I just wish the prosecutors and investigators didn't rely on so many questionable and in some cases possibly illegal tactics to bring him down. It really just makes him look more innocent.
As notorious as he was ( and as bad as he was at online security) the us government shouldn't be having so much trouble to prove their case (assuming their allegations are correct)
Guilty of breaking non-sense, victim-less laws. Laws that restrict usage of non-addictive mind-altering substances that are much less harmful than other, legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco, medical drugs). Laws that shouldn't even be on the books! Laws that cause millions of dollars of damage and thousands of deaths each year. Laws that power organized crime.
The drug laws.
I totally support him, and I hope he comes out a free man, albeit his business will probably be ruined.
I agree with your general point, but SR was being used for all kinds of things including selling Cocaine and Heroin (and also for not selling drugs but services). Those are very addictive drugs by almost any definition. Fine if you want to argue they are less harmful than, say, alcohol, but they are definitely addictive. Do not allow your point to be weakened by stating something that is clearly incorrect.
Not that I necessarily doubt the veracity of this claim but you should probably point to a better looking graphic than that. Where did you even find it?
As the comic says, he can't see the difference between using cocaine, and taking everything you own to the back yard and burning it then giving your house away.
Addiction isn't that simple. Would you argue that nicotine is not addictive? I've tried several tobacco products and am not addicted but that does not prove that nicotine does not have addictive properties. I drink alcohol and when it's not available I don't miss it. Is it more or less addictive than tobacco?
There is a nice description of the risk of cocaine dependence on Wikipedia.
Drugs aren't addictive. People are either more or less prone to forming habits around activities depending on their own brain structure and chemistry.
No drug is addictive. Addiction is a weasel word to try and shift the blame of habit forming away from the person and onto the activity.
Is the beach fun? Some people find it fun, they go as much as possible. I don't find it fun. Can we then say "well, fun is not that simple. would you argue hiking is not fun? I've tried hiking and I don't hike all the time but that does not prove hiking does not have fun properties. I go to the beach and when it's not available I don't miss it. Is the beach more or less fun than hiking?"?
No drug is addictive just as no activity is fun. A person will feel fun or will form a habit around an activity depending on their predisposition to do so, based on brain chemistry.
Cocaine only manages to convert 4% of the people that try it. That means only 4% of people are prone to forming habits around Cocaine. What percentage of people are prone to forming habits around watching sports? Should watching sports be considered addictive and become illegal, if more than 4% of people form habits around it?
Fair enough, I always go back to something a high school teacher mentioned when these types of arguments come up. Martin Luther King Jr. broke the law to make a point, to fight injustice, to "stick it to the man." But MLK unequivocally and publicly broke those laws; he made the statement 'these are unjust laws and they need to be changed' and suffered the punishment for breaking those laws, as determined by a court of law, mitigated by public outcry. Illegally copying and selling movies because you think copyright law is bullshit, as an example, is not living up to MLK's method, it's having your cake and eating it too. You think a law is unjust, fight the law, don't break it and try to get away with it. That makes you, at best, little better than those in organized crime. And, at the end of the day, if you've made tons of money off of the crime, and you stand to make more if the law is repealed, it really waters down your moral/ethical argument.
> "In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
You claim:
> You think a law is unjust, fight the law, don't break it and try to get away with it.
So you and MLK are claiming that a non-Jew in Nazi Germany who violates legislation by helping a Jew is morally culpable unless they do it publicly?
Seems pretty questionable, and I even agree with the strict Kantian maxim of not lying to the murderer at the door!
Perhaps you and MLK are confusing a strategy with morality. Perhaps it is strategically valuable to violate unjust legislation openly and suffer the consequences. That shouldn't mean that it is morally wrong to violate them in secret.
To me, it seems like there are two claims that are being tied together unnecessarily. 1) one has no obligation to obey unjust legislation 2) one has an obligation to disobey it openly to bring public awareness of the unjustness and increase likelihood of reform.
To me, you're just as culpable for not doing #2 whether or not you do #1. In other words, if you're morally culpable for not violating unjust legislation in public, then you bear that culpability whether or not you violate the legislation in private or not, and violating unjust legislation in private entails no culpability on its own.
[edit: I completely rewrote when I realized MLK really did say that]
When he'll be charged of that and proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and when the only money taken from him will be what he earned with the above activities, I'll completely support the charges/convictions.
Really? You're willing to post publicly that you don't mind him having attempted to kill people to keep his kingpin status? That you still support him?
I don't know where you get that from. They don't have proof that anyone died, and perhaps no one did. That doesn't mean attempting a hit is any less heinous.
Compared with the crimes of the entity actually mounting the prosecution, everything he was alleged to have done is at worst a misdemeanor.
But you will never get a sociopathic state worshiping authoritarian to admit they don't have the moral high ground. Letalone that their treasured institutions are practically identical to the terrorist organisations that they say they exist to protect the innocent from.
> Religious zealots always get mad when facts ruin their ideological narratives.
Couldn't have said it better myself. You would do well to consider your own criticism. I will not be holding my breath waiting for the penny to drop for you, though. You have that self assured idiocy I instantly recognise from hackneyed talking heads spinning nonsense about topics they don't grasp purely to make those more questioning abandon their pesky skepticism and critical analysis about all things conventional.
Keep it up, your attacks serve merely to convince me I'm on the right path.
Silk Road had sections for items whose sole and explicit purpose was to harm others for profit.
I understand that you are unwilling to admit this (instead trying to make this an argument about something other than SR), but he did.
I find it completely unsurprising that you are incapable of admitting this.
p.s. there is a lot of research indicating that extremists become more strident when presented with facts that undermine their ideology. As such, your final sentence is completely predictable.
I admitted it in my first response. I said it was a misdemeanor if he were guilty of everything he had allegedly done relative to the actions of the prosecuting entity. If you were right and I were claiming SR was some pure bastion of light and holiness I would instead have said he was completely innocent.
My point was the relative culpability of the two actors in question. You're not presenting any new facts, you're just sounding off on the righteousness of the state without consideration to the crimes on that rap sheet to which I have taken exception. It is you who are doubling down on your idiocy absent understanding of the actual point being made.
> you will never get a sociopathic state worshiping authoritarian to admit they don't have the moral high ground
If you're willing to post this level of stupidity then just come out with "OBAMA IS HITLER" without mincing words so we can tell you're deluded and ignore your posts.
Which is presumably the intention of the fanfare around the smears - pollute the jury pool as much as possible to avoid the inconvenience of people making a decision based on the facts or evidence presented in court; get out the jury deliberations quickly, just go for whatever knee-jerk guilty feeling you got when you read the headlines about how evil the defendant is; don't bother reading any detail or anything that might hurt your brain and destroy your prejudices !
Despite my reservations, the US would be better served if it had contempt of court laws like England which specifically prohibit discussion of any details of court cases prior to them being heard precisely in order to stop this sort of situation happening.
Pollute the jury pool? If they bring in 100 potential jurors maybe one might have some basic knowledge about Bitcoin if they're lucky. A few might recall hearing about it on the nightly news once. Chances are none will have heard anything about "the Dread Pirate Roberts".
Guilty... interesting word. Guilty of what? Under which jurisdiction? By whose measure? The media's? Yours? I assume you'd like a tarring and feathering? Shouldn't you also be talking about the state's guilt for using "possibly illegal" tactics, as I'd say that sticking false charges on someone for murder is a damn sight worse than being an intermediary in an illicit marketplace.
Hell, why aren't they going after banks for providing cash, which is an anonymous "currency" used on the illegal drug marketplaces known as "the park" and "behind the nursery school"?
I think the man deserves respect for sticking his neck out and doing something that's sparked fundamental discourse on drug policy.
Guilty of violating the USC Drug Kingping Act amongst others. Guilty of running an $80 million narcotics ring. Guilty of murder for hire. Guilty under the law as written.
You may believe him innocent by appeal to natural law, or un-prosecutable due to the Fourth Amendment, and on the latter you may be right. But from a moral standpoint, "guilty" is definitely the right word.
People are well within their right to believe he is guilty without waiting for a trial. People are well within their right to continue to believe he is guilty even if he is found not guilty - the standards of evidence and requirements to find someone guilty in a court of law are on purpose stringent on the basis that it is worse to imprison someone unjustly than let some criminals go free.
There's a vast gap from believing someone is guilty without waiting for a trial, to advocating the repeal of the rule of law.
As for your statement unless someone has presented evidence and accusations founded in something more than thin air, your example is not in any way equivalent.
But the evidence and accusations are founded on nothing more than thin air until they are proven in a court of law. If we presume guilt until innocence - why even bother with a criminal justice system? Should we just revert to stoning people on the presumption of guilt?
While, yes, folks are free to assume guilt of others, it's an abominable thing to do, as all it does is play straight into the hands of those who would control criminal justice through their media mouthpieces.
No, they're based upon a detailed explanation of the evidence of the state, given to a Grand Jury, who determines whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. That document is available publicly as an indictment.
Some indictments are bogus, some are solid. This one is solid. Also, since we're not lynching anybody that makes us at least slightly better than a lynch mob.
(P.S. we need a law like Godwin's for lynch mob references.)
> If we presume guilt until innocence - why even bother with a criminal justice system?
Someone believing he is guilty outside a court of law does not cause him to get thrown in prison. That is why we bother with a criminal justice system, with specific standards.
> it's an abominable thing to do
It's the human thing to do. We all do it. You too, no matter how much you may want to pretend you don't judge. It is a fine thing to try to withhold judgement, but we are not even capable of fully preventing it.
In fact, you are expressing a great deal of judgement about people on the basis of lack of evidence in this very thread:
> It makes you no better than a lynch mob.
If you seriously don't see the difference between holding a belief, without making any statement about how certain you are that it is correct, and going out with the intent of subjecting someone to violence on the basis of that belief, then you seriously need to think through your thought process.
An indictment is handed down by a grand jury of ordinary people based on the presentation of facts. It's not just an accusation lobbed on the internet. Court systems should presume innocent until guilt is proven, but bystanders on the internet are totally allowed to speculate based on their gut feelings.
In most jurisdictions the prosecutor entirely controls whether someone is indicted. The prosecutor has the sole ability to present fact and evidence to the grand jury. There is no defense attorney allowed to speak. Thus the common saying amoung prosecutors that they could "indict a ham sandwich for the murder of a pig."
But while the act of being indicted means very little the evidence it forces the prosecution to produce is essential to the defendant.
The documentation produced by the indictment contains testimony, evidence, and large portions of the investigation. It's almost always the defense's first target of attack. However, in this case, it appears very solid for the prosecution.
If I were Ulbricht, I would hammer at the potential Fourth Amendment violation. It is still unclear how the FBI located and imaged Silk Road's servers.
He's put filed motions, but his lawyers never did the investigatory legwork needed to win. Winning such a motion requires a very tight focus on the particularities of the case, and so one can see the smallest of violations, like tiny pinpricks of sun through a brick wall. Then you take one of these pinpricks, and you turn it into a defense.
I would ask, in no particular order:
How exactly did the the FBI get the images of the Silk Road servers?
What is the timeline of the various events in the investigation leading up to Ubricht's arrest?
Did the gmail screen name lead them to the Stack Overflow post which led to the MLAT, which led to the server?
Or did this, as they said later, somehow "expose" the Silk Road IP, and back track the rest of the evidence.
Were any other intelligence agencies involved?
Was any form of backbone collection use to reveal the SR IP?
Mainly I would do this, because if he doesn't win a Fourth Amendment motion to dismiss he's going to jail for a very very long time.
How do you know what a child molester looks like? Have you seen many of them? Are you friends with them? Your comment is highly suspicious, I think we better take you in for questioning.
"But from a moral standpoint, "guilty" is definitely the right word."
Morals are subjective, I realize that you've claimed to be speaking for yourself only; but with a comment such as that I have a hard time believing it.
>There's a field of study called Ethics that would disagree with you.
And the field called Metaethics with which I am referring to.
Before we go any further I would warn you against assuming anything that I am not saying; I admit to (drastically) simplifying my position in the form of a three word statement - in response to a statement of equal simplicity - but the way in which you are issuing a blanket (and hostile) denial of all of the implications not addressed does not imply that you are reading with the sort of charitable mindset required to update your opinion. With that said;
If you would actually like a source for my claim I would encourage you to read the metaethics sequence on lesswrong(1); many articles of which summarize the discussion (which I am actively avoiding by linking to it instead) presented by both sides regarding this topic.
I believe it would also be worthwhile for you to read the sequence on the difference between belief, and belief in belief (or the map and territory, respectively); for you appear to have an issue understanding that just because you have never heard of this viewpoint that it is novel, when rather it has been covered to a great extent - an extent to which you are clearly ignorant.
Also if you are attempting to conjure an argument around the definition of subjectivity please leave it at the door, it adds nothing to the discussion that couldn't be addressed with simple charitable reading.
That's a lot to read, so I'll take my time, but I'm always suspicious of arguments that can't be presented succinctly, for I have my own biases.
Would you care to at least elucidate on what you mean by "Morals are subjective" so I know if I even disagree with you?
I don't believe morals come from somewhere or that they can be made universally acceptable. I just think that between two humans, if one does something to the other, then the other will think they're justified in doing that same thing to the one. And when that happens, a third person watching the incident will adapt their behavior (or stay the same) according to the outcome of the interaction. Based on that, and using reason, we can find some core behavioral preferences that we can call morals, that passes the tests of doing and being done to, and of watching others do and reacting by changing one's behavior.
I'm not asking you to summarize the discussion, just give me the meat of the main point in one sentence, if you will. There are no morals because...? Or there can be no morals because...? Or people will never agree because...?
I'm saying he's guilty, not a court. It's one man's opinion, not a finding of fact or law.
The fact pattern isn't really in dispute here. Do you really deny he performed the acts of which he is accused?
EDIT due to reply limit: Fine, its your opinion that I'm a child molester, but since you can't enforce it, I have little reason to care.
In the instant case, I am perfectly capable of examining an indictment and concluding as to its likely veracity. It doesn't make the person legally guilty, but in my personal unbinding and most modest opinion, morally so.
Fortunately for us, you're not a judge/prosecutor and fortunately for the accused, "guilty until proven innocent" isn't law but merely a song by Jay-Z.
The options aren't "innocent until proven guilty" or "guilty until proven innocent" - there's also "what is the evidence that I've seen telling me is most likely so far?" Actions based on this should be heavily checked by recognition of your uncertainty, but if you are wanting to come to the correct answer most often, you'll use something closer to that. The purpose of the justice system is not "to come to the correct answer most often", but to determine action (typically severe action) and so needs that check.
Accused of violating the USC Drug Kingping Act amongst others. Accused of running an $80 million narcotics ring. Accused of murder for hire. Accused under the law as written. You may believe him innocent by appeal to actual law/logic (merely accusations at this point), or un-prosecutable due to the Fourth Amendment (see: United States Constitution), and you would be right. But from a moral/legal standpoint, "accused" is definitely the right word.
I personally think that I should be skeptical of information released by entities that have a vested interest in influencing public opinion.
I think it highly likely that the prosecution is going over the evidence that it intends to use with a fine-toothed comb to avoid potential embarrassments during discovery. As this is a somewhat newsworthy case, they are going to be particularly cautious about making sure all the keystone facts are supported by admissible evidence. On top of that, they have to conceal some of their tactics so that they can continue to use them successfully in the future.
If Ulbricht did solicit murder for hire, I'm not entirely certain that he would have even thought of trying that if government agents were not already investigating him, due to his involvement in the drug trade. It might have been entrapment, just as a means of putting him into police custody, making him unable to interfere with further investigations by erasing trails that had not yet been followed, and also providing a means to seize his Bitcoins.
By that hypothesis, the state suspects he is Dread Pirate Roberts, but lacks the evidence to prove it. People in custody are less able to shield themselves from investigations. So they set him up with an illegal entrapment that would not necessarily support a conviction, but is plenty good enough for an indictment and arrest. Then they grab him and execute warrants based on the "I gotcha, sucka" charges that will end up supporting the drug kingpin case. With that access, they make seizures and file civil forfeiture cases against the assets, because the legal standards for those are woefully skewed in the state's favor. The prosecutor declines to pursue the murder for hire charges because he always knew they were bogus, and instead dumps all the gathered evidence into the drug trafficking and racketeering charges, as it is now sanitized by warrants under the previous indictment.
If that is indeed what has happened here, and it results in a conviction, I don't care how guilty Ulbricht is, because the state should not be able to corrupt our legal system in that fashion. He should go free, and the prosecutors and police that were involved should fill that cell in his place.
> It might have been entrapment, just as a means of putting him into police custody, making him unable to interfere with further investigations by erasing trails that had not yet been followed, and also providing a means to seize his Bitcoins.
It's only entrapment if government agents persuaded him to commit a crime he wasn't otherwise inclined to commit. For it to be a defense he'd have to show that the government actively talked him into hiring someone -- just offering to do it and seeing if he takes them up on it isn't enough. (The analogy I've seen used is that an undercover cop saying "hey, want to buy some cocaine?" isn't entrapment.)
My personal standard is that it is unacceptable to break one law to enforce another. At best, evidence gathered by an undercover cop posing as a criminal can refute a character-based defense in a pre-existing case.
Since having and selling cocaine is (currently) illegal, any evidence gathered by that illegal act is tainted. You can't reasonably prosecute the person buying unless you also prosecute the person selling. And that person is effectively immune.
The current lower standard in the courts--whereby the police can set up any situation, no matter how ridiculous, and entice a person to commit a crime that he might never have committed without that prompting--is an open invitation to police misconduct that may be more damaging than the crimes they are claiming to combat.
"Hey, want some coke?" is entrapment. The state agent is encouraging people to commit new crimes for the express purpose of arresting and convicting them for it. That isn't fighting crime. That's manufacturing crime to pad your own job performance metrics. You may be showing that people in the area have motive and method to commit certain types of crimes, opportunity is still a significant barrier. Traditional crime-fighting seeks to deny those opportunities rather that providing them.
This is why I find tactics like "bait cars" to be sleazy and indicative of lazy police work.
If you have mice, you can set out baited traps and be certain to catch some. But it will not eradicate the infestation. You have to clean your house, removing accessible food sources. You have to eliminate places where the mice can hide and breed. And you have to seal up any means of ingress and egress. Traps just temporarily alleviate the symptoms. The real solution takes much more effort.
I am not, however, part of the current justice system, so my opinion on these matters is not taken into consideration directly. But the prosecution relying upon traps has cause to worry, if I am on their jury.
I love it. They used to say "The only way to know what the Times is free to print anything it wishes is for the Enquirer to be able to do so too."
Ubricht proved we're not dealing with supervillians. Just security experts with lots of funding. Ordinary humans that can be set back using tech just like us.
Their difficulty in proving their case gives me hope that there's still time to make technology a force for good, both within and without government.
I just wish the prosecutors and investigators didn't rely on so many questionable and in some cases possibly illegal tactics to bring him down. It really just makes him look more innocent.
As notorious as he was ( and as bad as he was at online security) the us government shouldn't be having so much trouble to prove their case (assuming their allegations are correct)