3 ms·

That statement nonspecifically threatens anyone who "hides behind a keyboard". Also, this threat comes without any determination that the law has been broken; t

• 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.