14 ms·

I would have advised him to stay quiet about this. Not out of fear of the North Koreans, but out of fear of our own security agencies seeing the activity as int

• excalibur 5y ago
  > Also the vagueness of our hacking laws probably make what he did a crime. Yes, it is most definitely and intentionally illegal. Things don't stop being crimes just because the victims are communists.
  • ipaddr 5y ago
    A North Korean law was probably broken. North Korea could ask the US to send him over to stand trial and the US could agree or ignore the request. No legal framework exists between the two countries so the US isn't forced to send them. Things don't start becoming a crime until laws exist.
  • wspess 5y ago
    Sorry for being pedantic but the State of North Korea does not claim to be communist but rather "socialist Juche" which is very different from Marxism-Leninism and other "communisms". http://naenara.com.kp/main/index/en/politics?arg_val=leader3 http://naenara.com.kp/main/index/en/politics?arg_val=leader3
• Waterluvian 5y ago
  The other day I read a (possibly wrong, fictional, or dramatized) account of some private group hacking Belorussian railways to impede Russian military logistics. I'm sure this is not new, but to me it is a fascinating concept: the modern era equivalent of Partisan soldiers, conducting cyber warfare in their jammies.
  • mndgs 5y ago
    It's a real thing, live and ongoing. They have a Telegram channel https://t.me/cpartisans https://t.me/cpartisans and also a promotional video on YouTube for how to defeat Lukashenko, the only dictator in Europe: https://youtu.be/UldT78OjlvE https://youtu.be/UldT78OjlvE They did manage to induce mess on Belarus railways transporting Russian military equipment to Ukrainian border. It probably stalled, but still didn't prevent Russian military reaching the Ukrainian border through Belarus.
• racnid 5y ago
  Good luck, we're having enough trouble protecting our normal arms.
• e_i_pi 5y ago
  I think we definitely need some additional rights listed to account for digital. GDPR seems like a good start to give people more ownership of their data, but in the US we still have basically no data rights or protection against searches of digital content that you don't physically host.
• hawski 5y ago
  Encryption was considered a weapon previously, which resulted in an export ban. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_...
  • rjsw 5y ago
    Also resulted in lots of us having to lie on our Visa Waiver forms on entry to the US.
  • kmeisthax 5y ago
    ...and the parent post's argument was already made by xkcd: https://xkcd.com/504/ https://xkcd.com/504/
  • boomboomsubban 5y ago
    North Korea is qualified as a "rogue state," so it's still illegal to export encryption there.
  • SeanLuke 5y ago
    No. Encryption was considered to be a munition. Wikipedia is being loose in its terminology and could benefit from some revision here.
• gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
  Yea I was wondering about the legality of this cyber self-defence, but like many crimes, if the victim (deserving or not) does not report it, you’ll probably get away scot free. In the case of NK, they could probably even register a complaint and have it ignored, assuming the effort needed to locate the perp was greater than the fucks given by the appropriate authorities. Hats off to the author but I would also caution them against broadcasting it publicly. The people who would appreciate this the most probably use secure channels anyway ;)
• ngcc_hk 5y ago
  Right to bear digital arm to fight foreign digital empire … seems fit the spirit. Not sure about the law and 3 letter people. Best of luck. Brave soul to fight N Korea. How about China.
• edm0nd 5y ago
  I'm down with the right to own botnets under the 2A.
  • bashinator 5y ago
    I'm hopeful that the new originalist makeup of the SCOTUS means no longer unconstitutionally limiting what's meant by "arms". ICBMs for billionaires! /s
  • DwnVoteHoneyPot 5y ago
    How do you create a botnet? By illegally accessing there people's equipment?
• pessimizer 5y ago
  If he were bombing NK infrastructure, would you be prouder?
  • oh_sigh 5y ago
    Well, the world certainly loves Nelson Mandela.
    • pessimizer 5y ago
      But doesn't love Osama Bin Laden, although Afghanistan certainly suffered more from US involvement than the US has suffered from North Korea, whose people it killed millions of.
      • oh_sigh 5y ago
        OBL bombed more than just infrastructure. I wonder how the US/world would have felt about him if he decided to take out the Statue of Liberty or something like that (while it was closed for repairs).
      • TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
        When did the US kill millions of North Koreans? Do you mean the Korean War in the 1950s?
        • pessimizer 5y ago
          Yes, I'm referencing the event that formed North Korea.
• snowwrestler 5y ago
  The 2nd Amendment says the government can’t infringe your right to possess arms. It does not say that it’s legal for you to use your arms against others to make a point. “Digital arms” are legal to possess in the U.S. as far as I know. Again, that is not the same thing as legalizing any use of them.
  • hsnewman 5y ago
    I wouldn't want to be the one who tests this, jail is jail regardless if your right or wrong. Getting out of jail isn't as quick as you may think.
  • imglorp 5y ago
    Encryption, at least, is a purely defensive weapon. In the historical context of 2A, protecting yourself from your government would closely align with the original intent of militias protecting locals from a federal king.
    • gmfawcett 5y ago
      It's an interesting theory until they arrest you. As another poster pointed out, crypto used to be considered "munitions" under U.S. law.
      • imglorp 5y ago
        Yeah. After an expensive legal defense, maybe with a bunch of expensive appeals, you'd be either wrong, poor, and in jail or right, poor, and not in jail.
  • decremental 5y ago
    Important to note that "digital arms" are not a real thing as far as anyone's rights are concerned. God given rights probably but as far as encoded in law, not the case. Also, don't engage in cyber warfare against other nations because the feds will come down on you harder than your target could hope to[1]. Obviously because it's stupid to put your country at risk. [1] Unless you live in the US and that country is Israel.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• pmalynin 5y ago
  We’ll it’s interesting in this case, because technically speaking a peace treaty was never signed and North Korea is in the state of war with the United States. So is it really a crime to attack a hostile state?
  • spaetzleesser 5y ago
    “So is it really a crime to attack a hostile state?” I don’t know if it’s illegal per se but it’s definitely a dangerous game. If there are any misunderstandings things like this could lead to retaliation and ultimately armed conflict.
    • HarryHirsch 5y ago
      Yes, like that accidental pipeline hack. That group that shut down a good chunk of the national oil supply didn't have a letter of marque, so they were dealt with.
  • vkou 5y ago
    Technically speaking, there hasn't been a peace treaty between Russia and Japan, either. That doesn't mean we've spent the past 77 years waiting with bated breath for yet another conflict over the Kuril islands to break out.
    • riku_iki 5y ago
      They didn't sign peace "treaty", but they signed declaration of ending war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_Joint_Declaration_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_Joint_...
  • jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 5y ago
    Who knows. It seems like anything can be interpreted as a crime these days. Hopefully he's got good lawyers advising him.
    • 5y ago
• blueflow 5y ago
  That this article exists it a manifest of his failed OpSec... if you are a hacker and you are popular for it, you aren't doing a good job.
  • earleybird 5y ago
    Or, a phrase I like: "If you're as good as you claim, why do I (of all people) know about you?"
  • ohcomments 5y ago
    Indeed... I've came across a few hackers in my life and not a single one of them wanted to be known / seem as one.
    • blooalien 5y ago
      There's also the factor of the word "hacker" having multiple meanings, with the most currently common meaning being equivalent to "people who break into computer systems/networks" (thanks a bunch Hollywood /s), where originally the same word "hacker" meant "person who comes up with creative solutions to technical problems" (among the community of actual original hackers). Both meanings are still in widespread use today but most "normal" people instantly jump to the criminal meaning in their brains thanks to popular media (Hollywood) helping the "black hat" hackers steal the label for themselves.
  • enkid 5y ago
    He's a pen tester. It's free advertising.
  • markdown 5y ago
    You know that most hacks don't involve physical access to the target device/infrastructure, right?
• Shank 5y ago
  The 2nd amendment already has interpretation questions around the first half -- the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," clause. It could go in any number of directions, from expanding "arms" to include "digital arms" to reducing the right only to "as part of a well regulated militia." See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment But I wouldn't bet money on the right expanding beyond firearms any time soon, given the glacial pace of constitutional law review.
  • rootusrootus 5y ago
    > given the glacial pace of constitutional law review OTOH, the SCOTUS has achieved a political supermajority and will probably move much faster with policy changes now.
    • butlerm 5y ago
      The Supreme Court does not make policy, at most it stops other branches from making certain kind of policies, when presented an opportunity to do so when resolving an actual case or controversy.
      • drocer88 5y ago
        "does not" or "should not" ?
      • monocasa 5y ago
        Stopping certain forms of policy and not others is a way to make policy.
        • ipaddr 5y ago
          Shape policy but not make policy.
          • monocasa 5y ago
• wwweston 5y ago
  IIRC cryptography has been classified under munitions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States#Cold_War_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th... Not sure how that'd interact with 2nd amendment issues (but it did come into conflict with the 1st).
• heavyset_go 5y ago
  You can't own a firearm if you consume marijuana, so using the 2nd amendment for things like encryption might get interesting. The 2nd amendment allows for heavy regulation of arms.
  • lostgame 5y ago
    There’s gotta be a lot of rappers breaking that rule. :P Dr. Dre, I’m looking at you.
  • sbierwagen 5y ago
    >You can't own a firearm if you consume marijuana In what state?
    • throwaway6734 5y ago
      All of them? Marijuana is still a schedule 1 substance
    • yostrovs 5y ago
      When purchasing a firearm, that is one of the questions in the Federal application, and you're not allowed to lie.
      • archontes 5y ago
        The federal application for a Federal Firearms License, the license needed to be a firearm vendor, not the (as far as I can tell) non-existent federal license to own one?
        • jasonladuke0311 5y ago
          There is no “license” to own or possess a firearm, parent is referring to the Form 4473, which is used to conduct a background check via NICS.
        • CircleSpokes 5y ago
          It isn't just FFLs. The Gun Control Act (GCA) defines a list of people who aren't allowed to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms of ammo. This includes any person "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);" [1]. Since cannabis is federally illegal still if you use it you can't legally even possess (not just own) a firearm or ammo. I think it is a stupid law though. Imagine if we applied that logic to other constitutionally protected rights. "Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance shall not have the right to vote" or "Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance shall not have the right to due process". [1]https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons
• jdonaldson 5y ago
  It's hard to see how North Korea is taken seriously by anyone these days.
• AdrianB1 5y ago
  The second does not grant anything, so it's not applicable for this case. Consider "digital assault weapons ban" as the closest concept.
• seanw444 5y ago
  I really like that 2nd amendment thought. Very interesting.
  • dnautics 5y ago
    What he really should do, is petition the us Congress for a letter of marque in a closed door session and Congress should grant it to him.
• multiplegeorges 5y ago
  Seems like the 4th Amendment already covers the right to use strong encryption. > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers and effects shall not be violated by unreasonable searches and seizures
• ctdonath 5y ago
  Remember: the US Constitution includes "letters of marque" clause, empowering Congress to grant citizens' requests to wage private warfare against foreign entities. Wish people would exercise this option more.
• Maursault 5y ago
  > Also the vagueness of our hacking laws probably make what he did a crime. I think it is likely North Korea could charge him with a number of crimes that may be extraditable, like cyber "terrorism" (the quotes are necessary, right?) The US has extradited at least one Russian hacker [1] P4X is also likely now featured in intelligence summaries in countries with security treaties with North Korea, like China and Russia. Also, it's possible P4X has violated the Logan Act. [1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/russian-national-extradited-role-hacking-and-illegal-trading-scheme https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/russian-national-extradit...
• gmiller123456 5y ago
  >Also, I feel like the 2nd amendment should be interpreted to include the right to bear digital arms The case presented in the article is not at all what the 2nd amendment or any self defense laws are about. This guy was seeking revenge and punishment for an act, not attempting to prevent damage from a imminent threat. The court systems are for dealing with those types of situations. Granted, the court systems wouldn't have helped in this situation, but it's important to make the distinction that this was an attack, not self defense.
• kova12 5y ago
  Bear digital arms and use them are as different as owning a rifle and shooting somebody
• DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
  > I would have advised him to stay quiet about this. Not out of fear of the North Koreans Both reasons seem pretty compelling. "Keeping your mouth shut" is such a fundamental rule of opsec that it's hard to take this persons skill/expertise seriously. Why put yourself in a place where you (and your family) have to look over their shoulder for the rest of your life. It's reckless to go bragging (even under a pseudonym) when your adversary is one of the biggest organized crime networks in the world (masquerading as a country): https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w13xtvg9/episodes/downloads https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w13xtvg9/episodes/downloads I applaud the guy for his civil courage, but seriously this just painted a huge target on his back and probably changed his life forever. Hope he is OK and even more so hope he has no family or friends who sure didn't sign up for it.
• smsm42 5y ago
  It's not about "vagueness" - intentionally messing up somebody else's computer or network (without owner's permission) is a crime, and it's not vague in any computer crime statute worth its name. Granted, if somebody had it coming and deserves this and much more, it's North Korea, but that doesn't change the nature of the deed. I don't think US authorities will be eager to prosecute, but that doesn't change the nature of it.
• tekknik 5y ago
  Seconded, 100%