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

Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 161 posts

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#121

Post by john_b »

bsullivan01 wrote: post #21

Stupid question and a stupid argument. Buying /selling drugs is illegal, so is buying /selling fake docs etc so why would anyone expect FBI to let such a service operate? Especially when sales numbers reach $1+ Billion and when the owner gives Forbes interviews saying FBI can't catch him? Let's get back to basics: FBI is supposed to enforce the laws. They do have some leeway in prioritizing, but a $1.2 Billion market…

I wonder what the size of the combined Colorado+Washington marijuana marketplace is. Maybe not $1.2 billion, but I'd bet it's pretty sizable, and the DoJ decided not to enforce federal law there.

The main difference in my eyes is that the DoJ is ultimately not worried about Colorado or Washington doing something "crazy" and legalizing all drugs, because they're part of the U.S. and ultimately dependent on the federal government. Silk Road was independent and sizable, and thus a threat.

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#122

Post by smacktoward »

manicbovine wrote: post #94
pak wrote: post #35

Here's a question for the techno-libertarians stepping up to say the government has no right to shut down sites like Silk Road. Where do you derive this supposed natural right for anonymity on the internet? Life, liberty, freedom from discrimination, due process--these things I understand, and there are well supported philosophical frameworks (rule utilitarian, Kantian, libertarian etc.) for deriving them from first…

But the Silk Road wasn't truly anonymous because buyers had to disclose their address to at least one person. It's surprising that so many people were willing to send their addresses to anonymous criminals who could, at any time, turn into DEA informants. Furthermore, vendors must mail the package; seeing as how it's not terribly hard to see where packages come from, many vendors are probably vulnerable to simple sur…

> the Silk Road wasn't truly anonymous because buyers had to disclose their address to at least one person.

Did they really? I never used Silk Road so I can't say from experience, but it seems like it'd be more likely that they had to disclose an address, not necessarily their address. Like, "ship it to this P.O. Box" would qualify as disclosing an address, without necessarily giving up their actual place of residence.

If Silk Road (or sellers using Silk Road to connect with buyers) was actually verifying addresses and then requiring people to post their real, legal place of residence, that's just... wow. I'm trying to imagine how dumb you would have to be to agree to that when you know what you're about to do is illegal. Pretty dumb!

EDIT: Though now I'm wondering, if the DEA were able to track a drug transaction back to a P.O. box, how hard it would be for them to get the name and legal address of the person who took it out. Would they need a warrant? Are there anonymous mailbox services?

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#123

Post by nazgulnarsil »

bsullivan01 wrote: post #99
ryanSrich wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because shutting down a service where the majority of exchange is conducted with an adequate amount of peace only forces such exchange into streets where volence is often unavoidable.

Fine, FBI should let me smuggle all the Colombian cocaine through NJ/NY ports so the violence along the Mexico border is eliminated.

If it leads to a net increase in QALYs yes.

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#124

Post by princess3000 »

epi8 wrote: post #47
jtbigwoo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Just requiring the use of tor prevented 95% of the population from using SR.

I'm not doubting, but why?

There were several obstacles to using SR, each of which would have been difficult or frightening to overcome when the alternative is doing transactions in person with cash. You needed to understand TOR (which, while not especially difficult to use in general, is harder than opening Chrome and going to Amazon), you needed to understand and obtain BTC (either mining them or purchasing them, which was generally somewhat difficult given that you couldn't use credit cards or paypal or other simple payment methods), and then you had to figure out PGP for sending your information to the vendor.

It's all definitely doable and none of it really requires much technical knowledge but there's definitely some friction that I assume would intimidate a fair amount of people.

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#125

Post by stcredzero »

ferdo wrote: post #100
tptacek wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have also traded the liberty of selling contaminated meat for the security of minimizing deaths due to foodborne pathogens. That trade seems to have worked out well. People have also traded the liberty of people able to discard carcinogenic industrial waste wherever they please for the security of the world's most reliable potable water delivery systems. That trade seems to have worked out well. He's right, an…

> the liberty of selling contaminated meat That's not liberty. That's criminal behavior that stems from criminal thinking. If government has any legitimate function at all, it's to prevent injustice from criminals and other predators. When government becomes the seat of criminality and predation, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? > He's right, and you're wrong. I parse this as, "I agree with him, not you" as these are a…

> That's criminal behavior that stems from criminal thinking.

There's a problem with how you define "criminal" here. Before the release of various chemicals into groundwater was recognized as harmful and his was taken into account in the formulation of laws and regulations, it was perfectly legal.

In many such instances, where harmful behaviors were not recognized then subsequently made illegal, there were many people who claimed they weren't aware they were doing anything wrong.

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#126

Post by ryanSrich »

bsullivan01 wrote: post #99
ryanSrich wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because shutting down a service where the majority of exchange is conducted with an adequate amount of peace only forces such exchange into streets where volence is often unavoidable.

Fine, FBI should let me smuggle all the Colombian cocaine through NJ/NY ports so the violence along the Mexico border is eliminated.

If it reduced the net amount of violence? absolutely. Look, People are going to do drugs. Why not provide a peaceful community that harbors responsible consumption instead of adopting a puritanical view that only attempts to make matters worse?

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#127

Post by dwaltrip »

mentos wrote: post #39

If we supplant all street markets for drugs with online ones, will we be trading drug/gang/gun related death with a higher incidence of drug related deaths from overdose/drug abuse? I'd imagine there would be net less deaths in a world where Silk Roads were allowed to exist. Thats not to say that drugs should be made legal, but we shouldn't wage a 'war' on them. I know drugs aren't safe but the last time I checked, w…

I know drugs aren't safe

All I can do is sigh when I read statements like this.

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#128

Post by ferdo »

tptacek wrote: post #105
ferdo wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the liberty of selling contaminated meat That's not liberty. That's criminal behavior that stems from criminal thinking. If government has any legitimate function at all, it's to prevent injustice from criminals and other predators. When government becomes the seat of criminality and predation, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? > He's right, and you're wrong. I parse this as, "I agree with him, not you" as these are a…

"That's not liberty, that's criminal behavior" is a no-true-scotsman argument.

No, it's thinking based in classic American political philosophy[1], not a worn-out internet meme.

[1] "Vices Are Not Crimes" by Lysander Spooner

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#129

Post by ferdo »

chc wrote: post #104
ferdo wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the liberty of selling contaminated meat That's not liberty. That's criminal behavior that stems from criminal thinking. If government has any legitimate function at all, it's to prevent injustice from criminals and other predators. When government becomes the seat of criminality and predation, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? > He's right, and you're wrong. I parse this as, "I agree with him, not you" as these are a…

> That's not liberty. That's criminal behavior that stems from criminal thinking. You seem to be using an idiosyncratic definition of either "liberty" or "criminal," because this seems to be tautological by the normal definitions. Something being criminal means your liberty to indulge in that thing has been taken away. So you could say this about any behavior — if you are at liberty to do it, it's not criminal, and i…

> if you are at liberty to do it, it's not criminal, and if it's a crime, you are not at liberty to do it.

I perceive it elsewise. If someone abuses their liberty to commit fraud or violence, then they're a criminal. Criminals, by definition, seek to use fraud or force to get their way.

Not all things deemed illegal by the State are crimes by any definition except the State's if they have an interest in regulating some form of human behavior or interaction.

Re: Did Shutting Down Silk Road Make the World a More Dangerous Place?

#130

Post by ferdo »

manicbovine wrote: post #115
ferdo wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the liberty of selling contaminated meat That's not liberty. That's criminal behavior that stems from criminal thinking. If government has any legitimate function at all, it's to prevent injustice from criminals and other predators. When government becomes the seat of criminality and predation, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? > He's right, and you're wrong. I parse this as, "I agree with him, not you" as these are a…

> That's not liberty. That's criminal behavior that stems from criminal thinking. If government has any legitimate function at all, it's to prevent injustice from criminals and other predators. I think you're missing a fine point here. You've already said that contaminated meat is criminal, presumably because it's very dangerous. Are bath salts very dangerous? Meth? Low quality meth with contaminants? How should we p…

> Do you want to live in a world where buying a simple OTC sleep pill at Walgreen's exposes you to the risk of ingesting heroin or some other decidedly narcotic substance?

I'd prefer to live in a world where I could choose to use any medicine I wish to use.

It's the liberty/security thing all over again. I prefer the insecurity of liberty to the security of having an overseer. My opinion has always been in the minority through all of history, btw.

Post reply on HN