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

My Roommate, the Darknet Drug Lord

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 167 posts

Re: My Roommate, the Darknet Drug Lord

#121

Post by s73v3r »

logfromblammo wrote: post #71
erhardm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't matter. The condition will short-circuit at murder:)

My ethical system considers intent, consequences in specific, consequences in general, economic impact, psychological factors, and next-best alternatives for each actor. Thoughtlessly ordering someone else to commit a murder is definitively worse than ordering someone else to commit a murder after careful and deliberate consideration, presuming all other factors remain equal. In my view, killing someone just because…

In all of those examples, those actions are so far beyond the point of "bad" that one being worse than the other is largely an academic argument, and completely moot.

And he did not know that it was fake. Therefore any idea that he's off the hook because no one got hurt is irrelevant. It could have just as easily been real, and then people would have died because of his actions.

Re: My Roommate, the Darknet Drug Lord

#122

Post by msandford »

s73v3r wrote: post #119
msandford wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "No. And if you come after me, I will just turn you in to the feds." Ok so you're going to turn the other guy in to the feds for what exactly? How do you know this other guy? Why would him turning you in to the feds be a problem, unless you're doing something illegal? DPR: He this guy is doing something bad, arrest him! Feds: How do you know he's doing something bad? DPR: Well I run the Silk Road and he told me tha…

I'm sorry, but that idea that because it exists outside the law, people can't settle disputes with anything other than murder is complete horseshit. They choose to employ violence, and as such, they are completely and 100% responsible for their actions.

> I'm sorry, but that idea that because it exists outside the law, people can't settle disputes with anything other than murder is complete horseshit.

Please explain to me how two criminals who have some sort of dispute -- like say how to disburse the proceeds from a robbery -- have any recourse through the courts. I'm not saying violence in the ONLY answer, but it's definitely the only one that I can think of that doesn't involve them going to jail.

They can't sue because the thing under dispute is an ill-gotten-gain and thus the court wouldn't adjudicate the issue that is for them at hand but instead put them both in jail for stealing.

What are their other choices? Just suck it up and deal with the fact that they got screwed? Sure, but then the next time a robbery comes around, everyone knows that they can screw you and you'll just suck it up. Yay, free labor! That won't end badly for you will it?

Maybe they can pre-negotiate a contract that specifies how a certain sum of money will be distributed but which doesn't specify how it comes to be? Why would a law-abiding person write such a contract? Take them to court and you might win, but the police might investigate and again you're both in jail.

I'm not saying that there is no possible alternative ever, but your simply asserting that something is true and then providing absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up that claim isn't terribly convincing.

Re: My Roommate, the Darknet Drug Lord

#123

Post by ilyanep »

dhimes wrote: post #83
forgottenpass wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Godwin's law is rubbish. The Nazis are a strongly and consistently disavowed extreme group. They're a perfect tool when you need to cut across cultures and remove any chance of ambiguity. Their actions so despicable that comparing X performing Y1 to the Nazis performing Y2 is a good tool for reasoning about Y itself and the difference between Y1 and Y2.

That's why Godwin's law is pretty much not rubbish. Compare to, say, Himes' law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Corvairs approaches 1" This law, as best as I can determine, is rubbish.

I mean, have you read Unsafe at Any Speed? :P

Re: My Roommate, the Darknet Drug Lord

#124

Post by s73v3r »

msandford wrote: post #122
s73v3r wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but that idea that because it exists outside the law, people can't settle disputes with anything other than murder is complete horseshit. They choose to employ violence, and as such, they are completely and 100% responsible for their actions.

> I'm sorry, but that idea that because it exists outside the law, people can't settle disputes with anything other than murder is complete horseshit. Please explain to me how two criminals who have some sort of dispute -- like say how to disburse the proceeds from a robbery -- have any recourse through the courts. I'm not saying violence in the ONLY answer, but it's definitely the only one that I can think of that d…

"Please explain to me how two criminals who have some sort of dispute -- like say how to disburse the proceeds from a robbery -- have any recourse through the courts. "

I never said they had recourse through the courts. I said they're adults, and are perfectly capable of settling disputes among themselves without resorting to violence. If they choose to resort to violence, that's entirely their fault, and no one else can be blamed for that.

Re: My Roommate, the Darknet Drug Lord

#125

Post by msandford »

s73v3r wrote: post #124
msandford wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm sorry, but that idea that because it exists outside the law, people can't settle disputes with anything other than murder is complete horseshit. Please explain to me how two criminals who have some sort of dispute -- like say how to disburse the proceeds from a robbery -- have any recourse through the courts. I'm not saying violence in the ONLY answer, but it's definitely the only one that I can think of that d…

"Please explain to me how two criminals who have some sort of dispute -- like say how to disburse the proceeds from a robbery -- have any recourse through the courts. " I never said they had recourse through the courts. I said they're adults, and are perfectly capable of settling disputes among themselves without resorting to violence. If they choose to resort to violence, that's entirely their fault, and no one else…

According to that logic we don't need courts, police, government, etc at all. I think it's a great idea, but practically speaking it's not awesome.

I like the idea of a microkernel government better than the monolithic thing that we currently have, where you can subscribe to police and fire and whatever. I'd prefer that the government mostly provide courts and a system by which other areas of natural monopoly are better managed (like roads, utilities, etc). But to suggest that we don't need a government at all is pretty radical.

If you can't see that "I said they're adults, and are perfectly capable of settling disputes among themselves without resorting to violence" leads DIRECTLY to the government isn't really necessary, then I don't know what to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

Re: My Roommate, the Darknet Drug Lord

#126

Post by vectorpush »

msandford wrote: post #122
s73v3r wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but that idea that because it exists outside the law, people can't settle disputes with anything other than murder is complete horseshit. They choose to employ violence, and as such, they are completely and 100% responsible for their actions.

> I'm sorry, but that idea that because it exists outside the law, people can't settle disputes with anything other than murder is complete horseshit. Please explain to me how two criminals who have some sort of dispute -- like say how to disburse the proceeds from a robbery -- have any recourse through the courts. I'm not saying violence in the ONLY answer, but it's definitely the only one that I can think of that d…

> Please explain to me how two criminals who have some sort of dispute -- like say how to disburse the proceeds from a robbery -- have any recourse through the courts.

They don't, but that's their own fault. If your life of crime has forced you into such a predicament that murder-for-hire is a more viable option than dealing with the authorities, you only have yourself to blame. The reason that crime pays so well is because criminals take advantage of opportunities that the rest of society agrees to abstain from for the sake of maintaining order and mutual security; if you decide to exploit those opportunities for the sake of enriching yourself, you shouldn't expect society to feel any sympathy for the fact that you one day felt forced to employ violence in order to protect your criminal investments.

Re: My Roommate, the Darknet Drug Lord

#127

Post by kurotetsuka »

bduerst wrote: post #73
Zikes wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't a person make a point that just happens to involve Nazis without someone invoking "Godwin's Law"? It's like just because someone slapped a label on a thing we're not allowed to do the thing anymore. We need an "Anti-Godwin's Law" that states no mention of Nazis or Hitler can be made on the internet without someone inevitably invoking Godwin's Law.

Zike's Law: Whenever Nazi's are mentioned on the internet, someone inevitably mentions Godwin's Law.

Is there a law for mentioning Zike's law? (kinda serious)

Re: My Roommate, the Darknet Drug Lord

#128

Post by driverdan »

Back in my days of credit card fraud and identity theft no one knew what I was doing. I simply refused to talk about what I did to earn money with friends. It was kind of fun to make it like a game.

It was a little sketchy but I never seemed like a sketchy guy so maybe they suspected porn or something like that. It's not hard to have an online life that's different from the real world, that you hide from everyone.

Re: My Roommate, the Darknet Drug Lord

#129

Post by aianus »

krapp wrote: post #110
aianus wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Existing drug cartels have a great competitive advantage in violence, intimidation, and smuggling. None of those skills are particularly useful in competing with anonymous rivals on Silk Road.

There is still the violence involved in production and distribution, though.

For some drugs, sure. For the group of chemistry students cooking up a batch of MDMA or LSD inside the US and selling it directly to consumers through USPS, not so much.

Re: My Roommate, the Darknet Drug Lord

#130

Post by dbbolton »

simplicio wrote: post #62
arca_vorago wrote: post #43

The main thing I would like to know is why did he hire the lawyer he did? His defense basically sold him up the river, as can be seen from the scathing comments from the judge. Is it still a fair trial if your lawyer is incompetent?

It's possible to get a re-trial on the grounds of incompetent defence, but the bar is really high. And since Ulbricht is still using the same lawyer for his appeals, it doesn't look like he's trying that route. His defense did seem pretty poor, but given the amount of evidence against him, its not really clear what a "good defense" would've looked like.

From the Ars op-ed, it sounded like his best chance would have been to file a legal declaration of interest in the Iceland server and proceed to challenge its discovery- a course of action that the judge hinted at but that his attorney refused.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/op-ed-ross-ulbric...

Post reply on HN