3 ms·

My personal belief on the matter is that Ross would at some point in time need to hire someone. When you're in the drug business, internet or not, at some point

by atmosx 12y ago

My personal belief on the matter is that Ross would at some point in time need to hire someone. When you're in the drug business, internet or not, at some point in time you will have to deal with this kind of people. At that point you either become an ferocious animal - more ferocious than your opponents - or you do as the say OR you go home. Strangely no one chooses to go home (a bit a la Walter White). Of course I can't be sure if he was serious about the 'hitman' or not. Probably he wasn't all that serious about it BUT at some point in time he would have to become either digitally or physically violent one way or another to protect what is his. Now, considering a guy who made loads of money bulding an illegal marketplace online the "poster boy for privacy in the information age" while having characters like Assange and Snowden around is a shame IMHO. Since ancient Greece (e.g. Antigone by Sophocles) there is a strugle between Human law and God's law (e.g. Ethics, True, etc.). Snowden falls in that category IMHO. What Ross did was both illegal and unethical.

meric 12y ago
>> Strangely no one chooses to go home The ones that go home, don't get caught, and so you don't hear about it.
- atmosx 12y ago
  Excellent point.
MichaelGG 12y ago
He only needed to kill people because he fucked up his opsec. Imagine if the person that was blackmailing him was an agent. If so, game over. Hence, he should never have allowed anyone to get into such a position. That said, as far as damage control, he had no choice it seems. If the blackmailer really was going to turn over many innocent people to be prosecuted, well, it was probably the morally correct thing to do. (Assuming negotiations for a payment or other settlement didn't seem feasible.) It's not like he was out trying to murder random people or competitors. He was protecting many innocent users from potentially having their lives destroyed. I dunno about everyone else here, but that feels like it'd be a heavy burden to have to choose. Sorta like shooting an informant that's gonna leak info on a bunch of refugees. You know the informant might just be trying to get out of his own mess, or getting a safety package setup for his family or whatnot. But if you let him have his way, many people will be tortured. As sad as it is, what else can you do in such a case, even if it was your fault in the first place?

by atmosx 12y ago

meric 12y ago

>> Strangely no one chooses to go home The ones that go home, don't get caught, and so you don't hear about it.

atmosx 12y ago
Excellent point.

MichaelGG 12y ago

He only needed to kill people because he fucked up his opsec. Imagine if the person that was blackmailing him was an agent. If so, game over. Hence, he should never have allowed anyone to get into such a position. That said, as far as damage control, he had no choice it seems. If the blackmailer really was going to turn over many innocent people to be prosecuted, well, it was probably the morally correct thing to do. (Assuming negotiations for a payment or other settlement didn't seem feasible.) It's not like he was out trying to murder random people or competitors. He was protecting many innocent users from potentially having their lives destroyed. I dunno about everyone else here, but that feels like it'd be a heavy burden to have to choose. Sorta like shooting an informant that's gonna leak info on a bunch of refugees. You know the informant might just be trying to get out of his own mess, or getting a safety package setup for his family or whatnot. But if you let him have his way, many people will be tortured. As sad as it is, what else can you do in such a case, even if it was your fault in the first place?