29 ms·

I personally think ulbricht is guilty.. I just wish the prosecutors and investigators didn't rely on so many questionable and in some cases possibly illegal ta

I personally think ulbricht is guilty.. I just wish the prosecutors and investigators didn't rely on so many questionable and in some cases possibly illegal tactics to bring him down. It really just makes him look more innocent. As notorious as he was ( and as bad as he was at online security) the us government shouldn't be having so much trouble to prove their case (assuming their allegations are correct)

mortov 12y ago
"I personally think ulbricht is guilty.." Which is presumably the intention of the fanfare around the smears - pollute the jury pool as much as possible to avoid the inconvenience of people making a decision based on the facts or evidence presented in court; get out the jury deliberations quickly, just go for whatever knee-jerk guilty feeling you got when you read the headlines about how evil the defendant is; don't bother reading any detail or anything that might hurt your brain and destroy your prejudices ! Despite my reservations, the US would be better served if it had contempt of court laws like England which specifically prohibit discussion of any details of court cases prior to them being heard precisely in order to stop this sort of situation happening. edit: spelling.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  Pollute the jury pool? If they bring in 100 potential jurors maybe one might have some basic knowledge about Bitcoin if they're lucky. A few might recall hearing about it on the nightly news once. Chances are none will have heard anything about "the Dread Pirate Roberts".
madaxe_again 12y ago
Guilty... interesting word. Guilty of what? Under which jurisdiction? By whose measure? The media's? Yours? I assume you'd like a tarring and feathering? Shouldn't you also be talking about the state's guilt for using "possibly illegal" tactics, as I'd say that sticking false charges on someone for murder is a damn sight worse than being an intermediary in an illicit marketplace. Hell, why aren't they going after banks for providing cash, which is an anonymous "currency" used on the illegal drug marketplaces known as "the park" and "behind the nursery school"? I think the man deserves respect for sticking his neck out and doing something that's sparked fundamental discourse on drug policy.
- s_q_b 12y ago
  Guilty of violating the USC Drug Kingping Act amongst others. Guilty of running an $80 million narcotics ring. Guilty of murder for hire. Guilty under the law as written. You may believe him innocent by appeal to natural law, or un-prosecutable due to the Fourth Amendment, and on the latter you may be right. But from a moral standpoint, "guilty" is definitely the right word.
  - brainburn 12y ago
    Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law
    - s_q_b 12y ago
      So was Charles Manson before his trial. I'm saying he's guilty, not a court. It's one man's opinion, not a finding of fact or law. The fact pattern isn't really in dispute here. Do you really deny he performed the acts of which he is accused? EDIT due to reply limit: Fine, its your opinion that I'm a child molester, but since you can't enforce it, I have little reason to care. In the instant case, I am perfectly capable of examining an indictment and concluding as to its likely veracity. It doesn't make the person legally guilty, but in my personal unbinding and most modest opinion, morally so.
      - Evolved 12y ago
        Fortunately for us, you're not a judge/prosecutor and fortunately for the accused, "guilty until proven innocent" isn't law but merely a song by Jay-Z.
        dllthomas 12y ago
        The options aren't "innocent until proven guilty" or "guilty until proven innocent" - there's also "what is the evidence that I've seen telling me is most likely so far?" Actions based on this should be heavily checked by recognition of your uncertainty, but if you are wanting to come to the correct answer most often, you'll use something closer to that. The purpose of the justice system is not "to come to the correct answer most often", but to determine action (typically severe action) and so needs that check.
s_q_b 12y ago
I love it. They used to say "The only way to know what the Times is free to print anything it wishes is for the Enquirer to be able to do so too." Ubricht proved we're not dealing with supervillians. Just security experts with lots of funding. Ordinary humans that can be set back using tech just like us. Their difficulty in proving their case gives me hope that there's still time to make technology a force for good, both within and without government.
tomp 12y ago
I too think he is guilty. Guilty of breaking non-sense, victim-less laws. Laws that restrict usage of non-addictive mind-altering substances that are much less harmful than other, legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco, medical drugs). Laws that shouldn't even be on the books! Laws that cause millions of dollars of damage and thousands of deaths each year. Laws that power organized crime. The drug laws. I totally support him, and I hope he comes out a free man, albeit his business will probably be ruined.
- hncomplete 12y ago
  SR also sold identity theft kits, hacking tools and such. It was not just a place of victimless crime. It would be nice if just ONE of you DPR-loving sociopaths would be honest enough to admit this.
  - etherael 12y ago
    Compared with the crimes of the entity actually mounting the prosecution, everything he was alleged to have done is at worst a misdemeanor. But you will never get a sociopathic state worshiping authoritarian to admit they don't have the moral high ground. Letalone that their treasured institutions are practically identical to the terrorist organisations that they say they exist to protect the innocent from.
    - hahainternet 12y ago
      > you will never get a sociopathic state worshiping authoritarian to admit they don't have the moral high ground If you're willing to post this level of stupidity then just come out with "OBAMA IS HITLER" without mincing words so we can tell you're deluded and ignore your posts.
    - hncomplete 12y ago
      Apparently thinking that identity theft (which harms individuals) sucks also means I worship the state. Right. Religious zealots always get mad when facts ruin their ideological narratives. Ethereal, you are now, and will always be, an utterly worthless shitstain on humanity. I won't couch this in distancing language. I'll own the fact that you're an asshole, that you're passive-aggressive, and that HN would be materially better if the mods had the balls to ban assholes like you.
logfromblammo 12y ago
I personally think that I should be skeptical of information released by entities that have a vested interest in influencing public opinion. I think it highly likely that the prosecution is going over the evidence that it intends to use with a fine-toothed comb to avoid potential embarrassments during discovery. As this is a somewhat newsworthy case, they are going to be particularly cautious about making sure all the keystone facts are supported by admissible evidence. On top of that, they have to conceal some of their tactics so that they can continue to use them successfully in the future. If Ulbricht did solicit murder for hire, I'm not entirely certain that he would have even thought of trying that if government agents were not already investigating him, due to his involvement in the drug trade. It might have been entrapment, just as a means of putting him into police custody, making him unable to interfere with further investigations by erasing trails that had not yet been followed, and also providing a means to seize his Bitcoins. By that hypothesis, the state suspects he is Dread Pirate Roberts, but lacks the evidence to prove it. People in custody are less able to shield themselves from investigations. So they set him up with an illegal entrapment that would not necessarily support a conviction, but is plenty good enough for an indictment and arrest. Then they grab him and execute warrants based on the "I gotcha, sucka" charges that will end up supporting the drug kingpin case. With that access, they make seizures and file civil forfeiture cases against the assets, because the legal standards for those are woefully skewed in the state's favor. The prosecutor declines to pursue the murder for hire charges because he always knew they were bogus, and instead dumps all the gathered evidence into the drug trafficking and racketeering charges, as it is now sanitized by warrants under the previous indictment. If that is indeed what has happened here, and it results in a conviction, I don't care how guilty Ulbricht is, because the state should not be able to corrupt our legal system in that fashion. He should go free, and the prosecutors and police that were involved should fill that cell in his place.
- kemayo 12y ago
  > It might have been entrapment, just as a means of putting him into police custody, making him unable to interfere with further investigations by erasing trails that had not yet been followed, and also providing a means to seize his Bitcoins. It's only entrapment if government agents persuaded him to commit a crime he wasn't otherwise inclined to commit. For it to be a defense he'd have to show that the government actively talked him into hiring someone -- just offering to do it and seeing if he takes them up on it isn't enough. (The analogy I've seen used is that an undercover cop saying "hey, want to buy some cocaine?" isn't entrapment.)

mortov 12y ago

"I personally think ulbricht is guilty.." Which is presumably the intention of the fanfare around the smears - pollute the jury pool as much as possible to avoid the inconvenience of people making a decision based on the facts or evidence presented in court; get out the jury deliberations quickly, just go for whatever knee-jerk guilty feeling you got when you read the headlines about how evil the defendant is; don't bother reading any detail or anything that might hurt your brain and destroy your prejudices ! Despite my reservations, the US would be better served if it had contempt of court laws like England which specifically prohibit discussion of any details of court cases prior to them being heard precisely in order to stop this sort of situation happening. edit: spelling.

ceejayoz 12y ago
Pollute the jury pool? If they bring in 100 potential jurors maybe one might have some basic knowledge about Bitcoin if they're lucky. A few might recall hearing about it on the nightly news once. Chances are none will have heard anything about "the Dread Pirate Roberts".

madaxe_again 12y ago

Guilty... interesting word. Guilty of what? Under which jurisdiction? By whose measure? The media's? Yours? I assume you'd like a tarring and feathering? Shouldn't you also be talking about the state's guilt for using "possibly illegal" tactics, as I'd say that sticking false charges on someone for murder is a damn sight worse than being an intermediary in an illicit marketplace. Hell, why aren't they going after banks for providing cash, which is an anonymous "currency" used on the illegal drug marketplaces known as "the park" and "behind the nursery school"? I think the man deserves respect for sticking his neck out and doing something that's sparked fundamental discourse on drug policy.

s_q_b 12y ago
Guilty of violating the USC Drug Kingping Act amongst others. Guilty of running an $80 million narcotics ring. Guilty of murder for hire. Guilty under the law as written. You may believe him innocent by appeal to natural law, or un-prosecutable due to the Fourth Amendment, and on the latter you may be right. But from a moral standpoint, "guilty" is definitely the right word.
- brainburn 12y ago
  Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law
  - s_q_b 12y ago
    So was Charles Manson before his trial. I'm saying he's guilty, not a court. It's one man's opinion, not a finding of fact or law. The fact pattern isn't really in dispute here. Do you really deny he performed the acts of which he is accused? EDIT due to reply limit: Fine, its your opinion that I'm a child molester, but since you can't enforce it, I have little reason to care. In the instant case, I am perfectly capable of examining an indictment and concluding as to its likely veracity. It doesn't make the person legally guilty, but in my personal unbinding and most modest opinion, morally so.
    - Evolved 12y ago
      Fortunately for us, you're not a judge/prosecutor and fortunately for the accused, "guilty until proven innocent" isn't law but merely a song by Jay-Z.
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        The options aren't "innocent until proven guilty" or "guilty until proven innocent" - there's also "what is the evidence that I've seen telling me is most likely so far?" Actions based on this should be heavily checked by recognition of your uncertainty, but if you are wanting to come to the correct answer most often, you'll use something closer to that. The purpose of the justice system is not "to come to the correct answer most often", but to determine action (typically severe action) and so needs that check.

s_q_b 12y ago

I love it. They used to say "The only way to know what the Times is free to print anything it wishes is for the Enquirer to be able to do so too." Ubricht proved we're not dealing with supervillians. Just security experts with lots of funding. Ordinary humans that can be set back using tech just like us. Their difficulty in proving their case gives me hope that there's still time to make technology a force for good, both within and without government.

tomp 12y ago

I too think he is guilty. Guilty of breaking non-sense, victim-less laws. Laws that restrict usage of non-addictive mind-altering substances that are much less harmful than other, legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco, medical drugs). Laws that shouldn't even be on the books! Laws that cause millions of dollars of damage and thousands of deaths each year. Laws that power organized crime. The drug laws. I totally support him, and I hope he comes out a free man, albeit his business will probably be ruined.

hncomplete 12y ago
SR also sold identity theft kits, hacking tools and such. It was not just a place of victimless crime. It would be nice if just ONE of you DPR-loving sociopaths would be honest enough to admit this.
- etherael 12y ago
  Compared with the crimes of the entity actually mounting the prosecution, everything he was alleged to have done is at worst a misdemeanor. But you will never get a sociopathic state worshiping authoritarian to admit they don't have the moral high ground. Letalone that their treasured institutions are practically identical to the terrorist organisations that they say they exist to protect the innocent from.
  - hahainternet 12y ago
    > you will never get a sociopathic state worshiping authoritarian to admit they don't have the moral high ground If you're willing to post this level of stupidity then just come out with "OBAMA IS HITLER" without mincing words so we can tell you're deluded and ignore your posts.
  - hncomplete 12y ago
    Apparently thinking that identity theft (which harms individuals) sucks also means I worship the state. Right. Religious zealots always get mad when facts ruin their ideological narratives. Ethereal, you are now, and will always be, an utterly worthless shitstain on humanity. I won't couch this in distancing language. I'll own the fact that you're an asshole, that you're passive-aggressive, and that HN would be materially better if the mods had the balls to ban assholes like you.

logfromblammo 12y ago

I personally think that I should be skeptical of information released by entities that have a vested interest in influencing public opinion. I think it highly likely that the prosecution is going over the evidence that it intends to use with a fine-toothed comb to avoid potential embarrassments during discovery. As this is a somewhat newsworthy case, they are going to be particularly cautious about making sure all the keystone facts are supported by admissible evidence. On top of that, they have to conceal some of their tactics so that they can continue to use them successfully in the future. If Ulbricht did solicit murder for hire, I'm not entirely certain that he would have even thought of trying that if government agents were not already investigating him, due to his involvement in the drug trade. It might have been entrapment, just as a means of putting him into police custody, making him unable to interfere with further investigations by erasing trails that had not yet been followed, and also providing a means to seize his Bitcoins. By that hypothesis, the state suspects he is Dread Pirate Roberts, but lacks the evidence to prove it. People in custody are less able to shield themselves from investigations. So they set him up with an illegal entrapment that would not necessarily support a conviction, but is plenty good enough for an indictment and arrest. Then they grab him and execute warrants based on the "I gotcha, sucka" charges that will end up supporting the drug kingpin case. With that access, they make seizures and file civil forfeiture cases against the assets, because the legal standards for those are woefully skewed in the state's favor. The prosecutor declines to pursue the murder for hire charges because he always knew they were bogus, and instead dumps all the gathered evidence into the drug trafficking and racketeering charges, as it is now sanitized by warrants under the previous indictment. If that is indeed what has happened here, and it results in a conviction, I don't care how guilty Ulbricht is, because the state should not be able to corrupt our legal system in that fashion. He should go free, and the prosecutors and police that were involved should fill that cell in his place.

kemayo 12y ago
> It might have been entrapment, just as a means of putting him into police custody, making him unable to interfere with further investigations by erasing trails that had not yet been followed, and also providing a means to seize his Bitcoins. It's only entrapment if government agents persuaded him to commit a crime he wasn't otherwise inclined to commit. For it to be a defense he'd have to show that the government actively talked him into hiring someone -- just offering to do it and seeing if he takes them up on it isn't enough. (The analogy I've seen used is that an undercover cop saying "hey, want to buy some cocaine?" isn't entrapment.)