SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Developer faces prison time for giving blockchain talk in North Korea
The prominent hacker and Ethereum developer Virgil Griffith was arrested by the US government Friday after he spoke at an April conference on blockchain technologies in North Korea. The US government considers his presentation to be a transfer of technology—and therefore a violation of US sanctions.
But Griffith's defenders, including Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin, describe the arrest as a massive overreaction. Griffith worked for the Ethereum Foundation, and Buterin called him a friend.
"I don't think what Virgil did gave the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] any kind of real help in doing anything bad," Buterin tweeted on Sunday. "He delivered a presentation based on publicly available info about open source software."
But federal prosecutors argue that Griffith, a US citizen residing in Singapore, knew full well that his trip violated US sanction laws. They say he sought approval for the trip from the US State Department, and his request was denied. Griffith made the trip anyway, traveling through China to evade US travel restrictions.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 04 2019, @06:11AM (13 children)
Ethereum is a technology, Griffith spoke in front of NK devs, it follows that he transferred a technology. Formally he had no right to do that. From TFA:
His other actions, mentioned in TFA, indicate that he is anti-establishment. Perhaps he wanted to be arrested and then speak at the trial. He wouldn't be the first to find out that this strategy is not foolproof. To North Korea, however, he is just a disposable "useful idiot [wikipedia.org]," a starry-eyed idealist who is ready to sacrifice his life for, as it appears, the continued oppression of the NK people.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by pipedwho on Wednesday December 04 2019, @06:41AM (11 children)
I’m thinking the constitution overrides laws that attempt to run around it.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 04 2019, @07:08AM (3 children)
No, it doesn't [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday December 04 2019, @12:21PM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by chromas on Wednesday December 04 2019, @09:21PM
I thought the first was about what comes out of the mouth, not what comes into it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 04 2019, @10:10PM
In terms of US jurisprudence there is probably not much to debate -- the conclusion was wrong. Schenck v. United States was basically reversed later by the US supreme court. Moreover, falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is almost certainly speech protected in the United States by the first amendment. Let's also not forget the context -- the statement was used in justification of upholding the arrest and conviction of draft protesters during the first world war.
Today the phrase is used usually in arguments of the form "some speech is not protected by the first amendment, therefore this other speech must also not be protected" and is basically always bullshit. Fortunately that is not how courts in the US determine whether or not speech is protected.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday December 04 2019, @08:54AM (6 children)
It doesn't override itself. He gave aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 04 2019, @10:28AM (3 children)
Incorrect. The United States has no enemies, and the only way it could have an enemy is if it were to formally declare war on another nation. This is frowned upon by the UN Charter, however, so the best Trump can to is have "frenemies", like Melania. Oh, and if exaeta suggests you sue anyone, run away very fast. The man is a legal imbecile. #exaeta'sCow, man!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 04 2019, @01:40PM (1 child)
I don't think there was ever a real peace treaty that formally put an end to the Korean War. So the Korean War is still really ongoing although there has been an uneasy ceasefire between North and South Korea since 1953. Since there is a mutual defense treaty between the United States and South Korea, that makes North Korea an enemy of the United States thanks to these treaty obligations, even if no formal declaration of war was made.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 04 2019, @05:01PM
There was no declaration of war by South Korea, either, since it did not exist! There was only a UN Security council resolution, only possible because the Soviet Union got pissed and walked out. They never did that again. But no, no state of war exists.
(Interesting case where the US Military wanted to charge a GI with treason, but for it to be treason, the US has to have an enemy, that is, in a declared war. The defense said it was not treason, since there was no declared war in Korea. The prosecution said, "Yeah, but this many people are dying every day!" Point being, combat and hostile relations are !war. )
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by khallow on Wednesday December 04 2019, @08:36PM
What law determines that? I don't see it in the US Constitution, for example.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday December 04 2019, @04:05PM (1 child)
If the president can do it, then anyone should be allowed to do it.
If you think a fertilized egg is a child but an immigrant child is not, please don't pretend your concerns are religious
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday December 04 2019, @06:14PM
In a world where rule of law prevailed, they would be cellmates.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 04 2019, @07:01PM
fuck you and you stupid fucking government. we will route around all of the fucking parasitic scum.