4 ms·
"subverting controls that inhibit free consensual activity between adults is virtuous." It depends entirely on what that consensual activity is. If the activi
by 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 agoWait, when was kiddie porn ever sold on SR?
- nemo 12y agoWhile 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 agoAh! 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.
- nemo 12y agoI was responding to someone who had been praising Ulbricht (who really looks like an awful person), so in that context I was questioning how one would compare him to Aaron Swartz (who I admire). I think I was incorrect about the child pornography claim, though that was only one item in a list. While we should also be looking at the Feds. who are certainly no angels, we shouldn't pretend that everyone the Feds. prosecute is a martyr. The problem is that the legal argument that the server was protected under the 4th was made poorly by the defense, and their arguments against the Feds. haven't been very strong. Perhaps there will be more time for the Feds. to ...clarify... their story of how they managed to get the IP, and if it's shown that they used illegal means then that evidence should be dismissed. So far the defense has looked as amateur as Ulricht's PHP programming, but we'll see. Their claim that since Ulricht wasn't actually engaging in the transactions personally, that he wasn't involved in a conspiracy made them look like they were, um, morons. There's even a chance that the Feds. can convict with the many other pieces evidence that they have that isn't hit by the Fruit of the poisonous tree (esp. in the pending case filed against Ulbricht in Maryland). I'd like to see justice served on all fronts, with the Feds. nailed for their wrongdoings, and people like Ulbricht nailed as well.