5 ms·

If that's all true, one wonders about his motivation. Perhaps Griffith just did it to make a point. I don't know what his point might have been. Maybe just tha

If that's all true, one wonders about his motivation. Perhaps Griffith just did it to make a point. I don't know what his point might have been. Maybe just that the laws are unjust, contravene freedom, etc, etc. Sort of like refusing to register vehicles and display plates. Or dealing in "ghost guns" or whatever. I'm certainly sympathetic. But I can't imagine doing that stuff using my meatspace identity. For Snowden, having worked for the NSA lent credibility to his actions. But I don't see the point for Griffith.

adventured 7y ago
I'm entirely unsympathetic. He knew exactly what he was doing, he knew that it was illegal and he knew who he was helping out. That's all extraordinarily clear. Maybe it's as simple as Griffith looking to make a name for himself and jumpstart a criminal enterprise that he knew would inherently involve doing blackmarket deals with bad actors. He certainly knew who he was helping out, re North Korea. Having the North Korean effort on your new criminal resume would be a large resume booster. It also explains why he would be looking to leave the US, where he'd be guaranteed to get nailed by the feds for anything in that arena eventually (and sooner than later). There has certainly been enough of that action in the crypto era and money is a prime motivator for most people.
- mirimir 7y ago
  I guess. But 5-20 years in federal prison is quite the career investment.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    5 is the high side, not the low side, according to the sentencing guidelines (which directly capture the fact that it's North Korea he helped; the sentencing guidelines for 50 USC 1705 practically read as if they were written specifically for North Korea).
    - tomjakubowski 7y ago
      Where do you see five years as the high end? 50 USC §1705 says "not more than 20 years". https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1705 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1705
      - tptacek 7y ago
        That's not how sentences work. Read the federal sentencing guidelines.
        MertsA 7y ago
        Not to nitpick, but it's not like the sentencing guidelines are binding. The judge can still choose to hand down a sentence outside of what the sentencing guidelines prescribe. Case and point, Paul Manafort and his "otherwise blameless life".
        tptacek 7y ago
        I'm just going to say that the sentencing guidelines capture 50 USC 1705 directly and are written in such a way as to suggest that North Korea is exactly what they were thinking of.
- haasted 7y ago
  He’s a resident of Singapore, so “looking to leave the US” was not really relevant. Seems he should have stayed away, though.
ChuckMcM 7y ago
I don't know what his motivation was. But the first thing I thought of when I heard the news was that it will be interesting to see what sort of case law is developed as a result of this case. Can math be classified as a weapon? Can talking about algorithms be made illegal? If talking about an algorithm in one place legal and in another place illegal? What if you video present where the speaker is in a jurisdiction where it is legal, and the audience is in a jurisdiction where it is illegal? Back in crypto-wars I on the coderpunks mailing list there was an interesting thread about the hypothetical question of getting a tattoo with the diffie-hellman and RSA algorihms written out, and then driving to Mexico in an effort to get arrested for exporting crypto code outside the US in violation of ITARS laws at the time.
- simonh 7y ago
  This isn’t about the legality of math. It’s about what you are doing, or helping others do. Goals and intended outcomes matter. Knives aren’t generally illegal, we all have them in our houses, but stabbing someone with one generally is. Calculating equations isn’t itself illegal, but for example calculating the ballistic profile of a missile aimed at a city and passing those results to an enemy state might be a crime. Similarly teaching their people to calculate such profiles, knowing what they intend to use that information for, could reasonably be criminal.
  - ChuckMcM 7y ago
    I don't disagree, what I hear when I read this comment are the same points I brought up but phrased a bit differently. As a huge disclaimer, the charges may simplify to "we told you you couldn't go, and you went, so we get to put you in prison." And if that were true then the only question that would be answered here is whether or not the government has the right to lock you up for attending a conference without their permission. The complaint reads like their going for a more "material assistance to the enemy" kind of theory but I don't know and I'm not a lawyer. That said, hopefully you don't mind me using your two statements as the foundation for questions they bring up. "This isn’t about the legality of math. It’s about what you are doing, or helping others do." I agree with that statement and I recognize that things I sometimes think should be true, turn out not to be as clear cut as I would like. So lets say his paper was "Comparing different proof-of-work algorithms for the foundation of a crypto-currency." That would be pretty much pure math. Algorithms where you couldn't "cheat" and get to the answer sooner than anyone else running the same algorithm. So should 'doing' that, or helping someone else 'do' that rise to the level of illegality? If so case law helps define tests for when something should be considered "bad" and when it is "ok." Let's step to your next point. "Goals and intended outcomes matter. Knives aren’t generally illegal, we all have them in our houses, but stabbing someone with one generally is." There is the "thing" and there is the "intent" to use the thing to do something bad. There are three "persons" in the above statement, the person that made the knife, the person that owned the knife, and the person that used the knife to do harm to another person or property. And yes, they could all be the same person) but which of those three persons are the criminal? In the USA we tend to lean toward the third example, the person using the tool to do harm. After all, you can do property damage with a baseball bat, and it isn't the bat makers fault right? So if you talk about blockchain to someone does that make you a criminal? Or are they a criminal when they try to use it to do some illegal act? Now if you knew that was what they were going to do, again in the USA, you could be charged with conspiracy. But if you didn't know, you were just talking in a hypothetical way like "I bet that bat would totally smash those 'unbreakable' windows on that cybertruck." Are you conspiring really? "Calculating equations isn’t itself illegal, but for example calculating the ballistic profile of a missile aimed at a city and passing those results to an enemy state might be a crime." The challenge here is that in the US there is a presumption of innocence. So calculating a ballistic missile profile of a missile that launches from some place and then impacts some place else, is something you can easily do in the Kerbal Space Program. As far as I can tell its pretty dang accurate. So if someone shares with the news network the game files to show where a purported ballistic missile could hit if fired from the DPRK, are they doing something illegal? Even if knowing how Kerbal works, you could play with that file to figure out what parameters your rocket would have to meet if you wanted to hit a specific target? "Similarly teaching their people to calculate such profiles, knowing what they intend to use that information for, could reasonably be criminal." Agreed, it is all in the "knowing" part. It is clearly conspiracy if someone asks you to tell them how much peanut is needed to kill someone with a peanut allergy because their enemy is allergic to peanuts and it seems like a good way to get rid of them. But if they just ask out of the blue with no context and you answer, are you conspiring? The original question was "What could possibly be his motivation for doing this?" It is an important question because motivation is required for there to be a crime. Understanding and proving that motivation is going to be key to getting a conviction. From the coverage so far it does not seem like it was money (I haven't read anywhere that the guy was paid some outrageous speakers fee or anything.) I also haven't seen anything to suggest it was a treasonous thing. I struggle to think like a criminal mastermind, so I rely on thinking like an engineer; knowing that in politics, relational, and legal questions my thinking will be flawed :-). So the interesting questions here for me are the ones that define what is, and what isn't, a criminal act with respect to algorithms.

adventured 7y ago

I'm entirely unsympathetic. He knew exactly what he was doing, he knew that it was illegal and he knew who he was helping out. That's all extraordinarily clear. Maybe it's as simple as Griffith looking to make a name for himself and jumpstart a criminal enterprise that he knew would inherently involve doing blackmarket deals with bad actors. He certainly knew who he was helping out, re North Korea. Having the North Korean effort on your new criminal resume would be a large resume booster. It also explains why he would be looking to leave the US, where he'd be guaranteed to get nailed by the feds for anything in that arena eventually (and sooner than later). There has certainly been enough of that action in the crypto era and money is a prime motivator for most people.

mirimir 7y ago
I guess. But 5-20 years in federal prison is quite the career investment.
- tptacek 7y ago
  5 is the high side, not the low side, according to the sentencing guidelines (which directly capture the fact that it's North Korea he helped; the sentencing guidelines for 50 USC 1705 practically read as if they were written specifically for North Korea).
  - tomjakubowski 7y ago
    Where do you see five years as the high end? 50 USC §1705 says "not more than 20 years". https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1705 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1705
    - tptacek 7y ago
      That's not how sentences work. Read the federal sentencing guidelines.
      - MertsA 7y ago
        Not to nitpick, but it's not like the sentencing guidelines are binding. The judge can still choose to hand down a sentence outside of what the sentencing guidelines prescribe. Case and point, Paul Manafort and his "otherwise blameless life".
        tptacek 7y ago
        I'm just going to say that the sentencing guidelines capture 50 USC 1705 directly and are written in such a way as to suggest that North Korea is exactly what they were thinking of.
haasted 7y ago
He’s a resident of Singapore, so “looking to leave the US” was not really relevant. Seems he should have stayed away, though.

ChuckMcM 7y ago

I don't know what his motivation was. But the first thing I thought of when I heard the news was that it will be interesting to see what sort of case law is developed as a result of this case. Can math be classified as a weapon? Can talking about algorithms be made illegal? If talking about an algorithm in one place legal and in another place illegal? What if you video present where the speaker is in a jurisdiction where it is legal, and the audience is in a jurisdiction where it is illegal? Back in crypto-wars I on the coderpunks mailing list there was an interesting thread about the hypothetical question of getting a tattoo with the diffie-hellman and RSA algorihms written out, and then driving to Mexico in an effort to get arrested for exporting crypto code outside the US in violation of ITARS laws at the time.

simonh 7y ago
This isn’t about the legality of math. It’s about what you are doing, or helping others do. Goals and intended outcomes matter. Knives aren’t generally illegal, we all have them in our houses, but stabbing someone with one generally is. Calculating equations isn’t itself illegal, but for example calculating the ballistic profile of a missile aimed at a city and passing those results to an enemy state might be a crime. Similarly teaching their people to calculate such profiles, knowing what they intend to use that information for, could reasonably be criminal.
- ChuckMcM 7y ago
  I don't disagree, what I hear when I read this comment are the same points I brought up but phrased a bit differently. As a huge disclaimer, the charges may simplify to "we told you you couldn't go, and you went, so we get to put you in prison." And if that were true then the only question that would be answered here is whether or not the government has the right to lock you up for attending a conference without their permission. The complaint reads like their going for a more "material assistance to the enemy" kind of theory but I don't know and I'm not a lawyer. That said, hopefully you don't mind me using your two statements as the foundation for questions they bring up. "This isn’t about the legality of math. It’s about what you are doing, or helping others do." I agree with that statement and I recognize that things I sometimes think should be true, turn out not to be as clear cut as I would like. So lets say his paper was "Comparing different proof-of-work algorithms for the foundation of a crypto-currency." That would be pretty much pure math. Algorithms where you couldn't "cheat" and get to the answer sooner than anyone else running the same algorithm. So should 'doing' that, or helping someone else 'do' that rise to the level of illegality? If so case law helps define tests for when something should be considered "bad" and when it is "ok." Let's step to your next point. "Goals and intended outcomes matter. Knives aren’t generally illegal, we all have them in our houses, but stabbing someone with one generally is." There is the "thing" and there is the "intent" to use the thing to do something bad. There are three "persons" in the above statement, the person that made the knife, the person that owned the knife, and the person that used the knife to do harm to another person or property. And yes, they could all be the same person) but which of those three persons are the criminal? In the USA we tend to lean toward the third example, the person using the tool to do harm. After all, you can do property damage with a baseball bat, and it isn't the bat makers fault right? So if you talk about blockchain to someone does that make you a criminal? Or are they a criminal when they try to use it to do some illegal act? Now if you knew that was what they were going to do, again in the USA, you could be charged with conspiracy. But if you didn't know, you were just talking in a hypothetical way like "I bet that bat would totally smash those 'unbreakable' windows on that cybertruck." Are you conspiring really? "Calculating equations isn’t itself illegal, but for example calculating the ballistic profile of a missile aimed at a city and passing those results to an enemy state might be a crime." The challenge here is that in the US there is a presumption of innocence. So calculating a ballistic missile profile of a missile that launches from some place and then impacts some place else, is something you can easily do in the Kerbal Space Program. As far as I can tell its pretty dang accurate. So if someone shares with the news network the game files to show where a purported ballistic missile could hit if fired from the DPRK, are they doing something illegal? Even if knowing how Kerbal works, you could play with that file to figure out what parameters your rocket would have to meet if you wanted to hit a specific target? "Similarly teaching their people to calculate such profiles, knowing what they intend to use that information for, could reasonably be criminal." Agreed, it is all in the "knowing" part. It is clearly conspiracy if someone asks you to tell them how much peanut is needed to kill someone with a peanut allergy because their enemy is allergic to peanuts and it seems like a good way to get rid of them. But if they just ask out of the blue with no context and you answer, are you conspiring? The original question was "What could possibly be his motivation for doing this?" It is an important question because motivation is required for there to be a crime. Understanding and proving that motivation is going to be key to getting a conviction. From the coverage so far it does not seem like it was money (I haven't read anywhere that the guy was paid some outrageous speakers fee or anything.) I also haven't seen anything to suggest it was a treasonous thing. I struggle to think like a criminal mastermind, so I rely on thinking like an engineer; knowing that in politics, relational, and legal questions my thinking will be flawed :-). So the interesting questions here for me are the ones that define what is, and what isn't, a criminal act with respect to algorithms.