5 ms·

I noticed that in the weeks and months before Silk Road went down, we had some interesting things happen: 1. several articles like this one 2. statem

I noticed that in the weeks and months before Silk Road went down, we had some interesting things happen: 1. several articles like this one 2. statements from the FBI that it was untraceable 3. the implication in tech media that it was 'safe' to use, with usual caveat emptor verbiage. I know we have a sample size of one here, and there's no guarantee that steps 2 and 3 above will follow - but to me, it seems that mainstream coverage of anything like this is a sure signal to bail out.

nazgulnarsil 12y ago
Are you implying that the silk road was not safe for people who followed protocols?
- GrinningFool 12y ago
  Nope - but I suppose I am implying that significant numbers of people using such services know or care little of protocols. Instead they're happy to go with the idea that it's a nicely packaged untraceable means of getting what they're after.
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  Correct. The sellers made a huge footprint by mailing so much on such a regular basis. This lead to major sellers getting busted. At which point all the buyers that purchased from them may have their order details released.
  - nazgulnarsil 12y ago
    this is incorrect. Sellers drop off packages over a wide area anonymously. They don't just mail stuff.
    - MichaelGG 12y ago
      nod was found because he (or his girlfriend) dropped off packages over a "wide area" by going into post offices and mailing things. The indictment claims the investigator went to the PO and asked if they had noticed a certain car, and the employees there were readily able to provide details on a individual that made frequent mailings. A large seller has too many packages to easily avoid leaving a trace. Automated analysis of video recordings near a post drop, for instance, could reveal these patterns. Apart from that, sellers often mess up on opsec, just because it's so hard to maintain over such a large period of time. That's just how it is.
gabriel34 12y ago
If this is a US operation, don't the US law prohibits entrapment? Also, doesn't it seem more likely a surge in public interest is what originated the operation, instead of the other way around?
- bravura 12y ago
  That's not entrapment. An undercover cop can ask you to commit a crime without entrapping you. It's only entrapment if the police induce you to commit a crime that you wouldn't commit otherwise. Hence, them offering you the opportunity to commit a crime is permitted by law. See this illustrated guide to understand better: http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-was-entrapped http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-wa...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - derefr 12y ago
    What I learned from that: the easiest way to detect undercover cops is to ask them to--or really, entrap them into--committing an unrelated crime, e.g. hurting someone. Imagine "rewarding" the new member of your drug ring by giving them a hired escort who has been paid to resist all acts upon them, and then locking the new member and the escort in a room together with some extremely brutal S&M "toys." You'll get lots of false positives--people who don't actually get their jollies from harming others--but it's the false negatives that are important here, so maybe populating your organization with sociopaths is a low price to pay. On the other hand: is the boss committing a crime just by setting up this "reward?" They wouldn't mention anything about having to harm the escort, it'd just be implicit in the setup that if you're that type of person, the situation is easy to take advantage of.
    - bardot 12y ago
      No escort is stupid enough to participate in that. Only men would do that.
    - 12y ago

nazgulnarsil 12y ago

Are you implying that the silk road was not safe for people who followed protocols?

GrinningFool 12y ago
Nope - but I suppose I am implying that significant numbers of people using such services know or care little of protocols. Instead they're happy to go with the idea that it's a nicely packaged untraceable means of getting what they're after.
MichaelGG 12y ago
Correct. The sellers made a huge footprint by mailing so much on such a regular basis. This lead to major sellers getting busted. At which point all the buyers that purchased from them may have their order details released.
- nazgulnarsil 12y ago
  this is incorrect. Sellers drop off packages over a wide area anonymously. They don't just mail stuff.
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    nod was found because he (or his girlfriend) dropped off packages over a "wide area" by going into post offices and mailing things. The indictment claims the investigator went to the PO and asked if they had noticed a certain car, and the employees there were readily able to provide details on a individual that made frequent mailings. A large seller has too many packages to easily avoid leaving a trace. Automated analysis of video recordings near a post drop, for instance, could reveal these patterns. Apart from that, sellers often mess up on opsec, just because it's so hard to maintain over such a large period of time. That's just how it is.

gabriel34 12y ago

If this is a US operation, don't the US law prohibits entrapment? Also, doesn't it seem more likely a surge in public interest is what originated the operation, instead of the other way around?

bravura 12y ago
That's not entrapment. An undercover cop can ask you to commit a crime without entrapping you. It's only entrapment if the police induce you to commit a crime that you wouldn't commit otherwise. Hence, them offering you the opportunity to commit a crime is permitted by law. See this illustrated guide to understand better: http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-was-entrapped http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/19810672629/12-i-wa...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- derefr 12y ago
  What I learned from that: the easiest way to detect undercover cops is to ask them to--or really, entrap them into--committing an unrelated crime, e.g. hurting someone. Imagine "rewarding" the new member of your drug ring by giving them a hired escort who has been paid to resist all acts upon them, and then locking the new member and the escort in a room together with some extremely brutal S&M "toys." You'll get lots of false positives--people who don't actually get their jollies from harming others--but it's the false negatives that are important here, so maybe populating your organization with sociopaths is a low price to pay. On the other hand: is the boss committing a crime just by setting up this "reward?" They wouldn't mention anything about having to harm the escort, it'd just be implicit in the setup that if you're that type of person, the situation is easy to take advantage of.
  - bardot 12y ago
    No escort is stupid enough to participate in that. Only men would do that.
  - 12y ago