Silk Road Founder Indicted In New York 94
An anonymous reader sends this report from Wired:
"Federal authorities today announced a Grand Jury indictment against Ross Ulbricht, the alleged founder and owner of the underground drug emporium Silk Road. The indictment (PDF), in New York, includes one count for narcotics conspiracy, one count of running a criminal enterprise, one count of conspiracy to commit computer hacking and one count of money laundering, according to the indictment. It's the second indictment for the the 29-year-old, who was arrested last October in San Francisco. Ulbricht was previously charged in New York at the time of his arrest, but authorities had until December to obtain an indictment against him based on new evidence seized. They sought an extension of that time and announced the indictment today. Ulbricht had been previously indicted in Maryland on charges of conspiring to have a former administrator of Silk Road murdered in exchange for $80,000."
Re: (Score:1)
No, he was a criminal. He tried to arrange a murder. It has nothing to do with politics.
( ok i guess technically hes just accused, but if hes convicted then yes, hes a criminal )
Re:entrapment (Score:5, Insightful)
The timeline does not support your theory. By the time the feds got involved, Silk Road was already a very popular marketplace. They got access to the servers, and watched the site operate for about 4 months. That's very standard in drug ring cases. It would be stupid to arrest everyone involved the moment you know about it. The goal is to collect a mountain of evidence so that they can charge people with a bunch of crimes and make rock solid cases in court.
Re: (Score:1)
If he really was guilty of that, to the point of being convictable, why didn't he get indicted with that?
He was indicted with that. RTFIndictment, it's on the page 5.
Also, your concept of entrapment is just a tad above "undercover cops can't lie if you ask them whether they are cops, or it's entrapment!".
PS: "they knew Silkroad's activities" != "they knew DPR's identity".
Re: (Score:3)
In order to show entrapment you have to make a judge or jury believe that if the government had not been involved, that the crime would not have occurred. There's no way this guy can make that case.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah...that's not at all what I'm talking about.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, to show entrapment you have to make a judge or jury believe that the government induced the individual to commit the crime. Creating the opportunity to commit the crime isn't enough. Providing aid (as in, providing bomb-making materials) isn't enough.
Not entrapment:
Perp: I want to kill that guy.
Cop: Want to borrow my knife?
Perp: Hey, thanks, man.
Entrapment:
Perp: I hate that guy.
Cop: Me, too. I'll give you $1000 to kill him.
Perp: I dunno. Seems kind of extreme.
Cop: Come on. I'll
Re: (Score:2)
Wow judging a criminal matter by what appears in a slashdot summary? I just lost the hope I didn't realize I still had for humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes me extra suspicious is why I didn't see that charge in this article summary.
It's... It's in the article summary.
I mean, it's right there. In the summary.
Literally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No, he was a criminal. He tried to arrange a murder. It has nothing to do with politics.
Kennedy was murdered, but that had nothing to do with politics?
( ok i guess technically hes just accused, but if hes convicted then yes, hes a criminal )
In a civil court,he's innocent until proven guilty. In a federal/ Admiralty court, he's guilty until proven innocent. This is a crime of corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what country you're talking about, but in the US one is innocent until proven guilty in Federal court just the same as in State or local courts.
Re: (Score:2)
My irony sense is tingling.
Re:Another retarded libertarian (Score:4, Insightful)
If you start with "The fascist US government is afraid of the bitcoin revolution" and work backwards from there- anything is defensible.
Re: (Score:2)
He used the money he made to arrange a murder. How is that at all defensible?
Easily. Someone extorted him and users of his site even if he caused no harm to anyone. Government refused to help him. If he ignored the threat, he and his users would end up in jail. Under those circumestances, killing the extorter is perfectly sensible defense. The main problem is of course the fact that selling drugs is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
He's another of the generation, no matter how successful, trying to keep in touch with his inner gangster.
Murder for hire. Dumbest smart person this quarter.
Whatever. (Score:1)
This is up to the attorneys now.
I'm just a programmer with a bunch of advanced degrees in engineering and I know shit about the law.
Legal reasoning is beyond 1+1=2. I wish it were that easy but it requires subtleties that aren't taught in engineering school.
Re: (Score:2)
And the most subtle of all these subtleties is that in the end, the Law is less of a system of rules and more of a pantomime in service to the governing classes. It no longer matters what the Silk Road founder did or did not do. The Law will find a way to satisfy the powers he has offended.
Re: (Score:2)
Did Dread Pirate Roberts send a pusher to your neighborhood? No. Did he try to force drugs on someone who was not interested in them? No. Did he
Re: (Score:2)
You do that.
That's what newspaper [wired.com] says, actually. And I'm not "justifying" anything, just pointing out that this particular criminal enterprise doesn't seem to have resulted in any harm to anyone who didn't actively participate.
Ulbricht doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Subtle my ass. Silk Road was a den of iniquity.
Drugs? Assassination? Yeah. No subtleties here.
Of Course (Score:1)
One count of doing something illegal, six more counts of doing things we made illegal just to catch people when we didn't find enough evidence.
first they came for the.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Except he was specifically running the site to facilitate illegal drug sales. He was also taking a cut of the sales. That goes far beyond your absurd bullshit.
Re:A website (Score:5, Insightful)
If you run a Nickleback fan forum, and someone posts child porn, you are not responsible for that.
If you create a web site expressly for anonymous selling, and you're well aware of people selling drugs on it, and taking a cut of those profits, then you are a conspirator to that crime.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure running a Nickleback fan forum is the more serious of the two charges here so your example is moot.
Re: (Score:1)
If you create a web site expressly for anonymous selling, and you're well aware of people selling drugs on it, and taking a cut of those profits, then you are a conspirator to that crime.
Awesome! Current legal precedent in the US legal system is to charge that person 5 hours of profits and let them keep doing it. Seems legit to me
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about HSBC? It was 5 weeks of profits, not 5 hours. At least get your basic facts right.
And HSBC was *not* a conspirator to money laundering. They did not follow the oversight regulations and allowed other people to launder money.
[OT] beta.slashdot.org (Score:5, Insightful)
I freaking HATE beta.slashdot.org and I resent your pushing me into it! If I log in, and my preferences are set to classic, LET ME HAVE CLASSIC!
You're not alone. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not alone. I see these anti-Slashdot-beta posts so often now. I really hope that the Slashdot brass are seeing them, too, and hopefully realizing how much just about everyone hates this beta site.
Everything about the beta site is contrary to what typical Slashdot users want and will put up with. It's like it has been specifically designed to alienate as many existing users here as it possibly could. Maybe that would make some business sense, were it not for the fact that it does absolutely nothing to attract any new users.
While it could be argued that Slashdot has been stagnating, if not declining, for several years now, the beta site going live (if it happens) will surely just accelerate that process, rather than stop or reverse it. There are many of us who will be driven away if the beta site goes live. It truly is that unusable.
I hope that those in charge at Slashdot are just giving it a two-month trial period. Maybe at the end of February they'll be able to admit that the beta project is an utter failure, and they'll put an end to it. That's really the only viable option. The beta site has no future, regardless of whether it's because it's sensibly killed off by Slashdot management, or whether it's because it goes live and drives away all of the existing users.
Re:You're not alone. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's like it has been specifically designed to alienate as many existing users here as it possibly could.
Unless the overlords at Dice are so unfathomably, unbelievably incompetent, this is the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn which poses another conundrum: without the users the slashdot.org domain has no value whatsoever. Rather than alienate the 15 years or so of slashdot users in an attempt to attract new users, Dice would have been much better off creating something new from scratch.
It's totally mind-boggling.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yea, I forgot to mention: WTF is this shit about? [slashdot.org] Why so many "contributors" and what is their purpose for slashdot? Stumbling upon this reminds me of the Simpsons where Homer discovers a secret plot to move the Springfield Isotopes to Albuquerque and no-one would believe him.
I'm telling y'all, something nasty is about to happen to /.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh yea, I forgot to mention: WTF is this shit about? [slashdot.org] Why so many "contributors" and what is their purpose for slashdot?
And where is that "Anonymous Coward" dude in that list? Just because someone uses a pseudonym doesn't mean they don't contribute value.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they're just trying to help us find something else to do. They're concerned about our welfare, and think we spend too much time on slashdot.
If they force me into a shitty new interface, that problem will be solved. I won't come back. That is no doubt a feature to many :)
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno what you're doing wrong, I'm NEVER directed to the beta site.
Re:[OT] beta.slashdot.org (Score:5, Informative)
You're only directed to the Beta site if you're not logged in.
One would think that a Slashdot visitor with a half million ID would be smart enough to figure that out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"You're only directed to the Beta site if you're not logged in."
Incorrect.
When logged in, on several occasions, including this afternoon, I have opened-in-new-tab a number of Slashdot articles, and about 1 out of 10 open in the beta site (and logged in at the beta URL, to boot). I can delete the 'beta.' in the URL, and get the classic site.
I guess I'm not smart enough also?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
nobeta=1 does not always work. (Score:2, Informative)
No, it's not hard to add. But it often doesn't work! I'll add it, and yet usually still remain stuck on the beta site.
Besides, it's naive to think that it'll remain available if the beta site does go live at some point. Not that it does much good now, mind you, given how fucking broken it apparently is!
Re: (Score:1)
http://slashdot.org/?nobeta=1
Try... (Score:1)
?no_beta=1
Hans Reiser's attorney? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe Hans Reiser can give him the name of his attorney.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Hans Reiser can give him the name of his attorney.
There were MANY here who claimed Reiser was innocent, and many who saw his guilt were modded into oblivion. By original sub 100,000 ID became so heavily loaded with Bad Karma for pointing out Reiser's bullshit, I had to walk away from it.
But what do you know? Reiser plead guilty and led them to the body.
Next up, these idiots would post as Anon Cowards about how Nina Reiser had brought it on herself...
----
You folks do understand that beyond the discussion about the silly "War On Drugs", this guy Ulbricht tr
Re: (Score:2)
As well as they should been, along with those who claimed innocence. No one "saw" anything, except perhaps in a crystal ball; people were making wild guesses based on incomplete second-hand information, and then attributing calling a proverbial coin toss correctly on their 3l1t3 sk1llz rather than luck.
Occam's Razor applies to explaining one's own successes and failures too, not just external events.
Just like the CEO's (Score:2)
one count for narcotics conspiracy, one count of running a criminal enterprise, one count of conspiracy to commit computer hacking and one count of money laundering,
Conspiracy to commit computer hacking? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DPR, arrogant & dumb (Score:1)
Next up - gov. contract! (Score:5, Insightful)
...includes one count for narcotics conspiracy, one count of running a criminal enterprise, one count of conspiracy to commit computer hacking and one count of money laundering,...
So, from that little snippet, it seems our man is qualified to work at the following government agencies:
CIA
FBI
NSA
Or, he could just run for congress. Scratch that, it seems he'd be under-qualified.
Bullshit (Score:1)
Them saying they were only investigating for that little amount of time is just plausible deniability for knowing about it and letting it escalate to what it became. Silk Road was around for YEARS. I remember people who even weren't computer savvy talking about it and using it. The only reason anything was done, was from all the complaints being made so now they need to uphold the good guy image. There's far worst nodes on the tor network.. child rape, animal torture / fighting rings, hit men for hire, snuf