Jailed pirate Roberts
February 4, 2015 9:16 PM Subscribe
Ross Ulbricht AKA "The Dread Pirate Roberts" has been convicted on all seven charges for creating and operating Silk Road. It only took the jury three and a half hours to reach a verdict. He faces a minimum of 30 years in prison (maximum of life).
The bankers who sold fraudulent mortgage securities and crashed the entire economy will be in hard labor camps for the rest of their lives, so 30 years seems like a perfectly proportional sentence for setting up a website where people can buy recreational chemicals the government doesn't want you to have.
posted by 0xFCAF at 9:34 PM on February 4, 2015 [87 favorites]
posted by 0xFCAF at 9:34 PM on February 4, 2015 [87 favorites]
The next phase of drug war nonsense.
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:39 PM on February 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by AdamCSnider at 9:39 PM on February 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
The war on drugs is a failure, sure, but I honestly have absolutely no problem with 30 years to life for someone who is found to hire contract killers. If the system puts those people away for good, the system is working. Or at least that part of it. So long, psycho!
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:40 PM on February 4, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:40 PM on February 4, 2015 [16 favorites]
Let's also not forget that he allowed the buying and selling of cyanide. I highly doubt that there were many people involved in the gold trade on that website.
posted by pipian at 9:47 PM on February 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by pipian at 9:47 PM on February 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
He wasn't though. That wasn't even a charge.
posted by pompomtom at 9:48 PM on February 4, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by pompomtom at 9:48 PM on February 4, 2015 [12 favorites]
No one at HSBC was convicted of drug laundering, right? They just worked out some deal.
posted by gt2 at 9:48 PM on February 4, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by gt2 at 9:48 PM on February 4, 2015 [8 favorites]
The murder solicitation charge is a separate trial and not part of the seven charges he was just convicted of. If he's convicted on the solicitation count, yes, throw away the key. But he's currently facing 30 to life for the following charges, all of which basically add up to "being a drug dealer on the internet":
1. Distributing or aiding and abetting the distribution of narcotics
2. Distributing narcotics or aiding and abetting distribution over the Internet
3. Conspiracy to violate narcotics laws
4. Conspiracy to run a "continuing criminal enterprise"
5. Conspiracy charges for computer hacking
6. Distributing false identification
7. Money laundering
Sure, being a drug dealer on the internet isn't something we want to encourage. But does this guy need to spend 30 years in prison for that?
posted by 0xFCAF at 9:53 PM on February 4, 2015 [25 favorites]
1. Distributing or aiding and abetting the distribution of narcotics
2. Distributing narcotics or aiding and abetting distribution over the Internet
3. Conspiracy to violate narcotics laws
4. Conspiracy to run a "continuing criminal enterprise"
5. Conspiracy charges for computer hacking
6. Distributing false identification
7. Money laundering
Sure, being a drug dealer on the internet isn't something we want to encourage. But does this guy need to spend 30 years in prison for that?
posted by 0xFCAF at 9:53 PM on February 4, 2015 [25 favorites]
>Sure, being a drug dealer on the internet isn't something we want to encourage.
I do. One day it'll be a proper thing, maybe even during Ross's lifetime, but he'll still be in jail.
posted by Savvas at 10:00 PM on February 4, 2015 [17 favorites]
I do. One day it'll be a proper thing, maybe even during Ross's lifetime, but he'll still be in jail.
posted by Savvas at 10:00 PM on February 4, 2015 [17 favorites]
The bankers who sold fraudulent mortgage securities and crashed the entire economy will be in hard labor camps for the rest of their lives, so 30 years seems like a perfectly proportional sentence for setting up a website where people can buy recreational chemicals the government doesn't want you to have.
All right, so let's quantify this. Figure out the economic damage caused by banks, and then the economic damage caused by individuals committing other crimes. Any crime with a lower total economic harm than the financial crisis of 2008 is now free and clear, no punishment, because that is of course exactly how morality works, yes?
The solution to "some bad people got away with a bad thing" is not "let every other bad person get away with bad things too", it's "find a way to hold these bad people as accountable as the others".
(meanwhile, I find Ulbricht to be a less-than-compelling poster child for blanket de-controlling of pharmaceutical substances, and so perhaps that is not the argument one wants to make, should one wish to convince others that Ulbricht ought to walk about free for the remainder of his life)
posted by hrwj at 10:05 PM on February 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
All right, so let's quantify this. Figure out the economic damage caused by banks, and then the economic damage caused by individuals committing other crimes. Any crime with a lower total economic harm than the financial crisis of 2008 is now free and clear, no punishment, because that is of course exactly how morality works, yes?
The solution to "some bad people got away with a bad thing" is not "let every other bad person get away with bad things too", it's "find a way to hold these bad people as accountable as the others".
(meanwhile, I find Ulbricht to be a less-than-compelling poster child for blanket de-controlling of pharmaceutical substances, and so perhaps that is not the argument one wants to make, should one wish to convince others that Ulbricht ought to walk about free for the remainder of his life)
posted by hrwj at 10:05 PM on February 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
I do. One day it'll be a proper thing, maybe even during Ross's lifetime, but he'll still be in jail.
Rather hopeful that this might trigger some sort of serious Kevin Mitnick-style movement which translates into a renewed push for legalization of drugs. "Hey, white guys can be locked up forever for this" sometimes provides a sharp self-interest centered wake up call for suburbanites who otherwise associate drug charges with scary urban minorities.
posted by AdamCSnider at 10:05 PM on February 4, 2015 [5 favorites]
Rather hopeful that this might trigger some sort of serious Kevin Mitnick-style movement which translates into a renewed push for legalization of drugs. "Hey, white guys can be locked up forever for this" sometimes provides a sharp self-interest centered wake up call for suburbanites who otherwise associate drug charges with scary urban minorities.
posted by AdamCSnider at 10:05 PM on February 4, 2015 [5 favorites]
The War on Drugs is an abject failure on all counts, and our justice system seems particularly effective at funneling minorities straight to jail.
That said, calling drugs "recreational chemicals the government doesn't want you to have" comes off as disingenuous, even if that isn't your intent. Silk Road wasn't just for pot or the occasional acid drop -- its marketplace included heroin, crack, dilaudid, etc. These are clearly not run of the mill recreational drugs -- anyone who has lived in certain parts of this country knows how catastrophic those addictions can get.
I'm not saying that sentencing him to 30 years is the right thing to do, and it certainly puts more emphasis and resources into punishing the providers rather than treating addiction in a sensible way. But I have absolutely no sympathy for someone who profits from addiction. He made his choices, and he should live with the consequences.
posted by Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra at 10:11 PM on February 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
That said, calling drugs "recreational chemicals the government doesn't want you to have" comes off as disingenuous, even if that isn't your intent. Silk Road wasn't just for pot or the occasional acid drop -- its marketplace included heroin, crack, dilaudid, etc. These are clearly not run of the mill recreational drugs -- anyone who has lived in certain parts of this country knows how catastrophic those addictions can get.
I'm not saying that sentencing him to 30 years is the right thing to do, and it certainly puts more emphasis and resources into punishing the providers rather than treating addiction in a sensible way. But I have absolutely no sympathy for someone who profits from addiction. He made his choices, and he should live with the consequences.
posted by Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra at 10:11 PM on February 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
The murder solicitation charge is a separate trial and not part of the seven charges he was just convicted of.
Is that true? My reading is that the murder conspiracy charges are part of his trial in New York, and that he is also up for similar charges in another, separate trial to be held in Baltimore. This guy does not seem like a John Galtian hero.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:22 PM on February 4, 2015
Is that true? My reading is that the murder conspiracy charges are part of his trial in New York, and that he is also up for similar charges in another, separate trial to be held in Baltimore. This guy does not seem like a John Galtian hero.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:22 PM on February 4, 2015
It's worth remembering that he was almost certainly sending fake hitmen after fake identities. Not that it reflects well on him to have wanted to hire out killings.
meanwhile, I find Ulbricht to be a less-than-compelling poster child for blanket de-controlling of pharmaceutical substances, and so perhaps that is not the argument one wants to make, should one wish to convince others that Ulbricht ought to walk about free for the remainder of his life
If this is meant to suggest he screwed up so bad because he was on drugs, I think there's not too much evidence of that and vastly more that he was under the very dangerous influence of Libertarian literature.
These are clearly not run of the mill recreational drugs -- anyone who has lived in certain parts of this country knows how catastrophic those addictions can get.
Having personally been addicted to at least one of those substances - if you want to lock up drug dealers for being drug dealers - even large-scale drug suppliers though of course this goes triple for small-time dealers - you are not on my side.
posted by atoxyl at 10:22 PM on February 4, 2015 [5 favorites]
meanwhile, I find Ulbricht to be a less-than-compelling poster child for blanket de-controlling of pharmaceutical substances, and so perhaps that is not the argument one wants to make, should one wish to convince others that Ulbricht ought to walk about free for the remainder of his life
If this is meant to suggest he screwed up so bad because he was on drugs, I think there's not too much evidence of that and vastly more that he was under the very dangerous influence of Libertarian literature.
These are clearly not run of the mill recreational drugs -- anyone who has lived in certain parts of this country knows how catastrophic those addictions can get.
Having personally been addicted to at least one of those substances - if you want to lock up drug dealers for being drug dealers - even large-scale drug suppliers though of course this goes triple for small-time dealers - you are not on my side.
posted by atoxyl at 10:22 PM on February 4, 2015 [5 favorites]
its marketplace included heroin, crack, dilaudid, etc. These are clearly not run of the mill recreational drugs -- anyone who has lived in certain parts of this country knows how catastrophic those addictions can get.
Yeah, our drugs are good. The drugs used by those other people are bad and should still send people to jail. You know, those people.
posted by Justinian at 10:34 PM on February 4, 2015 [24 favorites]
Yeah, our drugs are good. The drugs used by those other people are bad and should still send people to jail. You know, those people.
posted by Justinian at 10:34 PM on February 4, 2015 [24 favorites]
Oh, repartee.
posted by clavdivs at 10:48 PM on February 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 10:48 PM on February 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
The black market includes all activity the political system can't regulate
News at 11.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 10:49 PM on February 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
News at 11.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 10:49 PM on February 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
I have no qualms in thinking some drugs are actually pretty bad.
My own stance on this is perhaps similar to prostitution laws (where precisely I can't recall) that allow for prosecution of one who pays for it, but not of the one receiving payment. People addicted to heroin are in a chemically-induced position of weakness; people selling the heroin are in no such position. Punishments for the former seem ridiculous; punishments for the latter seem justifiable, although not always warranted.
I can understand this prosecution, but I take no joy in it.
posted by solarion at 10:58 PM on February 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
My own stance on this is perhaps similar to prostitution laws (where precisely I can't recall) that allow for prosecution of one who pays for it, but not of the one receiving payment. People addicted to heroin are in a chemically-induced position of weakness; people selling the heroin are in no such position. Punishments for the former seem ridiculous; punishments for the latter seem justifiable, although not always warranted.
I can understand this prosecution, but I take no joy in it.
posted by solarion at 10:58 PM on February 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
I really can't stand these talking points.
If anyone gets away with anything then everyone is entitled to get away with everything? No. He was found guilty and from my read of things, it wasn't even really close. Never mind the contract killers part*, the fact is that he facilitated a large number of illegal transactions and took a cut of every single bitcoin used on those transactions.
Don't like the drug laws? Change them; they seem to have had some success in this in Colorado and Washington State. In the meantime, anyone with an ounce (or a gram, or whatever) of sense could see how this would go down.
And for the record: There is no such thing as anonymity on the internet. Not over the long-term, anyways. Not if you are breaking the law and especially not if you are physically located in the US.
* Never thought I would say "never mind the contract killers part."
posted by andreaazure at 11:01 PM on February 4, 2015 [5 favorites]
If anyone gets away with anything then everyone is entitled to get away with everything? No. He was found guilty and from my read of things, it wasn't even really close. Never mind the contract killers part*, the fact is that he facilitated a large number of illegal transactions and took a cut of every single bitcoin used on those transactions.
Don't like the drug laws? Change them; they seem to have had some success in this in Colorado and Washington State. In the meantime, anyone with an ounce (or a gram, or whatever) of sense could see how this would go down.
And for the record: There is no such thing as anonymity on the internet. Not over the long-term, anyways. Not if you are breaking the law and especially not if you are physically located in the US.
* Never thought I would say "never mind the contract killers part."
posted by andreaazure at 11:01 PM on February 4, 2015 [5 favorites]
Yeah, our drugs are good. The drugs used by those other people are bad and should still send people to jail. You know, those people.
I don't think that's a fair reading of my comment. I was pointing out that not all drugs are the same. Some are unequivocally harmful to both individuals and society. None of this is particularly controversial. The rhetoric defending recreational use needs a delineation between different categories.
People addicted to heroin are in a chemically-induced position of weakness; people selling the heroin are in no such position. Punishments for the former seem ridiculous; punishments for the latter seem justifiable, although not always warranted.
This is precisely what I failed to communicate.
Having personally been addicted to at least one of those substances - if you want to lock up drug dealers for being drug dealers - even large-scale drug suppliers though of course this goes triple for small-time dealers - you are not on my side.
Out of curiosity, why is that? How do we address the supply side?
posted by Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra at 11:02 PM on February 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't think that's a fair reading of my comment. I was pointing out that not all drugs are the same. Some are unequivocally harmful to both individuals and society. None of this is particularly controversial. The rhetoric defending recreational use needs a delineation between different categories.
People addicted to heroin are in a chemically-induced position of weakness; people selling the heroin are in no such position. Punishments for the former seem ridiculous; punishments for the latter seem justifiable, although not always warranted.
This is precisely what I failed to communicate.
Having personally been addicted to at least one of those substances - if you want to lock up drug dealers for being drug dealers - even large-scale drug suppliers though of course this goes triple for small-time dealers - you are not on my side.
Out of curiosity, why is that? How do we address the supply side?
posted by Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra at 11:02 PM on February 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
Legalize and monitor.
posted by clavdivs at 11:06 PM on February 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 11:06 PM on February 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
He still awaits a trial on charges that if true, warrant a very heavy sentence indeed. I'm not really convinced that what we have seen thus far can be called any sort of legitimate justice. The War on Drugs has for the 30 or so years or so I have witnessed it has been mostly a war on poor and even more so minority people. Others wearing suits and ties, doing far more damage to the population, continue to go unscathed. I do not possess the power to change that, but I can be one of many to make sure it does not go unnoticed.
posted by scottymac at 11:36 PM on February 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by scottymac at 11:36 PM on February 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
What silk road proved was that the drug supply is more reliable and safer when you can rate your dealers and not having to buy them in person keeps the dealers off the streets.
posted by psycho-alchemy at 12:38 AM on February 5, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by psycho-alchemy at 12:38 AM on February 5, 2015 [15 favorites]
I have seen Dread Pirate Roberts' previous movie and I would guess he is only setting himself up to get sent to prison so he can escape with someone else who is already there. He'll be out within a week.
posted by biffa at 12:48 AM on February 5, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by biffa at 12:48 AM on February 5, 2015 [5 favorites]
Addiction is a tricky beast. I've been on heroin and not become addicted, as have lots of people. Except it was called diamorphine and I was given it in a hospital. It's a heavy duty analgesic, and used that way it very rarely becomes addictive. But it is exactly the same chemical as heroin - that's just its old trade name. I know people who take coke recreationally sometimes, and seem able to take it or leave it.
Yet I am addicted to nicotine. Many consume alcohol without becoming addicted, yet some do. People get addicted to things that aren't drugs at all, such as gambling. Addiction is increasingly looking more to be about your state of mind rather than what particular chemical or physical method you use to get there. A drug's effect is partly what we expect it to do.
The traditional view of 'hard drugs' as being really, really bad m'kay - is based upon the way those drugs are taken and obtained, the whole system of supply and enforcement and adulteration. Yes, of course right now 'hard' drugs destroy health, destroy families, send many people to prison both for handling drugs, and crimes to support supplying or buying them. As does alcohol, for some people.
They are recreational chemicals that the government has decided to ban, some more addictive than others. Not everyone that touches them will become a morality tale for others, and much of the violence because of them arises because of their criminal nature.
I don't know which drugs are genuinely too harmful to individuals and in aggregate to be legal, and which aren't. But there is a lot of research showing that it's nowhere near as black and white as 'legal drugs ok, illegal drugs will fuck you up forever'.
posted by ArkhanJG at 1:00 AM on February 5, 2015 [23 favorites]
Yet I am addicted to nicotine. Many consume alcohol without becoming addicted, yet some do. People get addicted to things that aren't drugs at all, such as gambling. Addiction is increasingly looking more to be about your state of mind rather than what particular chemical or physical method you use to get there. A drug's effect is partly what we expect it to do.
The traditional view of 'hard drugs' as being really, really bad m'kay - is based upon the way those drugs are taken and obtained, the whole system of supply and enforcement and adulteration. Yes, of course right now 'hard' drugs destroy health, destroy families, send many people to prison both for handling drugs, and crimes to support supplying or buying them. As does alcohol, for some people.
They are recreational chemicals that the government has decided to ban, some more addictive than others. Not everyone that touches them will become a morality tale for others, and much of the violence because of them arises because of their criminal nature.
I don't know which drugs are genuinely too harmful to individuals and in aggregate to be legal, and which aren't. But there is a lot of research showing that it's nowhere near as black and white as 'legal drugs ok, illegal drugs will fuck you up forever'.
posted by ArkhanJG at 1:00 AM on February 5, 2015 [23 favorites]
So it was Ulbricht ... in the library ... with the laptop!
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:03 AM on February 5, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 1:03 AM on February 5, 2015 [5 favorites]
This is where I pop up to say I take drugs, my father was a drug addict and the drugs killed him, one of my grandfathers smuggled illegal drugs into the USA and the other ran a drug den. But since the drug in question is alcohol, somehow that's all okay. The "harmful drugs should be banned" argument is absolute bollocks, since we will never ban alcohol (again): policy is simply not related to drug harmfulness and never will be. Harm reduction and legalisation, just like we do for other dangerous entertainments like sex and bicycling and horse riding and mountain climbing.
(Canada to Alaska during prohibition, paid for college: a pub in Glasgow.)
posted by alasdair at 1:23 AM on February 5, 2015 [16 favorites]
(Canada to Alaska during prohibition, paid for college: a pub in Glasgow.)
posted by alasdair at 1:23 AM on February 5, 2015 [16 favorites]
But I have absolutely no sympathy for someone who profits from addiction.
posted by Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra at 10:11 PM on February 4
Like Anhueser Busch? RJ Reynolds? Coca Cola? Hostess? Saks Fifth Avenue? Casinos? Bally's Gyms? Your office?
posted by readyfreddy at 1:42 AM on February 5, 2015 [17 favorites]
posted by Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra at 10:11 PM on February 4
Like Anhueser Busch? RJ Reynolds? Coca Cola? Hostess? Saks Fifth Avenue? Casinos? Bally's Gyms? Your office?
posted by readyfreddy at 1:42 AM on February 5, 2015 [17 favorites]
Don't most serious drug dealers get a fairly large sentence? I mean, you can be bothered by drugs being illegal in the first place, but it seems odd to think that this drug dealer deserves special mention because they used the internet instead.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 2:12 AM on February 5, 2015
posted by Cannon Fodder at 2:12 AM on February 5, 2015
Some are unequivocally harmful to both individuals and society. None of this is particularly controversial.
Lots of bad policy hasn't been particularly controversial until it became so. It's obvious to anyone paying attention that prohibition even of "hard" drugs is far more harmful to both individuals and society than the drugs themselves.
posted by Justinian at 2:13 AM on February 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Lots of bad policy hasn't been particularly controversial until it became so. It's obvious to anyone paying attention that prohibition even of "hard" drugs is far more harmful to both individuals and society than the drugs themselves.
posted by Justinian at 2:13 AM on February 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Just to point out, the Silk Road was not just a drugs bazaar, were not false documents and ids, forged passports, etc, available on the site?
I know they said they banned child pornography, fraudulent credit cards, etc, but wasn't the sister site The Amory was selling guns as well?
posted by C.A.S. at 2:19 AM on February 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
I know they said they banned child pornography, fraudulent credit cards, etc, but wasn't the sister site The Amory was selling guns as well?
posted by C.A.S. at 2:19 AM on February 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
I have the same question as CAS. My impression was that the drugs were the nice side of the silk Road and that way more clear cut bad stuff was being dealt in the same manner. Is this a case of the drug charges are easier to prove?
posted by Braeburn at 4:26 AM on February 5, 2015
posted by Braeburn at 4:26 AM on February 5, 2015
What I wouldn't give for a Holocaust Cloak.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 4:35 AM on February 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 4:35 AM on February 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
In other illegal Internet news, The Pirate Bay is back up, but is it an FBI honeypot?
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:37 AM on February 5, 2015
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:37 AM on February 5, 2015
Was The Armory website part of the trial proceedings in the FPP?
posted by oceanjesse at 4:39 AM on February 5, 2015
posted by oceanjesse at 4:39 AM on February 5, 2015
> The black market includes all activity the political system can't regulate.
I hear there's always an opening for a Dread Pirate Roberts.
posted by jfuller at 4:46 AM on February 5, 2015
I hear there's always an opening for a Dread Pirate Roberts.
posted by jfuller at 4:46 AM on February 5, 2015
My own stance on this is perhaps similar to prostitution laws (where precisely I can't recall) that allow for prosecution of one who pays for it, but not of the one receiving payment.
This is your friendly daily reminder that those laws, however nice they might sound, end up putting sex workers in danger. And already-marginalized sex workers in proportionately more danger. I don't know if the analogy holds for drugs, but...yeah.
30 years is really high for drug-running. I'm fine with him being convicted, but sentencing in the US is absurd.
posted by Lemurrhea at 5:13 AM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is your friendly daily reminder that those laws, however nice they might sound, end up putting sex workers in danger. And already-marginalized sex workers in proportionately more danger. I don't know if the analogy holds for drugs, but...yeah.
30 years is really high for drug-running. I'm fine with him being convicted, but sentencing in the US is absurd.
posted by Lemurrhea at 5:13 AM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
In other illegal Internet news, The Pirate Bay is back up, but is it an FBI honeypot?
Pretty much all traffic from magnet link sites like TPB is publicly visible anyway, so the FBI would basically be helping facilitate public file sharing with no actual benefit. Also DDoS is becoming an everyday problem for major torrent sites now rather than a rare occurrence, so a lot of torrent sites have started using CloudFlare as a proxy/CDN, it's not at all strange that TPB would be using it.
posted by burnmp3s at 5:55 AM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Pretty much all traffic from magnet link sites like TPB is publicly visible anyway, so the FBI would basically be helping facilitate public file sharing with no actual benefit. Also DDoS is becoming an everyday problem for major torrent sites now rather than a rare occurrence, so a lot of torrent sites have started using CloudFlare as a proxy/CDN, it's not at all strange that TPB would be using it.
posted by burnmp3s at 5:55 AM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sure, this guy got sent to prison. But I have it on good authority that the real Dread Pirate Roberts has been retired fifteen years and living like a king in Patagonia.
posted by Strange Interlude at 5:56 AM on February 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Strange Interlude at 5:56 AM on February 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Supporting decriminalization != supporting drug dealers. Dealers of this caliber are people who profit off of addiction and often use violence to maintain their position. Part of the reason we support decriminalization is so users don't have to buy from these people.
posted by Peevish at 5:58 AM on February 5, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Peevish at 5:58 AM on February 5, 2015 [7 favorites]
I support decriminalization, even of "hard drugs," but I'm having a really hard time seeing Silk Road as somehow better or less violent than traditional organized crime. Maybe at the beginning of the service, when there were no real threats and no real competition, but the whole point of the murder-for-hire evidence is that DPR was ready and willing to murder people to protect his enterprise (good thing he was so inept at it).
posted by muddgirl at 6:05 AM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by muddgirl at 6:05 AM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
There have been several "silk road" successors and No 2 and 3 were taken down by the feds. I am not in this trade, bit if I were I would be a little concerned if the TOR/Onion network might be fundamentally broken to protect my privacy.
posted by yoyo_nyc at 6:06 AM on February 5, 2015
posted by yoyo_nyc at 6:06 AM on February 5, 2015
I think the harsh sentencing was partly due to the fact that Ulbricht's black market was a wired one, as well as the US' draconian drug policies. The government is trying to make an example of Ulbricht to deter other darknet hackers and users. This case will probably be used politically to regulate the Internet and criminalize "off-the-grid" servers like those using Tor. To what level remains to be seen.
People who conflate freedom of information with freedom of speech aren't seeing the big picture in terms of the criminal activity that can go on through darknet channels. Child porn ("cheese pizza"), human trafficking, as others have mentioned upthread, keeping addicts hooked and having overdoses; identity theft, bank hacking, etc. It seems the libertarians have embraced freedom of information at all costs. But human rights violations shouldn't fall under the category of acceptable collateral damage in the fight for freedom.
posted by Beethoven's Sith at 6:59 AM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
People who conflate freedom of information with freedom of speech aren't seeing the big picture in terms of the criminal activity that can go on through darknet channels. Child porn ("cheese pizza"), human trafficking, as others have mentioned upthread, keeping addicts hooked and having overdoses; identity theft, bank hacking, etc. It seems the libertarians have embraced freedom of information at all costs. But human rights violations shouldn't fall under the category of acceptable collateral damage in the fight for freedom.
posted by Beethoven's Sith at 6:59 AM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
IIRC, Silk Road 2 was brought down because the compromised administrator account from SR1 was invited to help administer SR2 as well, in addition to the normal "It's really hard to run a criminal enterprise with perfect anonymity."
I think there are some troubling questions about the security of modern encryption that weren't really addressed, possibly because Ulbricht couldn't challenge any of the evidence on fourth amendment grounds without admitting that he was DPR earlier than he was ready to.
posted by muddgirl at 7:03 AM on February 5, 2015
I think there are some troubling questions about the security of modern encryption that weren't really addressed, possibly because Ulbricht couldn't challenge any of the evidence on fourth amendment grounds without admitting that he was DPR earlier than he was ready to.
posted by muddgirl at 7:03 AM on February 5, 2015
Whether or not this action is justified against a drug dealer, it's certainly justified against an illegal gun dealer. He even set up a sister site just for anonymous weapon purchases.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:32 AM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:32 AM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Whether or not this action is justified against a drug dealer, it's certainly justified against an illegal gun dealer.
Well then he should have been charged for selling guns illegally, rather than just drugs and the associated conspiracy charges.
posted by Lemurrhea at 7:39 AM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well then he should have been charged for selling guns illegally, rather than just drugs and the associated conspiracy charges.
posted by Lemurrhea at 7:39 AM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Are we going to automatically make this guy a poster child for internet freedom and the correct social policy on addiction?
I think there are better cases (like Barrett Brown, etc) to focus on. At some point this guy is going to correctly get charged with attempting to contract kill someone. The arrogance of because its online, its exempt from the current law is very different from arguing the war on drugs is costly and stupid (true).
It reminds me of other aspects of the libertarian dream, like the bitcoin guy who renounced his citizenship to avoid taxes and then is surprised to find he can't get a visa back in the country.
I'm So Glad This Guy Exists (TPM)
posted by C.A.S. at 7:53 AM on February 5, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think there are better cases (like Barrett Brown, etc) to focus on. At some point this guy is going to correctly get charged with attempting to contract kill someone. The arrogance of because its online, its exempt from the current law is very different from arguing the war on drugs is costly and stupid (true).
It reminds me of other aspects of the libertarian dream, like the bitcoin guy who renounced his citizenship to avoid taxes and then is surprised to find he can't get a visa back in the country.
I'm So Glad This Guy Exists (TPM)
posted by C.A.S. at 7:53 AM on February 5, 2015 [5 favorites]
Fuck this guy. Decriminalization is a good discussion to have, but this is a guy who sat back and let the money roll in so he could live it up. He didn't care one whit about the effects his site might have on people. 30 years seems reasonable to me. What an asshole. I have a lot *less* sympathy for him than for a gun-toting dealer in the projects who can at least argue that he doesn't have many other options in life. This guy has more in common with Bernie Madoff.
posted by freecellwizard at 8:25 AM on February 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by freecellwizard at 8:25 AM on February 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
FYI, from what I've read the "hiring contract killers" charges are a separate trial, but evidence from that was allowed to be brought in to bolster the "ongoing criminal conspiracy" charge, which is where most of the weight is going to be during sentencing.
posted by Oktober at 8:26 AM on February 5, 2015
posted by Oktober at 8:26 AM on February 5, 2015
What I hate about this is that it's very possible, likely even, that the evidence against Ulbricht comes from the NSA's surveillance programs and the prosecutors lied about it to the judge -- but no court will ever rule on that because of an asinine reading of the Fourth Amendment combined with a truly moronic tactical decision by Team Ulbricht.
All the proof that Ulbricht is the Dread Pirate Roberts comes from the FBI's discovery and seizure of the Silk Road computer servers. They took down the website first and worked backward to discover its owner. The government's story is that investigators found the servers because Roberts misconfigured the CAPTCHA test that users had to pass to log in, exposing the site's location to anyone who was determined enough and knew how to look.
I'm not a computer science or cybersecurity expert, but people who are and who have read through the evidence say the vulnerability the FBI supposedly exploited isn't actually there. It's possible that they're wrong, but we already know that American law enforcement has a practice of using information obtained by NSA Internet surveillance in criminal cases, but fabricating a story to explain its origins without involving that program – so-called "parallel construction." The identifying information of a normally-inaccessible Dark Web drug market is certainly the kind of information you'd expect online surveillance to dig up. This case could have been an acid test for parallel construction and the NSA surveillance program, since if the judge did find that the server info was discovered illegally, everything that came about as a result of that discovery – basically the prosecution's entire case – would have been thrown out as “fruit of the poison tree.” And it's always fun to see a judge discover that one side has been lying in court.
Unfortunately, that investigation is never going to happen. Judge Kathleen Forrest rejected Ulbricht's motion to reject the evidence not because she decided everything was up-and-up, but because the defense dropped the ball on a very easy to satisfy, but still very dumb, procedural requirement. Basically, the Supreme Court has held that you can only invoke the Fourth Amendment to get evidence removed from a trial if you first stipulate to the judge that the evidence was obtained through a violation of your privacy rights. It's not enough to show that the server was obtained without a warrant – Ulbricht has to give a statement to the judge that it's his server. Without that statement the court has to proceed as if there's no connection between Ulbricht and the computer.
That sounds like a Catch-22 – the entire point of the trial is to prove that Ulbricht owned Silk Road, so forcing him to admit ownership of Silk Road in order to fend himself is nuts, right? But it's not. That statement that he owns the server, had he given it, could not have been referenced at trial. Which means it's not an admission of anything, it's just pantomime. You say the magic words and the Fourth Amendment miraculously comes into being, with no other consequences. Those magic words are “I own that server and the United States violated my rights by searching it,” but they could be “bah weep graghnah weep ninni bong” and have the exact same meaning in a practical sense.
And the result, as we saw here, is that when the magic words aren't invoked – and I have no idea why they weren't – the prosecution gets to have it both ways. This should be a Catch-22 for them – either Ulbricht, a US citizen, owns the server, and Fourth Amendment protections apply, or he doesn't own the server and the entire case is bunk. Instead they got to insist that Silk Road belonged to Ulbricht while ignoring the laws of evidence that should be triggered by that fact.
(All that said, Ulbricht's guilt is hilariously clear here. It's a correct decision arrived at through unjust means.)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:42 AM on February 5, 2015 [22 favorites]
All the proof that Ulbricht is the Dread Pirate Roberts comes from the FBI's discovery and seizure of the Silk Road computer servers. They took down the website first and worked backward to discover its owner. The government's story is that investigators found the servers because Roberts misconfigured the CAPTCHA test that users had to pass to log in, exposing the site's location to anyone who was determined enough and knew how to look.
I'm not a computer science or cybersecurity expert, but people who are and who have read through the evidence say the vulnerability the FBI supposedly exploited isn't actually there. It's possible that they're wrong, but we already know that American law enforcement has a practice of using information obtained by NSA Internet surveillance in criminal cases, but fabricating a story to explain its origins without involving that program – so-called "parallel construction." The identifying information of a normally-inaccessible Dark Web drug market is certainly the kind of information you'd expect online surveillance to dig up. This case could have been an acid test for parallel construction and the NSA surveillance program, since if the judge did find that the server info was discovered illegally, everything that came about as a result of that discovery – basically the prosecution's entire case – would have been thrown out as “fruit of the poison tree.” And it's always fun to see a judge discover that one side has been lying in court.
Unfortunately, that investigation is never going to happen. Judge Kathleen Forrest rejected Ulbricht's motion to reject the evidence not because she decided everything was up-and-up, but because the defense dropped the ball on a very easy to satisfy, but still very dumb, procedural requirement. Basically, the Supreme Court has held that you can only invoke the Fourth Amendment to get evidence removed from a trial if you first stipulate to the judge that the evidence was obtained through a violation of your privacy rights. It's not enough to show that the server was obtained without a warrant – Ulbricht has to give a statement to the judge that it's his server. Without that statement the court has to proceed as if there's no connection between Ulbricht and the computer.
That sounds like a Catch-22 – the entire point of the trial is to prove that Ulbricht owned Silk Road, so forcing him to admit ownership of Silk Road in order to fend himself is nuts, right? But it's not. That statement that he owns the server, had he given it, could not have been referenced at trial. Which means it's not an admission of anything, it's just pantomime. You say the magic words and the Fourth Amendment miraculously comes into being, with no other consequences. Those magic words are “I own that server and the United States violated my rights by searching it,” but they could be “bah weep graghnah weep ninni bong” and have the exact same meaning in a practical sense.
And the result, as we saw here, is that when the magic words aren't invoked – and I have no idea why they weren't – the prosecution gets to have it both ways. This should be a Catch-22 for them – either Ulbricht, a US citizen, owns the server, and Fourth Amendment protections apply, or he doesn't own the server and the entire case is bunk. Instead they got to insist that Silk Road belonged to Ulbricht while ignoring the laws of evidence that should be triggered by that fact.
(All that said, Ulbricht's guilt is hilariously clear here. It's a correct decision arrived at through unjust means.)
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:42 AM on February 5, 2015 [22 favorites]
pipian: Let's also not forget that he allowed the buying and selling of cyanide. I highly doubt that there were many people involved in the gold trade on that website.Wow, that's a remarkable argument. People using his site sold cyanide, therefore he deserves jail.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:32 AM on February 5, 2015
clavdivs: If he was warned to stop, yes.Huh? Drug dealing is OK until you're told to stop? Or it's wrong to do something after the government says "stop"? Both are bad ideas.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:36 AM on February 5, 2015
If this is meant to suggest he screwed up so bad because he was on drugs, I think there's not too much evidence of that and vastly more that he was under the very dangerous influence of Libertarian literature.
My intent mostly was to suggest that Ulbricht is precisely the type of endgame that every anti-drug person has said drugs inevitably produce. When the exemplar confirms the opposition's stereotypes -- drugs lead to this other thing, which leads to this other thing, which leads to murder and chaos -- perhaps another exemplar is desired.
posted by hrwj at 9:43 AM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
My intent mostly was to suggest that Ulbricht is precisely the type of endgame that every anti-drug person has said drugs inevitably produce. When the exemplar confirms the opposition's stereotypes -- drugs lead to this other thing, which leads to this other thing, which leads to murder and chaos -- perhaps another exemplar is desired.
posted by hrwj at 9:43 AM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'll stipulate, for the sake of argument, that certain drugs are harmful.
That does NOT mean the criminal justice system is a good way to deal with them. That's a leap of logic that most people make without thinking it through: Drugs are bad, therefore outlaw them and send users or sellers to prison.
The conclusion does not follow from the premise. A cursory empirical examination of the drug war's failures shows you why. First, the policy of putting people in prison often damages peoples' lives more than the drugs themselves. Second, drug users are not always making the kind of rational decisions that underlie a deterrence-based justification for punishment. Third, by outlawing these drugs--substances that people are driven to purchase even under threat of substantial penalties--we create a black market that provides enormous profit incentives to drug dealers.
That's just for starters. You can go on and on about all the ways in which the drug war fails to accomplish the supposed goal of eradicating bad drugs and their effects.
So even assuming some drugs are bad and ought not to be used, we can craft much more effective policies designed to mitigate their damage and eliminate the black markets. One possibility would be to provide the most addictive drugs through state-run medical facilities where users are required to undergo some basic level of medical/psychiatric treatment, or at least monitoring.
posted by mikeand1 at 9:44 AM on February 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
That does NOT mean the criminal justice system is a good way to deal with them. That's a leap of logic that most people make without thinking it through: Drugs are bad, therefore outlaw them and send users or sellers to prison.
The conclusion does not follow from the premise. A cursory empirical examination of the drug war's failures shows you why. First, the policy of putting people in prison often damages peoples' lives more than the drugs themselves. Second, drug users are not always making the kind of rational decisions that underlie a deterrence-based justification for punishment. Third, by outlawing these drugs--substances that people are driven to purchase even under threat of substantial penalties--we create a black market that provides enormous profit incentives to drug dealers.
That's just for starters. You can go on and on about all the ways in which the drug war fails to accomplish the supposed goal of eradicating bad drugs and their effects.
So even assuming some drugs are bad and ought not to be used, we can craft much more effective policies designed to mitigate their damage and eliminate the black markets. One possibility would be to provide the most addictive drugs through state-run medical facilities where users are required to undergo some basic level of medical/psychiatric treatment, or at least monitoring.
posted by mikeand1 at 9:44 AM on February 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra: That said, calling drugs "recreational chemicals the government doesn't want you to have" comes off as disingenuous, even if that isn't your intent. Silk Road wasn't just for pot or the occasional acid drop -- its marketplace included heroin, crack, dilaudid, etc. These are clearly not run of the mill recreational drugs -- anyone who has lived in certain parts of this country knows how catastrophic those addictions can get.You are the one who inserted "run of the mill" into the description. Calling drugs "recreational chemicals the government doesn't want you to have" is not only not disenguous, it's 100% precise and accurate.
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra: I was pointing out that not all drugs are the same. Some are unequivocally harmful to both individuals and society.Name some. Heroin and dilaudid have specific medical uses; crack is really just slightly-altered heroin. OK, I'll let you start with crack. Name others.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:53 AM on February 5, 2015
"It's not enough to show that the server was obtained without a warrant – Ulbricht has to give a statement to the judge that it's his server. Without that statement the court has to proceed as if there's no connection between Ulbricht and the computer."
But you can't just "say the magic words" -- you have to support it with evidence. That could be in the form of a sworn declaration, but it has to be true, or you're committing yet another crime.
Do we know for a fact that Ulbricht owned or leased the Icelandic server, or did anything that would legally establish his privacy interest in it?
posted by mikeand1 at 9:58 AM on February 5, 2015
But you can't just "say the magic words" -- you have to support it with evidence. That could be in the form of a sworn declaration, but it has to be true, or you're committing yet another crime.
Do we know for a fact that Ulbricht owned or leased the Icelandic server, or did anything that would legally establish his privacy interest in it?
posted by mikeand1 at 9:58 AM on February 5, 2015
This case will probably be used politically to regulate the Internet
With the exception of "human trafficking" which I never heard of, all the same bad, scary, and illegal stuff was there to be found in more or less disreputable parts of the BBS scene 25 years ago. The first major "OMG someone found porn on the Internet, shut it down!" scare was roughly 20 years ago.
I'm not saying that politicians won't use this case as an excuse for whatever misguided Internet-related law-making they already have in mind for the near future, just that they've had no end of similar excuses for decades and should probably have learned better by now.
posted by sfenders at 10:01 AM on February 5, 2015
With the exception of "human trafficking" which I never heard of, all the same bad, scary, and illegal stuff was there to be found in more or less disreputable parts of the BBS scene 25 years ago. The first major "OMG someone found porn on the Internet, shut it down!" scare was roughly 20 years ago.
I'm not saying that politicians won't use this case as an excuse for whatever misguided Internet-related law-making they already have in mind for the near future, just that they've had no end of similar excuses for decades and should probably have learned better by now.
posted by sfenders at 10:01 AM on February 5, 2015
Do we know for a fact that Ulbricht owned or leased the Icelandic server, or did anything that would legally establish his privacy interest in it?
The government's contention at trial was that the server had been leased to the then-anonymous owner of Silk Road (sworn statement to that effect), who has been legally established as Ross Ulbricht. I don't believe there was a specific finding of fact on the server's ownership, and Ulbricht hasn't said anything post-conviction that I'm aware of.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:28 AM on February 5, 2015
The government's contention at trial was that the server had been leased to the then-anonymous owner of Silk Road (sworn statement to that effect), who has been legally established as Ross Ulbricht. I don't believe there was a specific finding of fact on the server's ownership, and Ulbricht hasn't said anything post-conviction that I'm aware of.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:28 AM on February 5, 2015
Name some. Heroin and dilaudid have specific medical uses; crack is really just slightly-altered heroin. OK, I'll let you start with crack. Name others.
Bath salts.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:42 AM on February 5, 2015
Bath salts.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:42 AM on February 5, 2015
crack is really just slightly-altered heroin
Okay wait hang on wha?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:45 AM on February 5, 2015 [6 favorites]
Okay wait hang on wha?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:45 AM on February 5, 2015 [6 favorites]
Wow, that's a remarkable argument. People using his site sold cyanide, therefore he deserves jail.
No, Ross Ulbricht financially profited from the unregulated sale of cyanide - he at one point made an affirmative decision to allow the unregulated sale of cyanide over the objections of some of his employees. When people threatened the reputation of the platform which he used to profit from the unregulated sale of cyanide and other illegal goods, he took extreme and criminal measures to protect that platform.
That's why he "deserves" jail.
posted by muddgirl at 11:47 AM on February 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
No, Ross Ulbricht financially profited from the unregulated sale of cyanide - he at one point made an affirmative decision to allow the unregulated sale of cyanide over the objections of some of his employees. When people threatened the reputation of the platform which he used to profit from the unregulated sale of cyanide and other illegal goods, he took extreme and criminal measures to protect that platform.
That's why he "deserves" jail.
posted by muddgirl at 11:47 AM on February 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Crack is cocaine, I assume he just mis-wrote that (or maybe he thought it was heroin, I dunno. But crack is cocaine)
posted by RustyBrooks at 12:03 PM on February 5, 2015
posted by RustyBrooks at 12:03 PM on February 5, 2015
Libertarianism is a hell of a drug.
posted by JackFlash at 12:07 PM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by JackFlash at 12:07 PM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
That said, calling drugs "recreational chemicals the government doesn't want you to have" comes off as disingenuous, even if that isn't your intent. Silk Road wasn't just for pot or the occasional acid drop -- its marketplace included heroin, crack, dilaudid, etc. These are clearly not run of the mill recreational drugs -- anyone who has lived in certain parts of this country knows how catastrophic those addictions can get.
It doesn't matter how catastrophic those addictions can get; more prohibition will not help. The criminal justice system is the wrong tool for this job, and its continued misuse turns the very idea of "justice" into a joke.
I'm glad people are able to buy the drugs they want on the internet, from providers who - while pseudonymous - can be reviewed and thus held at least somewhat accountable. This is a far better system than one where people have to go find back alleys and deal with shady people in unsafe environments. I have no comment on Ross Ulbricht as a person or as a businessman, but the general concept of the business he has been convicted of running is a good thing for society.
It would be even better if we abandoned this prohibitionist nonsense and let people buy their recreational drugs on Amazon, from licensed distributors who buy their products from factories which meet FDA regulations. Yes, some people would still fuck themselves up and fall into destructive addictive spirals, but if we want to get anywhere with those problems we have to treat them as mental health issues and not as criminal issues.
posted by Mars Saxman at 1:20 PM on February 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
It doesn't matter how catastrophic those addictions can get; more prohibition will not help. The criminal justice system is the wrong tool for this job, and its continued misuse turns the very idea of "justice" into a joke.
I'm glad people are able to buy the drugs they want on the internet, from providers who - while pseudonymous - can be reviewed and thus held at least somewhat accountable. This is a far better system than one where people have to go find back alleys and deal with shady people in unsafe environments. I have no comment on Ross Ulbricht as a person or as a businessman, but the general concept of the business he has been convicted of running is a good thing for society.
It would be even better if we abandoned this prohibitionist nonsense and let people buy their recreational drugs on Amazon, from licensed distributors who buy their products from factories which meet FDA regulations. Yes, some people would still fuck themselves up and fall into destructive addictive spirals, but if we want to get anywhere with those problems we have to treat them as mental health issues and not as criminal issues.
posted by Mars Saxman at 1:20 PM on February 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Out of curiosity, why is that? How do we address the supply side?
Well let me start out by saying what I'm really talking about is heroin and other opioids, which are a.) drugs I know I know things about and b.) particular drugs with particular circumstances surrounding them, notably a very high ratio of practical harm to inherent harm, and rapid onset of physiological consequences if you run out. A one-size-fits-all approach to drug addiction is part of the problem so I should be clear about where I'm coming from.
So first of all at the lower levels the people on the supply side are mostly either also on the demand side or have otherwise limited options. I'm sure you know this, but right off the bat it raises the question of where do you draw the line between amoral profiteer and just getting by. Note that I said I was opposed to prosecuting people for selling drugs not for other crimes they might commit in that occupation.
More fundamentally there is zero doubt in my mind that current addicts are best off being able to acquire some kind of opiate as safely and cheaply as possible - and in fact Silk Road specifically did a lot of good for "safely" though certainly not "cheaply." Is there tension between what serves existing users and what serves people who might be better off never having access in the first place? Well, maybe, but opioids are always going to be around because of their medical value and it's not like controlling availability has gone spectacularly well to date.
I can imagine scenarios where it might be a good idea to crack down on the black market - I don't think high-level heroin distributors are performing a heroic service or anything - but they all involve widespread access to some kind of maintenance treatment if not the existence of a legal and regulated supply.
My own stance on this is perhaps similar to prostitution laws (where precisely I can't recall) that allow for prosecution of one who pays for it, but not of the one receiving payment.
Like Lemurrhea says, I'm not sure this tends to work out great for prostitutes either, considering that they need customers to make a living and probably do not want those customers to be incentivized to be more paranoid and controlling than baseline.
posted by atoxyl at 1:36 PM on February 5, 2015
Well let me start out by saying what I'm really talking about is heroin and other opioids, which are a.) drugs I know I know things about and b.) particular drugs with particular circumstances surrounding them, notably a very high ratio of practical harm to inherent harm, and rapid onset of physiological consequences if you run out. A one-size-fits-all approach to drug addiction is part of the problem so I should be clear about where I'm coming from.
So first of all at the lower levels the people on the supply side are mostly either also on the demand side or have otherwise limited options. I'm sure you know this, but right off the bat it raises the question of where do you draw the line between amoral profiteer and just getting by. Note that I said I was opposed to prosecuting people for selling drugs not for other crimes they might commit in that occupation.
More fundamentally there is zero doubt in my mind that current addicts are best off being able to acquire some kind of opiate as safely and cheaply as possible - and in fact Silk Road specifically did a lot of good for "safely" though certainly not "cheaply." Is there tension between what serves existing users and what serves people who might be better off never having access in the first place? Well, maybe, but opioids are always going to be around because of their medical value and it's not like controlling availability has gone spectacularly well to date.
I can imagine scenarios where it might be a good idea to crack down on the black market - I don't think high-level heroin distributors are performing a heroic service or anything - but they all involve widespread access to some kind of maintenance treatment if not the existence of a legal and regulated supply.
My own stance on this is perhaps similar to prostitution laws (where precisely I can't recall) that allow for prosecution of one who pays for it, but not of the one receiving payment.
Like Lemurrhea says, I'm not sure this tends to work out great for prostitutes either, considering that they need customers to make a living and probably do not want those customers to be incentivized to be more paranoid and controlling than baseline.
posted by atoxyl at 1:36 PM on February 5, 2015
I'm glad people are able to buy the drugs they want on the internet, from providers who - while pseudonymous - can be reviewed and thus held at least somewhat accountable. This is a far better system than one where people have to go find back alleys and deal with shady people in unsafe environments.
Why is a site like Silk Road safer than a back alley?
When a person buys drugs from someone in a back alley, they don't have to provide their mailing address. They don't have to pay in a currency that is designed to be easily traceable from transaction to transaction. Their shipment can't be intercepted and tampered with by a third party. They don't have to worry that their dealer will be hacked and they will be blackmailed, because the dealer will have, at most, a telephone number that could have come from anywhere.
Internet black markets present different challenges to people looking to score illegal goods. That doesn't mean they are safer.
posted by muddgirl at 1:53 PM on February 5, 2015
Why is a site like Silk Road safer than a back alley?
When a person buys drugs from someone in a back alley, they don't have to provide their mailing address. They don't have to pay in a currency that is designed to be easily traceable from transaction to transaction. Their shipment can't be intercepted and tampered with by a third party. They don't have to worry that their dealer will be hacked and they will be blackmailed, because the dealer will have, at most, a telephone number that could have come from anywhere.
Internet black markets present different challenges to people looking to score illegal goods. That doesn't mean they are safer.
posted by muddgirl at 1:53 PM on February 5, 2015
Also, of course, reviews and a reputation system are like security theater - they don't actually prevent getting ripped off by unscrupulous dealers.
posted by muddgirl at 1:58 PM on February 5, 2015
posted by muddgirl at 1:58 PM on February 5, 2015
Why is a site like Silk Road safer than a back alley?
Because it is still not possible to stab someone in the face via TCP/IP. I assume that "unsafe environment" in that context means a place where you can be physically rolled for your cash/stash.
posted by phearlez at 2:30 PM on February 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Because it is still not possible to stab someone in the face via TCP/IP. I assume that "unsafe environment" in that context means a place where you can be physically rolled for your cash/stash.
posted by phearlez at 2:30 PM on February 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Plenty of people go their whole lives buying drugs in person without ever getting stabbed in the face. Violence endemic to the drug trade starts much higher up than that, and while it is generally speculated that Tor marketplaces will be free of territorial violence, I think it's way too early to tell, and I think if anything, Ross Ulbricht is a great example of how violence is still seen as a valid tool to protect online territories.
The way to eliminate drug trade violence is to eliminate the black market completely, not to move it to a different platform that comes with its own personal risks to users.
posted by muddgirl at 2:52 PM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
The way to eliminate drug trade violence is to eliminate the black market completely, not to move it to a different platform that comes with its own personal risks to users.
posted by muddgirl at 2:52 PM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Online purchasing almost certainly puts you at less risk of getting ripped off, getting robbed, or being arrested (thus far anyway) than going looking to purchase drugs from a stranger on the street - or at a rave, etc. To me this is a fairer comparison than with knowing a relatively reliable dealer - you make good points as to why it doesn't beat that.
In any case the value of such things is more in proving prohibition (even more) unenforceable.
posted by atoxyl at 3:34 PM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
In any case the value of such things is more in proving prohibition (even more) unenforceable.
posted by atoxyl at 3:34 PM on February 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Didn't he actually try to pay to have one of his enemies murdered?
posted by humanfont at 5:11 PM on February 5, 2015
posted by humanfont at 5:11 PM on February 5, 2015
No one at HSBC was convicted of drug laundering, right? They just worked out some deal.
Yes, and our next Attorney General played a big role in making that deal.
posted by homunculus at 6:50 PM on February 5, 2015
Yes, and our next Attorney General played a big role in making that deal.
posted by homunculus at 6:50 PM on February 5, 2015
But he's currently facing 30 to life for the following charges, all of which basically add up to "being a drug dealer on the internet
Money laundering is a very serious issue. Gun running is a very serious issue. Fake passports are a very serious issue.
This isn't some kid getting screwed for getting caught with an ounce of weed.
posted by graphnerd at 8:08 PM on February 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Money laundering is a very serious issue. Gun running is a very serious issue. Fake passports are a very serious issue.
This isn't some kid getting screwed for getting caught with an ounce of weed.
posted by graphnerd at 8:08 PM on February 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Many people can be against the War on Drugs and still consider DPR to be a criminal who should be in jail. Faciliating sale of controlled substances across state lines, as well as the sale of other illicit services, and was found to be in possession of forged identification.
If that's the hill you want to die on, I'm not stopping you. I'm also not taking you remotely seriously. This isn't some grandmother being busted for selling her pain meds. This was very organised crime. And that's even without getting into other fun facts like attempted murder-for-hire.
posted by Dark Messiah at 8:34 AM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
If that's the hill you want to die on, I'm not stopping you. I'm also not taking you remotely seriously. This isn't some grandmother being busted for selling her pain meds. This was very organised crime. And that's even without getting into other fun facts like attempted murder-for-hire.
posted by Dark Messiah at 8:34 AM on February 6, 2015 [2 favorites]
Selling drugs should not be a crime in the first place, so I I don't see why it's a problem that he went about it in an organised way.
I don't know anything about the other allegations, so perhaps you're right and it's a reasonable thing that he was arrested and jailed. It's hard for me to imagine that they'd have brought the hammer down quite so hard if he hadn't done such a good job illuminating the toothlessness of our current drug-prohibition regime.
posted by Mars Saxman at 10:06 AM on February 6, 2015
I don't know anything about the other allegations, so perhaps you're right and it's a reasonable thing that he was arrested and jailed. It's hard for me to imagine that they'd have brought the hammer down quite so hard if he hadn't done such a good job illuminating the toothlessness of our current drug-prohibition regime.
posted by Mars Saxman at 10:06 AM on February 6, 2015
Selling drugs should not be a crime in the first place, so I I don't see why it's a problem that he went about it in an organised way.
Didn't even go about selling drugs, no? Just "facilitating" which in this case meant running a website and, from what I understand of how Silk Road worked, doing the bitcoin based banking between buyers and sellers. It's being eBay with TOR anonymization and mandating Paypal.
the toothlessness of our current drug-prohibition regime.
Unfortunately it's highly toothy depending on your economic and melanin status.
posted by phearlez at 11:21 AM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Didn't even go about selling drugs, no? Just "facilitating" which in this case meant running a website and, from what I understand of how Silk Road worked, doing the bitcoin based banking between buyers and sellers. It's being eBay with TOR anonymization and mandating Paypal.
the toothlessness of our current drug-prohibition regime.
Unfortunately it's highly toothy depending on your economic and melanin status.
posted by phearlez at 11:21 AM on February 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Didn't even go about selling drugs, no? Just "facilitating" which in this case meant running a website and, from what I understand of how Silk Road worked, doing the bitcoin based banking between buyers and sellers. It's being eBay with TOR anonymization and mandating Paypal.
Well he got a commission on those sales.
Many people can be against the War on Drugs and still consider DPR to be a criminal who should be in jail. Faciliating sale of controlled substances across state lines
Not against all of it sounds like.
I've been defending the SR concept in this thread but only thing promised to a playa is the penitentiary and even a Libertarian kid knows that. I'm really more interested in the SR2 case at this point because there's some unresolved mystery around exactly how they tracked down the server.
posted by atoxyl at 2:38 PM on February 6, 2015
Well he got a commission on those sales.
Many people can be against the War on Drugs and still consider DPR to be a criminal who should be in jail. Faciliating sale of controlled substances across state lines
Not against all of it sounds like.
I've been defending the SR concept in this thread but only thing promised to a playa is the penitentiary and even a Libertarian kid knows that. I'm really more interested in the SR2 case at this point because there's some unresolved mystery around exactly how they tracked down the server.
posted by atoxyl at 2:38 PM on February 6, 2015
The Silk Road might have started as a libertarian experiment, but it was doomed to end as a fiefdom run by pirate kings - "Ulbricht built the Silk Road marketplace from nothing, pursuing both a political dream and his own self-interest. However, in making a market he found himself building a micro-state, with increasing levels of bureaucracy and rule‑enforcement and, eventually, the threat of violence against the most dangerous rule‑breakers. Trying to build Galt’s Gulch, he ended up reconstructing Hobbes’s Leviathan; he became the very thing he was trying to escape. But this should not have been a surprise."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:51 PM on February 20, 2015
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:51 PM on February 20, 2015
« Older The Roundest Pickled Egg | A Prayer For Gluten Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by benzenedream at 9:30 PM on February 4, 2015 [14 favorites]