Silk Road Busted

[woolley]

I wish we had a few more sentences that were beyond harsh instead of the usual beyond soft.

[rmanx]

I wish we had a few more sentences that were beyond harsh instead of the usual beyond soft.

 

There is always a one way ticket to Iran.

[Slim]

I don't think a service can be explicitly inside or outside the law, it's the goods that pass through it that make it so. Nothing about the setup of Silk Road makes it outside the law. Sure, it makes it hard for the law to intervene, but if nothing illegal was passing through it that would be moot.

That's nonsense. Any service has to operate within the applicable laws, it's against the law to facilitate the sale of illegal goods, which is what Silk Road did. Same as the forum operators here can't ignore the relevant liable and copyright laws.

 

 

It is different, but for the sake of argument had he set it up to be autonomous and never had any intervention whatsoever, what would the case be? If all he did was provide the hosting costs + the software, would he still be at fault?

Pretty much yes. Same as google has to adhere to takedowns and go to reasonable steps to remove illegal and copyrighted content from searches. Google can't ignore the law and claim to be a carrier.

 

I'm not saying he's done nothing wrong, I'm saying the charges are inaccurate.

He set up a forum that specifically traded outside of the law and facilitated and in many occasions was involved the trade of illegal goods including earning a commission from every sale, some of which were directly responsible for people dying. The charges are accurate, it's just romantic internet freedom loonies who think otherwise.

[Lisenchuk]

 

Silk Road wasn't a lawful service being abused, it's entire purpose was to shield the user, and allow both the platform and the dealer to be beyond the law as they profited from the anonymity it provided.

 

Helix you started this little exchange by emphasising personal responsibility, but seem totally blind to the fact Ulbricht tried his level best to evade personal responsibility in his profiting from creating something to deliberately put its users beyond the law.

 

If he had created an open lawful service who cooperated with the authorities to ensure his platform wasn't abused that would be a very different matter, but that isn't what this was.

 

He knew what was going on, he was profiting from it, he put in the procedures to shield it and enable the illegality.

 

He's been made to take personal responsibility for it.

 

Hashly ... maybe, I think the war on drugs is doomed to failure and there are far better ways to reduce harm than current policies, but he knew what he was doing, knew the consequences and actively flouted the law as Dread Pirate Roberts.

 

I don't get why you seem so sympathetic towards him. He fought the law, the law won.

 

Which bit made Silk Road an unlawful service? To my knowledge, providing anonymity isn't unlawful. Allowing bitcoin isn't unlawful. The only reason it's unlawful is because it was used unlawfully... so what's the difference?

 

Why must a service be open to be lawful? Say it was exactly as implemented, but nobody used it for anything illegal. Would it be an unlawful service then?

 

Harsh is an understatement. "Making an example" shouldn't be allowed under the justice system. It's the very definition of unjust!

 

"Making an example" shouldn't be allowed under the justice system. It's the very definition of unjust!

 

I couldn't agree more with your last bit. The minute it starts being used to set examples the whole principle of every case being judged accordingly to merits or other goes out the window.

[HeliX]

 

I don't think a service can be explicitly inside or outside the law, it's the goods that pass through it that make it so. Nothing about the setup of Silk Road makes it outside the law. Sure, it makes it hard for the law to intervene, but if nothing illegal was passing through it that would be moot.

That's nonsense. Any service has to operate within the applicable laws, it's against the law to facilitate the sale of illegal goods, which is what Silk Road did. Same as the forum operators here can't ignore the relevant liable and copyright laws.

 

So uh.. it's not nonsense then. It's exactly right. I said nothing about the setup of the site is illegal, it's what it was used for that made it illegal. Which you then called nonsense and proceeded to say the same thing :|

 

It is different, but for the sake of argument had he set it up to be autonomous and never had any intervention whatsoever, what would the case be? If all he did was provide the hosting costs + the software, would he still be at fault?

Pretty much yes. Same as google has to adhere to takedowns and go to reasonable steps to remove illegal and copyrighted content from searches. Google can't ignore the law and claim to be a carrier.

 

I'm not saying he's done nothing wrong, I'm saying the charges are inaccurate.

He set up a forum that specifically traded outside of the law and facilitated and in many occasions was involved the trade of illegal goods including earning a commission from every sale, some of which were directly responsible for people dying. The charges are accurate, it's just romantic internet freedom loonies who think otherwise.

 

No, he set up a service that COULD be used legally, or not legally. That is very different from setting up something with the intent of it being used illegally.

The sales were not "responsible for people dying". If you take an OD and die, you're responsible. No-one else.

[woolley]

 

I wish we had a few more sentences that were beyond harsh instead of the usual beyond soft.

 

There is always a one way ticket to Iran.

 

That's Sharia. I am not Muslim. However, I must confess to a sneaking admiration for the mobile gallows - think it's on the back of a Toyota truck - that they use around the suburbs of Tehran pour encourager les autres.

[Mr. Sausages]

No, he set up a service that COULD be used legally, or not legally. That is very different from setting up something with the intent of it being used illegally.

Are you saying he didn't set it up with that intention? And didn't know what was going on?

[HeliX]

 

No, he set up a service that COULD be used legally, or not legally. That is very different from setting up something with the intent of it being used illegally.

Are you saying he didn't set it up with that intention? And didn't know what was going on?

 

I think he was probably indifferent to what it was used for, either way he gets the skim off the top. I never claimed he didn't know what was going on, not sure why you've asked that.

[Mr. Sausages]

I wouldn't have asked if you had claimed it - I would have already known the answer.

[rmanx]

 

 

I wish we had a few more sentences that were beyond harsh instead of the usual beyond soft.

 

There is always a one way ticket to Iran.

 

That's Sharia. I am not Muslim. However, I must confess to a sneaking admiration for the mobile gallows - think it's on the back of a Toyota truck - that they use around the suburbs of Tehran pour encourager les autres.

 

 

If you could show me one example of where corporal punishment has been effective in reducing crime, then I might take you seriously. The death penalty in American, the Middle East and the Far East has failed to deter people from carrying out crimes that carry those punishments, so I fail to see how you think introducing them here would make any kind of difference.

 

Surely tackling the root causes of crime is more effective than trying to deal with the aftermath.

[Slim]

No, he set up a service that COULD be used legally, or not legally. That is very different from setting up something with the intent of it being used illegally.

The sales were not "responsible for people dying". If you take an OD and die, you're responsible. No-one else.

That's simply not true. This isn't the same as a carrier that's not aware of the traffic going over their platform. He was involved, he was a member of the community, the 'dread pirate roberts', he knew that illegal trade and he facilitated and profited.

 

If you facilitate something dangerous, you have a responsibility, a duty of care. If I sell a kid a gun, then I must be held at least partly responsible if he shoots someone.

[HeliX]

 

No, he set up a service that COULD be used legally, or not legally. That is very different from setting up something with the intent of it being used illegally.

The sales were not "responsible for people dying". If you take an OD and die, you're responsible. No-one else.

That's simply not true. This isn't the same as a carrier that's not aware of the traffic going over their platform. He was involved, he was a member of the community, the 'dread pirate roberts', he knew that illegal trade and he facilitated and profited.

 

If you facilitate something dangerous, you have a responsibility, a duty of care. If I sell a kid a gun, then I must be held at least partly responsible if he shoots someone.

 

 

That's not a good analogy. Children are bad at decisionmaking. If you sell an adult a rope and he hangs himself it's not your responsibility.

 

EDIT: even then, he didn't sell the drugs. It's more like if I sell someone a rope on eBay and they hang themselves it's not eBay's fault.

[rmanx]

If I sell a kid a gun, then I must be held at least partly responsible if he shoots someone.

 

 

Depends where you live and who is lobbied to write the laws regarding firearms.

[paswt]

 

No, he set up a service that COULD be used legally, or not legally. That is very different from setting up something with the intent of it being used illegally.

The sales were not "responsible for people dying". If you take an OD and die, you're responsible. No-one else.

That's simply not true. This isn't the same as a carrier that's not aware of the traffic going over their platform. He was involved, he was a member of the community, the 'dread pirate roberts', he knew that illegal trade and he facilitated and profited.

 

If you facilitate something dangerous, you have a responsibility, a duty of care. If I sell a kid a gun, then I must be held at least partly responsible if he shoots someone.

 

it's the bullets that are dangerous

[spook]

Corporal punishment effective? For some people it is the only punishment that is effective short of execution.

 

As for an example, I know personally two juvenile delinquents who were birched and who were absolutely turned round out of nothing but raw fear of a repeat. One lived in Onchan Royal Avenue West, the other (unsurprisingly) in Pullrose.

 

For some people, possibly those with some forms of genetic moral terpitude because such things do tend to run in families, physical pain is the only way of 'getting through'.