4 ms·

Not a lawyer, but sounds to me like Dread Pirate Roberts could still find himself on the wrong side of this sort of this EO: "Sec. 5. (a) Any transaction that

Not a lawyer, but sounds to me like Dread Pirate Roberts could still find himself on the wrong side of this sort of this EO: "Sec. 5. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited" Broadly interpreted, wouldn't that be used against crypto-currency developers or secure communication tools developers that work on such tools with the knowledge that they can be used by sanctioned individuals or organizations? How about developers who write secure communication or security testing tools and sell them online without the ability or interest to verify who the purchaser is? The Patriot Act was also supposed to be about targeting only a few hostile foreign organizations, and yet it had massive implications for everyone living in the U.S. and abroad. Now, I get that an EO and a law are different things, but still, I can see potential implications of the general trend of the U.S. government seeing cybersecurity as something you throw sanctions and laws and deterrence at until it stops being an issue, without considering the potential collateral damage or overreach.

mkohlmyr 12y ago
Given he tried to have several people killed I imagine he finds himself on the wrong side of multiple executive orders, laws and moral frameworks alike... As for your second paragraph I would imagine you'd have to prove some form of intent in order to throw someone in jail?
- lazaroclapp 12y ago
  > Given he tried to have several people killed I imagine he finds himself on the wrong side of multiple executive orders, laws and moral frameworks alike... Sure, not saying he is a moral person, or not a criminal, or that he is likely to be even in the smallest measure a good person. But he clearly is not a hostile foreign power in and of himself, though I am sure he would love to be considered one ;) My only argument regarding DPR is that this sort of EO might end up applying to targets other than agents of hostile governments or terrorists or whatever the current boogieman is. > As for your second paragraph I would imagine you'd have to prove some form of intent in order to throw someone in jail? I would hope so, and that things like "intent to sell/export tools to find and exploit security vulnerabilities" would not be enough, even when interpreted by non-expert police, prosecutors, juries and judges.
- zimbatm 12y ago
  Do we know if he really did ? I thought this was all speculation from the prosecutor to shine a bad light on the character. He never was convicted of it for sure.
- atlantic 12y ago
  Actually, no. The same federal agents that stole large sums of Bitcoin from Silk Road also seem to have tried to frame DPR for murder. http://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahjeong/2015/03/31/force-and-bridges/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahjeong/2015/03/31/force-and-...
tptacek 12y ago
Ross Ulbricht isn't a foreign national, and there is no foreign power within the scope of this EO for whom any of Ross Ulbricht's assets hold any beneficial interest, so, no, this doesn't have anything to do with DPR.

mkohlmyr 12y ago

Given he tried to have several people killed I imagine he finds himself on the wrong side of multiple executive orders, laws and moral frameworks alike... As for your second paragraph I would imagine you'd have to prove some form of intent in order to throw someone in jail?

lazaroclapp 12y ago
> Given he tried to have several people killed I imagine he finds himself on the wrong side of multiple executive orders, laws and moral frameworks alike... Sure, not saying he is a moral person, or not a criminal, or that he is likely to be even in the smallest measure a good person. But he clearly is not a hostile foreign power in and of himself, though I am sure he would love to be considered one ;) My only argument regarding DPR is that this sort of EO might end up applying to targets other than agents of hostile governments or terrorists or whatever the current boogieman is. > As for your second paragraph I would imagine you'd have to prove some form of intent in order to throw someone in jail? I would hope so, and that things like "intent to sell/export tools to find and exploit security vulnerabilities" would not be enough, even when interpreted by non-expert police, prosecutors, juries and judges.
zimbatm 12y ago
Do we know if he really did ? I thought this was all speculation from the prosecutor to shine a bad light on the character. He never was convicted of it for sure.
atlantic 12y ago
Actually, no. The same federal agents that stole large sums of Bitcoin from Silk Road also seem to have tried to frame DPR for murder. http://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahjeong/2015/03/31/force-and-bridges/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahjeong/2015/03/31/force-and-...

tptacek 12y ago

Ross Ulbricht isn't a foreign national, and there is no foreign power within the scope of this EO for whom any of Ross Ulbricht's assets hold any beneficial interest, so, no, this doesn't have anything to do with DPR.