot at someone's house? Do you have the right to fire in a crowded theater? Do you have the right to fire your weapon right next to someone's ear? Just because you own a gun does mean your use of that gun cannot be res…

The crimes that you listed are destruction of property, disturbing the peace, and intentionally causing bodily harm. Using a gun is incidental to the actual crime. The same arguments can be made about knives, baseball bats, or other things. Consequently, this is not a legitimate basis for restricting their availability or usage of guns themselves, any more than such potential crimes limit the use of those other objects.

Of course, prosecutors love to double dip with charges, tacking on a weapons charge or two. These extra charges usually result in a far more severe sentence. Again, hard to see the legality of such practices, but this is the status quo that we have today.

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

#198

Post by voakbasda »

snowwrestler wrote: post #136
voakbasda wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In most jurisdictions, homicide is entirely justifiable when it is committed in the act of defending oneself or others from potentially lethal forces, where a reasonable person would conclude that committing murder was necessary to preserve those lives.

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

#199

Post by tagoregrtst »

pmalynin wrote: post #44
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…

We’ll it’s interesting in this case, because technically speaking a peace treaty was never signed and North Korea is in the state of war with the United States. So is it really a crime to attack a hostile state?

There’s an active truce that keeps the belligerents from killing more people than died in WW2.

Ya, if I were the State Department, if be pissed

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

#200

Post by snowwrestler »

voakbasda wrote: post #198
snowwrestler wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In most jurisdictions, homicide is entirely justifiable when it is committed in the act of defending oneself or others from potentially lethal forces, where a reasonable person would conclude that committing murder was necessary to preserve those lives.

Sure but is it legal if you’re not in the act of defending yourself? If you just walk up to someone who made you mad, and shoot them? No. Which means there are legal limits on how you can use your guns.
Post reply on HN