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

41–50 of 161 posts

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

#41

Post by mrbgty »

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…

The idea that we aren't naturally born anonymous is a little frustrating. We aren't born anonymous to everyone but we're born anonymous to most people we don't have a personal relationship with. Those we have personal relationships with have more reason to not do us harm than some organization on the other side of the world.

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

#42

Post by pfortuny »

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…

There are two different concerns here which I think your abstract setting is mixing, probably involuntarily:

a) Privacy and secrecy are part of normal personal relations. Any means of communication can be used to maintain secret conversations and this is something one should strive for because confidence and trust between individuals cannot exist in a never-private environment.

b) On the other hand, the need for society to regulate contracts is there. A contract is not (has never been, at least in the West) a secret affair: it is something which society recognizes and whose terms can only be enforced if the mutual agreement is in some sense "public" (i.e. if it can be naturally known by society). So secret contracts cannot be lawful and in this I agree with you that secrecy in "civil" matters makes no sense (you would need a "secret police" and/or "secret judges" to enforce contracts, that is a parallel society, which as mafias have proved time and again, is a problem, not a solution).

So privacy and secrecy are natural and necessary for interpersonal non-public (i.e. extra legal) relations. Not so for "public"/"civil"/"contractual"... ones.

Notice that buying and selling is a "contractual" relationship (i.e. a willful, free, interchange of benefits with possible adverse consequences. It is the adverse consequences that require the legal environment and their being "public"/"accountable for").

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

#43

Post by diminoten »

MattyRad wrote: post #23

> 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…

Intra-legal violence is violence otherwise captured by the legal system. Your domestic abuse, your bar fights, most muggings - your clear-cut and attributable crimes that happen within the legal framework of society. The "workflow" here is: commit a crime -> crime is reported or discovered -> perp is charged -> due process -> conviction/acquittal.

Extra-legal violence is violence that exists outside of the law's traditional reach. Your mob hits on other mobsters, your drug dealer getting robbed, gang warfare, etc. This stuff almost never goes through the legal system; how would a drug dealer report what was stolen? This workflow is more like: commit a crime -> get away with crime. Or, commit a crime -> beget more crime as retaliation of previous crime, repeat ad nauseam.

So what the writer is saying is that with black markets come a lot of violence that takes place in that second category listed above, mostly because reporting the violence incriminates the victim.

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

#44

Post by carbocation »

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…

There is a longstanding tradition of pseudonymous public communication. The Internet didn't invent anonymity (though that's unfairly dismissive of your point). Anonymity probably goes back as far as our ability to communicate in written language and probably before then (not that we could have any such record).

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

#45

Post by aeturnum »

GhotiFish wrote: post #22
venus wrote: 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.

Well. I'm not convinced it did, myself. If prohibition didn't happen 1920s for the americans, would Al Capone never of being born? Really these prohibition laws give lowlifes something to fight over, and the fightings dangerous, but who says they wouldn't be fighting anyway? Does it make life more dangerous. Maybe not. Does it make it more dangerous for me? Maybe. edit: Ouch. Looking forward to that rebuttal.

> but who says they wouldn't be fighting anyway?

This is a totally fair question. So, let's say, for the sake of argument, that Al Capone's level of violence had nothing to do with his criminal syndicate. He just liked shooting people.

However, shooting people is expensive, especially given that they employed reasonably advanced weapons (sub-machine guns). So, he's not going to get as many bullets when liquor is legal. Also, though Capone is believed to have killed people, far more people were killed on his orders[0]. Without an unregulated and lucrative source of income, it's hard to see him having the money to hire people to kill others.

No one is saying that, absent the drug war, the cartel's enforcers would be in the peace corps. However, the extremely high street price of drugs finances a level of violence that would not exist otherwise. If you want an example, look at the history of Mexico in the last 20 years and compare it to any other nearby country.

[0]http://history1900s.about.com/od/people/a/Al-Capone.htm

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

#46

Post by epi8 »

bsullivan01 wrote: post #40
ralish wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think you, GP, and the author are in violent agreement. All three of you, in my understanding, have made the same point.

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

#47

Post by epi8 »

jtbigwoo wrote: post #24
BashiBazouk wrote: post #14

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.

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

I'm not doubting, but why?

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

#48

Post by ctb_mg »

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…

This is a very valid question and one worth thinking about. For one side, I would submit the following points for discussion.

Accountability is indeed important for society, but lately it seems governments have been immune to accountability.

It would be nice if we were able to sustain a happy medium on the internet where identity could be known and also have no need to be afraid of persecution for legal actions (aka, being placed on a "watch list").

However, I don't see the world governments heading in that direction. With interest in wide scale surveillance, they are building the framework for a minority-report style pre-crime system.

So it seems we may need to protect ourselves from this using anonymity. I won't mind being accountable for my opinions when the governments themselves become accountable for ignoring "innocent until proven guilty".

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

#49

Post by twrkit »

The whole Drug War is a colossal waste of time and resources. Those who choose to indulge in narcotics will continue to do so, despite the legality or accessibility of their preferred substances. Of course, the fact of the matter is that an entire industrial complex has sprung up to wage this "war;" the DEA, weapons and surveillance equipment manufacturers, and many local and national LEO, among countless others. In short, it's a very Big and profitable business. So despite any logic or rationale for maintaining a "safe" venue to conduct narcotics trade, there will always be resistance from the entrenched lobbyists and business interests.

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

#50

Post by MattyRad »

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…

The issue at hand for "techno-libertarians" is not necessarily about privacy, but rather about life and property.

There are three issues that libertarians will tend to agree are most important, which is usually summarized with being a natural right to life, liberty, and property.

1) The government forces companies to hand over customer information (property).

2) The government forcibly outlaws citizens to engage in certain commerce (property).

3) The government forcibly bars people from consuming goods they want (life).

To greatly summarize these three issues:

1) Whether the data is considered to be owned by the company or ourselves, either way it is private property and should have an extremely high barrier to acquire through a warrant.

2) Free trade is an obviously libertarian principle.

3) You own your body, and you are free to consume unhealthy substances as such, which is a fairly accepted natural right.

Privacy in an of itself is not necessarily a natural right, rather, the data owned by you or a company is considered private property.

Post reply on HN