I'm a bit confused as to what the alternative is from their perspective. If they infiltrated the site, and it was doing things that are illegal, they'd be horri

I'm a bit confused as to what the alternative is from their perspective. If they infiltrated the site, and it was doing things that are illegal, they'd be horribly negligent to not act on it. It would be the equivalent to the "Fast and Furious" scandal when spun by news agencies. We can disagree with the morality of drug laws (I think they're horribly misguided and incoherent), but what else can they do? I think the best we can hope for is that they do the job we asked them to through the laws we put in place without violating other laws we put in place to protect civil liberties. If they're doing that (...) then it seems like this was their only ethical* choice. Assuming they're following the laws protecting civil liberties (...), the decision on whether or not the upside of shutting down a few markets balances the downside of hardening the others is way above their pay grade. * where ethical is defined as I imagine the individual law enforcement personnel are obligated to view it