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

US sentences crypto expert to 5 years after North Korea blockchain presentation

markets.businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 587 posts

Re: US sentences crypto expert to 5 years after North Korea blockchain presentation

#281

Post by jacquesm »

sangnoir wrote: post #253
chatmasta wrote: post #48

I met Virgil at an academic workshop back in 2014. We went out in Amsterdam. He was a weird guy, to say the least (he’d probably be the first to agree). He was generally quite affable and obviously highly intelligent. He’s an idiot for this fiasco. But it’s also sad to see him in jail; I don’t see how this benefits society in any way. Five years in prison seems like a disproportionate punishment for an arguably victi…

> Five years in prison seems like a disproportionate punishment for an arguably victimless crime It's not victimless: the United States (government) is the victim, albeit one that's not particularly sympathetic. Just because the victim is diffuse/a collective doesn't mean the wrongs against it are victimless - this is about as victimless as handing over nuclear secrets to another country (in quality, not severity).

I would say the people of NK are the victim of anything that further strengthens the regime there.

Re: US sentences crypto expert to 5 years after North Korea blockchain presentation

#282

Post by jvanderbot »

nickysielicki wrote: post #144
jvanderbot wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're over-reacting. Stories like this tend to be rorschach tests, and it's easy to see what you believe in these vague details. In fact, it appears he was helping NK avoid sanctions by using crypto, in an effort to increase crypto acceptance in NK. The details are (apparently) in the original complaint. Bad journalism/summaries strike again? > It looks like it wasn't just speaking at a conference after bein…

Well you’ll have to forgive me because TFA mentioned none of that.

Nothing to forgive. TFA was probably written to provoke as much reaction as possible, as is common nowadays. The way it's structured, it can get people who oppose the action and people support the action engaged by either calling it a just decision (what a traitor!) and a silly oversight (He was just giving a talk!).

Re: US sentences crypto expert to 5 years after North Korea blockchain presentation

#283

Post by egberts1 »

MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #72
garbagetime wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did a whole nuclear war go by without my noticing?

Not an entire nuclear war, but you may remember the end of the second world war.

you all are being disingenuous by the mere highlighting of “who used nuclear weapon”, as opposed to “who is now able to use”.

But, please do soldier on.

Re: US sentences crypto expert to 5 years after North Korea blockchain presentation

#284

Post by colinmhayes »

rbanffy wrote: post #265
mywittyname wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Five years seems pretty mild when you consider the chief purpose of sanctions is to provide an alternative to war as a means of settling disputes. And this man is willfully undermining the ability of his country to levy sanctions. Surely actively undermining the security of ones country is a serious offense.

> as a means of settling disputes As a means of forcing someone to unwillingly settle a dispute in your favor that is. I have no sympathy for North Korea, but sanctions are not an alternative to war. Sanctions are an alternative to bullets.

How are bullets and war different?

Re: US sentences crypto expert to 5 years after North Korea blockchain presentation

#285

Post by wspess »

yazantapuz wrote: post #261
kyleplum wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refusing to trade with a country is not a violation of their national autonomy.

This. A lot of people seems to think that the USA bans everyone in the world to trade with cuba, even if they could buy an Havann Club in the store.

While USA does not ban everyone from doing trade with Cuba, USA does ban everyone who trades with Cuba from doing trade with the US.

You can clearly see how this creates insentives for not trading with Cuba and instead trading with the far larger market next to it.

Re: US sentences crypto expert to 5 years after North Korea blockchain presentation

#286

Post by ttybird2 »

xadhominemx wrote: post #42
orangepurple wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA junta will punish you if you go against them, constitution be damned, the judges are on their side.

Freedom of speech is meant to preserve democracy domestically, not be a free for all to aid enemies for profit. Any sane state, including free democracies, would prohibit residents from teaching rogue enemy nations how to avoid sanctions.

I do not think that this is a widely held view. Regarding the US constitution for example, Part of Bernstein v. United States was the complaint that DJB was not able to legally talk to or teach about cryptography to cryptographers and students that are not US citizens. As for the "freedom of speech" as a general concept, I think that it is more of an individualist than a collectivist principle. It does not refer to countries or groups by itself, it is the right for entities to speak freely.

Re: US sentences crypto expert to 5 years after North Korea blockchain presentation

#287

Post by ttybird2 »

chickenpotpie wrote: post #13
SkyBelow wrote: post #4

Could someone explain why this wouldn't fall under freedom of speech? Sounds like there were not government secrets nor did the expert have a security clearance that would have held him to a higher standard. If Tor researchers gave a presentation at a security conference on how to install Tor, knowing full well that some would use it to engage in the proliferation of CSAM, would that also not fall under free speech?

Same reason you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. There are limits to freedom of speech, especially when it interferes with national defense. Schenck v. United States is an interesting case where the supreme court ruled that passing out fliers to encourage resistance to the draft is not protected by the first amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Funnily enough passing out said fliers is exactly what I believe "freedom of speech" is meant to protect.

Re: US sentences crypto expert to 5 years after North Korea blockchain presentation

#288

Post by djrogers »

woah wrote: post #247
ethbr0 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the ultimate place any honest monetary cipherpunk ends up at. Either you have government controlled financial systems, or you have decentralized financial systems. Getting to any middleground is pretty tortured, both technically and morally. Sort of like "Strong encryption permits a world in which child pornography cannot be tracked" with respect to encryption. It's ugly, but true. (Said as someone who doesn't c…

No, I think this is a misconception. Sanctions can work without government controlled money. Prosecuting terrorism or organized crime can be done without government controlled money. Catching tax evaders can be done without government controlled money. Everything can work without government controlled money, it just requires more on the ground police work. All of these things were done without government controlled m…

Sanctions only work that way in a world that doesn't exist - one with 100% agreement and compliance with sanctions at a nation-state level. The reason monetary controls are so critical to sanctions is that they make it more difficult for the countries that don't want to abide by the sanctions to do bypass them. Not impossible, but more difficult.

Re: US sentences crypto expert to 5 years after North Korea blockchain presentation

#289

Post by kube-system »

xtracto wrote: post #159
danielvf wrote: post #71

According to the original complaint, a few months after being interviewed by an FBI agent on returning from his trip to North Korea, Griffith had the following conversation over text messages: Griffith: I need to send 1 [REDACTED UNIT OF CRYPTOCURRENCY] between North and South Korea. Other Guy: "Isn't that in violations of sanctions?" Griffith: It is. A few day later, also in text messages to someone else: Someone: W…

> I need to send 1 [REDACTED UNIT OF CRYPTOCURRENCY] between North and South Korea I find this fascinating. How can you send any crypto between one country and the other? In reality, everyone who is using crypto is doing the transaction in every country where a validator/node is running. There is no concept of "sending BTC between Mexico and the USA". There may be a concept of someone paying USD money to somebody els…

When I swipe my credit card at a store, I say "I spent money at the store", not "I transferred bits in a bank's datacenter somewhere"

Colloquially, when people talk about transfers of wealth, they talk in terms of the people who they belong to, not the literal physical manifestation of the transaction.

Re: US sentences crypto expert to 5 years after North Korea blockchain presentation

#290

Post by vsareto »

bell-cot wrote: post #206
danielvf wrote: post #71

According to the original complaint, a few months after being interviewed by an FBI agent on returning from his trip to North Korea, Griffith had the following conversation over text messages: Griffith: I need to send 1 [REDACTED UNIT OF CRYPTOCURRENCY] between North and South Korea. Other Guy: "Isn't that in violations of sanctions?" Griffith: It is. A few day later, also in text messages to someone else: Someone: W…

How far down the "flew 8,000 miles to get there, climbed over the barbed wire fence, licked both his thumbs, and pressed them against the shiny parts labeled 'DANGER! 25,000 VOLTS!'..." rabbit-hole-of-stupid should one have to go, before it's 100% okay for me to stop caring whether or not his sentence was just?

"Man involved in community that regularly gets away with illegal shit surprised when he goes to jail for illegal shit"

I'm definitely not defending him, but I can see why he'd feel confident not getting caught

Post reply on HN