Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Online Narcotics Store 'Silk Road' Is Showing Cracks

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the until-the-internet-routes-around-the-cracks dept.

The Almighty Buck 330

pigrabbitbear writes "It always sounded like a hoax, didn't it? Silk Road: an Internet website where you can buy any drug in the world? Yeah, right. But it's real. It was almost two years ago that we first heard about the site, which hosts everything from Adderall to Ketamine, LSD to MDMA and tons and tons of weed. After it started to pick up a ton of press and exposure, we all thought that certainly the Silk Road would get shut down. It's super illegal to sell drugs or even to help people sell drugs. But it didn't. Silk Road survives to this day. However, with the arrival this week of the first conviction of a Silk Road-related crime, you have to wonder if Silk Road's days might be numbered after all. The trouble is brewing in Australia, where a guy named Paul Leslie Howard is facing as many as five years in prison for selling drugs on Silk Road. We're not talking millions of dollars worth of drugs, but we are talking about thousands of dollars worth. And just as Silk Road natives had feared, Howard was one of those Silk Road n00bs who read a newspaper article about the site and decided to try it out for himself."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Showing crack? (5, Funny)

sagematt (1251956) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764751)

Showing crack just now? But that's like a staple drug.

Re:Showing crack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765183)

No, you missed the point. People are looking the other way because the crack that is showing... Well, think overweight plumber. Yep, that's the crack. You don't smoke that kind.

Idiots don't get it. (5, Insightful)

Corwn of Amber (802933) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764787)

SilkRoad is a sort of eBay for drugs. One guy was caught selling drugs, big deal : there are still thousand of others selling drugs on the site. It's like saying "Craigslist is DOOMED : a date rapist was caught using it!"

Re:Idiots don't get it. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42764939)

Except that Craigslist has been impacted by a small number of criminal incidents. Hired a hustler there recently?

Re:Idiots don't get it. (4, Interesting)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765005)

Craiglist is used for mostly legal things, the silk road exists only to serve an "illegal" purpose, which is selling drugs. I'm not all that familiar with how they stay anonymous, but if there's a way to unravel that system, it would come through cases like this most likely. I think this guy got busted for selling drugs outside the silk road, as per the article, and was overall a stupid drug dealer. A quote about human stupidity and why we can't have nice things (for a user the Silk Road is heaven.. till they OD) is in order I suppose.

Re:Idiots don't get it. (5, Insightful)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765253)

I have heard of similar hacking sites that using Onion sites to host their stores within the Tor network anonymously. I would assume they do something similar. The same protocols are used to protect online political activists and speech in repressed countries. Anonymity brings out both the best and worst of society.

Re:Idiots don't get it. (5, Funny)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765561)

This explains a lot of the postings on the Onion [theonion.com] .

America's "highest" news source, apparently.

It is not strictly illegal (4, Informative)

schneidafunk (795759) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765293)

There are plenty of things on Silk Road, which are completely legal. Silk Road exists for its anonymous feature, not necessarily illegal.

Re:Idiots don't get it. (4, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765029)

1. "Showing cracks" doesn't mean "doomed."

2. It's not too hard to come up with a scenario where a lot of silk road's buisiness is scared off by a few criminal charges like this. Craigslist was no doubt concerned that a few people getting murdered would cause customers to bolt out of irrational fear.

3. This is the first time evidently someone has gotten arrested for it. It probably won't be the last. I'm not familiar with how silk road works. I'm guessing there are barriers to try to prevent law enforcement or other criminals from using it to find out when and where drug transactions are going to be happening. I'm also guessing those barriers are not foolproof.

Re:Idiots don't get it, but cops probably do... (5, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765429)

3. This is the first time evidently someone has gotten arrested for it. It probably won't be the last. I'm not familiar with how silk road works. I'm guessing there are barriers to try to prevent law enforcement or other criminals from using it to find out when and where drug transactions are going to be happening. I'm also guessing those barriers are not foolproof.

Chances are Silk Road is crawling with cops. But they are not focused on catching buyers or occasional sellers, but are more focused on catching the bigger distributors. Probably they don't even cite Silk as their principal source when prosecuting. Hard to prove much of anything on the internet to a jury, easier to trot in some Joe Undercover cop and have him explain a (probably at least half truthful) account of how he came to know about those deals, without mentioning that first info came via silk.

One off buys are not worth chasing.

He was BUYING from Silk Road (2)

schneidafunk (795759) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765379)

Summary: This guy goes on silk road and buys drugs in Europe and gets it mailed to himself in Australia. Consider how easy it is for him now to get caught picking up the drugs. Silk Road is still an awesome anonymous place for people selling whatever legal or illegal products. It's the pick up that is tricky. Speaking of which, there are plenty of legal things on silk road, or at least legal in the originating country.

Re:He was BUYING from Silk Road (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765555)

You missed out the part about him reselling the drugs, and doing it multiple times, that probably made him a bigger target.

not all idiots... (2)

globaljustin (574257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765385)

It's just hard to believe that, in an economic sense, even with all the invasive gov't and corporate snooping and tracking...even with all that, SilkRoad exists.

It's a truth of economics...the black market **will certainly** exist in any human system. Heh...in Soviet Russian the side supplies YOU

Seriously look at Soviet Russia. They had strict authoritarian controls inside, and embargoes outside, yet 'yankee blue jeans' and Marlboros were ubiquitous to the point of being parodied (Berserker!)

The black market is a certainty. Process it and behave accordingly.

YOU don't get it. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765679)

The Aussie connection was the only reason this submission was accepted.

Without that you would not be reading about it here on Slashdot.

But Slashdot is now basically a cheerleading machine for all things Australia.

Someone didn't know how to use darknet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42764819)

..and they paid for it.

Definitely no cracks here.

Re:Someone didn't know how to use darknet (2)

damien_kane (519267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765703)

Definitely no cracks here.

Of course not, it was all seized in the raid.
(bee-tee-dubs, you don't need to pluralize crack).

Before the libertarians start preaching... (-1, Offtopic)

fascismforthepeople (2805977) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764825)

Sure, Ron Paul wants you to be able to buy drugs on the street or in walmart - as long as you pay taxes on them. Don't let the slashdot paullowers tell you differently, their interest is in getting you to pay more taxes so they can pay less.

That, and of course to remove you power in the name of "liberties" while giving more power to the wealthy. That is how they bring you fascism for the people.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (5, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764887)

A brilliant strategy: A stoned out populace that 1) pays taxes and 2) doesn't give a shit about anything.

What's not to like?

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765197)

A brilliant strategy: A stoned out populace that 1) pays taxes and 2) doesn't give a shit about anything.

What's not to like?

We already have that, it's called TV. The fact the viewer remains miserable doesn't matter, they docile and are too scared to fight back. The dulling of the masses while the oligarchy destroy the middle-class is all that matters.

2. should be "about anything that matters".

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765413)

You have a drastically oversimplified idea of how drugs work.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (5, Insightful)

jjsimp (2245386) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764945)

Sure, Ron Paul wants you to be able to buy drugs on the street or in walmart - as long as you pay taxes on them. Don't let the slashdot paullowers tell you differently, their interest is in getting you to pay more taxes so they can pay less.

And what's wrong with that? We quit spending money on this pointless "War on Drugs", and start making money off the Rastafarians. And we might finally have space in our jail system for "Real" criminals. The only people that should be against this is the Cartels and the ATF.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (5, Insightful)

jjsimp (2245386) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765019)

The only people that should be against this is the Cartels and the ATF.

and Border Patrol, the Tobacco Industry, the Alcoholic Beverage Industry. Definetly, will help the junk food companies. Doritos and Taco Bell will make a killing.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (0)

ButchDeLoria (2772751) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765499)

Not to mention Locos Tacos.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (-1)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765135)

The only people that should be against this is the Cartels and the ATF.
And businesses that would like to have employees that show up and work. And people who don't like having druggees steal their stuff so they can sell it for drugs. Just because drugs are legal doesn't mean they will be cheap, and users won't be any more interested in working for a living than they are now.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (5, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765261)

And businesses that would like to have employees that show up and work.

I don't think you have an inkling of how common marijuana use is in Middle America. An enormous amount of people with steady, respectable employment and dedication to their careers are toking secretly. Legalizing marijuana would not suddenly make the nation's workforce drop out.

And people who don't like having druggees steal their stuff so they can sell it for drugs.

While that might continue to be a problem with hard drugs like heroin (but even here therapeutic approaches are better than an unproductive "war"), legalization of marijuana would result in prices dropping down to that of tobacco. How much of a problem is it now for people to steal from others just to buy a pack of ciggies?

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (1)

jjsimp (2245386) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765289)

...legalization of marijuana would result in prices dropping down to that of tobacco. How much of a problem is it now for people to steal from others just to buy a pack of ciggies?

Well, to be fair...the price of cigarettes are already becoming more expensive than marijuana with all the taxes. :)

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765335)

Legalizing marijuana would not suddenly make the nation's workforce drop out.

Also, legalizing pot wouldn't immediately make it ok for employees to be stoned at work. Alcohol is legal and yet most employers don't allow employees to be drunk at work. Businesses can still make sobriety a condition of employment.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765539)

I can get an ounce of marijuana for $40 and it ain't bad. Alone that would last me over a month. There is no way in hell I would ever have to steal to support my habit.

If I am so goddamn broke that I cannot afford $40 a month for Pot then I am doing something so horribly wrong that theft would not solve my problems.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765301)

The only people that should be against this is the Cartels and the ATF.
And businesses that would like to have employees that show up and work.

Those businesses can do random drug screenings. Is it that hard for you people to think of optional alternatives to a taxpayer-funded drug war?

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (2)

Jombieman (2742987) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765479)

The only people that should be against this is the Cartels and the ATF. And businesses that would like to have employees that show up and work.

Businesses already deal with employees that show up drunk, or don't show up at all.

Re: Before the libertarians start preaching... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765521)

1) Been working three software development jobs (one 9-5, two freelance) while getting high daily for over a year and nobody's ever complained...only time I've taken a day off so far was two days to go a thousand miles for my grandmother's funeral. And I'm usually one of the first people into the office in the morning.

2) nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs known to man. I've never heard of someone stealing to get cigarettes...except middle school kids who can't get them legally...

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (4, Informative)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765607)

You are making a lot of mistakes. One, you are assuming that drug users don't already have steady jobs. At least in regards to marijuana smokers, all of them I know have jobs except for a few students.

Two, while it is true that legal drugs are not necessarily cheap, a competitive market that isn't taxed or regulated to death is going to be considerably cheaper, especially if such actions result in the loss of control by cartels.

Three, you seem to think that the legal availability of drugs will result in increased drug abuse. The opposite is probably the case. Being legalized means that addicts can more openly seek treatment. I've also seen some good arguments that legalization of cocaine would pretty much destroy the meth market.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (1)

Jeng (926980) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765435)

You can purchase Marijuana Tax Stamps in Texas which means that you can now legally purchase Marijuana, sorta.

Or at least if you get caught you can pay the tax pretrial and have it dismissed.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (2)

sunderland56 (621843) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765463)

The only people that should be against this is the Cartels and the ATF.

Alcohol is fully legal - and yet there are quite a few moonshiners out there.

Making drugs legal won't stop the issues, it will merely change them, like it did when they legalized alcohol.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (2)

LandDolphin (1202876) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765667)

And Cops. The burden of proof to arrest and convict someone of a shooting is rather high. Especially with a culture that does not "snitch". This leaves the police unable to arrest & convict people they know committed crimes but cannot get anyone to testify to. Drug charges provide all the evidence needed. So police will arrest someone for a drug charge because they can't get them on the real crime they committed.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765695)

Sure, Ron Paul wants you to be able to buy drugs on the street or in walmart - as long as you pay taxes on them. Don't let the slashdot paullowers tell you differently, their interest is in getting you to pay more taxes so they can pay less.

And what's wrong with that? We quit spending money on this pointless "War on Drugs", and start making money off the Rastafarians. And we might finally have space in our jail system for "Real" criminals. The only people that should be against this is the Cartels and the ATF.

Alcohol. Tobacco. Big Pharma. Entire divisions of the ATF. Believe me I'm certainly not trying to justify the current laws, but if you think for one second that the only ones who are against this are the Cartels and the ATF, then you need to put down the joint and pull your head out of your ass. There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue that rely on the current FUBAR model.

And if the Cartels and ATF are truly the only ones affected out of all that, then I'd have to question who's running this fucking country, because it sure seems like they are.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (4, Insightful)

Cytotoxic (245301) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764997)

Wow, that's an impressive display of logic!

The "quit throwing people in jail for pot (and other drugs)" position is somehow "removing your power in the name of liberties while giving more power to the wealthy."

How about this position: complete legalization of all drugs. Not just "medical MJ", not just "decriminalization", but full scale, "buy organic pot brownies at Whole Foods" legalization. No special sin taxes, just ordinary sales tax like any other item up for sale.

That's the libertarian position. Any talk of "tax it just like alcohol" is a sop thrown in for those sitting on the fence who might need a little something in exchange for letting go of their anti-drug prejudices.

There's lots of potential problems with the implementation of this policy, but "removing your power in the name of liberties while giving more power to the wealthy" sure as heck ain't one of them.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (1)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765351)

How about this position: complete legalization of all drugs. Not just "medical MJ", not just "decriminalization", but full scale, "buy organic pot brownies at Whole Foods" legalization.

Check back in about 3 years and see how Colorado is doing ;-)

No special sin taxes, just ordinary sales tax like any other item up for sale.

Well, OK, we are going to tax it specially, and it will, like liquor, only be available in special stores.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765461)

It is certainly reasonable to ask users to self fund any (or at least some) of any societal costs due to the action or behavior. We have user fees for dozens of things - cars, planes, hikers, hunters. Drug use really doesn't need to be excepted from that.

Except for caffeine, of course. That's different.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765549)

Well, OK, we are going to tax it specially, and it will, like liquor, only be available in special stores.

And just like liquor taxes, the fiction of using the tax on drugs for any drug rehab/educational purposes will be proposed, ballyhooed, and ignored in real life. The money will be siphoned off to pay more government employees.

Re: Before the libertarians start preaching... (4, Insightful)

Urza9814 (883915) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765567)

"removing your power in the name of liberties while giving more power to the wealthy" is a problem of the Libertarian philosophy in general. They propose to abolish or equalize political power while pretending economic power is not a form of power at all...thus making the wealthy into oligarchs with absolute power over their domain.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765419)

Sure, Ron Paul wants you to be able to buy drugs on the street or in walmart - as long as you pay taxes on them. Don't let the slashdot paullowers tell you differently, their interest is in getting you to pay more taxes so they can pay less.

That, and of course to remove you power in the name of "liberties" while giving more power to the wealthy. That is how they bring you fascism for the people.

Excuse me, your bias is showing...
We don't mind paying taxes, and we don't want to pay less than you, we'd just like the taxes to be used to pay down the debt and get rid of wasteful spending. Then, gasp, everyone pays lower taxes because we're not servicing trillions in debt. We as citizens get arrested or go bankrupt for "running a deficit".

The wealthy already have the power, bought and paid for to both Dems and Repubs.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765433)

Paul is also fine with states executing drug dealers. The Pauls are not reasonable people, they're conservative ideologs.
.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (1)

dumky2 (2610695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765443)

I'm curious what evidence you have in support of your statement. Quote? Reference?
I consider myself a libertarian (small 'l') and I think Ron Paul has many good things to say (does that make me a "Paullower" as you put it?), and I do not support taxes of any kind, including on drugs.

As a libertarian, one faces this type of dilemma frequently: I think drugs should be legal, but the only two options at this point are (1) the state prohibits them or (2) the state allows but taxes them. Both options are unlibertarian. But which option is worse? This is the type of false choice which libertarians want to avoid by separating the state out of those concerns and leaving decisions (use drugs or not, put social pressure on users or not, accept users in your home or not, ...) to the individuals and to voluntary organizations.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (5, Informative)

Githaron (2462596) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765547)

Getting taxing drug sales is just a way of getting more people to consider the argument. Here are the better arguments.

The fact of the matter is that people who want to do drugs, do drugs. They will find a way to get access to them. Because it can only be sold by shady individuals, it is easy for these dealers to push harder drugs or spike their drugs with more dangerous elements. In other words, you are making the health risks even worse than they were already by banning drugs. If drugs were legal, they could be make by reputable companies that have something to loose if they make bad products.

Black markets form around banned products that are in demand. Since drug dealers cannot go to the police with their problems, they take matters into their own hands. This causes a lot of violence between the various dealers. By removing the ban, you can potentially decrease the violence (and collateral damage) associated with drugs.

Because their is a high risk associated with dealing/making drugs, drugs can be priced at a premium. This is why gangs and cartels use drugs to fund their enterprises. By making drugs legal, you lower the cost of drugs such that gangs and cartels can no longer justify taking the risk. You essentially defund the gangs and cartels. Without funds, they become significantly smaller threat to society.

All in all, if individuals are going to do drugs anyway, wouldn't you rather it be out in the open instead of a dark hole? In the open, the government has some level of control over it, it can be made as safe as possible, and bring in some level of income. In a dark hole, it will fund violent crime, be extremely costly and futile to stop, and be increasingly unsafe.

Societies best way to stop drug use it not to ban it but to educate in order to change cultural norms. Look at smoking. At no point did we ban it but a significantly lower percentage of people use it today than they use to. Of course, banning is easier and it makes people feel good. People don't usually like to take the hard (but effective) route. They want a easy solution right now.

Re:Before the libertarians start preaching... (1)

terec (2797475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765743)

their interest is in getting you to pay more taxes so they can pay less.

No, their interest is getting you to pay more out of your own pocket so they can pay less. There really is little reason why I should have to pay for your excessive consumption of health care, insurance, or government services. You want that stuff? You pay for it.

This is stupidly risky (5, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764851)

Trusting that the person you are buying from or selling to is not a cop or is actually going to provide what they claim seems insane. If you are a buying you have to give a place to send the drugs and a seller has to get those drugs to that place. Either option seems fraught with chances to get caught.

This violates every idea about never getting caught; everyone you don't know is a cop, all phones are tapped, etc.

Re:This is stupidly risky (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764861)

Howard got caught last summer from the simplest mistake. He had a shitload of drugs sent to his house.

It's always the last mile problem.

Re:This is stupidly risky (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764921)

a seller has to get those drugs to that place.

Just put it in a box with sufficient postage and a false return address. Drop it in an unattended mail drop box. Done.

Re:This is stupidly risky (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765079)

Boxes of any real mass must be sent from a post office, these days. That means you will be on camera dropping off that box.

Re:This is stupidly risky (1)

Minwee (522556) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765123)

Do you really need ten pounds of MDMA?

Re:This is stupidly risky (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765229)

You do if you're doing things right.

Yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765263)

I own a pacifier factory, how else will I stay in business?

Re:This is stupidly risky (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765269)

Do you really need ten pounds of MDMA?

YES. Unst unst unst unst unst unst unst unst....

Re:This is stupidly risky (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765265)

Out of curiosity I looked it up: the allowable weight limit for a USPS drop box is 13 ounces. Outside the US is probably different, but I expect most places will let you drop off about 200-300 grams which amounts to a lot of drugs. (A quick search brought up priceofweed.com which suggests that 200g of marijuana would easily exceed $1000, and I believe that's the cheapest drug by weight.) So if you can't just drop it in a mail box then you're probably doing big enough business that you've got other things to worry about beyond your shipping method.

Re:This is stupidly risky (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765319)

Use multiple smaller boxes.

Re:This is stupidly risky (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765129)

The cool thing about selling on SR is that the seller does not have to trust the buyer is not a cop. It is perfectly safe to sell drugs to cops on SR, because done properly, bitcoin payments can be mixed to the point where the seller is completely anonymous.

Re:This is stupidly risky (2)

olip85 (1770514) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765153)

Trusting that the person you are buying from or selling to is not a cop or is actually going to provide what they claim seems insane. If you are a buying you have to give a place to send the drugs and a seller has to get those drugs to that place. Either option seems fraught with chances to get caught.

This violates every idea about never getting caught; everyone you don't know is a cop, all phones are tapped, etc.

Sellers have a reputation so if a buyer limits himself to sellers with 99% reputation who have already sold to thousands of other happy customers, like you would do on eBay, it would greatly mitigate the risks.

Re:This is stupidly risky (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765175)

I hang out on Silk Road, because it's interesting. You have to be pretty fucking dumb to get caught selling as well. Being a buyer is a completely different story though. It's much easier to get caught buying than it is selling.

Re:This is stupidly risky (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765451)

I hang out on Silk Road, because it's interesting. You have to be pretty fucking dumb to get caught selling as well. Being a buyer is a completely different story though. It's much easier to get caught buying than it is selling.

Whats the web address?

Re:This is stupidly risky (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765557)

its a .onion domain and anly currency that is accepted is bitcoin. lots of fun for cops to chase their tails around i bet

Re:This is stupidly risky (5, Informative)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765609)

Get this [torproject.org]

Then, go here: silkroadvb5piz3r.onion

Re:This is stupidly risky (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765323)

That is what you would think. yet many people get shafted by selling things via ebay or buying from ebay. Yet seldom anybody gets caught.

Sure, this is much worse, because this is two people who something they both want against the law. Ebay scams are just between two people, so why go after those?

User error. (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764859)

If you get caught selling drugs on Silk Road it's entirely your own fault. You can use the site anonymously with Tor. You can receive funds anonymously with Bitcoin. You can send drugs anonymously by dropping it in an unattended mailbox.

Now for the people buying drugs it's a whole different story. You have to show up in person and pick up the drugs. You don't know who you're dealing with, so there could easily be a cop waiting for you when you go to get it.

Re:User error. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765239)

Actually, TFA says he got caught because he had several INCOMING packages intercepted by LE which lead to a raid on his house. TFA does not discuss how he was found out, so we don't know if it was poorly concealed shipping, mail drug dogs, snitch, or his own security fuckup. Neither buying nor selling drugs online is foolproof, there will always be a risk -- just like buying and selling drugs IRL.

He was importing not exporting on Silk. (1)

schneidafunk (795759) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765249)

In TFA, he was importing drugs via Silk Road from Europe and then selling it in Australia. It doesn't say how he got busted, but I'm assuming that drug sniffing dogs at the post office probably got him busted. This guy was an idiot and deserved to get caught.

Re:User error. (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765299)

I imagine the smart ones get them delivered to a vacant house a couple of neighborhoods away.

Re:User error. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765393)

But bitcoin transfers are pseudonymously.
Everyone must know about all transactions. But they only see pseudonyms in the form of account ids.
Search for papers analysing the transaction graphs on google scholar for details. I.e. http://eprint.iacr.org/2012/584.pdf

Now exchanging your bitcoins for traditional currency or physical goods without telling the world the real identity behind that pseudonym... thats the hard part.
It just takes one mistake to link your pseudonym to your real identity and all past transactions have been uncovered too.

One guy gets caught because he's an idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42764871)

From what I can tell, this doesn't affect Silk Road at all.

morality of the products aside... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764883)

It just seems to me that obtaining goods/services physically is just naturally more open to observation/interception. I would think this was obvious.

sounds like pirate bay people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42764901)

bet he does that too

'n00b' ? (2, Informative)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764905)

You misspelled 'idiot'.

Re:'n00b' ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765601)

You misspelled 'idiot'.

Way to mince words there....n00b.

In the Netherlands (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42764923)

Cops are watching as soft drugs are sold in coffee shops. They just want you to be safe, that's all. That's why guns are outlawed, firearms are a safety hazard.

Re:In the Netherlands (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765641)

Firearms are no more a safety hazard than a hammer or a car. In fact a car is more of a safety hazard. Posting annon to save mods in thread.

Showing crack, and other narcotics. (3, Insightful)

gallondr00nk (868673) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764927)

I don't see how the prosecution of one person spells the end for a website, or an entire online trade.

It's a little bit like saying busting one dealer will bring down the entire drug trade in a country. The Silk Road, or other sites like it (which I imagine the savvier users will have switched to as soon as the Silk Road got media heat), will continue for as long as there's a demand.

Just legalise it all already.

Re:Showing crack, and other narcotics. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765737)

I don't see how the prosecution of one person spells the end for a website, or an entire online trade.

It's a little bit like saying busting one dealer will bring down the entire drug trade in a country. The Silk Road, or other sites like it (which I imagine the savvier users will have switched to as soon as the Silk Road got media heat), will continue for as long as there's a demand.

Just legalise it all already.

And why would those in power legalize it? To get rid of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars funded by taxpayers that feed pointless fat-cat payrolls?

Yeah, you'd have a better chance of asking them to bring a knife into work tomorrow so they can chop their own dicks off.

Sorry, but there is WAY too much money to be made in keeping it illegal. When you can prove otherwise, THEN you will get their attention. Until then, you might as well stick with the dick-chopping idea, because you sound like Charlie Brown's fucking teacher. They simply don't speak any other language other than greed.

Great! A place where I can buy nothing! (0, Offtopic)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42764935)

"All the drugs you want?" I don't like or do drugs. Makes me feel extremely uncomfortable not feeling normal. I just don't get why people want to do drugs.

Re:Great! A place where I can buy nothing! (5, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765023)

Well, for some people, their "normal" is pretty terrible and anything that can help them escape it is worth it.

Re:Great! A place where I can buy nothing! (2)

dhomstad (1424117) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765591)

I agree that these escapist type are the last people that should be using drugs. However, I don't think they make the largest portion of the drug-seeking population. Drugs are like life-enhancers (I'm using that term "enhance" with a neutral connotation). They can enhance your ability to party, they can enhance your ability to study, enhance your ability to have sex. Watch out curious folk, sometimes the intended consequence is reversed and you will be left with the notorious "bad trip," or perhaps even death.

IMHO this escapist anecdote is promoted simply to turn away the curious. If you haven't noticed, we (society) don't actually a good job helping these people - no one can show these people that they matter to society or themselves.

Re:Great! A place where I can buy nothing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765047)

some people feel extremely uncomfortable feeling normal, just the same

Re:Great! A place where I can buy nothing! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765109)

You can get anything from Silk Road. People focus on the drug aspect, but you can buy counterfeit coupons, fake IDs, real IDs, software, pr0n, weapons (until recently), school assignments, hit contracts, and the list goes on.

And no one gives a shit that you don't like to get high, it's the principle of being able to do whatever you want with your money and your body. So quit worrying about why the rest of us like to get fucked up and stop asking questions that are nothing more than your thinly veiled criticism of someone else's life choices.

Re:Great! A place where I can buy nothing! (1)

RoknrolZombie (2504888) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765215)

So quit worrying about why the rest of us like to get fucked up and stop asking questions that are nothing more than your thinly veiled criticism of someone else's life choices.

This times 1000...if you hadn't posted AC I'd mod you up...

Re:Great! A place where I can buy nothing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765287)

I care that he doesn't do drugs. I was going to try and sell him some meth.

MOD PARENT THE FUCK UP!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765353)

Goddammit, lift the +5 cap on modding just this once, Dice! The parent deserves +50 Zillion!

--FWIW, this post courtesy of Tor since I modded already :-)

Re:Great! A place where I can buy nothing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765689)

so, hit contracts are life choices and should be legitmized, so just deal with it, stop asking questions of someones elses bodies, no matter where they are buried
nice mental retardation You have there, brother, and a truckload of denial

Re:Great! A place where I can buy nothing! (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765169)

That's great, as long as you don't begrudge others who do enjoy them. Imprisoning people who have fun in a way you disapprove of is no way to run a supposedly free country.

Re:Great! A place where I can buy nothing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765339)

I don't get 90% of the stuff people are doing to get off in some way or another, but fuck that, I don't need to understand

Everyone gets off on different things, it being religion, music, sports, alcohol, power, sex, soft or hard drugs or just about anything that can distract people from the hellhole that is planet Earth.

Particularly, I don't get why it should be anybody else's business just because it ain't the same cocktail as theirs.

I know your feeling, I feel like a fucking freak just because I don't like alcohol anymore. Not being semi-alcoholic has serious social and professional implications these days it would appear. You apparently don't have a problem if you come half drunk to work and fall asleep, or don't even show up at all, or puke in the lunch room or smell like mouthwash from the next town over. For some reason, as long as you have a fresh shave and a tie, it's all good.

I just smoke my cannabis indica and wish this would all be a memory of old.

I am a chronic smoker, albeit with ADHD related issues which CBD-rich cannabis totally obliterates. But the only fucking way you can tell I am under the 'influence' if you need to say that, is if you fucking invade my privacy and start demanding piss tests.
I fucking outperform most straight people. Fuck off world.

Re:Great! A place where I can buy nothing! (1)

WillgasM (1646719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765407)

I don't get why people are so into sex and music either. What's the deal with endorphins? Amiright?

prices (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42764993)

I checked out Silk Road and it was great to see so much stuff to choose from. But I can get Oxycontin more cheaply from the kid down the street.

Article is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765097)

Based on past reports, this guy was caught *buying* on Silk Road to resell in person. This is sensationalism.

However, it's always good to see SR get more press, because this is a really perfect example of many of bitcoin's advantages over the traditional banking system. And I'd say 1 buyer busted in thousands is pretty damn good. Remember, sellers have virtually no risk-exposure to law enforcement through SR.

Two years (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765107)

One conviction in two years? That doesn't sound so bad.

Root cause (1)

weharc (852974) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765149)

So the root cause of this problem is newspapers then? I agree, the sooner we're rid of them the sooner we can all get on with our business.

He was importing for overseas. DUMB !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765233)

He was importing for overseas. DUMB !! So he was not a seller, he was a buyer. It was just a matter of time before he got caught.

Best line of the article (3)

swilde23 (874551) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765329)

His tearful wife told Judge Murphy she faced returning to the US if her husband was jailed because she could not work or support herself.

Re:Best line of the article (1)

CaptnCrud (938493) | about a year and a half ago | (#42765661)

LOL. Noo, dont send her back...we have plenty like her as it is. Back beast, back I say. Raises Cross.

just great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765361)

Finally finished with school, and NOW I find out where to get Adderall.

5 years in Australia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765375)

Wow - in the US they would have executed him with lethal injection.

He was buying NOT selling (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765589)

The OP states that he was selling drugs on Silk Road, this not true. He was buying drugs from silk road and selling them locally to make a profit.
Silk Road anonymity favours the seller because they can post the goods anonymously at any post box, the buyer takes a risk when he collects the delivery.
I watched an interview with him on TV, he was stupid, he was regularly buying large amounts of drugs to resell and taking no precautions. Even then it took the cops a long time to eventually catch him.
Basically he was taking the buyers risk for the people he was selling to and he got busted. If he had stuck to personal use only he would only get busted for using not trafficking and he probably wouldn't have been caught at all.

Crashing Doors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42765709)

The catch is in the delivery. I know someone who received, unexpectedly, a brick of hash in the mail. He almost had the package unwrapped when the feds kicked in his door. His disabled brother was visiting that afternoon and both were arrested. Getting stuff from Point A to point be gives law enforcement a pretty good shot at an offender.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?