7 ms·

> Is this the guy that Ross wanted to kill? No. The guy he "wanted to kill" was a moderator who didn't even steal from him. A FBI agent (huray, my taxes) prete

> Is this the guy that Ross wanted to kill? No. The guy he "wanted to kill" was a moderator who didn't even steal from him. A FBI agent (huray, my taxes) pretended to be a drug lord for over 2yrs convincing Ross he should kill some moderator with lies about he wanting to take over silkroad or something, and then staged a mock assassination. All that for no tangible investigative benefit other then strengthen their 2yr old bro-bond. That agent didn't even contribute to the actual arrest. Go read wired write up of the whole thing. It's better than most fiction books. Pure comedy. Also, the current silk road is a honeypot set up by the Feds. That's why 1) they screwed up on validating transactions (it's not their money) and 2) they want after the stolen funds.

swarnie 4y ago
Has the concept of "Entrapment" not made its way across the pond yet? This seem highly unethical on the part of the FBI.
- cragfar 4y ago
  FBI gets a wide berth from the courts. A couple of years ago, they seized some TOR child porn website, and then started making upgrades to it causing the userbase to increase by 30%. Then they tried to pin that user count on the person they arrested.
- 2devnull 4y ago
  FBI is federal, unlike the police, so they can do whatever, at least that’s how it’s playing out. The FBI is supposed to be effective, not ethical. It’s what’s “on the tin” and has always been. A good example is their treatment of MLK.
  - matai_kolila 4y ago
    The FBI is supposed to be ethical, that's what's on the USA tin containing the FBI tin. You can provide a billion examples of how the US hasn't lived up to that notion, but 'liberty and justice for all' is, "what's on the tin."
    - 2devnull 4y ago
      I think we agree, probably that what is and what should be are not the same. The tension is that voters will often reward politicians that are effective, rather than those whom are ethical. When it comes to the safety of your child, most humans go for effective over ethical.
      - matai_kolila 4y ago
        We disagree insofar as your statement, "The FBI is supposed to be effective, not ethical." They are supposed to be ethical, and then effective.
      - birdyrooster 4y ago
        > When it comes to the safety of your child, most humans go for effective over ethical. Wouldn't the balance of the child's needs change the ethical judgement (now considered ethical as well as effective)? I don't see how they would be mutually exclusive.
- glasshug 4y ago
  Entrapment is an invention of 20th century American courts. See William E. Mikell, "The Doctrine of Entrapment in the Federal Courts," U. Pa. L. Rev. 90 (1942), calling entrapment as a defense a "purely American doctrine" not considered by earlier English writers on criminal law. Trivia aside, no. Entrapment is a specific concept narrower than "a fed lied to me."
  - quietbritishjim 4y ago
    Given the mention of "across the pond", it seems the parent commenter was talking about the English law meaning of entrapment. That is where you are enticed to commit a crime by a law agency. Technically it's still a crime and there's no legal defence based on entrapment, but courts will tend not to prosecute if "the police did more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime".
    - tptacek 4y ago
      I'm assuming you pulled that from Wikipedia, which is what Google points to for that phrase. You've radically oversimplified Wikipedia's coverage of UK entrapment, and Wikipedia oversimplifies UK law. "More than an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime" is just one factor in a complex analysis. The "exceptional" opportunity starts the consideration of entrapment; it doesn't end it.
      - quietbritishjim 4y ago
        Yes I got that quote via Wikipedia. It, in turn, is a direct quote from a judgement from the Law Lords, which set a precedent – the main precedent on the subject if that Wikipedia article is to be believed. So it's not just a random Wikipedia editor's view on the subject. Yes, no kidding it's a more complicated subject than that one short sentence. But my point was just that it's different from any notion of entrapment, or lack of, in the US.
        tptacek 4y ago
alphabetting 4y ago
> Also, the current silk road is a honeypot set up by the Feds. That's why 1) they screwed up on validating transactions (it's not their money) and 2) they want after the stolen funds. The DOJ release says these transactions were from 2012
Ecio78 4y ago
this bitcoin theft happened in September 2012, before Ross Ulbricht got arrested (in 2013) so when Silk Road was active and not a Feds' honeypot like you describe.
SubjectToChange 4y ago
> No. The guy he "wanted to kill" was a moderator who didn't even steal from him. Ross Ulbricht commissioned 5 murders fully expecting each of them to be carried out. > All that for no tangible investigative benefit other then strengthen their 2yr old bro-bond. The murder-for-hire evidence denied him bail. But the prosecutor already had Ulbricht nailed and decided to avoid complicating the case by formally filing the murder-for-hire charges. Would your tax dollars have been better used if Mr. Ulbricht had additional life sentences and decades of prison? No, he is going to die in a prison cell either way. Ross Ulbricht built his empire, in large part, by profiting off people's suffering. And he exhibited time and time again that he would murder people to protect it. He is nothing short of evil.
- tptacek 4y ago
  A reminder that the murder-for-hire schemes were a predicate of the conspiracy charge in his indictment; he was in part charged for them.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    But conspiracy charge depends on overt act(s), so being convicted of conspiracy doesn't necessarily mean he was convicted on the basis that particular overt act occurred. The prosecution never had to prove all the overt acts, including murder-for-hire, were true to convict for the more generalized non-murder conspiracy. Just that some subset of overt acts were true.
    - xapata 4y ago
      > prove There are different levels of proof. For example, civil court only requires a preponderance of evidence.
- gonehome 4y ago
  It might have been worth them formally filing the murder-for-hire charges just to save us from having to read his supporters repeatedly say they weren't real.
neetfreek 4y ago
Part I of an account of the wild story can be found here; it’s really quite interesting, at the least! https://web.archive.org/web/20220112152207/https://www.wired.com/2015/04/silk-road-1/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220112152207/https://www.wired...

swarnie 4y ago

Has the concept of "Entrapment" not made its way across the pond yet? This seem highly unethical on the part of the FBI.

cragfar 4y ago
FBI gets a wide berth from the courts. A couple of years ago, they seized some TOR child porn website, and then started making upgrades to it causing the userbase to increase by 30%. Then they tried to pin that user count on the person they arrested.
2devnull 4y ago
FBI is federal, unlike the police, so they can do whatever, at least that’s how it’s playing out. The FBI is supposed to be effective, not ethical. It’s what’s “on the tin” and has always been. A good example is their treatment of MLK.
- matai_kolila 4y ago
  The FBI is supposed to be ethical, that's what's on the USA tin containing the FBI tin. You can provide a billion examples of how the US hasn't lived up to that notion, but 'liberty and justice for all' is, "what's on the tin."
  - 2devnull 4y ago
    I think we agree, probably that what is and what should be are not the same. The tension is that voters will often reward politicians that are effective, rather than those whom are ethical. When it comes to the safety of your child, most humans go for effective over ethical.
    - matai_kolila 4y ago
      We disagree insofar as your statement, "The FBI is supposed to be effective, not ethical." They are supposed to be ethical, and then effective.
    - birdyrooster 4y ago
      > When it comes to the safety of your child, most humans go for effective over ethical. Wouldn't the balance of the child's needs change the ethical judgement (now considered ethical as well as effective)? I don't see how they would be mutually exclusive.
glasshug 4y ago
Entrapment is an invention of 20th century American courts. See William E. Mikell, "The Doctrine of Entrapment in the Federal Courts," U. Pa. L. Rev. 90 (1942), calling entrapment as a defense a "purely American doctrine" not considered by earlier English writers on criminal law. Trivia aside, no. Entrapment is a specific concept narrower than "a fed lied to me."
- quietbritishjim 4y ago
  Given the mention of "across the pond", it seems the parent commenter was talking about the English law meaning of entrapment. That is where you are enticed to commit a crime by a law agency. Technically it's still a crime and there's no legal defence based on entrapment, but courts will tend not to prosecute if "the police did more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime".
  - tptacek 4y ago
    I'm assuming you pulled that from Wikipedia, which is what Google points to for that phrase. You've radically oversimplified Wikipedia's coverage of UK entrapment, and Wikipedia oversimplifies UK law. "More than an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime" is just one factor in a complex analysis. The "exceptional" opportunity starts the consideration of entrapment; it doesn't end it.
    - quietbritishjim 4y ago
      Yes I got that quote via Wikipedia. It, in turn, is a direct quote from a judgement from the Law Lords, which set a precedent – the main precedent on the subject if that Wikipedia article is to be believed. So it's not just a random Wikipedia editor's view on the subject. Yes, no kidding it's a more complicated subject than that one short sentence. But my point was just that it's different from any notion of entrapment, or lack of, in the US.
      - tptacek 4y ago

alphabetting 4y ago

> Also, the current silk road is a honeypot set up by the Feds. That's why 1) they screwed up on validating transactions (it's not their money) and 2) they want after the stolen funds. The DOJ release says these transactions were from 2012

Ecio78 4y ago

this bitcoin theft happened in September 2012, before Ross Ulbricht got arrested (in 2013) so when Silk Road was active and not a Feds' honeypot like you describe.

SubjectToChange 4y ago

> No. The guy he "wanted to kill" was a moderator who didn't even steal from him. Ross Ulbricht commissioned 5 murders fully expecting each of them to be carried out. > All that for no tangible investigative benefit other then strengthen their 2yr old bro-bond. The murder-for-hire evidence denied him bail. But the prosecutor already had Ulbricht nailed and decided to avoid complicating the case by formally filing the murder-for-hire charges. Would your tax dollars have been better used if Mr. Ulbricht had additional life sentences and decades of prison? No, he is going to die in a prison cell either way. Ross Ulbricht built his empire, in large part, by profiting off people's suffering. And he exhibited time and time again that he would murder people to protect it. He is nothing short of evil.

tptacek 4y ago
A reminder that the murder-for-hire schemes were a predicate of the conspiracy charge in his indictment; he was in part charged for them.
- notch656a 4y ago
  But conspiracy charge depends on overt act(s), so being convicted of conspiracy doesn't necessarily mean he was convicted on the basis that particular overt act occurred. The prosecution never had to prove all the overt acts, including murder-for-hire, were true to convict for the more generalized non-murder conspiracy. Just that some subset of overt acts were true.
  - xapata 4y ago
    > prove There are different levels of proof. For example, civil court only requires a preponderance of evidence.
gonehome 4y ago
It might have been worth them formally filing the murder-for-hire charges just to save us from having to read his supporters repeatedly say they weren't real.

neetfreek 4y ago

Part I of an account of the wild story can be found here; it’s really quite interesting, at the least! https://web.archive.org/web/20220112152207/https://www.wired.com/2015/04/silk-road-1/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220112152207/https://www.wired...