Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shedding light on the dark web

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 196 posts

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#51

Post by chatmasta »

Cerium wrote: post #6
eatbitseveryday wrote: post #2

Couldn't reverse tracing work? A fed poses as a customer, and uses a PO Box to receive goods, but also registers this in the Fedex, USPS, UPS databases, such that if this address appears anywhere on a package, it is traced to determine the origin. Build a network over time, repeat.

They could build a Physical Onion Router. Send package to a node, which opens it to find a smaller package already addressed to another location. Similar to TOR each hop will increase security at the expense of resource utilization.

Except unlike an encrypted hash, a cardboard box does not offer much protection from ripping it open and seeing what's inside. ;)

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#53

Post by skylark »

mistermann wrote: post #43
dopamean wrote: post #11

Any time I read anything about the illegal drug trade I am struck by how much the industry would change if all drugs were legalized everywhere. So much effort is expended to keep things hidden from law enforcement and other criminals that it adds an incredible amount of friction to the purchasing process for the purchaser and the seller. From the buyer's perspective you now have to go into business with some often un…

> It's really a shitty experience for everyone involved. However, it creates many thousands of very well paid jobs for police, lawyers, prison employees, etc. - you know, the people that create the laws. Long ago I might have considered that there might be some justification for these laws (or anywhere there's rules really), but nowadays when you wonder why "the way something is" is, it's easier to just assume someon…

I find it hard to believe that there's some sort of conspiracy to keep police, lawyers, and prisons funded via laws against selling drugs.

Have you considered that these laws are still in place simply because it's the status quo?

Politicians voting on laws and drafting new ones must ultimately answer to their constituents. While the vast majority of things fly under the radar, "pro-drug" support is enough of a charged issue that supporting drug legalization is guaranteed to be used against you the next time you're running for office.

Like it or not, logic be damned, drugs will continue to be illegal because the majority of Americans do not support drug legalization. The tides are starting to turn in some states on weed, but the average American outside of the most liberal states doesn't even support that. Good luck convincing them to legalize cocaine, ecstasy, LSD, or any "harder" drug.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#54

Post by Torgo »

dopamean wrote: post #11

Any time I read anything about the illegal drug trade I am struck by how much the industry would change if all drugs were legalized everywhere. So much effort is expended to keep things hidden from law enforcement and other criminals that it adds an incredible amount of friction to the purchasing process for the purchaser and the seller. From the buyer's perspective you now have to go into business with some often un…

Any time I read anything about legalizing all drugs I am struck by how that opinion would change if they tried to function with a heroin addiction.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#56

Post by adrusi »

SamChoi wrote: post #48

Didn't realize marijuana was such a big factor on the darkweb. Think of the all the missed taxes!! :(

If you look at the second chart in the article [1] you can see that marijuana is much cheaper online than on the street in the US. A lot of it is coming from legal states and California, where it's cheaper to produce. Street weed in most of the country is usually either grown locally or imported from Mexico, so online prices are often significantly better.

[1]: http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecac...

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#57

Post by DanBC »

darkstar999 wrote: post #55

The chart breaks down marijuana in to "skunk" and "weed". Are these distinct terms that I am unaware of?

When people say "skunk" they mean much stronger, higher THC lower CBD strains.

Whether the stuff they're talking about actually has higher THC or lower CBD is another matter.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#58

Post by philhartmanonic »

idlewords wrote: post #36
OhHeyItsE wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From a public health perspective, Prohibition was a success. Do you count skyrocketing murder rate and gov't-poisoned hooch in your metric for success?

Sure do. It takes a lot of murder and poison to offset a 20% drop in cirrhosis. Read the paper linked below.

Great, and how do you quantify the value of the freedom to live your life the way you want to?

Soa decrease in deaths of cirrhosis is beneficial, presumably as it extends lives. Is the extension of life an inherent benefit? If you lived for 10,000 years in abject misery would that be better than dying in 6 months? Clearly, it's conditional.

Life is complex, every life is unique, so you can safely assume you aren't going to make things better when you try to violently protect people from themselves. If you were arguing about the drop in domestic abuse that'd be one thing, but cirrhosis from alcohol consumption is self-inflicted. Universally falls squarely in the "mind your own business, jack" space.

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#59

Post by delazeur »

skylark wrote: post #53
mistermann wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's really a shitty experience for everyone involved. However, it creates many thousands of very well paid jobs for police, lawyers, prison employees, etc. - you know, the people that create the laws. Long ago I might have considered that there might be some justification for these laws (or anywhere there's rules really), but nowadays when you wonder why "the way something is" is, it's easier to just assume someon…

I find it hard to believe that there's some sort of conspiracy to keep police, lawyers, and prisons funded via laws against selling drugs. Have you considered that these laws are still in place simply because it's the status quo? Politicians voting on laws and drafting new ones must ultimately answer to their constituents. While the vast majority of things fly under the radar, "pro-drug" support is enough of a charge…

It's not a smoky room conspiracy. A quick google search turned up many articles about private prison companies funding lobbying[1], and I expect you will find similar results if you search for police union donations.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/...

Re: Shedding light on the dark web

#60

Post by stonemetal »

jswny wrote: post #39
Cshelton wrote: post #31

Sellers of drugs, will ALWAYS sell drugs, both illegal and legal. Buyers/Users of drugs will ALWAYS buy/use drugs, illegal or legal. It is an interaction between humans of Earth, no government or entity, no system or blocks will ever stop it. Shut down the internet, it will continue. Short of a massive purge of life, drugs will never go away. If you somehow...were able to shut down the "darkweb", it would move into s…

I tend to feel the same way. These types of things are inevitable, you are never going to stop them from happening. However, when debating this point, I have a hard time defending my point when someone else says "so should we just not do anything? Wouldn't that increase the illegal activity? Should we let people buy guns too? Where do you draw the line?" I have to say, I'm not sure what to say about that. If the gove…

First off if it were legal how would there be an increase in illegal activity? There probably would be an increase in drug use if that is what you mean.

The government could still fight it, but it would be a health and human services problem at that point. Which means a lot less high stakes do anything to not get caught crime going on. It could be paid for by taxes on the drugs. There would be fewer deaths from drug overdoses because quality and purity could be regulated. Drugs with little to no long term side effects would probably become popular. Drugs that have harsher side effects and highly addictive properties would probably still be stigmatized because of their effects.

The line would get drawn the same place it does for gambling and alcohol. Occasional use by grownups is OK, if it becomes life impacting then rehab and abstinence is probably best for you.

Post reply on HN