7 ms·

North Korea is building nuclear weapons in order to threaten the United States and its allies with them. Tens of thousands of American soldiers are stationed i

North Korea is building nuclear weapons in order to threaten the United States and its allies with them. Tens of thousands of American soldiers are stationed in South Korea in order to defend it from North Korean aggression. The war between the US and North Korea—which began 70 years ago when the current dictator’s grandfather invaded the South and declared war on the United States—is technically not over, and the possibility that active hostilities may resume at any time still exists. Sanctions are one of the few tools that the US has to exert leverage against the North Korean regime, and Virgil Griffith is alleged to have travelled to North Korea specifically to help North Korea in violating those sanctions. What he is alleged to have done has been illegal for 70 years. This is not just about one guy giving a talk.

0x008 5y ago
I am sorry but to me the wording of your comment seems way too political and biased-sounding for hacker news.
- intev 5y ago
  I'm sorry, but what? Their comment to me reads like an objective statement of facts. They don't lean one way or another, or even say if they agrees with it or not. You can't even do that on HN?
  - vkou 5y ago
    Give me six facts about the most honest of men, and I'll have enough to hang them. Which facts you include and exclude is quite relevant to your bias, politics, etc.
    - intev 5y ago
      This is a philosophical slippery slope. The next question is "what are facts?", or "who decides what's immoral?". I'm not interested in going down this because it's pointless. Reading the original comment, what can construed as "too political" for HN? There wasn't any strong support or opposition.
      - vkou 5y ago
        "The United States invaded Iraq and killed 500,000 innocent people because of the fragile ego of the Bush-Cheney cabal' is an example of: 1. An utterly reprehensible crime against humanity. 2. An accurate fact that's oft-repeated on HN 3. A highly political fact. 4. Utterly pointless to introduce in any conversation that is not closely related to wars. 5. A necessary reminder that our shit stinks. Despite all that, it's 'too political' to bring it up in a thread like this - because it has nothing to do with the subject, other than to give people a reason to engage in a nationalistic pissing contest.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
chrisco255 5y ago
In 2019 our own President went there to discuss peace. Dennis Rodman and many other Americans have visited NK at various times. I don't think it's moral to arrest someone for speaking about publicly available information. There's nothing Virgil could have told them that they couldn't find on GitHub or YouTube. And yes, Kim's lackeys definitely have access to the internet. Sanctions seem to work for nothing. NK got nukes anyways. The middle east is still a mess. Iran is still a problem 50 years later. Cuba still a mess. China is arguably our biggest threat but no sanctions there. Russia has diversified itself away from the Petrodollar as much as possible for these reasons. This US Dollar empire is on its last legs. The US isn't 25% of global GDP anymore. None of this is sustainable. At any rate, I'm sure Kim's hackers are incapable of learning cryptocurrency from any one of thousands of online resources. Crisis averted. Lock him up.
- legutierr 5y ago
  Say what you will about the effectiveness of sanctions and the current state of American foreign policy, United States citizens shouldn’t undertake expressly illegal overt acts on enemy soil to assist hostile governments in undermining that foreign policy—regardless as to whether or not the information they share is already known by that hostile government—without at least expecting to attract unwanted attention from their own government.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    We live in a country that has the rule of law, you can't just arbitrarily use a vague characterization of a country being "hostile" to abridge the rights of someone. I would be alright with this if the us had a formal declaration of war with north Korea, but it doesn't.
    - leereeves 5y ago
      The US hasn't formally declared war on anyone since World War 2. Not Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, nor any of the many smaller conflicts we've fought. However, the United Nations did declare war on North Korea, with US support, and the US is the major participant in that war; and no peace treaty was ever signed, merely a cease fire.
scotty79 5y ago
What is the benefit from those sanctions? Don't they just keep North Korea insular?
eloff 5y ago
You can't sanction publicly available information. By that logic every crypto or blockchain website or video on the internet not blocked in North Korea is guilty of violating the sanctions. This doesn't make any sense, and I feel really bad for people like Griffith getting ground beneath the treads of the unthinking legal machine here. And shame on the judges for not slapping this law down, because that's they're job to protect people from unthinking and unfair application of the law.
- nucleardog 5y ago
  > By that logic every crypto or blockchain website or video on the internet not blocked in North Korea is guilty of violating the sanctions. Making something available on the internet has non-illegal purposes. Specifically flying somewhere that is sanctioned and presenting the information specifically to them has no non-illegal purpose. If you drop a $20 bill on the street and a member of a terrorist organization picks it up, it's not really funding terrorism just because you didn't explicitly ensure whoever found it was allowed to have it. If you go find a terrorist organization and give them $20, you've funded terrorism. Intent matters.
  - eloff 5y ago
    Your argument makes a lot of sense. What I don't understand though, is if you share publicly available information, how have you done any harm? How can you have violated sanctions? Then again if you gave aviation lectures to Al Qaeda after 911, you're definitely doing something wrong, even if it's publicly available information.
    - rualca 5y ago
      > is if you share publicly available information, how have you done any harm? Even if your assistance adds low-value, it's still assistance. Moreover, I don't believe it's reasonable to ignore the fact that a renowned Ethereum dev providing assistance to a hostile regime, regardless of how lame, does have a goal of conveying credibility and help push public acceptance. As a similar example, see for example how Snowden was blindsided by a guy trying to leverage Snowden's attendance as a way to buy him credibility. https://www.vice.com/en/article/epndnz/the-bizarre-case-of-snowden-and-a-get-rich-quick-real-estate-investing-conference https://www.vice.com/en/article/epndnz/the-bizarre-case-of-s...
Cypher 5y ago
It's a terrible what the western government will do to it's own people for power and control.

0x008 5y ago

I am sorry but to me the wording of your comment seems way too political and biased-sounding for hacker news.

intev 5y ago
I'm sorry, but what? Their comment to me reads like an objective statement of facts. They don't lean one way or another, or even say if they agrees with it or not. You can't even do that on HN?
- vkou 5y ago
  Give me six facts about the most honest of men, and I'll have enough to hang them. Which facts you include and exclude is quite relevant to your bias, politics, etc.
  - intev 5y ago
    This is a philosophical slippery slope. The next question is "what are facts?", or "who decides what's immoral?". I'm not interested in going down this because it's pointless. Reading the original comment, what can construed as "too political" for HN? There wasn't any strong support or opposition.
    - vkou 5y ago
      "The United States invaded Iraq and killed 500,000 innocent people because of the fragile ego of the Bush-Cheney cabal' is an example of: 1. An utterly reprehensible crime against humanity. 2. An accurate fact that's oft-repeated on HN 3. A highly political fact. 4. Utterly pointless to introduce in any conversation that is not closely related to wars. 5. A necessary reminder that our shit stinks. Despite all that, it's 'too political' to bring it up in a thread like this - because it has nothing to do with the subject, other than to give people a reason to engage in a nationalistic pissing contest.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

chrisco255 5y ago

In 2019 our own President went there to discuss peace. Dennis Rodman and many other Americans have visited NK at various times. I don't think it's moral to arrest someone for speaking about publicly available information. There's nothing Virgil could have told them that they couldn't find on GitHub or YouTube. And yes, Kim's lackeys definitely have access to the internet. Sanctions seem to work for nothing. NK got nukes anyways. The middle east is still a mess. Iran is still a problem 50 years later. Cuba still a mess. China is arguably our biggest threat but no sanctions there. Russia has diversified itself away from the Petrodollar as much as possible for these reasons. This US Dollar empire is on its last legs. The US isn't 25% of global GDP anymore. None of this is sustainable. At any rate, I'm sure Kim's hackers are incapable of learning cryptocurrency from any one of thousands of online resources. Crisis averted. Lock him up.

legutierr 5y ago
Say what you will about the effectiveness of sanctions and the current state of American foreign policy, United States citizens shouldn’t undertake expressly illegal overt acts on enemy soil to assist hostile governments in undermining that foreign policy—regardless as to whether or not the information they share is already known by that hostile government—without at least expecting to attract unwanted attention from their own government.
- dnautics 5y ago
  We live in a country that has the rule of law, you can't just arbitrarily use a vague characterization of a country being "hostile" to abridge the rights of someone. I would be alright with this if the us had a formal declaration of war with north Korea, but it doesn't.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    The US hasn't formally declared war on anyone since World War 2. Not Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, nor any of the many smaller conflicts we've fought. However, the United Nations did declare war on North Korea, with US support, and the US is the major participant in that war; and no peace treaty was ever signed, merely a cease fire.

scotty79 5y ago

What is the benefit from those sanctions? Don't they just keep North Korea insular?

eloff 5y ago

You can't sanction publicly available information. By that logic every crypto or blockchain website or video on the internet not blocked in North Korea is guilty of violating the sanctions. This doesn't make any sense, and I feel really bad for people like Griffith getting ground beneath the treads of the unthinking legal machine here. And shame on the judges for not slapping this law down, because that's they're job to protect people from unthinking and unfair application of the law.

nucleardog 5y ago
> By that logic every crypto or blockchain website or video on the internet not blocked in North Korea is guilty of violating the sanctions. Making something available on the internet has non-illegal purposes. Specifically flying somewhere that is sanctioned and presenting the information specifically to them has no non-illegal purpose. If you drop a $20 bill on the street and a member of a terrorist organization picks it up, it's not really funding terrorism just because you didn't explicitly ensure whoever found it was allowed to have it. If you go find a terrorist organization and give them $20, you've funded terrorism. Intent matters.
- eloff 5y ago
  Your argument makes a lot of sense. What I don't understand though, is if you share publicly available information, how have you done any harm? How can you have violated sanctions? Then again if you gave aviation lectures to Al Qaeda after 911, you're definitely doing something wrong, even if it's publicly available information.
  - rualca 5y ago
    > is if you share publicly available information, how have you done any harm? Even if your assistance adds low-value, it's still assistance. Moreover, I don't believe it's reasonable to ignore the fact that a renowned Ethereum dev providing assistance to a hostile regime, regardless of how lame, does have a goal of conveying credibility and help push public acceptance. As a similar example, see for example how Snowden was blindsided by a guy trying to leverage Snowden's attendance as a way to buy him credibility. https://www.vice.com/en/article/epndnz/the-bizarre-case-of-snowden-and-a-get-rich-quick-real-estate-investing-conference https://www.vice.com/en/article/epndnz/the-bizarre-case-of-s...

Cypher 5y ago

It's a terrible what the western government will do to it's own people for power and control.