5 ms·
Good points. Agreed. I just think (like you say with very little real information) that there’s a risk in being biased by the government’s complaint. Occam’s
by tmsh 7y ago
Good points. Agreed.
I just think (like you say with very little real information) that there’s a risk in being biased by the government’s complaint.
Occam’s razor suggests a person, who is good at ethereum development, might tweet his NK visa out of ignorance about the consequences of what he’s doing v. some elaborate criminality worthy of 5 years in prison. And maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt v. defending the government given its track record of sometimes missing things.
- akerl_ 7y agoYou can do something foolishly that is worthy of jail time. But in this case he appears to have asked ahead of time if this behavior was problematic, was told that it was, then did it anyways.
- ShorsHammer 7y agoTo me that's the kicker. He's plainly had doubts, confirmed those doubts were real and yet went ahead regardless. Without that he'd surely be finding a lot more sympathy, regardless of personal opinions on NK.
- diego 7y agoWhat does it matter what we think of him? He is being accused of a crime, and presumed innocent. If it goes to trial, then the jury will have access to all the evidence. You and I don't.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y agoHe's presumed innocent legally. The presumptions of the legal system are not binding in most other contexts, internet discussions being one example.
- nordsieck 7y ago> Occam’s razor suggests a person, who is good at ethereum development, might tweet his NK visa out of ignorance about the consequences of what he’s doing v. some elaborate criminality worthy of 5 years in prison. Did you not read the post you originally replied to? > Unsurprisingly, the State Department told Griffith he could not in fact present or attend the Pyongyang Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency. > Regardless, Griffith attended and presented at the Pyongyang Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency.
- tptacek 7y agoIn or about April 19, VIRGIN GRIFFITH, the defendant, traveled to the DPRK to attend and present at the “Pyongyang Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Conference” (the “DPRK Cryptocurrency Conference”). The US State Department denied GRIFFITH permission to go to the DPRK to attend the DPRK Cryptocurrency Conference due to the DPRK Sanctions, but GRIFFITH nonetheless traveled to the DPRK, via China, to participate. The statute he violated has a "willfully" mental state requirement, meaning Griffith would potentially have a defense at trial if he could convince a jury he had no idea what he was doing was prohibited by sanctions. From the complaint, it seems unlikely he'd be able to do that.
- mapgrep 7y agoEven the press release from the accusers says he allegedly violated the statute. It is not established he broke any law until he is convicted in court. And court != justice.gov != ycombinator.com.
- tptacek 7y agoIs it really your impression that readers of HN threads need to be reminded that HN threads aren't binding legal process?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y agoThey always say allegedly. It does not reflect a lack of strength in evidence or belief that they said that in this case.
- jessaustin 7y agoIs that egregious name-mangling in the original? Wow.
- tptacek 7y agoI typed it out by hand, so it's almost certainly my fault. I'm too lazy to confirm, but just assume it's me.
- tmsh 7y agoEdited to reply to other comments: Good points. But yeah US AG would allege more severe violations if they had occurred so we can presume they didn’t. Ie they insinuate he was ‘warned’ about going to NK. But what was the nature of the warning? It’s wrong to charge someone for up to 20 years if the warning you made wasn’t clear on the penalties and we can presume that was the case because they would have stated if that were the case (ie we warned him he would face up to 20 years in prison). It sounds like he has been nothing but cooperative with authorities. And again Occam’s razor says they’re taking their frustrations with controlling him out via this complaint (meant to also deter others from doing similar things). But yeah my problem is the rush to judgement. There is no reason to believe he was aware of the laws he was violating and the consequences and that’s scary to me as us citizen.
- tptacek 7y agoIn this case it seems like you're the one on the wrong side of the razor here, unless one of the relatively straightforward factual assertions in the DOJ's complaint is simply false.
- tmsh 7y agoPerhaps yeah. I just sense a lot of genuine ignorance on his part (otherwise why wouldn’t he lawyer up or why tweet his visa). He strikes me as an engineer who believes in crypto and didn’t even realize the severity of what he was violating. When you also consider he re-tweeted Trump’s endorsement of NK etc. I could see how he might’ve been genuinely confused. But yeah I guess the court might discover more of what’s going on.