5 ms·

Hacker arrested for sharing information.

by confeit 7y ago

gruez 7y ago
what he's essentially doing is aiding/abetting.
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  Be careful with that. So in-person talks is aiding and abetting? What about videoconference? What about emails? What about a semi-hidden webpage meant primarily for them? Or how about a general developer FAQ that would get anybody dev-minded up to speed? Where do we draw this line of "aiding and abetting"? Material good? Information? Congratulations? This appears to be strongly a 1st amendment issue of speech. Not that I like NK, but that point is a distractor. Why is it a crime to talk about cryptocurrency and monetary censorship of countries?
  - otterley 7y ago
    Attorney here! (Not providing legal advice - seek licensed counsel in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.) Any act that would provide material assistance is sufficient. Criminal law is pretty liberal about what constitutes an "act" in furtherance of a crime. If it concerns you, stay far far away. But merely publishing information in a book or on a publicly-accessible website for all to see is not generally going to get in you trouble (subject of course to copyright, publishing classified information, etc.).
    - syshum 7y ago
      >>But merely publishing information in a book or on a publicly-accessible website for all to see is not generally going to get in you trouble They Tried that, but that pesky 1st amendment got in the way. Research the CyptoWars (which is seems are heating up all over again) and the PGP Source Code Book. The US Government has been attempting to censor speech for as long as it has been in existence. the latest attack on crypto by the US Government for "national security" reasons is just the latest in the long line of abuses
      - edgyquant 7y ago
        What happened wasn't an attack on crypto at all.
  - PeterisP 7y ago
    Intent matters. The answer to "where do we draw the line" is that all the things you describe would be aiding and abetting if a jury would be convinced that you did it with an intent to aid them. If you write "a general developer FAQ that would get anybody dev-minded up to speed" with the intent to help general developers everywhere and DPRK uses that, that's okay; but if you write the exact same FAQ content with an intent to help DPRK get that information because you figure out that just sending it directly in an email might be too visible, then that would be a crime, if intent can be established - based on e.g. your earlier communication and writings. It's a prohibition on trying to achieve a specific result, not on a prohibition on any particular means of achieving that result.
onetimemanytime 7y ago
...information can be things like the names of US spies embedded with the Taliban or Isis. Or the the blind spot of USA defense systems. Or how to poison (insert city) water supply... you get the point.
- confeit 7y ago
  I get your point, but then again, classified information is protected and different from the technical information shared in this case, and how to poison a water supply is on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_terrorism
  - mthoms 7y ago
    Many types of technical information are also protected. Not in the "classified" sense but in the sense that there are legal controls around exporting it to certain nations. Especially nations under UN sanctions.
    - confeit 7y ago
      Fair enough. Just offering an alternative/oldskool reading of this situation (this thread started out surprisingly negative against a mindset that used to be common among hackers). Laws on sharing information can sometimes be at odds with the hacker spirit of freeing information, for instance in the case of Aaron Swartz.

Hacker arrested for sharing information.

gruez 7y ago

what he's essentially doing is aiding/abetting.

crankylinuxuser 7y ago
Be careful with that. So in-person talks is aiding and abetting? What about videoconference? What about emails? What about a semi-hidden webpage meant primarily for them? Or how about a general developer FAQ that would get anybody dev-minded up to speed? Where do we draw this line of "aiding and abetting"? Material good? Information? Congratulations? This appears to be strongly a 1st amendment issue of speech. Not that I like NK, but that point is a distractor. Why is it a crime to talk about cryptocurrency and monetary censorship of countries?
- otterley 7y ago
  Attorney here! (Not providing legal advice - seek licensed counsel in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.) Any act that would provide material assistance is sufficient. Criminal law is pretty liberal about what constitutes an "act" in furtherance of a crime. If it concerns you, stay far far away. But merely publishing information in a book or on a publicly-accessible website for all to see is not generally going to get in you trouble (subject of course to copyright, publishing classified information, etc.).
  - syshum 7y ago
    >>But merely publishing information in a book or on a publicly-accessible website for all to see is not generally going to get in you trouble They Tried that, but that pesky 1st amendment got in the way. Research the CyptoWars (which is seems are heating up all over again) and the PGP Source Code Book. The US Government has been attempting to censor speech for as long as it has been in existence. the latest attack on crypto by the US Government for "national security" reasons is just the latest in the long line of abuses
    - edgyquant 7y ago
      What happened wasn't an attack on crypto at all.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  Intent matters. The answer to "where do we draw the line" is that all the things you describe would be aiding and abetting if a jury would be convinced that you did it with an intent to aid them. If you write "a general developer FAQ that would get anybody dev-minded up to speed" with the intent to help general developers everywhere and DPRK uses that, that's okay; but if you write the exact same FAQ content with an intent to help DPRK get that information because you figure out that just sending it directly in an email might be too visible, then that would be a crime, if intent can be established - based on e.g. your earlier communication and writings. It's a prohibition on trying to achieve a specific result, not on a prohibition on any particular means of achieving that result.

onetimemanytime 7y ago

...information can be things like the names of US spies embedded with the Taliban or Isis. Or the the blind spot of USA defense systems. Or how to poison (insert city) water supply... you get the point.

confeit 7y ago
I get your point, but then again, classified information is protected and different from the technical information shared in this case, and how to poison a water supply is on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_terrorism
- mthoms 7y ago
  Many types of technical information are also protected. Not in the "classified" sense but in the sense that there are legal controls around exporting it to certain nations. Especially nations under UN sanctions.
  - confeit 7y ago
    Fair enough. Just offering an alternative/oldskool reading of this situation (this thread started out surprisingly negative against a mindset that used to be common among hackers). Laws on sharing information can sometimes be at odds with the hacker spirit of freeing information, for instance in the case of Aaron Swartz.