an anti-n korea org

No, an organization that advocates for North Korean human rights. That's a pro-north korea org.

You gonna tell me that people who have a problem with Pol Pot are "Anti-Cambodian", Mr ".ml"?

I don't get it, why the inquisitive fave?

I just see people calling this a scam so much when sometimes it's literally just people getting a job when they're not allowed to be paid. That paired with "they pretend to be westerners so they can get paid more" like well why is it that westerners get paid more than Asians? Just a real interesting quote.

There are also reports by companies and american judiciary system. Now, those are biased voices too, they lack clear proof of what happened, and they probably make it bigger than it is, but i find it unlikely that this is 100% bs and staging : if i had that much resources to pour into staging something, i think it would be more convincing.

Normal people can, yes, but .ml isn't full of normal people. There's a good reason for the instance's stereotype.

I guess because Russia and China, the countries they worked in, think Westerners can code better than North Koreans?

I don't know if I'd call it a scam so much as slavery.

You're not addressing the fact that BBC admits they didn't/couldn't substantiate his claims, which apparently is no problem for your own journalistic standards.

I'm not doubting the N Korean scheme to infiltrate IT jobs. There's even that woman who was prosecuted (I think she lived in Arizona?) because she is one person who acted as a facilitator for this scheme. My point is the BBC ran a story with an "anonymous" source then admits in the middle that they couldn't substantiate any of the claims. That's the problem here.

Tankies just aren't serious people.

Okay, my mistake, i misinterpreted it. To be fair with BBC, they point out in the title and article that this is just some transcript of someone anonymous, and they try to tie each allegation with reports from other sources to back up their likeliness. I guess it's the best you can do with someone anonymous ? Revealing the company, dates, or town might compromise the anonymity. I have this low-key uncomfortable feeling of "well, there's nothing that proves it" with most anonymous reports i read or hear, even when it's for events that are common otherwise.

In cases like these the journalists can and often do say something to the effect of they were able to corroborate the claims. But you're super right about being careful, because they also can mishandle the data they receive to the point where they dox the anonymous source, too. That's what happened with Reality Winner and The Intercept. They botched it, and she was arrested.

Why would i address that?
Was i ordered to adress anything other than what I've already commented on?

Have I been compelled to address it?

Do i believe in any way that NK isn't unfortunately a shithole fascist dictatorship of a country?

Do i feel bad for you for wanting to think NK is a theme park sunday stroll paradise?

No.

You're tedious and annoying.

How many forensic scientists did it take to work that one out?

They are reporting on what he told them. Would you expect a news outlet to be able to somehow verify the testimony of a prisoner of war before reporting on it?

The title and article both make it clear that they are reporting his story.

Additionally, the rest of the article - including the ones before and after your quote - discusses numerous cases of other similar scenarios.

I dont understand one thing, if North Korea does not even have good computers how do they train their agents?

If tedious and annoying means you can't handle reality, yes, yes I am.

Lol another ml that thinks NK is a paradise

Would you expect a news outlet to be able to somehow verify the testimony of a prisoner of war before reporting on it?

"If the circumstance were different would you expect something different?" is what you are asking me. The interviewee isn't a POW, but a defector. And not an escapee, because according to the article he was already sent abroad, so it's not like he fled with merely the clothes on his back and a story to tell. So I would presume he would have a bit more evidence to share with the BBC than just a story, just as many of the people responding to me seem to presume that because it's been reported by the BBC it's prima facie undeniably true.

Why does this story magically no longer become interesting because of a group that helps defected NKs?

There is nothing magic about it. The organization that's cited isn't the problem. The problem is the BBC cites that org as proof that this person's claims are true. But neither that org nor the BBC have said, "we have corroborated Jin-su's story." On the contrary, the BBC just admits they didn't or couldn't corroborate the story themselves. So in my mind I may as well have read this article on any rando's blog post, or in the NYT in 2001 under a Judith Miller byline. It lacks credence.

I wouldn't have had anything to say if BBC said that they reviewed some documents that showed Jin-su's claim. Maybe a few of the "hundreds" of fake IDs that he used, for example. But instead they just read another testimony from PSCORE. Was that other testimony verified? They don't bother explaining. So they just use an unverified testimony from PSCORE and pass that off to make the reader believe that that's good enough in place of actually verifying Jin-su's testimony!