FBI seizes ‘Silk Road' black market domain, arrests founder - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;42388807]People should be annoyed with the law makers, not law enforcers. It's not like the FBI can pick and choose what to enforce.[/QUOTE] If the FBI is anything like the FIB then they can.

Brian krebs is a computer ninja, that guy is crazy.

BTW, this bust isn't in any way TOR's fault. if you read through the way this guy was captured he left tons of trails linking him to SR. This guy was an idiot and got caught. Not TOR's fault.

I don't understand why everyone is rating this as winner, all they did was get rid of a safe way to buy drugs, now people are gonna have to hit the streets. If anything they made the drug problem worse.

[QUOTE=elih595;42390254]I don't understand why everyone is rating this as winner, all they did was get rid of a safe way to buy drugs, now people are gonna have to hit the streets. If anything they made the drug problem worse.[/QUOTE] Illegal weapons were sold on the site, is that also acceptable?

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;42379737]Woah, I thought TOR made stuff like that impossible[/QUOTE] tor was compromised months ago. a lot of drug trafficking and hard candy and black market sites shut down as a precautionary measure but silk road was too profitable to turn off.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;42390272]Illegal weapons were sold on the site, is that also acceptable?[/QUOTE] Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Like, this occured multiple times in the thread already. It was actually prohibited and probably only happened on rare occasion between trusted members and admins.

[QUOTE=The Combine;42390919]Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Like, this occured multiple times in the thread already. It was actually prohibited and probably only happened on rare occasion between trusted members and admins.[/QUOTE] Nah, there was a weapons section. I don't care what anyone here says, I saw it with my own eyes. There was also a section for procuring botnets and other such services. There was also an electronics section which was almost all stolen merchandise, a section specifically for buying counterfeit designer watches/clothes/purses/shoes/etc, and a section for machines/other things needed to produce LARGE amounts of very dangerous drugs, which in my opinion is not something you need to do at home. Period. Stand up for the noble goal of a free society in which you can do what you will, but don't defend a criminal hotspot or you are just hurting your own cause.

[QUOTE=Jonzky;42379839]Also on the BBC: [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24373759#TWEET908345[/url] [quote] The FBI has also seized approximately $3.6m (£2,2m) worth of bitcoins - a virtual currency. [/quote] :o[/QUOTE] Well time to switch to ltc.

how does the fbi seize bitcoins? that makes literally just as much sense as them saying they've seized 3.6m simoleons

[QUOTE=butre;42390743]tor was compromised months ago. a lot of drug trafficking and hard candy and black market sites shut down as a precautionary measure but silk road was too profitable to turn off.[/QUOTE] The Tor network itself was never compromised. It was a web-host (Freedom Hosting), which wasn't connected to Silk Road in any way. The Silk Road bust was due to the administrator's carelessness outside of the site and not a flaw on Tor's end.

aw man i never got to use SR once. goddamnit. was too afraid to even register there. [editline]3rd October 2013[/editline] why the hell did everyone rate winner anyways.

HAHA I literally just received my post this morning, fuck y'all

I've never used this due to the fact that getting BTC is a pain in the ass and I don't trust buying illegal drugs over the goddamn internet (call it me being paranoid I guess). But I hope a replacement pops up soon.

[QUOTE=sopie;42392107]I've never used this due to the fact that getting BTC is a pain in the ass and I don't trust buying illegal drugs over the goddamn internet (call it me being paranoid I guess). But I hope a replacement pops up soon.[/QUOTE] yet you trust buying drugs from a dealer in the street? there's some very reputable sellers on SR, i'd trust them more than any random guy who says he's the best on the street

[QUOTE=butre;42391162]how does the fbi seize bitcoins? that makes literally just as much sense as them saying they've seized 3.6m simoleons[/QUOTE] Bitcoins are files on a server

[QUOTE=frozensoda;42391035]Nah, there was a weapons section. I don't care what anyone here says, I saw it with my own eyes. There was also a section for procuring botnets and other such services. There was also an electronics section which was almost all stolen merchandise, a section specifically for buying counterfeit designer watches/clothes/purses/shoes/etc, and a section for machines/other things needed to produce LARGE amounts of very dangerous drugs, which in my opinion is not something you need to do at home. Period. Stand up for the noble goal of a free society in which you can do what you will, but don't defend a criminal hotspot or you are just hurting your own cause.[/QUOTE] stop acting as if prohibiting items of your choosing is more morally just than someone creating a platform of which to obtain them silkroad was a way to circumvent the controlling protectionist agenda that has flourished in todays society

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;42388807]People should be annoyed with the law makers, not law enforcers. It's not like the FBI can pick and choose what to enforce.[/QUOTE] it kind of is

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;42388807]People should be annoyed with the law makers, not law enforcers. It's not like the FBI can pick and choose what to enforce.[/QUOTE] If the law is unjust and does nothing but hurt people then it should be the duty of the police to not enforce it

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42393870]If the law is unjust and does nothing but hurt people then it should be the duty of the police to not enforce it[/QUOTE] Unjust? According to whom? You think every police chief should have the right to say 'Nope, not gonna enforce this law, it's unjust' whenever they personally disagree with a law? 'Does nothing but hurt people' is a nice-sounding qualifier but it's not hard to find people who believe that cracking down on illegal drugs is helping people.

[QUOTE=catbarf;42394052]Unjust? According to whom? You think every police chief should have the right to say 'Nope, not gonna enforce this law, it's unjust' whenever they personally disagree with a law? 'Does nothing but hurt people' is a nice-sounding qualifier but it's not hard to find people who believe that cracking down on illegal drugs is helping people.[/QUOTE] I didnt say personal disagreement. What people believe and what actually happens are two different things. Drug prohibition doesnt help anybody besides the private prison industry and this is obvious if you look at the drug statistics from 30 years ago compared to now

[QUOTE=Mega1mpact;42391096]Well time to switch to ltc.[/QUOTE] Too bad LTC is pretty much tied to BTC. The good thing in all of this is that nows a good time to invest into btc/ltc because this whole snafu made the market hit its lowest lows in months, though its already recovered a lot from the sell-off (not to where it was before, it'll be a bit before it gets up there again): [url]http://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/mtgox/btcusd[/url] See the 1H chart I think this is good for BTC in the long run as it pretty much proves BTC doesn't need SR in order to have any sort of value and people can stop looking at it as "OH thats the drug currency!", despite on what your views of cryptocurrency are. If MtGox ever gets its shit together anytime soon (within the year) and fixes their trading engine and USD withdraw situation (which is why it has arbitrage compared to other exchanges, because its so hard to get $$$ out of Gox at the moment), then that'll really help keep the price going up especially after this slump caused by SR's closure.

I don't get why so many people have this ridiculous double standard regarding law enforcement. People actually want law enforcement agencies to disobey the law and refuse to enforce it when it comes to issues like drugs or gun control. But when it's some backwards redneck police chief saying he won't protect gays or minorities from abuse, suddenly it's not his job to question the law and he should just focus on enforcing it. You can't expect law enforcement to selectively disobey only laws you personally disagree with and then cry foul when that doesn't happen. We're also ignoring that allowing selective enforcement gives them de facto legislative power, allowing the police to ultimately veto any law that they are charged with enforcing. Wouldn't it be great if the police just, say, refused to arrest someone like Bernie Madoff for some arbitrary reason. Or maybe if the FBI refused to enforce anti-fraud laws when someone gets scammed over Paypal or Bitcoins because some FBI bureaucrat doesn't think it's legitimate. We'd be okay with that, right? Blame your lawmakers, that is, Congress, for writing a law and then ordering the FBI to go pursue it. They are doing their job exactly as intended. [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42394163]What people believe and what actually happens are two different things. Drug prohibition doesnt help anybody besides the private prison industry and this is obvious if you look at the drug statistics from 30 years ago compared to now[/QUOTE] Well then [I]thank god[/I] you have enough self-importance to present your personal opinion as irrefutable fact and expect everyone else to recognize and accept the difference. Until you can pull out a crystal ball that magically shows everyone The Truth such that there is no disagreement whatsoever, no conflicting evidence or opinions, it's petty and childish to expect a law enforcement agency to cater to your personal beliefs (because of course all of your beliefs are 'what actually happens', right?) and fault them when they don't.

[QUOTE=catbarf;42394212]I don't get why so many people have this ridiculous double standard regarding law enforcement. People actually want law enforcement agencies to disobey the law and refuse to enforce it when it comes to issues like drugs or gun control. But when it's some backwards redneck police chief saying he won't protect gays or minorities from abuse, suddenly it's not his job to question the law and he should just focus on enforcing it. You can't expect law enforcement to selectively disobey only laws you personally disagree with and then cry foul when that doesn't happen. We're also ignoring that allowing selective enforcement gives them de facto legislative power, allowing the police to ultimately veto any law that they are charged with enforcing. Wouldn't it be great if the police just, say, refused to arrest someone like Bernie Madoff for some arbitrary reason. Or maybe if the FBI refused to enforce anti-fraud laws when someone gets scammed over Paypal or Bitcoins because some FBI bureaucrat doesn't think it's legitimate. We'd be okay with that, right? Blame your lawmakers, that is, Congress, for writing a law and then ordering the FBI to go pursue it. They are doing their job exactly as intended. Well then [I]thank god[/I] you have enough self-importance to present your personal opinion as irrefutable fact and expect everyone else to recognize and accept the difference. Until you can pull out a crystal ball that magically shows everyone The Truth such that there is no disagreement whatsoever, no conflicting evidence or opinions, it's petty and childish to expect a law enforcement agency to cater to your personal beliefs (because of course all of your beliefs are 'what actually happens', right?) and fault them when they don't.[/QUOTE] Stop strawmanning because i never said any of that. Drug prohibition being a failure isnt a personal opinion. There are cold hard facts that show this. Thats why it shouldnt be enforced. Nothing personal or arbitrary about it. Id like to show you some but im on an android so itll have to come later. In the meantime are you really suggesting prohibition is good?

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42394582]Stop strawmanning because i never said any of that. Drug prohibition being a failure isnt a personal opinion. There are cold hard facts that show this. Thats why it shouldnt be enforced. Id like to show you some but im on an android so itll have to come later. In the meantime are you really suggesting prohibition is good?[/QUOTE] No, I am not suggesting prohibition is good. I [I]personally[/I] do not think it is successful. Note the 'personally'. I am suggesting that you are being extremely egotistical in making no distinction whatsoever between your personal views and objective reality. There are always going to be conflicting studies and conflicting opinions, even on seemingly clear-cut issues. That's why we have an entire legislative branch of government designed to weigh the differences and come up to a mutually acceptable conclusion. If the data is completely one-sided, you should be asking your representatives in Congress why they haven't changed the law yet. But it is [I]not[/I] the job of law enforcement to make themselves part of this process. It completely removes any semblance of democratic representation from lawmaking, and it gives law enforcement legislative power that they should not possess.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;42388323]Everyone's upset at the FBI because they shut down SR. That's their job guys, they're Law Enforcers, not Law Pickers. SR was breaking the law and was a significant part of the underground market, of course the FBI is going to move to shut it down.[/QUOTE] Well gee it's almost like people disagree with the law or something. [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;42388807]People should be annoyed with the law makers, not law enforcers. It's not like the FBI can pick and choose what to enforce.[/QUOTE] Why am I not allowed to be annoyed with everyone involved? The people enforcing an unjust law are just as wrong as the people who wrote it.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;42395239]Well gee it's almost like people disagree with the law or something.[/QUOTE] That's 100% fine. I think the law needs to be revised too. But the FBI doesn't have the power to write new laws or render old ones invalid just because they feel that the law is wrong. In any other context the mere suggestion of giving them that power would be met with hostility and distrust.

[QUOTE=catbarf;42395269]That's 100% fine. I think the law needs to be revised too. But the FBI doesn't have the power to write new laws or render old ones invalid just because they feel that the law is wrong. In any other context the mere suggestion of giving them that power would be met with hostility and distrust.[/QUOTE] Yet there are a large number of laws that go unenforced which remain on the books. Switch blade laws, anyone? They're illegal in most states yet people sell them openly at gun shows, where police are present and fully aware of this fact, yet nothing is done. Law enforcement has cherry picked which laws to enforce since the day it was introduced. I've even met a number of police officers who won't charge anyone for cannabis possession, even though it's extremely illegal in this state. I reserve the right to criticize anyone whose "just doing their job" if their job happens to be something I wholly disagree with.

While it's true there are a lot of ancient laws that are no longer enforced dispute technically being in effect, that's not what this is about. I'm willing to say that's an exception, even if it is a flaw in my logic. I still do not believe law enforcement should be able to selectively enforce whatever they want. What about that Sheriff who said he would refuse to enforce any new weapon restrictions put out by the Obama Administration? Would you agree that he has that ability?

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;42400107]While it's true there are a lot of ancient laws that are no longer enforced dispute technically being in effect, that's not what this is about. I'm willing to say that's an exception, even if it is a flaw in my logic. I still do not believe law enforcement should be able to selectively enforce whatever they want. What about that Sheriff who said he would refuse to enforce any new weapon restrictions put out by the Obama Administration? Would you agree that he has that ability?[/QUOTE] Neither of the laws I mentioned were "ancient laws". And yes I completely support that Sheriff's actions. Though I would not say he has the ability to do that. Technically, even though this is an extremely common practice, police aren't allowed to cherry pick which laws to enforce.