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: 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.