Live data from Hacker News

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

theatlantic.com

31–40 of 161 posts

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

#31

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 think you've possibly misinterpreted the argument the author is making. My interpretation wasn't that he was being critical of the FBI for shutting it down; of course they had to shut it down. Rather, the criticism is of the laws and policies that are in place which dictate that the FBI had to shut it down in the first place.

As the article notes, law enforcement has been given a "hopeless task", where if you subscribe to the view that Silk Road actually made buying and selling drugs safer (as I do), shutting it down has made the whole business less safe at direct risks to citizens of many countries. As you note, the FBI had to do this, but it's a huge indictment of our drug policy that this is the action they are compelled to take given the result.

Which brings us back to the war on drugs...

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

#32
post #30

Did Silk Road even put a slight dent in street drug sellers in the first place? I would be surprised if street level sellers and buyers are internet savvy enough to use a service like this. SR looks more like the ideal system for savvy college students and young techs to specifically avoid the street level market.

Street sellers get their supply from people up the food chain who are savvy enough to use SR. I've not sure who you think the sellers on SR are, but they weren't mom and pops. As for the buyers, yes most likely white collar addicts.

I would think up the food chain deals would not have taken place on the street in the first place. More replacing the house level deal with SR.

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

#33

Better to ask, has the war on drugs made the world a more dangerous place?

Yes. Some senior police officers here in the UK realise this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24320717

Around the world, see: leap.cc (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). However, this voice is still soundly in the minority. I remember when the pot decriminalization ballot question came up in Massachusetts. Law enforcement came out loudly against.

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

#34
post #30

Did Silk Road even put a slight dent in street drug sellers in the first place? I would be surprised if street level sellers and buyers are internet savvy enough to use a service like this. SR looks more like the ideal system for savvy college students and young techs to specifically avoid the street level market.

Street sellers get their supply from people up the food chain who are savvy enough to use SR. I've not sure who you think the sellers on SR are, but they weren't mom and pops. As for the buyers, yes most likely white collar addicts.

I've never done drugs in my life, but most drug users using SR were not addicts. They were just drug users.

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

#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 principles. I can also understand a society guaranteeing a right to privacy in limited circumstances: crimes affecting children are one obvious example, records of education and medical treatment are another. In each such situation, the benefits, harms and impact on the rights of the public and the individual have been weighed.

But an anonymous free-for-all exchange being a natural right? We aren't born anonymous. In the "state of nature," without government, we are in no way anonymous. The fact that the internet sometimes allows us to be is in fact a very artificial circumstance that society has allowed to happen. Whether we like it or not, governments are ultimately the overseers that permit networking infrastructure comprising the internet to be built. That isn't some natural right any more than building a nuclear weapon in my backyard is a natural right. Society has weighed the pros and cons and decided that this particular set of technologies is on the whole good. That it might in fact want to limit the level of anonymity on the network seems reasonable, in the same way that making people put license plates on their cars is reasonable.

I'm not supporting the idea of a government ID to access the internet (although some first-world countries already require some level of this), or nationwide surveillance a la China or the NSA. Anonymity no doubt has societal benefit, in that it has fostered great works of creativity (from Mark Twain down through Anonymous). Unfortunately, society depends on accountability, and accountability and anonymity are competing principles in the construction of a just society. Neither of them are natural rights on their own.

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

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, but to honest the Silk Road hitman business is probably like 10,000x smaller than the drug business - maybe more.

My understanding is that Silk Road did not have a hitman business. I remember the site laying out explicit rules such that "nothing may be sold that could be used to hurt another human being." I believe that was the phrasing anyway. I that made sense to me, as it was inline with DPR's philosophies. However, my peers have said he had another site for stuff like that. Maybe they're mistaken? Anyway, I know that stuff w…

From Wikipedia:

The site's terms of service had said that they prohibited the sale of "anything who's [sic] purpose is to harm or defraud."[15] This included child pornography, stolen credit cards, assassinations and weapons of mass destruction.[22][25]

And:

A sister site called 'The Armory' sold weapons (primarily guns) during 2012, but was shut down due to a lack of demand.[26][27]

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

#37
post #11
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there is anyone who believes - really believes - it has not. The war on drugs is kind of this diorama encapsulation of everything that is wrong with our politics, media, and society.

I suppose that's a rhetorical wondering. There's plenty of people who think the government can do no wrong, even here on HN.

Most of what the government does is wrong, or at least terribly inefficient, so the less they do the better.

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

#38

> Extra-legal violence is often a part of black markets. Curious turn of phrase. Extra-legal violence meaning "violence outside of the government," which implies that there is intra-legal violence, "violence within the government," which may be referring to how the government coerces its citizens to not transact drugs, by means of violence (that is, the government will arrest/hurt you if you do not comply), and that…

It means that for black markets transactions, which are made illegal by the state and thus impossible to discuss in the open, more peaceful ways of settlement (e.g. arbitration) are not available.

This implies that instead of a doctrine of proportionate response, you end up with a binary system where you either get away with petty theft until you don't, because the guy you steal from has had enough and wants to end you.

In concretu: If Silk Road was legal, the owner would have reacted with a lawsuit in the court system. It's not, so he had to resort to violence.

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

#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, wars aren't either?

And theres no way sites like Silk Road aren't inevitable. Its a more attractive approach to being a street dealer and how many street dealers are there in the world?

I'd imagine in another decade one of the thousands of SR copy cats will have (likely accidentally) made all of the right decisions with respect to anonymity and be the defacto online drug hub.

Reminds of the opening scene of Layer Cake: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5tzSks5lTI

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

#40
post #31

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 think you've possibly misinterpreted the argument the author is making. My interpretation wasn't that he was being critical of the FBI for shutting it down; of course they had to shut it down. Rather, the criticism is of the laws and policies that are in place which dictate that the FBI had to shut it down in the first place. As the article notes, law enforcement has been given a "hopeless task", where if you subsc…

Silk Road actually made buying and selling drugs safer (as I do), shutting it down has made the whole business less safe at direct risks to citizens of many countries

I got his point correctly, that's why I said it isn't up to the FBI to choose a safer way for people to buy/sell drugs. That it's not their mission. Congress of course can change the laws

Post reply on HN