3 ms·

> 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 t

> 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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.

drc500free 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.