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

Operator of Silk Road 2.0 Website Charged in Manhattan Federal Court

fbi.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 264 posts

Re: Operator of Silk Road 2.0 Website Charged in Manhattan Federal Court

#71

Post by macrael »

"On or about October 7, 2013, the HSI-UC [the undercover agent] was invited to join a newly created discussion forum on the Tor network, concerning the potential creation of a replacement for the Silk Road 1.0 website. The next day, on or about October 8, 2013, the persons operating the forum gave the HSI-UC moderator privileges, enabling the HSI-UC to access areas of the forum available only to forum staff."

They were compromised from day 1, before the 2.0 site had even launched. I wonder how they managed to be a trusted admin so quickly?

Re: Operator of Silk Road 2.0 Website Charged in Manhattan Federal Court

#72

Post by higherpurpose »

chatmasta wrote: post #64
crazypyro wrote: post #2

I think this is the money quote: "During the Government’s investigation, which was conducted jointly by the FBI and HSI, an HSI agent acting in an undercover capacity (the “HSI-UC”) successfully infiltrated the support staff involved in the administration of the Silk Road 2.0 website, and was given access to private, restricted areas of the site reserved for BENTHALL and his administrative staff. By doing so, the HSI…

This sounds no different than the undercover police, detective work the FBI has been doing since its establishment. Infiltrate the perp, take him down. They used the same tactics on gangs, mobs, etc. Now violent crime is slowing, but they have hoardes of agents trained in these protocols, so they're redirecting energy into catching so called "cybercriminals." A bunch of people who infiltrated the mob are now infitrat…

Unless that's what they want us to think. If it was just this undercover agent, how did they shut down the other unrelated markets?

I think we've learned from the Dread Pirate Roberts case that what FBI says they did to catch these guys is a lie. They caught them some other way - either in an illegal way or through some method they intend to use in the future and don't want to disclose now. Either way, chances are it didn't happen the way they say it did.

Re: Operator of Silk Road 2.0 Website Charged in Manhattan Federal Court

#74

Post by [deleted] »

macrael wrote: post #71

"On or about October 7, 2013, the HSI-UC [the undercover agent] was invited to join a newly created discussion forum on the Tor network, concerning the potential creation of a replacement for the Silk Road 1.0 website. The next day, on or about October 8, 2013, the persons operating the forum gave the HSI-UC moderator privileges, enabling the HSI-UC to access areas of the forum available only to forum staff." They we…

[deleted]

Re: Operator of Silk Road 2.0 Website Charged in Manhattan Federal Court

#75

Post by innguest »

krapp wrote: post #24
openssj wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In which the purpose of the press release (and bust) is revealed: to threaten the public and make an example. The usual stuff you expect out of an upstanding agent of democracy.

Shame on the US government for threatening the public with the enforcement of its own laws.

...when it consistently and unfairly places itself and its cronies above said laws.

Re: Operator of Silk Road 2.0 Website Charged in Manhattan Federal Court

#76

Post by Estragon »

chatmasta wrote: post #58

What are the chances that the FBI set up a number of "copy-cat-silk-road" hidden services, immediately after seizing the original? That would provide them ample opportunity to 1) build a profile of everyone who used them, then 2) shut them down with an intimidating "sting," dampening the desire of potential copy-copy-cats.

If Blake Benthall actually does prison time, I'd say that's extremely unlikely... I suppose the FBI could have been behind the original setup and then sold it to him...

Re: Operator of Silk Road 2.0 Website Charged in Manhattan Federal Court

#77

Post by yourad_io »

duaneb wrote: post #44
eksith wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure. There have been offshore gambling sites (sports, poker etc...) that have been shut down before with the cooperation of local authorities, although not always easily. They may see revenue for local industry as a nice plus, but not so nice as to risk the ire of the U.S. govt. In the end, your allies offshore may only be as loyal as the force they're willing to ignore. And your friends may only be as tr…

With TOR, though, it's very easy to move servers quickly. Who wants to play a foreign game of 'whack a mole'? Authorities will tire quickly of complying with an endless game.,

I'm not sure how this is a whack-a-mole game.

If you run a single-server hidden service, the NSA can track it (unless you think otherwise - tried to initiate discussion here[1]).

Once they track it, they will get your hosting provider to cooperate and before you know it, your server has been imaged and that irrevocable .onion private key is in the authorities' hands. The most you'll see from your end was some downtime, which a cooperative host (an assumption here, granted) would cover up for the FBI (status update: rack/sector/DC failure at XXX).

They can now impersonate your server, MitM you, the works. After that, in order to move, you have to literally move to another onion address.

What you're saying makes sense if there is anyone who habitually rotates servers as a matter of OPSEC, but that sounds like an invitation for disaster.

AFAICT the name of the game isn't whack-a-mole, because when the NSA sees the mole, it will whack it.

It's "bury the mole in the moleyard" - multiple mirrors so as to make locating the actual service very unlikely.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8568667

Re: Operator of Silk Road 2.0 Website Charged in Manhattan Federal Court

#78

Post by chatmasta »

higherpurpose wrote: post #72
chatmasta wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds no different than the undercover police, detective work the FBI has been doing since its establishment. Infiltrate the perp, take him down. They used the same tactics on gangs, mobs, etc. Now violent crime is slowing, but they have hoardes of agents trained in these protocols, so they're redirecting energy into catching so called "cybercriminals." A bunch of people who infiltrated the mob are now infitrat…

Unless that's what they want us to think . If it was just this undercover agent, how did they shut down the other unrelated markets? I think we've learned from the Dread Pirate Roberts case that what FBI says they did to catch these guys is a lie . They caught them some other way - either in an illegal way or through some method they intend to use in the future and don't want to disclose now. Either way, chances are…

Or, they just executed the same plan repeatedly. Clearly most people opening these markets are not as smart as they think they are. I would not be surprised if undercover police tactics succeeded across multiple markets, and the FBI simply timed the shutdowns to coincide. In fact I remember reading an interview with a market founder in cryptonews, where he mentioned the difficulty in finding and trusting support staff. That's all the more reason to listen when the FBI comes knocking, asking to help with support.

Re: Operator of Silk Road 2.0 Website Charged in Manhattan Federal Court

#79

Post by owenmarshall »

LordKano wrote: post #68
msandford wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conspiracy to traffic? Doesn't seem like it. Is it something that makes trafficking easier? Sure. But who did the trafficking? The seller and the buyer. Wire fraud? If it's the sale of something illegal I don't think that suddenly makes it wire fraud. Further, he's not charged with that. The sale is still completed. It's an illegal sale, but not fraud. Fraud would be if someone said they were going to sell you cocain…

Agreed, it sounds more like criminal facilitation than conspiracy. IANAL but I am well read. If I understand correctly, conspiracy requires an intent to break the law. If you do something with the knowledge that someone might be breaking the law but you have no specific knowledge, it's going to be very difficult to make a case for conspiracy. Facilitation is pretty much a given.

> If you do something with the knowledge that someone might be breaking the law but you have no specific knowledge, it's going to be very difficult to make a case for conspiracy.

That's not correct. The conscious avoidance doctrine basically says that you aren't allowed to be an ostrich: deliberately taking steps to shield yourself from knowing about a crime leaves you as liable as having knowledge of the crime.

Additionally, you don't need to know a specific act: just knowing that the site was designed to facilitate drug transactions is enough. This would be easy to prove. Check the code - if Benthall created the categories, which included drugs, he's entered into the conspiracy.

Re: Operator of Silk Road 2.0 Website Charged in Manhattan Federal Court

#80

Post by chatmasta »

Estragon wrote: post #76
chatmasta wrote: post #58

What are the chances that the FBI set up a number of "copy-cat-silk-road" hidden services, immediately after seizing the original? That would provide them ample opportunity to 1) build a profile of everyone who used them, then 2) shut them down with an intimidating "sting," dampening the desire of potential copy-copy-cats.

If Blake Benthall actually does prison time, I'd say that's extremely unlikely... I suppose the FBI could have been behind the original setup and then sold it to him...

Or he's a government agent. After all, who's really verifying he a) exists, b) goes to jail?

Ok, that's enough fearmongering paranoia for me today. See you tomorrow hacker news! :)

Post reply on HN