[HN Gopher] State Dept Guidance on DPRK IT Workers [pdf]
___________________________________________________________________
State Dept Guidance on DPRK IT Workers [pdf]
Author : martialg
Score : 58 points
Date : 2022-05-19 16:26 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (home.treasury.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (home.treasury.gov)
| Animats wrote:
| Will this soon apply to Russian developers?
| thriftwy wrote:
| They'll just work on some military hardware instead.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > They'll just work on some military hardware instead.
|
| A lot of Russian developers are leaving Russia instead:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/13/technology/russia-tech-
| wo....
|
| This is the first geopolitical event that I actually have
| some inside experience with. I work with a lot of Russian
| developers, and 90% of them have relocated since the war
| started.
| jackpirate wrote:
| My work brings me into regular contact with DPRK IT
| professionals, for example by [teaching open source
| sotware](https://izbicki.me/blog/teaching-open-source-in-north-
| korea....) or [teaching proper web
| design](https://izbicki.me/blog/fixing-north-korea-kcna-
| webpage.html). I make a lot of effort to respect sanctions, but
| documents like this are incredibly unhelpful. I've read through
| the document, and it seems completely devoid of actionable, DPRK-
| specific information that can help IT professionals avoid
| sanctions violations. For example, the document encourages
| websites to monitor for the following activity as "indications of
| DPRK IT workers who may be using their platforms":
|
| * Multiple logins into one account from various IP addresses in a
| relatively short period of time, especially if the IP addresses
| are associated with different countries;
|
| * Developers are logging into multiple accounts on the same
| platform from one IP address;
|
| * Developers are logged into their accounts continuously for one
| or more days at a time;
|
| * Router port or other technical configurations associated with
| use of remote desktop sharing software, such as port 3389 in the
| router used to access the account, particularly if usage of
| remote desktop sharing software is not standard company practice;
|
| * Developer accounts use a fraudulent client account to increase
| developer account ratings, but both the client and developer
| accounts use the same PayPal account to transfer/withdraw money
| (paying themselves with their own money);
|
| * Frequent use of document templates for things such as bidding
| documents and project communication methods, especially the same
| templates being used across different developer accounts;
|
| * Multiple developer accounts receiving high ratings from one
| client account in a short period, with similar or identical
| documentation used to establish the developer accounts and/or the
| client account;
|
| * Extensive bidding on projects, and a low number of accepted
| project bids compared to the number of projects bids on by a
| developer; and
|
| * Frequent transfers of money through payment platforms,
| especially to PRC-based bank accounts, and sometimes routed
| through one or more companies to disguise the ultimate
| destination of the funds.
|
| This list is so generic that I'm not sure what the point of it
| is. I think it would make sense to ban some of these practices
| from a general security perspective. But these practices would
| give way too many false positives if you were trying to use them
| to identify DPRK developers.
|
| I'm honestly really confused about who the target audience is for
| publications like this. It can't be actual IT professionals due
| to the lack of actionable information. Is it journalists? Do we
| publish these things just to remind them that we don't like the
| DPRK?
| mcculley wrote:
| The simplest first thing that U.S. companies should do is
| implement E-Verify and require that all subcontractors do the
| same. This publication does not even mention E-Verify.
| cschmid wrote:
| That would only help you if they claim to be US-based in the
| first place. They do mention background checks, there are
| some companies offering those internationally.
| mcculley wrote:
| They mention forged social security cards. The government
| has a system for verifying them, E-Verify, provided for
| free to employers.
| 8organicbits wrote:
| > I make a lot of effort to respect sanctions
|
| Are there certain things you aren't able to teach when you
| travel, or is that fairly unrestricted? I had no idea people
| were doing work like this.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| It does not take much to run afoul of sanctions on a country
| that has total embargo status. Even normally legal counsel
| advice may be prohibited to US persons to provide ( sorry for
| odd syntax ). In other words, OP does not have to deal with
| anything beyond normal IT work and still could be restricted
| on what information he can provide.
|
| Not to search too far, although that is a more exotic
| example, recently crypto guy got smacked for providing crypto
| speech ( classified as technical advice ) to DPRK(1).
|
| (1)https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-citizen-who-conspired-
| assi...
| notch656a wrote:
| Federal agencies regularly and deliberately issue vague
| guidance. It's designed to scare the maximum number of people
| from doing anything for fear that whatever they're doing will
| be construed as illegal. It would be less effective if they
| actually articulated in a specific actionable manner. Arbitrary
| and capricious is the name of the game.
| pphysch wrote:
| > DPRK IT workers have also assisted DPRK officials in procuring
| WMD and ballistic missile-related items for the DPRK's prohibited
| weapons programs.
|
| In what context are these programs "prohibited"? Do they violate
| a UN treaty that DPRK has ratified? How come USA can develop
| hypersonic nukes but DPRK is "prohibited"?
|
| Also this explains why a Venmo transaction was held for a week
| after I put a joke about Glorious Leader in the description...
| lostcolony wrote:
| The very first mention in the PDF states "DPRK's UN-prohibited
| WMD and ballistic missile programs".
|
| So, that context. The United Nations.
|
| You do stipulate "that the DPRK has ratified" - why does that
| matter? They are a member nation of the UN, so they are running
| afoul of the decisions of the body they are a part of.
| pphysch wrote:
| That's not specific, nor explains why USA can legally pursue
| hypersonic nuke WMDs.
|
| > They are a member nation of the UN, so they are running
| afoul of the decisions of the body they are a part of.
|
| But this is a daily occurrence for the USA as well.
|
| https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-
| be...
|
| (The ICC was created by the UN)
| lostcolony wrote:
| And? What's your point? I'm not claiming the US has not
| done things prohibited by the UN, nor even what "degree" of
| prohibited, or any such thing. I'm pointing out that your
| objection to the classification of the DPRK's programs as
| "UN prohibited" is incorrect.
|
| The UN has explicitly voted on and introduced sanctions
| against the DPRK for their WMD program, saying "yeah, don't
| do that" (the US has independently done so as well). That's
| it. That's the context around "prohibited". That's the
| answer to your question. Maybe what you _mean_ is "how is
| that fair", or "why should the DPRK care about what others
| 'prohibit' them to do when they don't agree to it", and
| that's a different discussion; you're free to be an
| apologist for the DPRK, but to try and undermine the use of
| "prohibited" when the context is given -right there- in TFA
| is shitty rhetoric.
|
| Also, if you want "specifics",
| https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/UN-Security-
| Council-R...
| sudosysgen wrote:
| There is as far as I know no UN guidance preventing the
| DPRK from developing ballistic or hypersonic weapons,
| which aren't WMDs. It is incorrect to understand anything
| except their nuclear weapons program as prohibited by the
| UN. They were merely condemned by the UNSC.
|
| The UN doesn't really have the authority to tell a
| country what it can and can't do beyond the treaties it
| has decided to sign, because that would obviously be a
| grave violation of sovereignty. The exception is
| sanctions, that in theory have to be followed.
| lostcolony wrote:
| From that link I shared -
|
| Resolution 1718 (unanimously adopted by the UN Security
| Council on October 14, 2006): - Decides North Korea shall
| suspend all ballistic missile activities. - Decides North
| Korea shall abandon all WMD activities.
|
| Resolution 1718's Principal Sanctions: - Materials and
| technologies that could contribute to North Korea's WMD
| programs and ballistic missile related activities, as set
| out in prior Security Council documents.
|
| Member states are also required to: - Freeze the funds or
| financial assets of entities designated by the Security
| Council as providing support for North Korea's nuclear,
| missile, and other WMD program
|
| >> The UN doesn't really have the authority to tell a
| country what it can and can't do beyond the treaties it
| has decided to sign
|
| So there are three things at issue here.
|
| First, you carve out sanctions, well, there are sanctions
| at play here, as above, and the whole point of the
| document is to alert corporations that they may fall
| afoul of those sanctions.
|
| Second, does the UN have 'legal authority' for actions
| like this? Well, yes, actually. Article 25 of the UN
| Charter stipulates "The Members of the United Nations
| agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the
| Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."
| Becoming a member nation of the UN requires accepting the
| Charter. Ergo, the DPRK agreed to be bound by decisions
| made by the security council when it joined the UN as a
| member nation. Arguing that this is unfair is like saying
| states shouldn't be bound by federal laws created since
| their initial joining of the US; no, joining was agreeing
| to the decisions of the rule making bodies as well. This
| differs from, say, the TPNW, which is a treaty that the
| general assembly adopted, and has had some nations who
| have signed onto, but which does not actually have legal
| binding even according to the UN's own charter because of
| that.
|
| Third, does the UN have -enforcement- authority. This is
| more a pragmatic, rather than legal, concern. And no, it
| doesn't. It doesn't have a standing army, it isn't in
| control of any currency, it has no way to enforce a
| decision if the largest countries don't choose to enforce
| it for them via some method of coercion. Which is what is
| happening here; the US accepted the UNSC's decision, and
| imposed it, and this document is warning that if you
| don't adhere to that decision within the US' jurisdiction
| you will be committing a crime that the US will seek to
| prosecute you for. Which is the context for which "these
| programs are prohibited" is for.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Yes, exactly. The only binding part of the resolutions is
| the sanctions. The UNSC doesn't have the power to set
| universal international law, so the NK ballistic missile
| program is still legal under international law.
|
| However, UN member states can't help NK in those
| endeavours.
|
| If you look at the fine print of the resolution, you can
| see it is invoking Article 41 of Chapter 7, which allows
| : "The Security Council may decide what measures not
| involving the use of armed force are to be employed to
| give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the
| Members of the United Nations to apply such measures.
| These may include complete or partial interruption of
| economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal,
| telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and
| the severance of diplomatic relations."
|
| It's weird like that, but the UNSC simply doesn't have
| the authority to impose arbitrary restrictions on the
| behaviour of member states (for obvious reasons).
| lostcolony wrote:
| "The UNSC doesn't have the power to set universal
| international law" - no one does, and no one is claiming
| otherwise. Why are you arguing against a strawman?
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Because you claimed that a UNSC resolution made it
| illegal for NK to develop ballistic missiles. There is no
| provision in the UN charter that says that the UNSC can
| legally bind any country not to develop certain classes
| of weaponry.
|
| So, for the UNSC to have the authority to make it illegal
| under IL for NK to develop such weapons would be
| tantamount to it having the authority to decide universal
| international law.
|
| So unless you can find a chapter referred to by
| resolution 1718 that gives the power to ban the
| development of some types of weapon, the UNSC doesn't
| have the authority to make a country's weapon program
| illegal. All it can do is implement certain sanction or
| make military action legal.
|
| In any case, if the UNSC did have this power, why would
| the NPT need to exist? It could just decide that
| developing nuclear weapons is illegal for here on out, no
| need to get countries to sign a treaty, right?
| lostcolony wrote:
| >> Because you claimed that a UNSC resolution made it
| illegal for NK to develop ballistic missiles.
|
| I think what we have here is a disagreement in terms.
| There is no such thing as "universal international law".
| Period. Because unless there's a mutual agreement by all
| countries to accept some sort of governing body, over
| their own local law, and to supply enforcement, it can't
| exist.
|
| That said, there -is- an international body, that has had
| most countries join, with a charter that stipulates
| certain things that body can decide, and how those member
| countries promise to respond.
|
| That body's charter says "Members agree to accept and
| carry out the decisions of the Security Council". DPRK is
| a member. Ergo, it agreed to accept and carry out the
| decisions of the Security Council.
|
| A decision of the security council was that the DPRK
| needs to "suspend all ballistic missile activities" and
| to "abandon all WMD activities." Ergo, that body has
| decided the DPRK is prohibited from doing those things
| (the original discussion, remember?). The DPRK has not
| done so.
|
| Back to the point of this whole thread, the consequence
| of their not doing so is that member nations are
| forbidden from doing certain things for/with the DPRK
| ("sanctions"). Which is what this document is about. To
| say "how can it be 'prohibited' for the DPRK to engage in
| ballistic and WMD activities", -that's how-. That's the
| point of all of this. The UN prohibited it. And
| stipulated sanctions, which the US is adhering to.
|
| "Well, that's not -illegal- then!" - what does that even
| mean in that case? "The DPRK didn't agree to -this-
| particular rule" - so what? I didn't agree to the speed
| limit; if I decide not to obey it, the US government can
| still enforce a punishment on me. I'm not really sure
| what you're arguing, except that the UN doesn't
| constitute "universal international law", but I don't
| even know what that means; certainly, whatever it does
| mean, given your objection, it doesn't exist, so I'm not
| sure why you'd think "prohibited" must mean the same
| thing as it; what are you trying to argue? The DPRK has
| not upheld the things it agreed to when joining the UN,
| the UN responded, and that response (and what it means
| for US based corporations) is obviously what is being
| referred to in the PDF.
|
| >> In any case, if the UNSC did have this power, why
| would the NPT need to exist
|
| Because ultimately the UNSC will not agree to non-
| proliferation. The NPT has no enforcement provision for
| those who do not sign it, but becomes a way to establish
| international norms for those who do. In short, the NPT
| is a way for a country to say "I believe non-
| proliferation should be standard, and will agree to not
| do it"; it is opt in, only applies to those who opt in,
| and any country can opt into it (or out of it). The UNSC
| is force; an agreement there can be decided on even
| against the wishes of another member state (as happened
| with the DPRK), just by dint of that other country being
| a member state, and carries with it penalties such as
| sanctions.
| zardo wrote:
| > That's not specific, nor explains why USA can legally
| pursue hypersonic nuke WMDs.
|
| That's easy, the US has a permanent seat on the security
| council. It can veto any attempt to restrict it with
| international law. Same for Russia and China's WMDs.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| The UNSC can't make just anything illegal. It's legal for
| NK to develop ballistic missiles under international law.
|
| It wasn't legal for NK to develop nukes because of the
| NPT. In theory further developments after they left the
| NPT are legal.
|
| A more interesting example would be, for example,
| Pakistan, which never joined the NPT and isn't on the
| security council, yet legally developed nuclear weapons.
| monksy wrote:
| How do you get IT workers there being highly skilled when most of
| the population isn't on the internet. Also, considering the
| treatment of throwing lots of them in forced labor camps over
| percieved slights and poverty..
|
| I just don't understand where are these people coming from? It's
| not like NK has universities and a lively educated class.
| _jal wrote:
| I suspect you have an unrealistic view of the country.
|
| Even very poor countries with hereditary dictators are very
| large places.
| timecube wrote:
| North Korea literally does have universities and an educated
| class.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| toss1 wrote:
| You are missing the fact that not all societies are open
|
| Closed authoritarian societies, even those under sanction, have
| a ruling and privileged classes that _DO_ have all the
| amenities -- basically by extracting all the wealth to the
| small ruling classes. Even if it is only a microscopic
| percentage of the society that is at the top, it can still
| amount to substantial numbers.
| DoctorNick wrote:
| You seem to be describing the United States
| toss1 wrote:
| Indeed the USA does have some aspects of this - certainly
| it is too lax in preventing a set of extractive and
| exploitative industries/industrialists from hoarding most
| of the resources and income and taxing it too little
|
| But the USA, while an unhelathy democracy, is NOT yet an
| authoritarian state. It is, however, within one minor and
| one major election from becoming one.
|
| If you think the above description actually fully describes
| the USA, you _REALLY_ haven 't seen anything yet. If
| small-d democracy fails in the next two elections, these
| will truly look like the good old days, and you'll be
| telling your grandchildren how good it was in the early
| 2020s, as the USA (and probably most western democracies
| with it) descend to the authoritarian depths of Russia,
| Venezuela, China, NK, etc.
|
| While it is far from perfect, it is critical to understand
| the differences, and get out and vote while you still can
| to prevent the much worse failure from becoming reality.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| Thank you for stating this.
|
| As much as I worry about US ( and my adopted home ), it
| is a ridiculous exaggeration to call it outright
| authoritarian ( or closed for that matter ). It does not
| mean that there are no attempts at making it so, but I
| think we are still somewhat far from it for now.
|
| Sometimes I wonder if the exaggeration is just the way we
| communicate today ( everything is a crisis / sky is
| falling / we are all gonna die / find out which commonly
| used household item is deadly ) as that is what the
| population was taught about the world by interacting with
| ads online.
| woodruffw wrote:
| It's still a pretty large country: around 26 million people.
| And it's not _exactly_ a destitute state: it 's a kleptocratic
| state with an educated (often abroad) elite class.
|
| It's hard to get an exact estimate of their current HDI, but
| the UN placed it at 0.766 back in the 1990s[1]. That puts them
| in around the same tier as Yugoslavia today.
|
| [1]:
| https://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/259/hdr_199...
| [deleted]
| charlescearl wrote:
| From the review of Dr. Suzy Kim's "Everyday Life in the North
| Korean Revolution, 1945-1950":
|
| "The anglophone archive on the DPRK is a bleak record of
| imperialist slander, replete with the most lurid and theatrical
| tales of passively suffering masses and the flamboyant pseudo-
| socialist "regime" that supposedly keeps them in a state of total
| servitude. Between hypocritical fears of its nuclear power and
| conscience-rattling anxieties over the alleged condition of human
| rights within, the DPRK looms as a symbol of the negation of
| liberal freedoms. It is within this context that Suzy Kim's
| Everyday Life in the North Korean Revolution, 1945-1950 must be
| considered."
|
| https://liberatedtexts.com/reviews/socialist-construction-in...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-19 23:01 UTC)