5 ms·

What if he did the exact same presentation in youtube, and in NK they saw that presentation? What if someone in NK downloaded the open source implementation of

What if he did the exact same presentation in youtube, and in NK they saw that presentation? What if someone in NK downloaded the open source implementation of that blockchain, participated on it, or even mined quite a few coins? Could be argued the same about any open source program (and their developers) dealing with encrypted information in any way? What was the problem? Going in person? Answering questions in the same way that he would do to any other person? Giving a "forbidden hint" that is basically spam all over internet by now? I don't care about crypto, but I do care about what this precedent implies.

mtoner23 5y ago
Read the article, he knowingly broke sanctions rules sending money across borders
starwind 5y ago
> What if he did the exact same presentation in youtube, and in NK they saw that presentation? If it was general information about how Blockchain can be used to evade sanctions, it would probably be fine as long as he was reporting how it could be done and not encouraging it. > What if someone in NK downloaded the open source implementation of that blockchain, participated on it, or even mined quite a few coins? Almost certainly not a problem. His tool is legal and he can't control other people taking it and using it to commit crimes. > What was the problem? His intention was the problem. The point of his talk was to help the North Koreans use crypto to evade sanctions. In law, intentions matter. There's a massive legal difference between hitting a pedestrian with your car and running down a pedestrian with your car, even if the outcome is exactly the same. The first is an accident, the second is assault. > Judge Castel read a series of text messages and emails from Griffith in which the defendant admits to sharing information with North Korea for the express purpose of helping the repressive Kim regime evade sanctions. > What the judge found most damning, perhaps, was a photo of Griffith presenting at the conference, wearing a traditional North Korean suit and standing in front of a blackboard on which it read “No sanctions!” with a smiley face. https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/04/12/former-ethereum-developer-virgil-griffith-sentenced-to-5-years-in-prison-for-north-korea-trip/ https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/04/12/former-ethereum... > I don't care about crypto, but I do care about what this precedent implies. That the intentions of the defendant matter? I have bad news for you, you find this Hammurabi's code and the Old Testament
- drc500free 5y ago
  > In law, intentions matter. This is almost always the sticking point when people from tech misunderstand law. The fact that computers do not understand intent is fundamental to learning code. I think that leads to a lot of tech folks not groking that one of the primary functions of the legal system is to systematically determine intent.
  - tobiasSoftware 5y ago
    There's an excellent article that I've read multiple times about this exact idea called "What Colour are your bits". It's written in response to a company that tried to get around the legal system by pretending that intentions don't matter. https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
    - drc500free 5y ago
      That was great! A lot of the conversations I've had about this involve licensing, especially mixing things developed for the government and things developed independently. I once answered a question with "the answer to that question just changed because a room full of people heard you ask it." That is very disconcerting to computer scientists, but not to particle physicists.
woah 5y ago
That's what I thought at first too, but no, it's much more ridiculous and openly criminal. "The document also includes [...] photos of Griffith, clad in a traditional-style North Korean suit, writing on a white board, on which “No sanctions!” was written with a smiley face." https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/04/11/former-ethereum-developer-virgil-griffith-to-be-sentenced-in-new-york-court-tomorrow/ https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/04/11/former-ethereum...
mcphage 5y ago
> What if he did the exact same presentation in youtube, and in NK they saw that presentation? What if someone in NK downloaded the open source implementation of that blockchain, participated on it, or even mined quite a few coins? I guess if he hadn't committed a crime, then he probably wouldn't have been arrested.
tofuahdude 5y ago
The precedent here is that if you deliberately and clearly help a sanctioned company against the laws of your own nation, you will suffer the consequences. There's nothing here about the random other ways of passively sharing information. It isn't a crime to have posted a video on youtube that gets watched in North Korea. Its obviously a crime to physically go to North Korea and intentionally teach them how to evade sanctions. What about that is related to the precedent you're talking about? You can't compare apples to oranges and call the apple orange.

mtoner23 5y ago

Read the article, he knowingly broke sanctions rules sending money across borders

starwind 5y ago

> What if he did the exact same presentation in youtube, and in NK they saw that presentation? If it was general information about how Blockchain can be used to evade sanctions, it would probably be fine as long as he was reporting how it could be done and not encouraging it. > What if someone in NK downloaded the open source implementation of that blockchain, participated on it, or even mined quite a few coins? Almost certainly not a problem. His tool is legal and he can't control other people taking it and using it to commit crimes. > What was the problem? His intention was the problem. The point of his talk was to help the North Koreans use crypto to evade sanctions. In law, intentions matter. There's a massive legal difference between hitting a pedestrian with your car and running down a pedestrian with your car, even if the outcome is exactly the same. The first is an accident, the second is assault. > Judge Castel read a series of text messages and emails from Griffith in which the defendant admits to sharing information with North Korea for the express purpose of helping the repressive Kim regime evade sanctions. > What the judge found most damning, perhaps, was a photo of Griffith presenting at the conference, wearing a traditional North Korean suit and standing in front of a blackboard on which it read “No sanctions!” with a smiley face. https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/04/12/former-ethereum-developer-virgil-griffith-sentenced-to-5-years-in-prison-for-north-korea-trip/ https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/04/12/former-ethereum... > I don't care about crypto, but I do care about what this precedent implies. That the intentions of the defendant matter? I have bad news for you, you find this Hammurabi's code and the Old Testament

drc500free 5y ago
> In law, intentions matter. This is almost always the sticking point when people from tech misunderstand law. The fact that computers do not understand intent is fundamental to learning code. I think that leads to a lot of tech folks not groking that one of the primary functions of the legal system is to systematically determine intent.
- tobiasSoftware 5y ago
  There's an excellent article that I've read multiple times about this exact idea called "What Colour are your bits". It's written in response to a company that tried to get around the legal system by pretending that intentions don't matter. https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
  - drc500free 5y ago
    That was great! A lot of the conversations I've had about this involve licensing, especially mixing things developed for the government and things developed independently. I once answered a question with "the answer to that question just changed because a room full of people heard you ask it." That is very disconcerting to computer scientists, but not to particle physicists.

woah 5y ago

That's what I thought at first too, but no, it's much more ridiculous and openly criminal. "The document also includes [...] photos of Griffith, clad in a traditional-style North Korean suit, writing on a white board, on which “No sanctions!” was written with a smiley face." https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/04/11/former-ethereum-developer-virgil-griffith-to-be-sentenced-in-new-york-court-tomorrow/ https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/04/11/former-ethereum...

mcphage 5y ago

> What if he did the exact same presentation in youtube, and in NK they saw that presentation? What if someone in NK downloaded the open source implementation of that blockchain, participated on it, or even mined quite a few coins? I guess if he hadn't committed a crime, then he probably wouldn't have been arrested.

tofuahdude 5y ago

The precedent here is that if you deliberately and clearly help a sanctioned company against the laws of your own nation, you will suffer the consequences. There's nothing here about the random other ways of passively sharing information. It isn't a crime to have posted a video on youtube that gets watched in North Korea. Its obviously a crime to physically go to North Korea and intentionally teach them how to evade sanctions. What about that is related to the precedent you're talking about? You can't compare apples to oranges and call the apple orange.