Fisker EVs Hired an IT Spy Who Funneled Millions to N. Korea's Missile Program

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

An FBI indictment alleging that North Korean IT workers, including one hired by EV maker Fisker, funneled their U.S. wages into the country’s missile program has raised concerns about how easily remote roles can be exploited. Commenters debate whether this should justify return‑to‑office mandates versus better security, verification, and contract practices for remote work. The thread broadens into questions about worker rights, employer obligations, and why U.S. immigration and employment laws often punish workers more than companies that benefit from fraudulent or unauthorized labor.

Case details and indictment

  • Link to the DOJ indictment shows many US companies unknowingly hired North Korean IT workers using stolen/falsified identities.
  • Coverage suggests an Arizona-based facilitator helped place hundreds of such workers and falsified verification documents.
  • Commenters clarify that “millions” refers to total wages across many companies; Fisker itself paid ~$215k as “Company 6.”
  • The thread notes that the workers appear to have been paid wages rather than directly “stealing” funds.

Remote work, RTO, and “rights”

  • Some fear this case will be used as justification for stricter return-to-office (RTO) policies.
  • Debate over whether RTO mandates are “unjust”:
    • One side: employers can change business needs; remote work isn’t a “right.”
    • Other side: changing a previously agreed remote role to mandatory in-office is viewed as a bait-and-switch and morally unjust, possibly akin to constructive dismissal.
  • Philosophical discussion on rights:
    • Whether rights always imply obligations on others.
    • Distinction between natural, legal, positive, and negative rights.
    • Skepticism that “I have a right” is often just rhetoric for “I’m right.”

Contracts, at-will employment, and constructive dismissal

  • In the US (outside Montana), employment is typically at-will; either side can end it absent a specific contract.
  • Some argue RTO after hiring remote is a breach of the “deal” and should have legal remedies.
  • Others counter that contracts can be terminated and that better social safety nets, not rigid employment guarantees, should provide stability.

IT security and hiring verification

  • Example shared of a company accidentally hiring a North Korean remote engineer; suspicious network activity led to quick termination.
  • This is cited by some as an argument for RTO or at least stronger in-person identity verification.
  • Others argue robust security policies and monitoring, not office mandates, should address such risks.

Government support for EV companies

  • Discussion of past US government loans to Fisker (old company) and Tesla:
    • Tesla repaid a large DOE loan early and benefited from EV tax credits and carbon credits.
    • Fisker’s earlier entity failed; the newer Fisker is essentially a fresh company reusing the name and logo.
  • Debate over whether public money should be used for high-risk “investments” versus more concrete contracts.

Illegal immigration, employer liability, and I-9/E-Verify

  • Extended debate on why US policy focuses on migrants rather than harshly penalizing employers of undocumented workers.
  • Multiple points:
    • It is already illegal to hire unauthorized workers; employers must complete I-9 forms.
    • However, enforcement is weak, and fraudulent but superficially valid documents are common.
    • Employers are legally required not to discriminate and must accept a wide range of documents at face value, creating tension between anti-discrimination and immigration enforcement.
    • Some argue making employers strictly liable (with real enforcement) would greatly reduce illegal employment; others note political incentives to keep cheap, exploitable labor.
  • E-Verify is raised as a proposed fix; commentary suggests politicians who rail about immigration often oppose making its use mandatory.

Economic motives behind RTO and immigration stances

  • Competing explanations for RTO:
    • Security concerns like cases of foreign infiltrators.
    • Pressure from commercial real estate interests.
    • Executive power/control or culture preferences.
  • On immigration, commenters argue anti-immigrant rhetoric is often performative:
    • Employers benefit from cheap labor.
    • Voters like cheap products (e.g., chicken) that rely on such labor.
    • Politicians gain by stoking outrage without seriously disrupting this economic arrangement.