4 ms·

While I have a lot of sympathy for aaronsw, and admired a lot of the work he did, I don't see a lot in common between the two. The Feds. charged both, but the

by nemo 12y ago

While I have a lot of sympathy for aaronsw, and admired a lot of the work he did, I don't see a lot in common between the two. The Feds. charged both, but the thing is that the charges brought against aaronsw were largely absurd. He appeared to have broken a few misdemeanor-class laws, but was charged with wire fraud and the CFAA in ways that didn't really fit what he did at all. The Feds. are charging Ulricht with things that he mostly was personally responsible for. He very much appeared to be engaged in narcotics trafficking conspiracy, continuing criminal enterprise, computer hacking conspiracy, and money laundering conspiracy. He set up an environment where people can freely transact with one another, but tailored that environment to narcotics trafficking, credit card fraud, selling malware, and money laundering, and chose to engage in tailoring the site specifically for those things. He was fully aware of the illegal transactions occurring through his site and not only did nothing to stop it, but enabled it and profited from it. He was also hit with a Kingpin charge that probably will stick, since he was personally involved and managed an organized crime scheme. The Silk Road designed a site for drug trafficking and other illicit activities, recruited drug and encouraged dealers, and took a commission from the sales. Since the Feds. have the server they have a sea of evidence to show how the site wasn't running with no knowledge of what transactions were happening, but tailored itself to be effective at drug, CC, and malware trafficking. Whatever you think morally about profiting off drug deals, malware sales, CC fraud, and money laundering, the law is really clear about it. aaronsw was engaged in a kind of hacktivism that expanded open access to public information and contributed to the open web in many ways. Ulricht was engaged in making a profit by opening a marketplace for illegal activities and tailoring it for drug deals. There's a world of difference.

jMyles 12y ago
> There's a world of difference. Agreed. Of course. aaronsw is a personal hero of mine. I'm not trying to elevate Ross / DPR to that level. I do think, though, that subverting controls that inhibit free consensual activity between adults is virtuous. Furthermore, I'm not at all convinced that Ross did most of the things you mention. The indictment reads like a product of zeal and overreach, not a dispassionate document outlining a person's conduct and how it clearly violates plain language. That he has been denied bail on this basis (especially when he hasn't been charged with the offenses that constituted the entirety of his bail hearing) is egregious and further suggests that he's being specifically targeted.
- nemo 12y ago
  "subverting controls that inhibit free consensual activity between adults is virtuous." It depends entirely on what that consensual activity is. If the activity is selling stolen credit card numbers, then it's facilitating theft and doesn't seem virtuous at all, since it's harming a third party. If it's exchanging kiddie porn, again it's harming a third party. If its selling malware, then it's a free exchange with the intent of violating others privacy or otherwise harming them, which does't seem virtuous at all to me. But those were all services that Ulricht not only knowingly facilitated, but worked to specifically facilitate. While I don't agree with the US drug laws, assuming he was responsible for the Silk Road, Ulricht was choosing to facilitate many sorts of exchanges that while consensual between the parties involved in the exchange, were exchanged motivated by profiting off the harm of other parties who weren't consensually involved, but were either victims of crimes or were victimized by the use of the product of the transaction. "The indictment reads like a product of zeal and overreach, not a dispassionate document outlining a person's conduct and how it clearly violates plain language." I dunno, they laid out a pretty clear case of what the law was and how it was broken in my reading. He was pretty clearly violating various criminal conspiracy laws that were written to deal with just the kind of thing he was doing.
  - girvo 12y ago
    Wait, when was kiddie porn ever sold on SR?
    - nemo 12y ago
      While I have never been on the site I'd seen it mentioned as being one of the things that was trafficked, and the wikipedia article lists it. Looking into it, that might just be articles using sensationalism, though. Looking into the ref. in the wikipedia article, one of the links used as a citation for the child pornography claim actually stated the opposite - that they didn't allow it, so I think I was probably misinformed there.
  - hugogee 12y ago
    Ah! You present a great logical argument to disuade one from the point. After all who could be for kiddie pr0n? Regardless of what Ulbricht did what the GOV is doing is where the focus ought to be as its resulting in the ebbing of our freedoms! Thats what this is about not drugs, sex nor monies. Although impossible to prove its likely we are witnessing some form of parallel reconstruction.

by nemo 12y ago

jMyles 12y ago

> There's a world of difference. Agreed. Of course. aaronsw is a personal hero of mine. I'm not trying to elevate Ross / DPR to that level. I do think, though, that subverting controls that inhibit free consensual activity between adults is virtuous. Furthermore, I'm not at all convinced that Ross did most of the things you mention. The indictment reads like a product of zeal and overreach, not a dispassionate document outlining a person's conduct and how it clearly violates plain language. That he has been denied bail on this basis (especially when he hasn't been charged with the offenses that constituted the entirety of his bail hearing) is egregious and further suggests that he's being specifically targeted.

nemo 12y ago
"subverting controls that inhibit free consensual activity between adults is virtuous." It depends entirely on what that consensual activity is. If the activity is selling stolen credit card numbers, then it's facilitating theft and doesn't seem virtuous at all, since it's harming a third party. If it's exchanging kiddie porn, again it's harming a third party. If its selling malware, then it's a free exchange with the intent of violating others privacy or otherwise harming them, which does't seem virtuous at all to me. But those were all services that Ulricht not only knowingly facilitated, but worked to specifically facilitate. While I don't agree with the US drug laws, assuming he was responsible for the Silk Road, Ulricht was choosing to facilitate many sorts of exchanges that while consensual between the parties involved in the exchange, were exchanged motivated by profiting off the harm of other parties who weren't consensually involved, but were either victims of crimes or were victimized by the use of the product of the transaction. "The indictment reads like a product of zeal and overreach, not a dispassionate document outlining a person's conduct and how it clearly violates plain language." I dunno, they laid out a pretty clear case of what the law was and how it was broken in my reading. He was pretty clearly violating various criminal conspiracy laws that were written to deal with just the kind of thing he was doing.
- girvo 12y ago
  Wait, when was kiddie porn ever sold on SR?
  - nemo 12y ago
    While I have never been on the site I'd seen it mentioned as being one of the things that was trafficked, and the wikipedia article lists it. Looking into it, that might just be articles using sensationalism, though. Looking into the ref. in the wikipedia article, one of the links used as a citation for the child pornography claim actually stated the opposite - that they didn't allow it, so I think I was probably misinformed there.
- hugogee 12y ago
  Ah! You present a great logical argument to disuade one from the point. After all who could be for kiddie pr0n? Regardless of what Ulbricht did what the GOV is doing is where the focus ought to be as its resulting in the ebbing of our freedoms! Thats what this is about not drugs, sex nor monies. Although impossible to prove its likely we are witnessing some form of parallel reconstruction.