3 ms·

> 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 sma

> 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.
      - krapp 12y ago
        Fair enough.. he just ran a business where other people did the dealing, and he made a profit from the sales. Still pretty clearly a criminal conspiracy, at least on paper. And when I said there's no such thing as crime in a philosophical sense, I meant that what one believes about the ethics of a law doesn't actually apply to its execution. Ulbricht hasn't been charged with crimes against philosophy, and a belief that drug laws are immoral isn't a legally credible defense. You can make the argument that what Ulbricht did shouldn't be illegal, but I don't believe it's possible to make a credible argument that running the Silk Road site wasn't actually breaking any laws.
        NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
        > Fair enough.. he just ran a business where other people did the dealing, and he made a profit from the sales. Like every seedy motel that caters to hookers. And yet, no one thinks this is a crime... because renting rooms isn't a crime. >Ulbricht hasn't been charged with crimes against philosophy From the looks of it, they're trying to offer evidence of crimes he hasn't been charged with to push a gullible jury towards an unjust verdict. Hell, for all the press release propaganda we've heard about murder-for-hire, where are those charges? Have you ever known an honest prosecutor to hold off on murder charges for which there is evidence, or to leak it to journalists that someone's a murderer when they won't even bother charging them with such? This smells. > You can make the argument that what Ulbricht did shouldn't be illegal, I'm not making that argument. I'm making the argument that they can't figure out what to charge him with, and so they're twisting the laws and the trial process to convict him anyway.
  - meowface 12y ago
    I think the majority of HN commentators would agree that buying drugs is not a crime in the philosophical sense. This is about crime in the legal sense though. And facilitating drug sellers and buyers (with furniture, or with websites and escrow systems) is definitely criminal conspiracy in the legal sense. To move back to the philosophical sense, it seems apparent that Ulbricht ordered the murders of at least 2 people, so I don't have a ton of sympathy for him. If it weren't for that I would probably be rooting for him (though I'd still agree he has little legal ground to stand on).
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.

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.
    - krapp 12y ago
      Fair enough.. he just ran a business where other people did the dealing, and he made a profit from the sales. Still pretty clearly a criminal conspiracy, at least on paper. And when I said there's no such thing as crime in a philosophical sense, I meant that what one believes about the ethics of a law doesn't actually apply to its execution. Ulbricht hasn't been charged with crimes against philosophy, and a belief that drug laws are immoral isn't a legally credible defense. You can make the argument that what Ulbricht did shouldn't be illegal, but I don't believe it's possible to make a credible argument that running the Silk Road site wasn't actually breaking any laws.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
        > Fair enough.. he just ran a business where other people did the dealing, and he made a profit from the sales. Like every seedy motel that caters to hookers. And yet, no one thinks this is a crime... because renting rooms isn't a crime. >Ulbricht hasn't been charged with crimes against philosophy From the looks of it, they're trying to offer evidence of crimes he hasn't been charged with to push a gullible jury towards an unjust verdict. Hell, for all the press release propaganda we've heard about murder-for-hire, where are those charges? Have you ever known an honest prosecutor to hold off on murder charges for which there is evidence, or to leak it to journalists that someone's a murderer when they won't even bother charging them with such? This smells. > You can make the argument that what Ulbricht did shouldn't be illegal, I'm not making that argument. I'm making the argument that they can't figure out what to charge him with, and so they're twisting the laws and the trial process to convict him anyway.
- meowface 12y ago
  I think the majority of HN commentators would agree that buying drugs is not a crime in the philosophical sense. This is about crime in the legal sense though. And facilitating drug sellers and buyers (with furniture, or with websites and escrow systems) is definitely criminal conspiracy in the legal sense. To move back to the philosophical sense, it seems apparent that Ulbricht ordered the murders of at least 2 people, so I don't have a ton of sympathy for him. If it weren't for that I would probably be rooting for him (though I'd still agree he has little legal ground to stand on).

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.