7 ms·

Warning: this opinion probably won't fit into the HN zeitgeist. If you commit a crime online don't be surprised when they seek to gain evidence against you. Th

• betenoire 12y ago
  Please have a little pity, you never know. But that's beside the point of this article I guess.
• jqm 12y ago
  "violence and drugs" One of these things is not like the other.
• guelo 12y ago
  The reason I know you're lying is that anybody that I have met that has done any time says they wouldn't wish it on their worse enemy.
  • ianstallings 12y ago
    I had a whole response here but I took it out. I'll put it this way - you don't know what you're talking about and my name is right there in my nick. Do some investigation then return and tell me I'm lying.
    • guelo 12y ago
      OK tough guy. Maybe you just have a lot less empathy than the average criminal.
      • ianstallings 12y ago
        Most guys I know that have done time certainly don't love the cops. But when you get caught doing a crime they don't protest either. And you call me tough guy. That's funny. I told you I committed crimes, that I was a violent person in the past. Then you attack me and you want me to be civil? I don't have that in me sorry. I'm a victim of the system you see. Pity me.
  • mod 12y ago
    So your anecdote has become irrefutable evidence? Some people enjoy prison. I imagine they're not common.
    • wavefunction 12y ago
      They're habituated to it maybe. It may be "comfortable" because they know it well and that familiarity allows people who likely had unstable home situations to appreciate the comparatively stable situation of prison to be preferable.
• soup10 12y ago
  Because buying and selling drugs is a mild crime which carry too harsh sentences. Especially considering the awful prison system which makes no attempt to help inmates become productive members of society.
• nickodell 12y ago
  I'm not sure why you think the majority of Hacker News would be against you. There are uncomfortable uses of state power in the drug war, like FISA warrants and civil asset forfeiture. This is not one of them. Edit after reading replies to your comment: Well, I guess I predicted wrongly.
  • icebraining 12y ago
    There are two kinds of abuses of state power: one is when legal procedures are abused, which is what you described; the other is when, despite following proper procedures, the outcome is considered unjust. This is what many people feel about this situation.
• dublinben 12y ago
  >they are criminals They likely disagree that their "crimes" ought to be illegal, and do not accept the legitimacy of any punishment for such behavior. Why should they have to "make a choice" and make "better decisions" when they don't believe what they've done is wrong?
  • thejrk 12y ago
    It doesn't matter if you disagree or not, it IS illegal.
    • jjbiotech 12y ago
      Here's a hypothetical situation that will give you some perspective to consider: Eating unhealthy food with a high fat and sugar content in your country is highly illegal. In this hypothetical country you live in, the offence of eating unhealthy food is a felony and punishable by time in prison. This law makes sense: It's for the good of the people. It's a victimless crime, but the war on unhealthy food needs to be enforced or else society will become so fat the entire system will collapse. People will be gorging themselves on big macs instead of showing up for work. Think about the children! The kids will get so fat they'll be unable to find a partner, and won't be able to get a job. People will become addicted to unhealthy food and permanently damage their bodies, causing them to die early. We need to ban unhealthy food, and throw all of the law breakers in prison like they deserve. It doesn't matter if you disagree or not, it IS illegal.
      • lmm 12y ago
        Damn straight. Where do I sign up?
        • icebraining 12y ago
          You can't, that's illegal.
    • Lawtonfogle 12y ago
      Legally, in some places homosexuality is punished by death. The law is the law, so should they just shut up and be executed?
• NhanH 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification Law does not equal to the "rules of society", at best they asymptote the "rules of society", if there is even something like that. In programming term, law is the formalized code (ie a program) of a society's moral stance. And as any computer program, it has bug, unintended behaviours, and changing one part of it will affect other parts due to unknown complexity. Imagine how hard it is to do random stupid CRUD app at scale, our moral code itself is complex and ambiguous, applying to a few hundred millions users and it's a big fat mess that's barely coherent. I don't have an opinion on the whole "war on drugs" one way or another. But it's straight up dangerous to believe that the law is the be-all end-all in a society, especially when more basic ideals are put down to be less important. > they broke the rules of society and now society wants to punish them Contrary to popular belief, every single one of us here on HN are still human, not robots. And we are decidedly part of society.
  • ianstallings 12y ago
    Then perhaps you should use societies systems in place to change the rules, since you're part of it. Ignoring the law because you think you're morally right is kind of meaningless when talking about law enforcement. That's my point. This isn't about morality. This is about reality. You know they will punish you, you break the law, get caught, then complain that it's unfair? That's what a fool would do.
• GhotiFish 12y ago
  I can understand that attitude, I don't think there's many on HN who would openly support the public sale of firearms with their serial numbers filed off. Anti-terroism laws are great, the problem is that everyone is a terroist. Anti-criminal laws are great, the problem is that everyone is a criminal. Anti-drug laws can also be great, the problem is that relatively safe drugs are incredibly illegal, and applied typically against minorities, and extremely unsafe designer drugs arn't and circulate amongst the public. It's not so black and white as I see it, anyway.
  • Lawtonfogle 12y ago
    >Anti-drug laws can also be great If we assume a definition of great that allows the following sentence to be true: Racial discrimination can be great.
    • GhotiFish 12y ago
      I'm happy heroin is illegal. Locking people up who use heroin, not so much.
      • dublinben 12y ago
        Heroin (diacetylmorphine) isn't illegal, it's a controlled substance. It's still prescribed fairly regularly, and has recognized medical uses.
        • vonklaus 12y ago
          I think that's a bit pedantic. In context, it is quite obvious the comment is referring to the fact that heroin is illegal recreationally, and thus, not widely available. Also, while I realise this discussion spans other countries, heroin is not prescribed in the US. In Canada, it is largely prescribed to heroin addicts and not as a pain management mechanism. While I believe it is prescribed in England and probably Europe, the point stands that heroin is illegal for most people in most places.
• hnnewguy 12y ago
  >It just always makes me chuckle when criminals won't face the fact that they are criminals. "I know, right? Why don't all those damn sodomites just take their chemical castration and shut up and accept the fact they're criminals?"
  • sliverstorm 12y ago
    My favorite legal defense, moral relativism. "One day, this heinous crime I have committed might not be illegal. Knowing that, how can you possibly convict me!?"
    • pyre 12y ago
      The general stance that "you broke the law, now you're a criminal" may be technically correct, but most people issuing such statements group "criminals" into a singular group and feel that the serial murderer and the child rapist are no different than the guy that forgot he had an orange in his car when crossing the border. "You've broken the rules of society, you are no better than a vagabond!" In light of this, how can one not lose faith in the law when so many laws that punish people for stupid things are on the books just because a bunch of religious people want to force everyone to "follow their religion" to a minor extent or how the system is setup in a way that encourages government prosecutors to view the people in the cases that are put on their desk as little more than pawns in a game to "make a name" for themselves? [There's also the fact that judges/lawyers try to hide the idea of jury nullification from juries too...]
      • tedunangst 12y ago
        Welcome to life in a democracy. Stupid people voting for stupid laws. Why can't we just put the smart people in charge?
        • spacemanmatt 12y ago
          Some idiots think that's exactly what they did.
        • 12y ago
• dataker 12y ago
  This matter is beyond using or selling drugs. The definition of crime is based on a law which isn't necessarily morally right. For example, in my country, discussing LGBT or even marijuana would get you into serious trouble. Hence, as internet users, we should look beyond our time and space, ensuring freedom of speech.
  • sliverstorm 12y ago
    The definition of crime is based on a law which isn't necessarily morally right. So what is the correct action for the Fed? To ignore the law and not enforce it?
    • trhway 12y ago
      my understanding of the US legal system is that Feds really get to choose which laws they are going or not going to enforce. At the top level it is what is called executive action and power of pardon. For example, Obama has followed moral instead of laws in his immigration actions.
      • TillE 12y ago
        In two hours, the marijuana situation in Berlin is going to change significantly because two senators decided to amend the enforcement policy. Basically, German law allows for declining to prosecute the possession of small quantities. But the exact policy is set by each state, and is not actually a law. So as of March 31st, there will be a zero tolerance policy in one specific park. It's one of the weirder and more short-sighted drug policies I've ever encountered, and a good example of this kind of move: from officially enshrined non-enforcement of a law to strict enforcement.
        • anigbrowl 12y ago
          A good even handed analysis of this situation: http://sensiseeds.com/en/blog/gorlitzer-park-cannabis-culture-drugs-dump/ http://sensiseeds.com/en/blog/gorlitzer-park-cannabis-cultur...
• teamhappy 12y ago
  Sounds like you're projecting a lot of personal stuff into this. I don't see why anybody would defend darknet dealers. You can't be a responsible dealer if you don't know who you're selling to. Simple as that. The next two paragraphs you wrote a bullshit though. You said you "made a choice." I suppose that was after you did some time, yes? What did you do before that? Deflecting and ignoring perhaps? Give them a chance to learn.
• anigbrowl 12y ago
  Well, looking through the article it seems as if the government wants Reddit to cough up the identities of these 5 people because they've spoken about or otherwise implied knowledge of who the administrators were on a drug trading operation. Now of course there might be prosecutors intending to charge them as accessories, but it might be as simple as wanting to compel testimony about the admins. For example, Suppose you sell servers, and someone calls you up one day wanting 30 of them. You hit it off with this client, a friendship develops, and 6 months later that person, in an unguarded moment, says 'heh, I bet you never thought those 30 servers would end up as part of the 'Drugz, maaan' empire.' Now, unless you're a mandated reporter nothing criminal has occurred so far - you gained knowledge of criminal activity, but your friend hasn't ordered any more servers from you and so you're not taking part in any conspiracy, plus you were paid long before you learned this information (let's assume you can prove all this). However, if you bragged to someone else that you knew who the boss of 'Drugz, maan' is, then prosecutors would be able to subpoena your testimony whether you wanted to give it or not. This is just a made-up example; I just want to point out that it's not necessarily a question of criminality or free speech. The government (ie the US government, following common law principles)has always been able to compel testimony except from a defendant or a small class of other people who have an intimate relationship with a defendant (doctor/attorney/clergy person). Even though a witness may object to being called and not want to help the prosecution at all (ie a hostile witness), there's still an obligation to testify truthfully. So, free-speech advocates, just because you're allowed to say something and you may not be putting your own freedom at risk, be aware that the subject of your speech could be impacted by your statements.
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
• mikeash 12y ago
  I bet you've broken at least one law today, and yesterday, and you'll break one tomorrow. Should we have no pity on you? Would it be reasonable to say that you should make better decisions?
• Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  It is going to be really fun when being third party becomes a crime. When protesting the nth + 1 extension of the Disney protection laws become a crime. When having an unapproved relationship becomes a crime. When failing to report your family for their criminal actions becomes a crime.
  • arca_vorago 12y ago
    This is what most people, even HN users, seem to fail to grasp about this slippery slope we find ourselves hurtling down. The surveillance engine is about control (not security), and as that "control" pervads more and more spaces previously reserved to the individual, I see, given current trajectory, no other end state than pre-crime and thought-crime becoming a reality.
• disposition2 12y ago
  I don't see any crime being committed, except maybe thought-crime.
• john_b 12y ago
  > "They'll deflect, ignore, and basically try anything to escape the reality - they broke the rules of society and now society wants to punish them." I think most people, criminals or otherwise, understand this quite well. In fact, I'd guess that criminals understand it better than non-criminals. What some people don't seem to understand (or even want to think about) is that the law is often a pitiful and nationally embarrasing reflection of ethics. Laws don't get passed because they are good, or helpful, or promote some positive thing. They get passed because enough politicians could be convinced (sometimes by bribery, sometimes by real or implied threats) to vote for them. Why anyone imagines that the resulting laws have a significant correlation with what's good for an individual's rights and freedom is totally beyond me. Gandhi, MLK, and the U.S. Founding Fathers were all criminals of their times. Sometimes the world needs people to break the law to show how broken the law really is. If you or anyone else judges them solely because the label "criminal" applies to them, then I have no pity for you.
  • karmacondon 12y ago
    People who break the law are criminals, period. It doesn't matter if the law is just or unjust, or whether or not you personally agree with it. The simple fact is that the majority of citizens don't want online drug dealing to be legal, so it isn't legal. Equating drug dealers with Ghandi, MLK and the US Founding Fathers is a stretch at the least and outright offensive at worst. These people aren't making bold political statements. They're selling drugs. If you think that drugs should be legal, convince your fellow citizens to vote to make them legal. MLK, Gandhi and the Founding Fathers did what was necessary to change laws that they felt were unjust. Criminal behavior isn't the same thing as civil disobedience, and there are no shortcuts.
    • jstx 12y ago
      "If you think that drugs should be legal, convince your fellow citizens to vote to make them legal." The burden of enlightening someone should never fall upon anyone but that someone. To argue that avoiding imprisonment isn't a burden would be the definition of sophism.
• logfromblammo 12y ago
  The Internet is an information network. There are only two things you can do with it: transmit bits and receive bits. If your local authorities recognize the right to freely speak (and freely receive speech) you cannot commit a crime online. In the case of buying or selling contraband, the crime occurs when the contraband physically transfers possession. The network is neither necessary nor sufficient to commit the crime.
• jacquesm 12y ago
  There are multiple 'grades' of criminals. All of them have one thing in common, they broke the law. But the law is so widely varied that to group all these people under the same heading and to narrow it down to choice is in quite a few cases simply in error, depending on who you are, where you are and what your genetic make-up is. Lots of things that are criminal in one place are considered health issues in another, mental health issues in a third and non-issues in a fourth.
• arca_vorago 12y ago
  "This isn't a liberty issue." Wrong. Everything is a liberty issue. "This is a you're probably a criminal issue" This is why this is a liberty issue. Or did everyone just forget that it's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? Even in the fucking article you have Branwen saying that most of the guys are probably just red herrings but that one guy might be a valid target. Yet here you are making broad, sweeping statements and dismissing any criticism of the justice process through the lense of "people get what they deserve"... and then you continue to attempt to establish your authority as a criminal as a means to prop up your other claims. "I have no pity. None." Let me ask you seriously, who of the people being targeted do you have no pity for? Is it only for NSWGreat? What about Branwen? The other guys? Are they all immediately criminals in your mind? Based off what evidence? Here's another reason your post is asinine: the way the current system is set up, almost everyone commits a crime everyday. This hasn't applied quite as much in the computer world but due to the fact that the powers that be woke up and recognized the internet as a threat, more and more computer fraud and abuse act style legislation is popping up and pretty soon it will be the same online (e.g everyone commits an online crime once a day) You do realize, through your self proclaimed vast experience, that the justice system is corrupted as fuck right, and that simply putting bad guys in jail isn't how it always works out right?
• jmtame 12y ago
  What is considered legal and ethical are not always the same thing. Please keep that in mind, the law is not the be-all and end-all. Eventually we reverse laws because we catch up and realize they made no sense. So even the concept of what is legal is very fluid.