6 ms·

In which the purpose of the press release (and bust) is revealed: to threaten the public and make an example. The usual stuff you expect out of an upstanding a

by openssj 12y ago

In which the purpose of the press release (and bust) is revealed: to threaten the public and make an example. The usual stuff you expect out of an upstanding agent of democracy.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Well, the crime-committing public anyway.
krapp 12y ago
Shame on the US government for threatening the public with the enforcement of its own laws.
- openssj 12y ago
  That statement nonspecifically threatens anyone who "hides behind a keyboard". Also, this threat comes without any determination that the law has been broken; there has been no conviction. I have no problem with assurance that the law will be faithfully executed. This isn't that. This is inflicting fear to suppress people you disagree with. If only we had a buzzword for that.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    This is assurance to the public that the law will be faithfully executed. They are assuring the public that the FBI is capable of investigating crimes even on the internet.
    - disposition2 12y ago
      It would just be nice if they operated under the same judicial rules that they are enforcing. It seems like a large portion of US agencies (who enforce 'justice' in one way or another) these days feel like the same laws they are enforcing don't necessarily apply to them, especially when said law(s) limit their ability to do their job. Or more simply put, exceptional circumstances have now become a rule rather than an exception.
      - Touche 12y ago
        Specifically which laws did the FBI break in this investigation?
        krapp 12y ago
        Something something parallel construction, no doubt.
        disposition2 12y ago
        I'm not sure if they did, "in this investigation". I was commenting more on the general tone of US agencies, since the PATRIOT ACT, and their contradictions of what is breaking the law when it applies to them vs. whomever they are investigating.
        Touche 12y ago
        It's possible to be skeptical of the government and government agencies while at the same time thinking that the arrest of (alleged) drug traffickers is a good thing.
        mpyne 12y ago
        Commenting more on the general tone of US agencies, since changing the law to specifically allow an expanded set of investigatory techniques, is them "breaking the law"? What? You can argue they shouldn't have such authorities, but when the law explicitly gives them authority it's foolish to then claim they're breaking the law when using those same authorities.
        lazaroclapp 12y ago
        It can still be breaking the law if they: a) exceed even the authority granted to them explicitly by the Patriot Act or b) the contents or interpretation of the Patriot Act violate the letter (and possibly the spirit/interpretation) of a higher law, namely the Constitution. IANAL so I don't know whether either of those are true, but is something that has been called into question (beyond the ethical or social-impact concerns over the laws and practices enabled by the act). I don't feel shutting down a black market is illegal (or unethical) unless the means to do so were illegal (or unethical). However, saying that US agencies violate the law more often after being given more powers within the law is not necessarily a self-contradictory or strange notion.
  - krapp 12y ago
    The context of the entire paragraph from which that statement is drawn refers pretty clearly to "hiding behind a keyboard" to commit crimes such as running an online drug bazaar.. of course the government disagrees with and wants to suppress that. I don't believe it's nearly as nonspecific and ominous as you seem to. The premise of sites like Silk Road is that they exist entirely beyond the reach of the law - and the government is, understandably, refuting this premise.
  - kiba 12y ago
    Disagree with what? The government disagreed with black markets, and they will enforce their will by shutting it down. If not the DEA or the FBI, then the IRS will.
- duaneb 12y ago
  Well, they've certainly shamed the public enough for trying to get the government to comply with its own goddamn laws.
- noarchy 12y ago
  By "its" do you mean the "public" or the US government? These are the government's laws, and it enforces those laws on said public.
  - krapp 12y ago
    > These are the government's laws, and it enforces those laws on said public. Well, yes.
- innguest 12y ago
  ...when it consistently and unfairly places itself and its cronies above said laws.
  - krapp 12y ago
    Nevertheless, selling illegal drugs on the internet is illegal. I don't think you can say that attempting to bring down darknets is an example of government corruption in this case, notwithstanding the inevitable argument that the government is corrupt in any case.
    - innguest 12y ago
      I can say exactly that, watch me: their persecution priorities are corrupted. How many rights violations is this darknet thingy causing? More than the megabankers that get away with a slap on the wrist? And how much easier is it to arrest megabankers than technical-minded hacker guys and gals that try their best to hide their crimes? There's a much higher beneficial payoff that can come from arresting bankers (like Iceland did), and at much less effort, than trying to make sure anonymous people don't put silly substances in their mouths. So yes, attempting to close down darknets is a shining example of our government's corruption, today, with everything that is happening with the economy, courtesy of the bankers.
      - CamperBob2 12y ago
        (Shrug) The bankers have no power that the government doesn't give them. Your enemy lives on Pennsylvania Avenue, not Wall Street.
        innguest 12y ago
        Are you sure of that? "Give me the control of the credit of a nation, and I care not who makes the laws." -- Mayer Amschel Rothschild Disclaimer: I do not believe in a Rothschild conspiracy. I believe in real conspiracies like the Libor scandal.
- jeangenie 12y ago
  Not sure what your point is. It's okay for government representatives to threaten citizens for circumventing laws that are demonstrably foolish? Regardless you should step back and think about how a representative democracy should function.
  - krapp 12y ago
    >It's okay for government representatives to threaten citizens for circumventing laws that are demonstrably foolish? When they threaten citizens with arrest and a trial, yes. "Demonstrable foolishness" is not a get out of jail free card.* *IANAL, but i'm pretty sure.
personZ 12y ago
There is absolutely nothing untowards or abnormal about their claim, nor are they threatening the "public", which overwhelmingly doesn't operate black market sites. Law enforcement absolutely includes an element of making examples, and deterring crime. That is one of the major purposes why organizations like the FBI exist. Not quite sure what this has to do with democracy.
- creaoticx 12y ago
  You have to look at it not from the perspective of a black market site, but from the perspective of anonymity. Sites operated on the TOR network are supposed to be anonymous which is a valuable contribution to the existence of free speech. The freedom of a country that outlaws acts between consenting adults can be debated, but there are many countries that are undeniably oppressive. If the US government can track down an anonymous site, then it is likely these countries can too. Arguably anonymous sites can harbor truly dangerous crimes like murder for hire, pedophiles, and terrorists. However, they can also protect political activists and whistle blowers. So while this isn't necessarily a cut and dry issue, it is much more complex than just saying these are black market sites so who cares.
- 300bps 12y ago
  There is absolutely nothing untowards or abnormal about their claim, nor are they threatening the "public", which overwhelmingly doesn't operate black market sites. Sure, most people don't operate black market sites. But the problem is that if the government is able to use technology to have near-perfect knowledge of what everyone is up to then bad things happen when you get a bad person in charge of the government. Possible case in point just happened: http://goo.gl/yndbdS http://goo.gl/yndbdS The bottom line is that there should be a way for people to be anonymous behind their keyboard. That's what prevents people from dying for expressing opinions that are counter to the government. Just picture a radical Prolife president who feels justified in murdering people who advocate for Prochoice policies. Don't focus on the one example - there are all kinds of bad things that a bad person in power could do. Enforcing laws is not a justification for absolute power.
  - 12y ago

by openssj 12y ago

In which the purpose of the press release (and bust) is revealed: to threaten the public and make an example. The usual stuff you expect out of an upstanding agent of democracy.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

Well, the crime-committing public anyway.

krapp 12y ago

Shame on the US government for threatening the public with the enforcement of its own laws.

openssj 12y ago
That statement nonspecifically threatens anyone who "hides behind a keyboard". Also, this threat comes without any determination that the law has been broken; there has been no conviction. I have no problem with assurance that the law will be faithfully executed. This isn't that. This is inflicting fear to suppress people you disagree with. If only we had a buzzword for that.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  This is assurance to the public that the law will be faithfully executed. They are assuring the public that the FBI is capable of investigating crimes even on the internet.
  - disposition2 12y ago
    It would just be nice if they operated under the same judicial rules that they are enforcing. It seems like a large portion of US agencies (who enforce 'justice' in one way or another) these days feel like the same laws they are enforcing don't necessarily apply to them, especially when said law(s) limit their ability to do their job. Or more simply put, exceptional circumstances have now become a rule rather than an exception.
    - Touche 12y ago
      Specifically which laws did the FBI break in this investigation?
      - krapp 12y ago
        Something something parallel construction, no doubt.
      - disposition2 12y ago
        I'm not sure if they did, "in this investigation". I was commenting more on the general tone of US agencies, since the PATRIOT ACT, and their contradictions of what is breaking the law when it applies to them vs. whomever they are investigating.
        Touche 12y ago
        It's possible to be skeptical of the government and government agencies while at the same time thinking that the arrest of (alleged) drug traffickers is a good thing.
        mpyne 12y ago
        Commenting more on the general tone of US agencies, since changing the law to specifically allow an expanded set of investigatory techniques, is them "breaking the law"? What? You can argue they shouldn't have such authorities, but when the law explicitly gives them authority it's foolish to then claim they're breaking the law when using those same authorities.
        lazaroclapp 12y ago
        It can still be breaking the law if they: a) exceed even the authority granted to them explicitly by the Patriot Act or b) the contents or interpretation of the Patriot Act violate the letter (and possibly the spirit/interpretation) of a higher law, namely the Constitution. IANAL so I don't know whether either of those are true, but is something that has been called into question (beyond the ethical or social-impact concerns over the laws and practices enabled by the act). I don't feel shutting down a black market is illegal (or unethical) unless the means to do so were illegal (or unethical). However, saying that US agencies violate the law more often after being given more powers within the law is not necessarily a self-contradictory or strange notion.
- krapp 12y ago
  The context of the entire paragraph from which that statement is drawn refers pretty clearly to "hiding behind a keyboard" to commit crimes such as running an online drug bazaar.. of course the government disagrees with and wants to suppress that. I don't believe it's nearly as nonspecific and ominous as you seem to. The premise of sites like Silk Road is that they exist entirely beyond the reach of the law - and the government is, understandably, refuting this premise.
- kiba 12y ago
  Disagree with what? The government disagreed with black markets, and they will enforce their will by shutting it down. If not the DEA or the FBI, then the IRS will.
duaneb 12y ago
Well, they've certainly shamed the public enough for trying to get the government to comply with its own goddamn laws.
noarchy 12y ago
By "its" do you mean the "public" or the US government? These are the government's laws, and it enforces those laws on said public.
- krapp 12y ago
  > These are the government's laws, and it enforces those laws on said public. Well, yes.
innguest 12y ago
...when it consistently and unfairly places itself and its cronies above said laws.
- krapp 12y ago
  Nevertheless, selling illegal drugs on the internet is illegal. I don't think you can say that attempting to bring down darknets is an example of government corruption in this case, notwithstanding the inevitable argument that the government is corrupt in any case.
  - innguest 12y ago
    I can say exactly that, watch me: their persecution priorities are corrupted. How many rights violations is this darknet thingy causing? More than the megabankers that get away with a slap on the wrist? And how much easier is it to arrest megabankers than technical-minded hacker guys and gals that try their best to hide their crimes? There's a much higher beneficial payoff that can come from arresting bankers (like Iceland did), and at much less effort, than trying to make sure anonymous people don't put silly substances in their mouths. So yes, attempting to close down darknets is a shining example of our government's corruption, today, with everything that is happening with the economy, courtesy of the bankers.
    - CamperBob2 12y ago
      (Shrug) The bankers have no power that the government doesn't give them. Your enemy lives on Pennsylvania Avenue, not Wall Street.
      - innguest 12y ago
        Are you sure of that? "Give me the control of the credit of a nation, and I care not who makes the laws." -- Mayer Amschel Rothschild Disclaimer: I do not believe in a Rothschild conspiracy. I believe in real conspiracies like the Libor scandal.
jeangenie 12y ago
Not sure what your point is. It's okay for government representatives to threaten citizens for circumventing laws that are demonstrably foolish? Regardless you should step back and think about how a representative democracy should function.
- krapp 12y ago
  >It's okay for government representatives to threaten citizens for circumventing laws that are demonstrably foolish? When they threaten citizens with arrest and a trial, yes. "Demonstrable foolishness" is not a get out of jail free card.* *IANAL, but i'm pretty sure.

personZ 12y ago

There is absolutely nothing untowards or abnormal about their claim, nor are they threatening the "public", which overwhelmingly doesn't operate black market sites. Law enforcement absolutely includes an element of making examples, and deterring crime. That is one of the major purposes why organizations like the FBI exist. Not quite sure what this has to do with democracy.

creaoticx 12y ago
You have to look at it not from the perspective of a black market site, but from the perspective of anonymity. Sites operated on the TOR network are supposed to be anonymous which is a valuable contribution to the existence of free speech. The freedom of a country that outlaws acts between consenting adults can be debated, but there are many countries that are undeniably oppressive. If the US government can track down an anonymous site, then it is likely these countries can too. Arguably anonymous sites can harbor truly dangerous crimes like murder for hire, pedophiles, and terrorists. However, they can also protect political activists and whistle blowers. So while this isn't necessarily a cut and dry issue, it is much more complex than just saying these are black market sites so who cares.
300bps 12y ago
There is absolutely nothing untowards or abnormal about their claim, nor are they threatening the "public", which overwhelmingly doesn't operate black market sites. Sure, most people don't operate black market sites. But the problem is that if the government is able to use technology to have near-perfect knowledge of what everyone is up to then bad things happen when you get a bad person in charge of the government. Possible case in point just happened: http://goo.gl/yndbdS http://goo.gl/yndbdS The bottom line is that there should be a way for people to be anonymous behind their keyboard. That's what prevents people from dying for expressing opinions that are counter to the government. Just picture a radical Prolife president who feels justified in murdering people who advocate for Prochoice policies. Don't focus on the one example - there are all kinds of bad things that a bad person in power could do. Enforcing laws is not a justification for absolute power.
- 12y ago