|
Should have linked something more interesting like this article instead of dramatic writings.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24371894
US authorities believe that 29-year-old Ross William Ulbricht, arrested on Wednesday, is Dread Pirate Roberts (DPR) - the administrator of the notorious Silk Road online marketplace.
It was an underground website where people from all over the world were able to buy drugs.
In the months leading up to Mr Ulbricht's arrest, investigators undertook a painstaking process of piecing together the suspect's digital footprint, going back years into his history of communicating with others online.
The detail of how the FBI has built its case was outlined in a court complaint document published on Wednesday.
The search started with work from Agent-1, the codename given to the expert cited in the court documents, who undertook an "extensive search of the internet" that sifted through pages dating back to January 2011.
The trail began with a post made on a web forum where users discussed the use of magic mushrooms.
In a post titled "Anonymous market online?", a user nicknamed Altoid started publicising the site.
"I came across this website called Silk Road," Altoid wrote. "Let me know what you think."
The post contained a link to a site hosted by the popular blogging platform Wordpress. This provided another link to the Silk Road's location on the so-called "dark web".
Records obtained by Agent-1 from Wordpress discovered, unsurprisingly, that the blog had been set up by an anonymous user who had hidden their location.
But then Altoid appeared in another place: a discussion site about virtual currency, bitcointalk.org.
Altoid - who the FBI claimed is Mr Ulbricht - was using "common online marketing" tactics. In other words, he was trying to make Silk Road go viral.
Months later, in October, Altoid appeared again - but made a slip-up, granting investigators a major lead.
In a post asking seeking to find an IT expert with knowledge of Bitcoin, he asked people to contact him via rossulbricht@gmail.com.
With a Gmail address to hand, Agent-1 linked this address to accounts on the Google+ social network and YouTube video site. There he discovered some of Mr Ulbricht's interests.
Among them, according viewing history, was economics. In particular, Mr Ulbricht's account had "favourited" several clips from the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a renowned Austrian school of economics.
Years later, on the Silk Road discussion forums, Dread Pirate Roberts would make several references to the Mises Institute and its work.
|
On October 03 2013 16:22 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2013 15:49 Vasoline73 wrote:On October 03 2013 10:31 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
People keep saying SR offered better drugs.
What about the prices?? I mean how much was 3.5 grams of marijuana?
was it in the 20-25$ ballpark?
No definitely not... but there was a large demand for MJ so it's understandable that prices were higher. Not everyone is lucky enough to live in California or Canada where great weed is relatively easy to get for cheap. If I lived in Kansas/Idaho/some random state or country with meh weed I might pay $70 for an eighth of dank medicinal. The convenience of receiving in a few days via mail in addition to the fact that good weed in certain geographical locations can be hard to come by is enough for many people to pay that "premium." In addition, prices took into account SR commission fees and shipping costs, so it's not hard to imagine the prices not being the BEST best. Hope that is somewhat informative or helpful or interesting.  EDIT: $70 is just a random guess that might be slightly on the high side but I really don't recall seeing any great prices for weed in less than bulk purchases. You could definitely get at least 5 grams for less than 70$, not just 3.5 Depends on the vendor but it was there.
Yeah no one I knew was really trying to get weed so I'm a bit off on the prices :/.
|
Its not hypocritical at all, I would just ask people to wait for proper channels to be opened up for them to purchase their drugs from, regardless of what you want, it is always going to be wrong to giving money to dangerous criminal organizations. The problem comes from the substance being illegal, legalizing it would solve many problems but until then I want people to be punished for funding criminal gangs just for a cheap high.
So we're just supposed to accept the definitions asserted by outdated laws as to what constitutes criminality, and then refrain from doing anything that could somehow fund gangs, or something? I hope you realize that criminal gangs are, like, generally pretty diverse; they have their hands in a lot of pockets. I am not responsible for buying something from a friend who bought it from a long chain of people who, at the border, flipped a 20$ bill to some gangster to smuggle it in. That's not exactly the deal with drugs, but it's the same principle.
As to the rest of your point: what if you were a homosexual born in like, I dunno, any time before the past 25 years? Were you just fucked? Supposed to sit there and wait for the "proper channels" because joining a group of fellow homosexuals (i.e. a club/organization) would be essentially criminal activity?
You seem to have a very idealized understanding of what gangs actually are. They're not an amalgamation of murderers and rapists. There are murderers and rapists among them, but that fact is basically disconnected from drugs qua drugs and has more to do with the nature of any illegal transaction.
Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that the "proper channels" (which, btw, is question begging from the get-go) actually work in a convincing or timely manner. History has shown that they don't. Homosexuals? Try to get married in the US. Good luck. How about Russia? Even worse. I guess these people are just supposed to never have relationships with anyone unless the law changes (kinda sucks for everyone who lived before the last 10 years, I guess). What about the Prohibition? Were people supposed to abandon alcohol just because a patently stupid law was passed? From their point of view, yes, they're buying stuff from gangsters (who are mostly gangsters in virtue of the fact that trafficking alcohol is illegal) but the government/law/whatever is also unjust, except in a different way.
I am in no way responsible for what someone does with money I give them in exchange for a service unless I know they are going to use that money for the express purpose of funding a murder or rape or whatever. I give my money to shitty people all the time; I shop at huge department stores whose CEOs are ultra-capitalist and repugnant. I'm not responsible for what people do with money I have given them because it's not my money anymore.
|
On October 04 2013 02:54 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +Its not hypocritical at all, I would just ask people to wait for proper channels to be opened up for them to purchase their drugs from, regardless of what you want, it is always going to be wrong to giving money to dangerous criminal organizations. The problem comes from the substance being illegal, legalizing it would solve many problems but until then I want people to be punished for funding criminal gangs just for a cheap high. So we're just supposed to accept the definitions asserted by outdated laws as to what constitutes criminality, and then refrain from doing anything that could somehow fund gangs, or something? I hope you realize that criminal gangs are, like, generally pretty diverse; they have their hands in a lot of pockets. I am not responsible for buying something from a friend who bought it from a long chain of people who, at the border, flipped a 20$ bill to some gangster to smuggle it in. That's not exactly the deal with drugs, but it's the same principle. As to the rest of your point: what if you were a homosexual born in like, I dunno, any time before the past 25 years? Were you just fucked? Supposed to sit there and wait for the "proper channels" because joining a group of fellow homosexuals (i.e. a club/organization) would be essentially criminal activity? You seem to have a very idealized understanding of what gangs actually are. They're not an amalgamation of murderers and rapists. There are murderers and rapists among them, but that fact is basically disconnected from drugs qua drugs and has more to do with the nature of any illegal transaction. Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that the "proper channels" (which, btw, is question begging from the get-go) actually work in a convincing or timely manner. History has shown that they don't. Homosexuals? Try to get married in the US. Good luck. How about Russia? Even worse. I guess these people are just supposed to never have relationships with anyone unless the law changes (kinda sucks for everyone who lived before the last 10 years, I guess). What about the Prohibition? Were people supposed to abandon alcohol just because a patently stupid law was passed? From their point of view, yes, they're buying stuff from gangsters (who are mostly gangsters in virtue of the fact that trafficking alcohol is illegal) but the government/law/whatever is also unjust, except in a different way. I am in no way responsible for what someone does with money I give them in exchange for a service unless I know they are going to use that money for the express purpose of funding a murder or rape or whatever. I give my money to shitty people all the time; I shop at huge department stores whose CEOs are ultra-capitalist and repugnant. I'm not responsible for what people do with money I have given them because it's not my money anymore.
If the Law is outdated then it will eventually be repealed or changed as public (or judiciary) opinion changes, until then I expect the government to enforce the laws it has on its books.
Even if the gang murdering and such is tied to illegal transactions as a group not just the drug trade then I expect people to refrain for partaking in illegal transactions (including drug deals). If they do not comply and are caught then they will be punished according to the law.
We did not inherit a perfect world, I would rather have it never been a crime in the first place but that is not the reality we live in and as such I believe we still need to punish people for putting money into the hands of criminal groups. And even though you may not know where your money is going to exactly, when buying illegal contraband it is probably a decent assumption that it is going to criminals. And there is a difference between criminals and unsavory rich gentlemen.
|
On October 04 2013 04:53 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 02:54 Shiori wrote:Its not hypocritical at all, I would just ask people to wait for proper channels to be opened up for them to purchase their drugs from, regardless of what you want, it is always going to be wrong to giving money to dangerous criminal organizations. The problem comes from the substance being illegal, legalizing it would solve many problems but until then I want people to be punished for funding criminal gangs just for a cheap high. So we're just supposed to accept the definitions asserted by outdated laws as to what constitutes criminality, and then refrain from doing anything that could somehow fund gangs, or something? I hope you realize that criminal gangs are, like, generally pretty diverse; they have their hands in a lot of pockets. I am not responsible for buying something from a friend who bought it from a long chain of people who, at the border, flipped a 20$ bill to some gangster to smuggle it in. That's not exactly the deal with drugs, but it's the same principle. As to the rest of your point: what if you were a homosexual born in like, I dunno, any time before the past 25 years? Were you just fucked? Supposed to sit there and wait for the "proper channels" because joining a group of fellow homosexuals (i.e. a club/organization) would be essentially criminal activity? You seem to have a very idealized understanding of what gangs actually are. They're not an amalgamation of murderers and rapists. There are murderers and rapists among them, but that fact is basically disconnected from drugs qua drugs and has more to do with the nature of any illegal transaction. Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that the "proper channels" (which, btw, is question begging from the get-go) actually work in a convincing or timely manner. History has shown that they don't. Homosexuals? Try to get married in the US. Good luck. How about Russia? Even worse. I guess these people are just supposed to never have relationships with anyone unless the law changes (kinda sucks for everyone who lived before the last 10 years, I guess). What about the Prohibition? Were people supposed to abandon alcohol just because a patently stupid law was passed? From their point of view, yes, they're buying stuff from gangsters (who are mostly gangsters in virtue of the fact that trafficking alcohol is illegal) but the government/law/whatever is also unjust, except in a different way. I am in no way responsible for what someone does with money I give them in exchange for a service unless I know they are going to use that money for the express purpose of funding a murder or rape or whatever. I give my money to shitty people all the time; I shop at huge department stores whose CEOs are ultra-capitalist and repugnant. I'm not responsible for what people do with money I have given them because it's not my money anymore. If the Law is outdated then it will eventually be repealed or changed as public (or judiciary) opinion changes, until then I expect the government to enforce the laws it has on its books. Even if the gang murdering and such is tied to illegal transactions as a group not just the drug trade then I expect people to refrain for partaking in illegal transactions (including drug deals). If they do not comply and are caught then they will be punished according to the law. We did not inherit a perfect world, I would rather have it never been a crime in the first place but that is not the reality we live in and as such I believe we still need to punish people for putting money into the hands of criminal groups. And even though you may not know where your money is going to exactly, when buying illegal contraband it is probably a decent assumption that it is going to criminals. And there is a difference between criminals and unsavory rich gentlemen.
The whole point is that it is the law that is responsible for you putting your money in the hands of criminals. It is also a racially and socially biased enforcement at that. How many wall street brokers were put into jail for possession of coke compared to black youngsters and adults for possession of weed? If the law creates more problems than it solves it is just a bad law. During election times there will always be some other thing to keep the masses occupied with instead of specific laws that need to be adressed, so unless you can litigate all the way to the supreme court and argue it is unconstitutional (bring your piggyback) you will spend a lifetime lobbying trying to get rid of this shit.
|
If the Law is outdated then it will eventually be repealed or changed as public (or judiciary) opinion changes, until then I expect the government to enforce the laws it has on its books.
Gee, that's real encouraging. I'm not really disputing that the government should enforce the law; but I am saying that citizens are under absolutely no obligation (morally speaking) to obey unjust laws. Period.
Even if the gang murdering and such is tied to illegal transactions as a group not just the drug trade then I expect people to refrain for partaking in illegal transactions (including drug deals). If they do not comply and are caught then they will be punished according to the law.
But you could use this line of reasoning against virtually anything. Ever downloaded a game? BAM. Supporting criminal groups who pirate games.
We did not inherit a perfect world, I would rather have it never been a crime in the first place but that is not the reality we live in and as such I believe we still need to punish people for putting money into the hands of criminal groups.
No we don't, actually. We don't need to punish people for putting money into the hands of criminal groups so long as the transaction in question is not a donation to the cause of murdering and raping. If my friend happens to be a criminal, and I give him a birthday present with monetary value, am I breaking the law for putting money in the hands of a criminal group? This has always been so bizarre to me. What exactly is the point of incarcerating people who buy things from criminals? Seriously, what does it actually do for society? If anything, it forces the criminals to resort to crueler and more malicious means in order to traffic their materials. If people are allowed to buy [X] very easily (even if it's nominally illegal) then there isn't going to be a bunch of murderers on the other side of things. Average, regular people would be able to trade such material.
Looking at weed specifically, for a second, who do you think the dealers actually are? They're just people who buy from another dealer, ultimately. If you want to punish someone, punish the source (though I can't imagine what you'd be punishing them for...).
You act like gangs, or any group designated as "criminal," literally has a stated aim of murdering and raping people. They don't. The point of gangs is and always will be money (and power, to some extent). If they can make that money without having to murder people for fear of being discovered, then they're not going to randomly murder people because it's way, way too risky.
And even though you may not know where your money is going to exactly, when buying illegal contraband it is probably a decent assumption that it is going to criminals. And there is a difference between criminals and unsavory rich gentlemen.
There's actually no difference whatsoever. The definition of a criminal is entirely a matter of what the law happens to be. Anyone who pirates a game is a criminal. Anyone who buys weed is a criminal. Anyone who murders their wife is a criminal. They're all criminals according to the law. You don't get to just decide this one is an "unsavory rich gentleman" and that somehow this makes things okay. Average drug dealers are just unsavory middle-class gentlemen, so what's the difference?
|
On October 04 2013 06:29 Flyingdutchman wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 04:53 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 04 2013 02:54 Shiori wrote:Its not hypocritical at all, I would just ask people to wait for proper channels to be opened up for them to purchase their drugs from, regardless of what you want, it is always going to be wrong to giving money to dangerous criminal organizations. The problem comes from the substance being illegal, legalizing it would solve many problems but until then I want people to be punished for funding criminal gangs just for a cheap high. So we're just supposed to accept the definitions asserted by outdated laws as to what constitutes criminality, and then refrain from doing anything that could somehow fund gangs, or something? I hope you realize that criminal gangs are, like, generally pretty diverse; they have their hands in a lot of pockets. I am not responsible for buying something from a friend who bought it from a long chain of people who, at the border, flipped a 20$ bill to some gangster to smuggle it in. That's not exactly the deal with drugs, but it's the same principle. As to the rest of your point: what if you were a homosexual born in like, I dunno, any time before the past 25 years? Were you just fucked? Supposed to sit there and wait for the "proper channels" because joining a group of fellow homosexuals (i.e. a club/organization) would be essentially criminal activity? You seem to have a very idealized understanding of what gangs actually are. They're not an amalgamation of murderers and rapists. There are murderers and rapists among them, but that fact is basically disconnected from drugs qua drugs and has more to do with the nature of any illegal transaction. Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that the "proper channels" (which, btw, is question begging from the get-go) actually work in a convincing or timely manner. History has shown that they don't. Homosexuals? Try to get married in the US. Good luck. How about Russia? Even worse. I guess these people are just supposed to never have relationships with anyone unless the law changes (kinda sucks for everyone who lived before the last 10 years, I guess). What about the Prohibition? Were people supposed to abandon alcohol just because a patently stupid law was passed? From their point of view, yes, they're buying stuff from gangsters (who are mostly gangsters in virtue of the fact that trafficking alcohol is illegal) but the government/law/whatever is also unjust, except in a different way. I am in no way responsible for what someone does with money I give them in exchange for a service unless I know they are going to use that money for the express purpose of funding a murder or rape or whatever. I give my money to shitty people all the time; I shop at huge department stores whose CEOs are ultra-capitalist and repugnant. I'm not responsible for what people do with money I have given them because it's not my money anymore. If the Law is outdated then it will eventually be repealed or changed as public (or judiciary) opinion changes, until then I expect the government to enforce the laws it has on its books. Even if the gang murdering and such is tied to illegal transactions as a group not just the drug trade then I expect people to refrain for partaking in illegal transactions (including drug deals). If they do not comply and are caught then they will be punished according to the law. We did not inherit a perfect world, I would rather have it never been a crime in the first place but that is not the reality we live in and as such I believe we still need to punish people for putting money into the hands of criminal groups. And even though you may not know where your money is going to exactly, when buying illegal contraband it is probably a decent assumption that it is going to criminals. And there is a difference between criminals and unsavory rich gentlemen. The whole point is that it is the law that is responsible for you putting your money in the hands of criminals. It is also a racially and socially biased enforcement at that. How many wall street brokers were put into jail for possession of coke compared to black youngsters and adults for possession of weed? If the law creates more problems than it solves it is just a bad law. During election times there will always be some other thing to keep the masses occupied with instead of specific laws that need to be adressed, so unless you can litigate all the way to the supreme court and argue it is unconstitutional (bring your piggyback) you will spend a lifetime lobbying trying to get rid of this shit.
you seem to be out of touch with respect to american issues. marijuana legalization is big business, has been successful in a few states already and there are other state and even a federal proposal.
if you are referring to other common, not considered harmful drugs, i would expect that they would follow suit after the marijuana legalization. if you are referring to hard drugs, its not going to happen for awhile--nor should it.
|
On October 04 2013 07:10 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +If the Law is outdated then it will eventually be repealed or changed as public (or judiciary) opinion changes, until then I expect the government to enforce the laws it has on its books. Gee, that's real encouraging. I'm not really disputing that the government should enforce the law; but I am saying that citizens are under absolutely no obligation (morally speaking) to obey unjust laws. Period. Show nested quote +Even if the gang murdering and such is tied to illegal transactions as a group not just the drug trade then I expect people to refrain for partaking in illegal transactions (including drug deals). If they do not comply and are caught then they will be punished according to the law. But you could use this line of reasoning against virtually anything. Ever downloaded a game? BAM. Supporting criminal groups who pirate games. Show nested quote +We did not inherit a perfect world, I would rather have it never been a crime in the first place but that is not the reality we live in and as such I believe we still need to punish people for putting money into the hands of criminal groups. No we don't, actually. We don't need to punish people for putting money into the hands of criminal groups so long as the transaction in question is not a donation to the cause of murdering and raping. If my friend happens to be a criminal, and I give him a birthday present with monetary value, am I breaking the law for putting money in the hands of a criminal group? This has always been so bizarre to me. What exactly is the point of incarcerating people who buy things from criminals? Seriously, what does it actually do for society? If anything, it forces the criminals to resort to crueler and more malicious means in order to traffic their materials. If people are allowed to buy [X] very easily (even if it's nominally illegal) then there isn't going to be a bunch of murderers on the other side of things. Average, regular people would be able to trade such material. Looking at weed specifically, for a second, who do you think the dealers actually are? They're just people who buy from another dealer, ultimately. If you want to punish someone, punish the source (though I can't imagine what you'd be punishing them for...). You act like gangs, or any group designated as "criminal," literally has a stated aim of murdering and raping people. They don't. The point of gangs is and always will be money (and power, to some extent). If they can make that money without having to murder people for fear of being discovered, then they're not going to randomly murder people because it's way, way too risky. Show nested quote +And even though you may not know where your money is going to exactly, when buying illegal contraband it is probably a decent assumption that it is going to criminals. And there is a difference between criminals and unsavory rich gentlemen. There's actually no difference whatsoever. The definition of a criminal is entirely a matter of what the law happens to be. Anyone who pirates a game is a criminal. Anyone who buys weed is a criminal. Anyone who murders their wife is a criminal. They're all criminals according to the law. You don't get to just decide this one is an "unsavory rich gentleman" and that somehow this makes things okay. Average drug dealers are just unsavory middle-class gentlemen, so what's the difference?
I don't think people have to obey immoral laws, they just can`t expect to disobey them as a method of protest/whatever and expect to go unpunished. Incarcerating people who fund criminals acts as a deterrent and punishes crime, crime cannot go unpunished. And what I meant is that there is a difference between a rich man with an abrasive personality and a person who breaks the law. Criminal gangs are explicit attempts to operate outside of societies rules and regulations, so even if they are not murdering people they are still in violation of their social contract with the rest of society.
|
Incarcerating people who fund criminals acts as a deterrent and punishes crime, crime cannot go unpunished.
Well, obviously it punishes crime, by definition. I see no reason why crime needs to be "punished," though. You don't discipline your kids because it makes you feel good; you do it so that your kids learn and don't make the same mistake again (WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM BEING SCARED INTO IT). It absolutely doesn't act as a deterrent at all, as evidenced by reality.
And what I meant is that there is a difference between a rich man with an abrasive personality and a person who breaks the law.
When did I bring up a rich man with an abrasive personality? Criminals are criminals. Immoral people are immoral people. I'd rather be the former than the latter, frankly.
Criminal gangs are explicit attempts to operate outside of societies rules and regulations, so even if they are not murdering people they are still in violation of their social contract with the rest of society.
That's absurd. This exact same argument applies equally to the illegal unions which originated the concept, and to black people who acted against the rules of society before desegregation, and to basically everything Gandhi did.
There is no "social contract with the rest of society." I didn't sign anything, and I certainly don't think being a functioning member of a society can imply refraining from drug usage in the same sense that refraining from murder is implied.
|
On October 04 2013 07:55 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +Incarcerating people who fund criminals acts as a deterrent and punishes crime, crime cannot go unpunished. Well, obviously it punishes crime, by definition. I see no reason why crime needs to be "punished," though. You don't discipline your kids because it makes you feel good; you do it so that your kids learn and don't make the same mistake again (WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM BEING SCARED INTO IT). It absolutely doesn't act as a deterrent at all, as evidenced by reality. Show nested quote + And what I meant is that there is a difference between a rich man with an abrasive personality and a person who breaks the law. When did I bring up a rich man with an abrasive personality? Criminals are criminals. Immoral people are immoral people. I'd rather be the former than the latter, frankly. Show nested quote +Criminal gangs are explicit attempts to operate outside of societies rules and regulations, so even if they are not murdering people they are still in violation of their social contract with the rest of society. That's absurd. This exact same argument applies equally to the illegal unions which originated the concept, and to black people who acted against the rules of society before desegregation, and to basically everything Gandhi did. There is no "social contract with the rest of society." I didn't sign anything, and I certainly don't think being a functioning member of a society can imply refraining from drug usage in the same sense that refraining from murder is implied.
You and I have a different view on social contact theory then, I believe that by existing within a group of people you are from birth obligated to act (within reason) within the regulation of the group of people (society) you exist within. A very effective method of protest can be getting arrested and charged with immoral laws to bring to light their nature so that they can be changed. A good example would be how numerous homosexuals being arrested by Britain in the 50's lead to the Wolfenden Report that ended up putting homosexual rights in the spotlight. You can still act in protest of the laws of society but just don't expect society not to react and punish you.
|
On October 03 2013 16:27 JieXian wrote:Should have linked something more interesting like this article instead of dramatic writings. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24371894Show nested quote +US authorities believe that 29-year-old Ross William Ulbricht, arrested on Wednesday, is Dread Pirate Roberts (DPR) - the administrator of the notorious Silk Road online marketplace.
It was an underground website where people from all over the world were able to buy drugs.
In the months leading up to Mr Ulbricht's arrest, investigators undertook a painstaking process of piecing together the suspect's digital footprint, going back years into his history of communicating with others online.
The detail of how the FBI has built its case was outlined in a court complaint document published on Wednesday.
The search started with work from Agent-1, the codename given to the expert cited in the court documents, who undertook an "extensive search of the internet" that sifted through pages dating back to January 2011.
The trail began with a post made on a web forum where users discussed the use of magic mushrooms.
In a post titled "Anonymous market online?", a user nicknamed Altoid started publicising the site.
"I came across this website called Silk Road," Altoid wrote. "Let me know what you think."
The post contained a link to a site hosted by the popular blogging platform Wordpress. This provided another link to the Silk Road's location on the so-called "dark web".
Records obtained by Agent-1 from Wordpress discovered, unsurprisingly, that the blog had been set up by an anonymous user who had hidden their location.
But then Altoid appeared in another place: a discussion site about virtual currency, bitcointalk.org.
Altoid - who the FBI claimed is Mr Ulbricht - was using "common online marketing" tactics. In other words, he was trying to make Silk Road go viral.
Months later, in October, Altoid appeared again - but made a slip-up, granting investigators a major lead.
In a post asking seeking to find an IT expert with knowledge of Bitcoin, he asked people to contact him via rossulbricht@gmail.com.
With a Gmail address to hand, Agent-1 linked this address to accounts on the Google+ social network and YouTube video site. There he discovered some of Mr Ulbricht's interests.
Among them, according viewing history, was economics. In particular, Mr Ulbricht's account had "favourited" several clips from the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a renowned Austrian school of economics.
Years later, on the Silk Road discussion forums, Dread Pirate Roberts would make several references to the Mises Institute and its work.
Welp. That was silly. Kind of surprised he did something that stupid.
|
On October 04 2013 08:14 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 07:55 Shiori wrote:Incarcerating people who fund criminals acts as a deterrent and punishes crime, crime cannot go unpunished. Well, obviously it punishes crime, by definition. I see no reason why crime needs to be "punished," though. You don't discipline your kids because it makes you feel good; you do it so that your kids learn and don't make the same mistake again (WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM BEING SCARED INTO IT). It absolutely doesn't act as a deterrent at all, as evidenced by reality. And what I meant is that there is a difference between a rich man with an abrasive personality and a person who breaks the law. When did I bring up a rich man with an abrasive personality? Criminals are criminals. Immoral people are immoral people. I'd rather be the former than the latter, frankly. Criminal gangs are explicit attempts to operate outside of societies rules and regulations, so even if they are not murdering people they are still in violation of their social contract with the rest of society. That's absurd. This exact same argument applies equally to the illegal unions which originated the concept, and to black people who acted against the rules of society before desegregation, and to basically everything Gandhi did. There is no "social contract with the rest of society." I didn't sign anything, and I certainly don't think being a functioning member of a society can imply refraining from drug usage in the same sense that refraining from murder is implied. You and I have a different view on social contact theory then, I believe that by existing within a group of people you are from birth obligated to act (within reason) within the regulation of the group of people (society) you exist within.
Well, that's dumb.
A very effective method of protest can be getting arrested and charged with immoral laws to bring to light their nature so that they can be changed. A good example would be how numerous homosexuals being arrested by Britain in the 50's lead to the Wolfenden Report that ended up putting homosexual rights in the spotlight. You can still act in protest of the laws of society but just don't expect society not to react and punish you.
In what way is this "very effective"?
We lost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
to stupid homosexuality laws. That's not what I call "very effective" if you're Alan Turing.
|
On October 04 2013 08:33 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 08:14 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 04 2013 07:55 Shiori wrote:Incarcerating people who fund criminals acts as a deterrent and punishes crime, crime cannot go unpunished. Well, obviously it punishes crime, by definition. I see no reason why crime needs to be "punished," though. You don't discipline your kids because it makes you feel good; you do it so that your kids learn and don't make the same mistake again (WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM BEING SCARED INTO IT). It absolutely doesn't act as a deterrent at all, as evidenced by reality. And what I meant is that there is a difference between a rich man with an abrasive personality and a person who breaks the law. When did I bring up a rich man with an abrasive personality? Criminals are criminals. Immoral people are immoral people. I'd rather be the former than the latter, frankly. Criminal gangs are explicit attempts to operate outside of societies rules and regulations, so even if they are not murdering people they are still in violation of their social contract with the rest of society. That's absurd. This exact same argument applies equally to the illegal unions which originated the concept, and to black people who acted against the rules of society before desegregation, and to basically everything Gandhi did. There is no "social contract with the rest of society." I didn't sign anything, and I certainly don't think being a functioning member of a society can imply refraining from drug usage in the same sense that refraining from murder is implied. You and I have a different view on social contact theory then, I believe that by existing within a group of people you are from birth obligated to act (within reason) within the regulation of the group of people (society) you exist within. Well, that's dumb. Show nested quote +A very effective method of protest can be getting arrested and charged with immoral laws to bring to light their nature so that they can be changed. A good example would be how numerous homosexuals being arrested by Britain in the 50's lead to the Wolfenden Report that ended up putting homosexual rights in the spotlight. You can still act in protest of the laws of society but just don't expect society not to react and punish you. In what way is this "very effective"? We lost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turingto stupid homosexuality laws. That's not what I call "very effective" if you're Alan Turing.
Well his death as well as the lock up of various people eventually led to a change in opinion, we cannot expect society to just magically exist in some state where weed is legalized and homosexuality is fine, immoral laws need to be exposed for them to be gotten rid of.
And you may think my idea of social contract theory is dumb, but its the kind that exists in the real world.
|
Yeah.. kind of sucks. DPR does seem to have crossed the line from merely providing a service, legal or no, rather badly in the end (or tried to, as it looks like the whole hit thing was a sting), but he was a bit of a symbol as well. Kind of sad to see that go, bad as it sounds.
This of course won't change much on the dark side of the web. The software itself was likely not compromised. It's true that the FBI put in an exploit for the Firefox version bundled with the "consumer version" of Tor during the takedown of Freedom Hosting, but even that only worked if you were being kind of dumb about it (having JS enabled is a nono when perusing those sites). So it's a nice win for them, but in the end DPR made a lot of questionable decisions in regards to his operational security. Like with the takedowns of other hidden services (similar markets, carding forums, pedophile sites, whatever) though, his users will just move on.
A bigger concern here is what will happen when law enforcement comes up against someone a little more savvy and I'm sure they're worrying about it. We already have commercial entities pushing restrictions into standards (EME), government agencies weakening them (Dual_EC_DRBG), releasing malware (Stuxnet), tapping us all (PRISM and it's brethren) and lord knows what else. I don't think a new crypto war or something similar is something that's completely out of the question.
Where the line is between Big Brother state and total anarchy? We'll probably hear more from both sides on the issue. For now, RIP Silk Road, it was an interesting run.
|
Well his death as well as the lock up of various people eventually led to a change in opinion, we cannot expect society to just magically exist in some state where weed is legalized and homosexuality is fine, immoral laws need to be exposed for them to be gotten rid of.
Where do you think these immoral laws come from, exactly? They come from immoral people. Somehow you're more concerned about protecting the opinion of some ignorant bloc of society than the actual injustice of the law in question and the immorality of the people in question.
Frankly, I don't give a damn that people in parts of the USA think homosexuality is bad and therefore have made it illegal. They're fucking wrong, and under no circumstances should any homosexual feel that they are morally obligated to follow any such law.
Society is not disconnected from its constituent peoples.
And you may think my idea of social contract theory is dumb, but its the kind that exists in the real world.
Exists according to whom, exactly? According to me, it certainly isn't the correct social contract theory. Am I wrong simply because a bunch of people who have no idea what they're talking about disagree? Are creationists right in the USA in areas where they comprise the majority of the population?
|
On October 04 2013 09:11 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +Well his death as well as the lock up of various people eventually led to a change in opinion, we cannot expect society to just magically exist in some state where weed is legalized and homosexuality is fine, immoral laws need to be exposed for them to be gotten rid of. Where do you think these immoral laws come from, exactly? They come from immoral people. Somehow you're more concerned about protecting the opinion of some ignorant bloc of society than the actual injustice of the law in question and the immorality of the people in question. Frankly, I don't give a damn that people in parts of the USA think homosexuality is bad and therefore have made it illegal. They're fucking wrong, and under no circumstances should any homosexual feel that they are morally obligated to follow any such law. Society is not disconnected from its constituent peoples. Show nested quote +And you may think my idea of social contract theory is dumb, but its the kind that exists in the real world. Exists according to whom, exactly? According to me, it certainly isn't the correct social contract theory. Am I wrong simply because a bunch of people who have no idea what they're talking about disagree? Are creationists right in the USA in areas where they comprise the majority of the population?
The problem then is that immoral laws are making their way into the books. That's why it would be a good idea to have a strong constitution with clearly defined rights and freedoms as well as a judiciary with enough power to strike down any immoral laws that somehow make it through the political system. Gay people aren't morally obligated to follow the law but they are societally obligated too as long as they reside in a state which has such laws. They can try and bring awareness to the immorality of the law by protesting and (possibly) being arrested but they can't expect not to be arrested. Again the problem is that immoral rules are becoming law and causing problems, if we could solve that we would not have this problem.
And I believe my idea of social contact theory is better than the idea of sovereign citizens who have no obligations to anyone but themselves unless they so choose their obligation. Because in such a society there would almost definately not be a strong enough government to stop society degenerating into anarchy due to either internal or external pressures.
|
I don't really care about "societal obligation." Nobody is really arguing that it's surprising that the government would punish people caught buying drugs, or whatever. We're arguing against the ridiculous assertion that there is some sort of moral requirement not buy drugs just because they're illegal.
|
TotalBalanceSC2, have you read Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience"? It does a good of job of explaining why it is civically defensible to break bad laws and ignore their legal prerogative when one wishes to have them changed.
|
On October 09 2013 05:03 farvacola wrote:
TotalBalanceSC2, have you read Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience"? It does a good of job of explaining why it is civically defensible to break bad laws and ignore their legal prerogative when one wishes to have them changed.
You could also work to change laws, instead of breaking every law you dont want to follow.
|
On October 09 2013 05:24 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 05:03 farvacola wrote:
TotalBalanceSC2, have you read Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience"? It does a good of job of explaining why it is civically defensible to break bad laws and ignore their legal prerogative when one wishes to have them changed. You could also work to change laws, instead of breaking every law you dont want to follow.
If you think that that is what I or Thoreau are advocating, then you ought to actually read what I suggested instead of running with an idea into exaggeration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
