5 ms·

This is a pretty poor write up. "The government's argument is that, as the site's alleged administrator, Dread Pirate Roberts, anything that occurred there is

by nemo 12y ago

This is a pretty poor write up. "The government's argument is that, as the site's alleged administrator, Dread Pirate Roberts, anything that occurred there is his fault." The government's argument is that Ulbricht, as the alleged administrator of the site who was not only fully aware of what was happening, but was designing and tailoring the site to facilitate illegal behavior, courting dealers/criminals to the site, and profiting from the illegal activity he facilitated, so he was engaged in a criminal conspiracy. "Anything that occurred there is his fault" is a ludicrous misrepresentation of what an accusation of criminal conspiracy means. Also with that pile of evidence, esp. finding him logged in as the admin. while arresting him, it's looking completely unlikely that Ulbricht would not be found guilty, esp. with the completely inept/absurd responses by the defense team.

ubernostrum 12y ago
Yup. This is like some of the torrent/pirate sites, where the ordinary safe-harbor type of defense would be "Who? Us? We had no idea people were doing that sort of thing!" and gets shot down by "Yeah, you were designing and advertising it specifically to enable that sort of thing, attract people who would do that sort of thing, and talked at length about how your site was entirely for doing that sort of thing."
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
> but was designing and tailoring the site to facilitate illegal behavior So if I have booths built at my nightclub that make it easier for dealers to sell smack without others being able to see... It's a crime to build furniture? How is that sane? We're at the point in the drug war where it's such an unspeakable and incredible failure, that the government feels empowered to twist laws or even make them up on the spot to get the rare PR victory (that will of course mean no real world change). It's sick.
- krapp 12y ago
  No, the crime would be making it easy to deal smack in your nightclub. And then taking a cut of the sales.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
    How is that a crime in the philosophical sense, but more importantly, which statutes actually make this illegal and what is their legal wording?
    - krapp 12y ago
      There's no such thing as a 'crime in the philosophical sense.' If you're asking whether dealing drugs as a business should be illegal, that's irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is. In the practical sense, federal and state statutes clearly consider dealing in certain substances to be a crime. Asking for a citation for that is absurd as you only need consult the source of your outrage with America's drug laws, as referenced in the grandparent comment, for evidence that such laws exist. That Ulbricht did so from a website for bitcoins doesn't make it any less of a crime than if he'd done it from a streetcorner, or a dark booth in a nightclub, regardless of whether or not makes him more sympathetic to the Hacker News crowd. But, if you want to read the actual indictment against Ulbricht, here it is: http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/February14/RossUlbrichtIndictmentPR/US%20v.%20Ross%20Ulbricht%20Indictment.pdf http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/February14/Ros...
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
        But he wasn't dealing. And as far as this one... >There's no such thing as a 'crime in the philosophical sense. If there is no such thing, then nothing is right or wrong, and laws are just obstacles to get around however you can, for as long as you can. That seems a strange principle to propose.
        nemo 12y ago
        He was facilitating and taking a cut of the profits from dealing. That was the crime, and it's on the books as a crime. You might think this is unjust, if you frame laws as just vs. unjust it's much more clear than talking about 'crime in the philosophical sense' which is not a normal way of discussing law.
- ubernostrum 12y ago
  So if I have booths built at my nightclub that make it easier for dealers to sell smack without others being able to see... If you advertised it as "NoMoreNicksLeft's House of Smack Dealing, totally anonymous drug-dealing booths, reasonable rates, guaranteed privacy and security for all your drug-dealing needs"... then I think you can see where the issue is. And the issue with Silk Road is largely that it was explicitly designed to cater to, and advertised as catering to, illegal activity.
  - smokeyj 12y ago
    > then I think you can see where the issue is. Like Goldman Sachs owning a classified service that caters to sex traffickers? Alright feds, let's see some heads roll.
- nemo 12y ago
  If you worked with the smack dealers, set up a space explicitly designed for drug transactions, and then took a cut of the profits then that would be a better analogy, and you'd definitely be guilty of criminal conspiracy.

by nemo 12y ago

ubernostrum 12y ago

Yup. This is like some of the torrent/pirate sites, where the ordinary safe-harbor type of defense would be "Who? Us? We had no idea people were doing that sort of thing!" and gets shot down by "Yeah, you were designing and advertising it specifically to enable that sort of thing, attract people who would do that sort of thing, and talked at length about how your site was entirely for doing that sort of thing."

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago

> but was designing and tailoring the site to facilitate illegal behavior So if I have booths built at my nightclub that make it easier for dealers to sell smack without others being able to see... It's a crime to build furniture? How is that sane? We're at the point in the drug war where it's such an unspeakable and incredible failure, that the government feels empowered to twist laws or even make them up on the spot to get the rare PR victory (that will of course mean no real world change). It's sick.

krapp 12y ago
No, the crime would be making it easy to deal smack in your nightclub. And then taking a cut of the sales.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  How is that a crime in the philosophical sense, but more importantly, which statutes actually make this illegal and what is their legal wording?
  - krapp 12y ago
    There's no such thing as a 'crime in the philosophical sense.' If you're asking whether dealing drugs as a business should be illegal, that's irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is. In the practical sense, federal and state statutes clearly consider dealing in certain substances to be a crime. Asking for a citation for that is absurd as you only need consult the source of your outrage with America's drug laws, as referenced in the grandparent comment, for evidence that such laws exist. That Ulbricht did so from a website for bitcoins doesn't make it any less of a crime than if he'd done it from a streetcorner, or a dark booth in a nightclub, regardless of whether or not makes him more sympathetic to the Hacker News crowd. But, if you want to read the actual indictment against Ulbricht, here it is: http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/February14/RossUlbrichtIndictmentPR/US%20v.%20Ross%20Ulbricht%20Indictment.pdf http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/February14/Ros...
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
      But he wasn't dealing. And as far as this one... >There's no such thing as a 'crime in the philosophical sense. If there is no such thing, then nothing is right or wrong, and laws are just obstacles to get around however you can, for as long as you can. That seems a strange principle to propose.
      - nemo 12y ago
        He was facilitating and taking a cut of the profits from dealing. That was the crime, and it's on the books as a crime. You might think this is unjust, if you frame laws as just vs. unjust it's much more clear than talking about 'crime in the philosophical sense' which is not a normal way of discussing law.
ubernostrum 12y ago
So if I have booths built at my nightclub that make it easier for dealers to sell smack without others being able to see... If you advertised it as "NoMoreNicksLeft's House of Smack Dealing, totally anonymous drug-dealing booths, reasonable rates, guaranteed privacy and security for all your drug-dealing needs"... then I think you can see where the issue is. And the issue with Silk Road is largely that it was explicitly designed to cater to, and advertised as catering to, illegal activity.
- smokeyj 12y ago
  > then I think you can see where the issue is. Like Goldman Sachs owning a classified service that caters to sex traffickers? Alright feds, let's see some heads roll.
nemo 12y ago
If you worked with the smack dealers, set up a space explicitly designed for drug transactions, and then took a cut of the profits then that would be a better analogy, and you'd definitely be guilty of criminal conspiracy.