I'm not sure where this comes from, but you're now the second person I see on HN to say this (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29896969). Is this "common knowledge" in the US or something?
Here is what I said the last time:
>> The US and KP are technically still at war (the Korean war stopped with a cease fire, not a treaty) and the US and its allies levy sanctions on them that hurt.
> Technically, I don't think the US and North Korea ever been at war. South Korea and North Korea are technically still at war though, as they signed the treaty with each other, not the US.
The conflict with North Korea ended with an armistice, not a formal treaty. The armistice intended for peace treaty discussions to start 3 months later... and they never really did.
The US, UN Command, and North Korea are still operating under a temporary cease-fire that's now basically 70 years old. (I don't think South Korea even signed the armistice).
> acting like they are at war, thus they aren't at war
It matters legally that you are technically at war even if you aren't acting like it. It allows the specific wartime actions.
South Korea this matters and the UN as well. North Korea is actively sanctioned as a result of not being at peace.
somehow, I don't think that those are the people that are being targeted. it's the "elite" who actually have internet access, and can also eat.
those who make the decisions, and those who are friends of those who make the decisions would be the ones affected by the internet being down, not those who can barely eat and obviously don't have internet access.
> The United States rejected a North Korean proposal to discuss a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War because it did not address denuclearization on the peninsula, the State Department said on Sunday.
2018: https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/27/asia/korean-summit-intl/index...
> Then they signed the Panmunjom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification on the Korean Peninsula, which commits the two countries to denuclearization and talks to bring a formal end to conflict. It was a startling conclusion to the first meeting between leaders of the two countries in 10 years.
2021: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korean-lead...
> "I once again urge the community of nations to mobilize its strengths for the end-of-war declaration on the Korean Peninsula," Moon said in a speech to the annual gathering of the world body.
If you are wondering why this is "common knowledge" in the US it might be because just a few years ago there were questions about whether this state of affairs should be changed. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/02/27/donald-tru...
I'd imagine it is a crime to attack a state that we are in a cease fire with regardless.
That's the definition of terrorism when it's not "domestic terrorism".
I don’t know if it’s illegal per se but it’s definitely a dangerous game. If there are any misunderstandings things like this could lead to retaliation and ultimately armed conflict.
that seems to be standard US foreign policy. it's probably actually worse in reality; where the US even 'intervenes' even if it does have a peace treaty with them. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
Ya, if I were the State Department, if be pissed
One crime does not justify another.
The Parties agree to extradite to each other, pursuant to the provisions of this Treaty, persons sought by the authorities in the Requesting State for trial or punishment for extraditable offenses.
https://irp.fas.org/world/uk/extradite.pdf
As I understand it, this was an extension of the original 1972 treaty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_...
“Digital arms” are legal to possess in the U.S. as far as I know. Again, that is not the same thing as legalizing any use of them.
One point that gets lost about the 2nd Amendment is that it should be considered an inalienable right. Meaning, it cannot be diminished by any law of man. Consequently, most of the gun laws can be viewed as fundamentally unconstitutional, and any attempts to enforce them are illegal.
Of course, this is a highly unpopular opinion, as most of the population has surrendered itself to creeping authoritarianism.
That doesn't follow. The right to own something does not imply the right to use it.
> One point that gets lost about the 2nd Amendment is that it should be considered an inalienable right. Meaning, it cannot be diminished by any law of man. Consequently, most of the gun laws can be viewed as fundamentally unconstitutional, and any attempts to enforce them are illegal.
The Constitution does not and cannot bestow inalienable rights.
The Bill of Rights was never supposed to bestow rights, just protect them, as per the preface:
>"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
That's like saying "The right to own a pair of pants does not mean you have the right to wear them." or "The right to own that Rembrandt doesn't mean you have the right to look at it". What, if not to use or consume an item, is the purpose of ownership at the fundamental level?
> The Constitution does not and cannot bestow inalienable rights.
You'll be happy to hear it does neither. It recognizes rights that are inherent to human beings and (presumably) limits the ability of the government to infringe on them.
Or even "The right to own a car does not mean that you have the right to drive through red lights".
The fact that you can own something does not mean that you have the right to use it indiscriminately. In this case (if we consider them "digital arms") I don't see how using it for retribution (rather then self defense) would be considered ok.
This is exactly how it works (in the USA) currently. You can legally own a car, yet be unable to drive it legally (if you are not a licensed driver).
And even if you don't have a drivers license it can be perfectly legal to drive your car on your own property (hack your own computers) but not to drive on public roads / private property where the owner has not consented to you driving (hacking someone elses computer without their ok), but if they are ok with it it's perfectly legal (like for instance pentesting). Context matters.
Do you have the right to shoot at someone's house? Do you have the right to fire in a crowded theater? Do you have the right to fire your weapon right next to someone's ear?
Just because you own a gun does mean your use of that gun cannot be restricted by law, indeed severely so. The only issue is to what degree your usage may be curtailed. This is not black and white.
Of course, prosecutors love to double dip with charges, tacking on a weapons charge or two. These extra charges usually result in a far more severe sentence. Again, hard to see the legality of such practices, but this is the status quo that we have today.
You’ve decided to focus on guns in your comments, but that’s not a distinction that matters to my point.
Also, don't engage in cyber warfare against other nations because the feds will come down on you harder than your target could hope to[1]. Obviously because it's stupid to put your country at risk.
[1] Unless you live in the US and that country is Israel.
I doubt the NRA would organize a picket to defend your right to run PGP.
I'm not American but if I was and I wanted to limit access to guns, I don't think arguing that the courts should decide the 2nd amendment doesn't actually give the right to bear arms would be the way to go. If you think Americans agree with you and don't actually want that part of the constitution, judicial activism wouldn't be needed.
From the other perspective: gun rights are under constant attack from fearmongering media and I find that bonkers. All it takes is one (1) psycho POS shooting up a school for the media to run a month of coverage claiming that everybody should now lose a fundamental right. Ffs most people agree that criminal activity doesn't justify violating everybodys rights (like police state measures), why is this specifically different? Because the media machine works for a political class that wants a disarmed and castrated electorate.
Theres been a creeping advance against these rights since the 1930s with the NFA passing and gun grabbers have been constantly demanding more for these 100 years with small concessions then larger infringements, racheting toward less gun rights, slowly but surely hellbent on taking away our weapons. Most of this is enabled by bullshit judicial activism that twists 2a for matters of convenience and political ends.
As a non American who doesn’t live in US, I agree with you on this.
I guess most of the non-Americans also don’t care that deeply about your gun laws.
Sometimes we see the incidents and perceive the loss of life to be painful. But this is human nature and it exists in me and you alike.
Sometimes non-Americans might express their opinions on this matter which I believe is fine. Just an opinion. :)
What "pro gun propaganda" is this exactly? Gun access is not getting more relaxed - talk about propaganda. The Federal form you are required to fill out at any gun shop in the country asks you to declare whether you have ever been adjudicated as mentally defective or have ever been confined in a mental institution. Answering Yes will result in your firearm purchase being denied.
We can't know ahead of time that someone is going to go off the deep end and go on a shooting spree. You can't legislate this risk away short of banning guns completely and confiscating all of them, which is unrealistic/impossible. Let's ban alcohol as well because it kills twice as many people as guns do (half of which are suicides) annually.
I'm an independent that shares plenty of the Democrat party's positions, but gun control isn't one of them. Guns are tools than can be used and misused like any other tool.
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers and effects shall not be violated by unreasonable searches and seizures
But I wouldn't bet money on the right expanding beyond firearms any time soon, given the glacial pace of constitutional law review.
Would you interpret _that_ as meaning we could only eat eggs for breakfast?
OTOH, the SCOTUS has achieved a political supermajority and will probably move much faster with policy changes now.
A judge answers the question someone else asks.
They can deny policy based on existing policy.
Both reasons seem pretty compelling. "Keeping your mouth shut" is such a fundamental rule of opsec that it's hard to take this persons skill/expertise seriously. Why put yourself in a place where you (and your family) have to look over their shoulder for the rest of your life.
It's reckless to go bragging (even under a pseudonym) when your adversary is one of the biggest organized crime networks in the world (masquerading as a country): https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w13xtvg9/episodes/downloads
I applaud the guy for his civil courage, but seriously this just painted a huge target on his back and probably changed his life forever. Hope he is OK and even more so hope he has no family or friends who sure didn't sign up for it.
While BATF Form 4473 and the Gun Control Act may lead some to conclude that you cannot be "addicted to marijuana" and simultaneously legally possess a firearm, consider that many laws are on the books that would likely be adjudicated unconstitutional. The second amendment concludes with "shall not be infringed", and denying somebody their right to possess a firearm (for any reason) appears to be an infringement of that right, according to the second amendment.
> The 2nd amendment allows for heavy regulation of arms.
I'd be curious to hear what leads you to believe this. The language of the second amendment is clear, and the founder's intentions even more so. If you're developing your view based on the term "well-regulated", go do a bit of research on what that term meant when the Bill of Rights was authored (hint: it's different than what "regulated" is often interpreted to mean in 2022).
In what state?
I think it is a stupid law though. Imagine if we applied that logic to other constitutionally protected rights. "Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance shall not have the right to vote" or "Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance shall not have the right to due process".
I'm not so sure about that.
Not the same thing at all, because a firearm is directly and irrevocably more dangerous while under the influence of drugs.
You can debate the tradeoff of "right to bear arms" vs "right to regulate arms" (just as voting has gone through lots of regulations, some terrible (black people, women), some OK or debatable (showing proof residence or citizenship somewhere in the process), but it's not obvious simply by analogy to other rights.
I'm sure this is not new, but to me it is a fascinating concept: the modern era equivalent of Partisan soldiers, conducting cyber warfare in their jammies.
They did manage to induce mess on Belarus railways transporting Russian military equipment to Ukrainian border. It probably stalled, but still didn't prevent Russian military reaching the Ukrainian border through Belarus.
In the case of NK, they could probably even register a complaint and have it ignored, assuming the effort needed to locate the perp was greater than the fucks given by the appropriate authorities.
Hats off to the author but I would also caution them against broadcasting it publicly. The people who would appreciate this the most probably use secure channels anyway ;)
I think it is likely North Korea could charge him with a number of crimes that may be extraditable, like cyber "terrorism" (the quotes are necessary, right?) The US has extradited at least one Russian hacker [1] P4X is also likely now featured in intelligence summaries in countries with security treaties with North Korea, like China and Russia. Also, it's possible P4X has violated the Logan Act.
[1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/russian-national-extradit...
The case presented in the article is not at all what the 2nd amendment or any self defense laws are about. This guy was seeking revenge and punishment for an act, not attempting to prevent damage from a imminent threat. The court systems are for dealing with those types of situations. Granted, the court systems wouldn't have helped in this situation, but it's important to make the distinction that this was an attack, not self defense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
Not sure how that'd interact with 2nd amendment issues (but it did come into conflict with the 1st).
Yes, it is most definitely and intentionally illegal. Things don't stop being crimes just because the victims are communists.
Things don't start becoming a crime until laws exist.
http://naenara.com.kp/main/index/en/politics?arg_val=leader3
But I also am immensely proud that we have people willing to take things into their own hands when needed.
Also, I feel like the 2nd amendment should be interpreted to include the right to bear digital arms (strong encryption for a start). This will probably take another decade to figure out what that would really mean.