4 ms·

One of the other comments in the thread linked that original complaint and yeah it makes the whole thing look even more dubious than the original article did. T

One of the other comments in the thread linked that original complaint and yeah it makes the whole thing look even more dubious than the original article did. The evidence presented there seems extremely weak and it will be interesting to see if these charges stick. Clearly law enforcement hates private communications and are trying to put the pressure on companies that provide them on the basis of highly questionable entrapment efforts and tenuous evidence. This case really highlights how destructive the drug war has been to individual rights. When you have a victimless 'crime' like this where all parties to the transactions are willing participants and there is no victim to complain to law enforcement then the only way for charges to be brought is entrapment, oppressive surveillance or encroaching on fourth amendment rights. The logical progression is to attack parties providing otherwise completely legitimate and legal private and secure communications.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> When you have a victimless 'crime' like this Consider two knife makers. One sells cooking knives. The other sells similar knives and tells people they're designed for stabbing. (The handles may be made so lifting prints off them is intentionally difficult.) Two stabbings happen, one with each of their knives. The government may have a case against the latter knife maker in being party to the crime. Trafficking drugs is illegal. (It is also far from victimless.) If you intentionally make devices to aid drug traffickers, and then confess that to a federal agent, the government probably has a case. I say all this as someone who believes in de-criminalising most recreational drugs. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
- mattnewport 9y ago
  Both knives designed for stabbing people and guns and bullets designed for shooting people exist and are sold in the US and I'm not aware of their manufacturers or retailers generally being held liable when they are used to commit crimes. I don't think your analogy holds. Selling drugs is victimless in the sense that there is no legal ''victim" bringing a complaint - both the seller and the buyer are generally willing participants in the transaction. This is why so many drug prosecutions must rely on stings, undercover cops, informants, surveillance, etc. This is not to say that nobody suffers any harm as a result of the drug trade. In this particular complaint there is no victim and all the evidence comes from undercover cops and informants.
  - amdavidson 9y ago
    While there are certainly guns that are suitable for shooting people, have you seen a gun manufacturer advertise its products as being suitable for any illegal purpose? They are extremely careful with their marketing language, and I have never seen any reference to shooting another person without it being heavily couched in castle doctrine / home defense language. They're not out there marketing their wares as being better for hitmen.
  - efdee 9y ago
    By that logic, killing a person that leaves nobody behind is a victimless crime as well. Just saying.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> When you have a victimless 'crime' like this Consider two knife makers. One sells cooking knives. The other sells similar knives and tells people they're designed for stabbing. (The handles may be made so lifting prints off them is intentionally difficult.) Two stabbings happen, one with each of their knives. The government may have a case against the latter knife maker in being party to the crime. Trafficking drugs is illegal. (It is also far from victimless.) If you intentionally make devices to aid drug traffickers, and then confess that to a federal agent, the government probably has a case. I say all this as someone who believes in de-criminalising most recreational drugs. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

mattnewport 9y ago
Both knives designed for stabbing people and guns and bullets designed for shooting people exist and are sold in the US and I'm not aware of their manufacturers or retailers generally being held liable when they are used to commit crimes. I don't think your analogy holds. Selling drugs is victimless in the sense that there is no legal ''victim" bringing a complaint - both the seller and the buyer are generally willing participants in the transaction. This is why so many drug prosecutions must rely on stings, undercover cops, informants, surveillance, etc. This is not to say that nobody suffers any harm as a result of the drug trade. In this particular complaint there is no victim and all the evidence comes from undercover cops and informants.
- amdavidson 9y ago
  While there are certainly guns that are suitable for shooting people, have you seen a gun manufacturer advertise its products as being suitable for any illegal purpose? They are extremely careful with their marketing language, and I have never seen any reference to shooting another person without it being heavily couched in castle doctrine / home defense language. They're not out there marketing their wares as being better for hitmen.
- efdee 9y ago
  By that logic, killing a person that leaves nobody behind is a victimless crime as well. Just saying.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]