9 ms·

Two things I find plausible: He was under public and private surveillance, if not for his work, then for his first-degree contacts and targeting by other countr

Two things I find plausible: He was under public and private surveillance, if not for his work, then for his first-degree contacts and targeting by other countries. Imagine the US state coming to you for a friendly chat: "Sir, we are aware you want to go to North-Korea to present on this 'blockchain' and 'smart contracts' thingamabob. This is a very bad idea. We only allow certain journalists and those futhering our national interest to go, you should have googled that.". "Hey, that's unfair! You really mean I am not allowed to go present public data on a conference, just because I happen to have a U.S. passport and hacker knowledge?". "Well, national interest wink-wink?" "No, thanks.". It would be fair to describe that as "sought permission and was denied." Also of note that the complaint does not seem to have the actual presentation the guy did. The FBI must have been really nervous and interested in a certain line of questioning and topic. According to statement the audience left with a better understanding of blockchain and smart contracts then they had before. I don't think the guy held a presentation about "How to use Cryptocurrency-1 to launder money and evade sanctions". The 1 unit of Cryptocurrency-1 transfer from NK to SK could have been a hacker asking themselves: "Is this possible? Can I actually do this? What happens?". Well in this case you get the FBI-equivalent of blowing out the power in the neighborhood. Of course, after the conference, some shady NK government employees came up to him and asked him more pointed questions (almost like an agent at the early defcons singling out Asian participants). It states they discussed "proof of work", not that the suspect was given a free (or paid) consultancy gig. I think they had nothing about the conference, so they had to wriggle all this out of him during an interview. FBI damn good at this. They got all the facts they needed to make this a convincing complaint. But reality is not straightforward. I think you can think of plenty of other computer software nerds who got fucked by the law for doing what they do, and not murdering their wives.

tptacek 7y ago
Complaints rarely have things like "the actual presentation the guy did". They can supersede the initial complaint with a more detailed indictment, or just stick with the one count they have and introduce their evidence at trial. I think you're reading tea leaves here.
- confeit 7y ago
  - What was the title of your talk? - "Blockchain and Peace", I've given it before. - Does any of the talk mention (looks down at paper) "smart contracts". - Probably yes. There is a slide on trusted lending circles in India. - Can you explain to me, when someone sets up one of these (looks down at paper) "smart contracts", can they benefit from this? - Well, yes. Or they can lose. You see -- - Thanks. > GRIFFITHS presentation was called "Blockchain and Peace", and he discussed, among other things how a blockchain technology, including a "smart contract" could be used to benefit the DPKR.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    I don't know what you're trying to say here, but according to the complaint, Griffith asked the State Department if he could present at this conference without breaking the law, and they told him he could not. He then went and presented anyways. He probably could have presented nothing but slides of cute baby otters and still been charged. It is a truly weird set of circumstances. If he could plausibly have claimed not to know about the sanctions, this would be a harder case for the DOJ, because the statute requires willful violation. But if the complaint is accurate, Griffith did essentially everything he could to wreck his defense. We'll see, though.
    - pvg 7y ago
      He probably could have presented nothing but slides of cute baby otters and still been charged. The complaint does spend quite a bit of time trying to establish what took place was an actual 'technology transfer' and his intent to violate sanctions in some way beyond merely traveling and ottering there. And the charge itself is conspiracy, with all of the extra bits they have to show for that attached. I have zero expertise in this beyond nerdgooglery but the fact this dude's previous adventures seem to have included bananas shit like 'running a web-to-tor gateway and trying to sell the logs to governments' makes me wonder if there isn't more to this that's even dumber and worse for him. Equally bewildering are the motivations and intent of the North Koreans. Surely if you actually want someone's actionable insights on violating sanctions, you're not going to do it in public at a conference. "American expert declares cryptocurrency use to circumvent imperialist oppression promotes peace" might be all they really needed from him. It's a cliché but 'useful idiot' seems kind of plausible, with quadruple emphasis on 'idiot'.

tptacek 7y ago

Complaints rarely have things like "the actual presentation the guy did". They can supersede the initial complaint with a more detailed indictment, or just stick with the one count they have and introduce their evidence at trial. I think you're reading tea leaves here.

confeit 7y ago
- What was the title of your talk? - "Blockchain and Peace", I've given it before. - Does any of the talk mention (looks down at paper) "smart contracts". - Probably yes. There is a slide on trusted lending circles in India. - Can you explain to me, when someone sets up one of these (looks down at paper) "smart contracts", can they benefit from this? - Well, yes. Or they can lose. You see -- - Thanks. > GRIFFITHS presentation was called "Blockchain and Peace", and he discussed, among other things how a blockchain technology, including a "smart contract" could be used to benefit the DPKR.
- tptacek 7y ago
  I don't know what you're trying to say here, but according to the complaint, Griffith asked the State Department if he could present at this conference without breaking the law, and they told him he could not. He then went and presented anyways. He probably could have presented nothing but slides of cute baby otters and still been charged. It is a truly weird set of circumstances. If he could plausibly have claimed not to know about the sanctions, this would be a harder case for the DOJ, because the statute requires willful violation. But if the complaint is accurate, Griffith did essentially everything he could to wreck his defense. We'll see, though.
  - pvg 7y ago
    He probably could have presented nothing but slides of cute baby otters and still been charged. The complaint does spend quite a bit of time trying to establish what took place was an actual 'technology transfer' and his intent to violate sanctions in some way beyond merely traveling and ottering there. And the charge itself is conspiracy, with all of the extra bits they have to show for that attached. I have zero expertise in this beyond nerdgooglery but the fact this dude's previous adventures seem to have included bananas shit like 'running a web-to-tor gateway and trying to sell the logs to governments' makes me wonder if there isn't more to this that's even dumber and worse for him. Equally bewildering are the motivations and intent of the North Koreans. Surely if you actually want someone's actionable insights on violating sanctions, you're not going to do it in public at a conference. "American expert declares cryptocurrency use to circumvent imperialist oppression promotes peace" might be all they really needed from him. It's a cliché but 'useful idiot' seems kind of plausible, with quadruple emphasis on 'idiot'.