×

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!

Head of Silk Road 2.0 Says It Will Be Back In Minutes If Shut Down

samzenpus posted about 5 months ago | from the never-going-to-die dept.

Crime 222

Daniel_Stuckey writes "It only took a month for the Silk Road 2.0 to go live after the now infamous Silk Road marketplace shuttered. One month. Should the budding deep-web bazaar experience the same fate as its predecessor, and be knocked out by authorities still whack-a-moling their way through the online front of the war on drugs, the Silk Road 3.0 would be up and running in 15 minutes, tops. That's according to the Dread Pirate Roberts, the pseudonymous head of SR 2.0. In what are arguably his most breathy public remarks to date the 'new' DPR, who either cribbed his handle from the DPR of SR 1.0 fame or who is indeed the original DPR, opened up to Mike Power on his long-term vision for the site."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

222 comments

really (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394201)

fuck the silk road.

We don't need this shit.

Re:really (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394305)

We don't need this shit.

Fixing:

I don't need this shit, so nobody should be able to get it.

I would guess you're religious... it is the typical mentality "everybody should obey the god I believe".

Re:really (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394337)

Yeah. Well you are going to hell, druggie.

Re:really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394371)

so then, why do you care?

Re:really (1, Flamebait)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 5 months ago | (#45394473)

Because, by tempting people with drugs, not only will they go to Hell, but those they tempted will go to Hell, too. Apparently a god exists who likes torturing people, and, rather than growing balls to stand up to this supernatural dictator, we should jail people for their own good, their own good being defined as doing things that don't make this entity angry.

However, we should also note the secular religion of Big Government of the Left does functionally the same thing, banniing stuff "for your own good". They just use a different audio stream of data to get their mechanized cogs (human brains) to behave in identical patterns.

Hah! I'll bet the lefties go a boner from the first paragraph, and the theocrats from the second. You are both part of the problem.

For exactly the same reason.

Re:really (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394523)

Can't wait until rapture day! Asshole druggies like you, along with the abortionists, the welfare receivers, and the blacks will all be in hell where you all belong. There won't be any French in heaven either, thank God almighty.

Re: really (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394605)

... but I really like croissants and French bread

Re:really (2)

sjames (1099) | about 5 months ago | (#45394677)

You might be surprised to know that there is a such thing as a left libertarian.

That and that in the U.S. the right seems to be more hard line on drugs than the left(ish).

Re:really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45395207)

You just made that up. I suppose you think it is true because you say so.

Re:really (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394375)

Gods are not real. Saying everybody should obey the god I believe is just another way of saying everybody should obey ME.

Re:really (4, Insightful)

Xicor (2738029) | about 5 months ago | (#45394319)

no, what we NEED is for the us government to realize how dumb they are being with the 'war on drugs' billions of US tax dollars are wasted yearly on it, and they have nothing to show for it. each year prison overcrowding increases because they fill up the prisons with ppl who smoked weed. meanwhile they are letting rapists and murderers go free because they cant fit all the weed smokers in prison.

Re:really (1)

easyTree (1042254) | about 5 months ago | (#45394343)

Uhh, hello? Each occupied prison place is income for said government.

Re:really (4, Informative)

Sique (173459) | about 5 months ago | (#45394443)

No. Each occupied prison place costs. Prison inmates are mainly unproductive, and if they do work, then it's mainly work where you not need any high education, and where you don't have any real responsibility, so the jobs are relatively low paying ones. Thus prison inmates mainly cost money. They have to be feed, they have to be medically threated, they have to be watched around the clock etc.pp.

The only people who earn money on prison inmates are prison operators who charge the government for each inmate they take.

Re:really (3, Informative)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 5 months ago | (#45394849)

It costs taxpayers and society in general, but hundreds of thousands of government bureaucrats and cartel members make their living off it, and politicians can harvest donations and votes from them.

Re:really (1)

websitebroke (996163) | about 5 months ago | (#45394509)

Uhh, hello? Each occupied prison place is income for politicians' corporate overlords/future lobbying customers. FTFY.

Re:really (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about 5 months ago | (#45395059)

What!? The government doesn't make any income from prisons. They're spending thousands of our tax dollars lining the pockets of the for-profit prison industry.

Re:really (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 5 months ago | (#45394485)

The last time Prohibition was repealed, it took a constitutional amendment.

It looks like this Prohibition will be just as difficult to get rid of as the last one.

Re:really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394553)

You support a constitutional amendment to stop the war on drugs *and* one to limit the tyrannical power of an out of control post-constitutional governemt, I will support it.

Enough talk. ACT.

Re:really (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 5 months ago | (#45394563)

Thankfully, this time prohibition exists, it's not an amendment, which is much harder to get rid of than a law.

Re:really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394753)

This prohibition is already unconstitutional

Re:really (1)

Agent0013 (828350) | about 5 months ago | (#45394837)

That's because it's not really prohibited. You just need to get your Pot stamp to be allowed to buy or use Pot. The fact that the stamps are not made is not the governments fault.

I realize this is no longer the case, but it is how he marijuana prohibition started out. They just started out regulating it with tax stamps that were impossible to get. They like to find ways to skirt the law to their own desires. Nevermind the fact that skirting the law is called breaking it if we do it. It's basically the same thing the NSA and the FISA courts have been doing lately.

Re:really (2)

ragefan (267937) | about 5 months ago | (#45394901)

Then clearly the answer is to make your own Pot stamps. The government would then be unable to prove that the ones you made are counterfeit as they could not provide "approved" Pot stamps to compare them against.

Re:really (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 5 months ago | (#45394889)

It's pretty easy to say that it is constitutional, actually. I think dealing with national scale black markets is a great justification for the existence of the interstate commerce clause, but people are realizing that this particular case, marijuana prohibition, is not a good fight and the fight has massive negative consequences.

Re:really (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394595)

You need to brush up on your history... Prohibition needed an amendment to repeal because it was an amendment that put it in place. The 18th amendment started prohibition and the 21st repealed it.

NO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394687)

no, what we NEED is for the us government to realize how dumb they are being with the 'war on drugs' billions of US tax dollars are wasted yearly on it,

No, sir. What we need is the public who back the politicians who support this stupid war to realize the truth.

And those people are the religious people - yes, I'll say it - the religious people. The people who think their religion is THE panacea for all of our ills and anyone who uses drugs isn't ""SAVED"". That's what it really some down to in this day and age - rational people and the people of Faith who insist on legislating their morals on others while preaching anti-government sentiment on other issues.

Religion is evil. I am convinced.

Re:NO! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45395099)

no, what we NEED is for the us government to realize how dumb they are being with the 'war on drugs' billions of US tax dollars are wasted yearly on it,

No, sir. What we need is the public who back the politicians who support this stupid war to realize the truth.

Which other politicians are there to back?

Re:really (1)

brit74 (831798) | about 5 months ago | (#45394689)

Considering that the Silk Road won't stop the Drug War (it might actually intensify it), I'd suggest that you work on getting the laws changed and getting laws changed requires changing people's minds (there are still plenty of people who support the drug war). That's the proper way to do it. And let's not forget that the Silk Road also offers other illegal services besides the drugs. The last guy who ran the Silk Road used it to hire hitmen to kill two different people.

Re:really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394841)

> The last guy who ran the Silk Road used it to hire hitmen to kill two different people.

Can you support this claim? I'm aware of one hit being ordered, and DPR lying saying he paid much less for another (imaginary) one.

Changing the minds of propagandized people isn't as easy as you pretend. Better to just bypass them through technological means.

Re:really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394919)

The first one was also a police sting. It was in one of the slashdot articles. I can't remember if it was a different police agency or not.

Re:really (1)

Xicor (2738029) | about 5 months ago | (#45394987)

silk road isnt the problem, just like the drugs arent the problem. the problem is the people who do bad things. if A implies B, and B is bad, that doesnt necessarily mean that A is bad, it just means that under the current circumstances B goes along with A.

Re:really (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 5 months ago | (#45394713)

That might mean something here if drugs were the only "products" for sale on Silk Road. There'd still be people selling murder for hire, stolen credit cards, and other such things that I doubt you'd want to see legalized.

Re:really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394827)

There is no "murder for hire", weapons or child porn for sale on the Silk Road market place. I'd suggest you sign up and check this out for yourself.

Re:really (1)

Agent0013 (828350) | about 5 months ago | (#45394865)

Unless the murder for hire is used for politicians. I think that should be legalized. Oh, and murder for hire for people that work for illegal organizations like the NSA too.

Re:really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45395063)

no, what we NEED is for the us government to realize how dumb they are being with the 'war on drugs' billions of US tax dollars are wasted yearly on it, and they have nothing to show for it. each year prison overcrowding increases because they fill up the prisons with ppl who smoked weed. meanwhile they are letting rapists and murderers go free because they cant fit all the weed smokers in prison.

Hi, I know the cool way to get a quick +5 insightful on Slashdot these days is to bash the USA and the US government, but actually the federal government is moving in that direction. The Obama administration earlier this year ordered the justice department to not seek jail time for non-violent drug offenders in addition to decreasing the amount of resources directed to prosecuting such crimes. In fact, the justification for this move cites the arguments you've made in your comment. Additionally, the justice department announced a while ago that they were not going to seek to challenge recent state laws that decriminalized mild recreational drugs such as marijuana. I'd get a link for you but I'm tired and it's late, and you didn't provide a link for your claims either... So, just Google it...

Re:really (2)

gtall (79522) | about 5 months ago | (#45395141)

Please try to keep up. There a growing movement among the judiciary and state elected officials to reduce the prison pop. especially for non-violent drug offenders. Even that hero of the right, Richard Viguerie is behind the effort. Some are on board for the usual liberal causes, some are on board because it is expensive keeping people locked up.
 

Re:really (1)

Xicor (2738029) | about 5 months ago | (#45394335)

as soon as the us government stops the 'war on drugs', and decides to do something else about it, we will see a downfall of the drug lords. the exact same thing happened during prohibition. our government apparently never learned how those who dont learn about history are doomed to repeat it.

Re:really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394879)

They learned, there are just so many police departments and private prisons profiting from the insane war on politically incorrect drugs that they want to keep the gravy-train going as long as possible. It's corruption more than ignorance that keeps it going, though ignorant voters do play a role in the scam.

Re:really (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 5 months ago | (#45394825)

No, what we need is full legalization. The two most addictive and dangerous drugs known to man are currently available at almost every gas station in the country. It's a policy that works, and every other drug should be treated the same way.

Silk Road down? (2, Insightful)

nospam007 (722110) | about 5 months ago | (#45394215)

They keep using that word. I don't think it means what they think it means.

I for one, welcome the new Dread Pirate Roberts.

Re:Silk Road down? (4, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about 5 months ago | (#45394285)

If it was intentional, the choice of "Dread Pirate Roberts" for a handle was truly inspired. There will always be a black market underlying any economy, and I'm betting there will be an internet version of one going forward. While I wouldn't try to predict what it will look like, I have a suspicion that it will be called Silk Road for quite some time, one way or another.

Re:Silk Road down? (2)

Soluzar (1957050) | about 5 months ago | (#45394385)

That was my first thought too. If they had this in mind, the choice of handle was really, really impressive.

Re:Silk Road down? (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 5 months ago | (#45394405)

There will always be a black market underlying any economy, and I'm betting there will be an internet version of one going forward.

That statement is only true for as long as we allow prohibitions and remain an "ignorant" bunch of sheople. I think the hope long long ago was that humanity would be educated and included in their own societies. Both of those things have become laughable concepts to today's "elite" class.

That said, I too welcome Dread Pirate Roberts! If people can realize how asinine prohibition is, we have a chance to gain intellect discussing alternatives.

Re:Silk Road down? (1)

Hecatonchires (231908) | about 5 months ago | (#45395117)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Dread Pirate Roberts a 'good' guy posing as a 'bad' guy? This has FBI shill all over it.

Re:Silk Road down? (4, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 5 months ago | (#45394407)

It's s Honey Pot.

Re:Silk Road down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394535)

Yes, I don't quite see how this isn't entrapment.

Re:Silk Road down? (2)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 5 months ago | (#45394659)

It is not. Entrapment would be if the police went to someone and said," I really want you to sell me some drugs and then convinced them to do so". Just saying "hey do you have any drugs to buy" is not. Trapping people is perfectly legal. Convincing them to break the law is not.

Re:Silk Road down? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#45394793)

No doubt. Who is going to be high enough to fall for this... oh right.

That is, after all, why going after drug users is so important to law enforcement. It's just too damned easy. Murder and Burglar investigations take all kinds of time and resources, screw that.

Re:Silk Road down? (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 5 months ago | (#45394895)

Of course, because all law enforcement resources are interchangeable. The financial guys are just fantastic in high-speed chases.

Re:Silk Road down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394525)

You keep using that meme. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Dread Pirate Roberts (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394287)

We'll you know the last Dread Pirate Roberts wasn't the original Dread Pirate Roberts anyway. His name was Cummerbund. The real Roberts has been retired fifteen years and living like a king in Patagonia.

Someone needs to watch their cult movies (1)

Freestyling (997523) | about 5 months ago | (#45394289)

FTFA: "the 'new' DPR, who either cribbed his handle from the DPR of SR 1.0 fame or who is indeed the original DPR"

I don't think that works the way you (the editor) think it works...

Re: Someone needs to watch their cult movies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394719)

Be nice, the writer is probably 19 years old and has never watched the movie.

They hire tech writers with no more experience than high school graduation and "a lifelong love of gadgets" these days.

Missing the point (4, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 5 months ago | (#45394349)

Having a working web site doesn't accomplish anything if nobody uses it, for fear of going to jail.

Silk Road 1.0 didn't just get shut down. The Feds had complete access to it for months. If you use Silk Road 2.0 and end up in jail, it's your own fault.

Re:Missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394435)

Are they going after the buyers????

I'm doubtful that people will really stop using silk road just because of one bust. There have been lots of busts in the past of street dealers and yet nobody has stopped buying from them (well, short of maybe moving to Silk Road for drugs).

Did anybody get busted beside the primary operator?

If they have to do as much work to attack each and every seller on Silk Road it would seem there probably isn't all that much risk (as a seller on Silk Road).

Re:Missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394593)

This one thousand times over. No one breaks the law planning to go to jail. They think they will be getting away with it.

Re:Missing the point (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 5 months ago | (#45394709)

Law enforcement agencies around the world are arresting Silk Road sellers, and have promised to continue doing so.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/08/silk-road-busts/2946925/

Buyers are at significantly less risk, but without sellers the site isn't going to function.

Re:Missing the point (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 5 months ago | (#45394871)

Buyers are at significantly less risk, but without sellers the site isn't going to function.

Where there is money to be made, there will be people willing to take the risk.

Re:Missing the point (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 5 months ago | (#45395097)

They had the ability to shut it down for quite a while but didn't because they were gathering information and building cases on individual sellers.

Re:Missing the point (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 5 months ago | (#45394453)

Silk Road 1.0 didn't just get shut down. The Feds had complete access to it for months. If you use Silk Road 2.0 and end up in jail, it's your own fault.

The better question here is... why do people think this isn't just a honeypot by the government? You know, like the last one.

Re:Missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394653)

How many people did go to jail with the last one? How many used it?

Re:Missing the point (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394765)

Silk Road 1.0 didn't just get shut down. The Feds had complete access to it for months. If you use Silk Road 2.0 and end up in jail, it's your own fault.

The better question here is... why do people think this isn't just a honeypot by the government? You know, like the last one.

Because drug users are generally idiots. Hence why they are drug users.

Goverment? So what. (1)

ron_ivi (607351) | about 5 months ago | (#45394943)

So what if it is.

If its CIA - for doing their own drug smuggling [wikipedia.org], it's unlikely they'll blow their cover by sharing with your Oregon's PD.

If it's NYPD - they won't care outside of NY.

If it's NSA - they won't blow their cover for fear of more bad PR.

And that's just US agencies. Even if it is government, it's just as likely it's China's government. Or Singapore's. Or Russia's.

Or Afghanistan's, now that someone stopped the Taliban who were cracking down on Heroin.

And even if it is - wouldn't buyers and sellers take precautions to keep their privacy even from the guys (who are very likely criminals) running Silk Road anyway?

Re:Goverment? So what. (0)

gtall (79522) | about 5 months ago | (#45395169)

The poppy trade is the main source of income for the Taliban. They only stopped it when they were in power because they realized they couldn't get people all religiously snockered if they were already snockered. The Taliban also stopped a lot of limbs from working and many heads. That's what they did when they couldn't stop the peoples' brains from working.

Re:Missing the point (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394573)

If you take the proper precautions, then it doesn't matter if they have access to it. It's through tor, so they don't have your IP. Use a completely new username and password for your account that you haven't ever used before. Encrypt any communication with the seller/buyer, such as the shipping address or tracking number, with GPG. That way only the seller/buyer see each other.

Access the site through a secure machine (Tails LiveCD or a VM setup like Whonix) so that even if the browser is compromised with a 0-day, no identifying information can be obtained. Whonix is great in that the Workstation VM doesn't have a non-torified NIC, so it's impossible to leak your real IP. Restore to a snapshot after every use so any exploits are non-persistent.

As a risk for the buyer, sure, the seller could be the feds, but it's unlikely (they usually go after the sellers, not the buyers). Use a fake name if your mail carrier will deliver it (many in bigger cities will). Or use a friend's address with a fake name. It's not a crime to receive things you didn't order, you can't control who sends things to your address. If you're ordering personal use sized quantities, it's not worth the trouble to setup a sting anyway.

The risk for the seller is pretty low as well, since they never give up identifying information period. Now if the feds want to devote a lot of resources to a single seller, they could do that and do test purchases and slowly trace down the origin and physically watch the location where the packages are being mailed from, then follow the person home. But again, that's pretty unlikely unless the seller is one of the large ones and is based in the US, and even then I feel like they wouldn't bother since the seller is pretty low level in the grand scheme of things and the resources are better spent going after someone higher up or lower hanging fruit.

As for tracing the bitcoins, use one of the tumbling services. It looks like these marketplaces tumble the coins anyway, but that won't help if the whole site is compromised. Or buy/sell bitcoins with cash (localbitcoins.com), either in person or using the greendot refills (then take the cash out at an ATM without a camera... many of the non-bank owned ATMs don't have a camera).

So if you're smart about it and take the proper precautions, it's pretty safe and the risk of being caught is very very low.

Re:Missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394903)

"Use a fake name if your mail carrier will deliver it (many in bigger cities will). Or use a friend's address with a fake name. It's not a crime to receive things you didn't order, you can't control who sends things to your address."

This is very stupid. I know of at least one case where the mayor of the town had a full kick-the-door-down-"GET ON THE FUCKING GROUND!"-shoot-the-dogs raid on his house because someone else sent drugs to his house. You would do that to a friend? The cops don't care if they're not your drugs. If you take them into your house, they will try to arrest you for possession. And they like to try really hard.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/07/mayor.warrant/

Re:Missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45395095)

Obviously you would never do it without that friend's consent. But at a place like an apartment building, especially those with high turnover (ie college town), it's not unusual at all to receive mail addressed to previous tenants. I still receive mail for people who haven't lived at my address in years.

Some apartments in college areas don't even have secured mailboxes, they're just open boxes just inside the building. The mail carrier in my friend's building would put mail that belonged to someone he didn't think lived there anymore on top of the boxes. In a situation like that it's trivial to get it delivered safely.

Re:Missing the point (2)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about 5 months ago | (#45394955)

It would be pretty easy to MITM GPG encryption for anyone with control of the site. Simply display FBI or DEA controlled public keys for all sellers when logged in as anyone but the seller, the TLA agency then reads and forwards the message re-encrypted under the dealer's actual GPG key. The dealer never notices a problem unless they log in as someone else and review their own key. Whether this would work or not depends on the diligence of drug dealers.

Re:Missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45395167)

True, this is a problem if you've never purchased from that seller before. If you have made purchases from that seller, keep the GPG key (encrypted of course, maybe a truecrypt volume you mount on demand and unmount immediately after use) and verify that it's the same. If it changes, you know something is up.

And still, the FBI/DEA rarely go after the buyers. They want the sellers, or preferably the suppliers. It's pointless to go after the buyers, and going after the sellers directly is like whack a mole (though they still do it of course, but most of the resources are directed toward the suppliers of the dealers).

Plus, there's still a lot of low hanging fruit from the people who don't even bother using GPG, or the sellers who use really weak keys (some sellers are somehow using 512-bit RSA keys that have been created less than a month ago...either they're stings or they're using some third party web based PGP software, the keys I saw were generated with a Java library, not GPG/PGP directly).

Re:Missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45395177)

That's quite the peculiar attack, I would never have thought of that myself. As you state yourself this could easily be discovered by verifying the public key with a different account. I highly doubt there are many vendors which actually does this, but in return it would only need one vigilant vendor to reveal this.

(The revelation would be difficult censor since there are many fora to alert the "community")

Re:Missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394697)

As long as Tor isn't compromised (which it very well might be, considering there are valid theories on how) there really is no risk for vendor nor buyer on that level. Basically, if both Tor and Bitcoin was anonymous (bitcoin apparently has the ability to be very anonymous with proper measures) there should be no inherent risk if LE was running the trading-network. (Though there are other parts of the trade which could be vulnerable, like the shipping/posting).

  There was released a paper some years ago which presented a way to further hide hidden services and also make them resistant to DoS-attacks (something which I do believe they already are somewhat resistant to). Unfortunately it seems to take very long from theory to working implementation. Not only because of the work required in implementing it, but also the effort required to properly audit it.

This might be a little off-topic, but I think it's worth mentioning regardless: I personally believe the exposure these dark markets have gotten in the media is very unfortunate, and demilitarizes software to aid anonymity. With covers such as the one Time just recently had it would be easy for politicians to outright banish such software and networks by simply pointing towards those headlines. Because you know, what about the children?

I don't really mind such markets existing, and they probably are useful for many, but by yelling to the LE "do you worse!"... Well, how much good is there in Tor if running exit-nodes would be banned in all countries?

I'm sorry, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394739)

I meant delegitimize as in making illegal/unacceptable. Not demilitarize... That wouldn't make much sense... (Maybe I should just create an account next time I post something)

priorities (1)

dmbasso (1052166) | about 5 months ago | (#45394393)

But putting people in jail for smoking a plant while leaving schoolchildren hungry at night is an utter disgrace.

I couldn't agree more.

Re:priorities (2)

intermodal (534361) | about 5 months ago | (#45394477)

I agree that leaving children hungry is a disgrace, but I'm not sure comparing these two things actually accomplishes anything. Putting people in jail over a plant is a disgrace without need for qualifications and comparisons.

Re:priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394755)

I think the point is we are spending money on the former, that could be used to address the latter.

Re:priorities (1)

intermodal (534361) | about 5 months ago | (#45394857)

Which is always a fallacy since our government in the US doesn't give any kind of a damn about a balanced budget. The government could pour billions into both without regard for what is or is not spent elsewhere.

Re:priorities (1)

sjames (1099) | about 5 months ago | (#45394759)

But it does say something (very bad) about a society that prioritizes putting people in jail for smoking plants over making sure children don't go to be hungry.

Re:priorities (2)

intermodal (534361) | about 5 months ago | (#45394819)

it says even more that putting people in jail for a plant is a priority at all. Comparing it to a legitimate concern is less useful, as it implies it even deserves to be on the prioritization lists in the first place.

Dread Pirate Roberts is a very appropriate name (3, Informative)

Agent0013 (828350) | about 5 months ago | (#45394409)

I think that keeping the name Dread Pirate Roberts is very appropriate to the movie it came from.

Dread Pirate Roberts:

Roberts had grown so rich, he wanted to retire. He took me to his cabin and he told me his secret. 'I am not the Dread Pirate Roberts' he said. 'My name is Ryan; I inherited the ship from the previous Dread Pirate Roberts, just as you will inherit it from me. The man I inherited it from is not the real Dread Pirate Roberts either. His name was Cummerbund. The real Roberts has been retired 15 years and living like a king in Patagonia.'

Re:Dread Pirate Roberts is a very appropriate name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394501)

I agree. These guys deserve some praise for sticking with the name.

Dread Pirate Roberts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394423)

is really a fed

Re:Dread Pirate Roberts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394555)

Entrapment perhaps?

Re:Dread Pirate Roberts (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 5 months ago | (#45394861)

No, not at all.

I know this is shocking to the mom-discovers-one-sneaky-trick crowd, but police can legally lie to you and misrepresent themselves! They also don't have to tell you they're cops, no matter how many times you ask.

What they cannot legally do is convince someone who is otherwise lawful to break the law. They can provide opportunities, but they can't legally force or coerce the person to break the law. That's entrapment. Running a fake drug operation isn't.

riiiiiight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394457)

Remember lulzsec, yea.that.

Terrible interview (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394479)

What about the other illegal goods on silk road? Like the hitmen for hire? Is that going to be added back?

Amazon AWS (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 5 months ago | (#45394551)

Sounds like Silk Road joins the illustrious company of ThePirateBay as one of those indispensable services running on Amazon Web Services without Amazon particularly noticing.

(I wish Amazon hadn't called it AWS. It's not recognizable enough without spelling out Amazon, and you end up effectively writing Amazon Amazon Web Services or people don't know what you're talking about.)

Re:Amazon AWS (2)

Mullen (14656) | about 5 months ago | (#45394671)

(I wish Amazon hadn't called it AWS. It's not recognizable enough without spelling out Amazon, and you end up effectively writing Amazon Amazon Web Services or people don't know what you're talking about.)

I always call it EC2, and more or less, everyone in the computing business knows what that is.

can we say sting op (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45394657)

and this doesn't scream Sting or front to anyone?. not to mention its just a bad idea in the first place

Silk Road! (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about 5 months ago | (#45394829)

Bah, there Intellectual Property rights there and a worldwide reputation that's being infringed you know. The Silk Road was built on the work of the DPR and he deserves to be paid for his intellectual endeavors!

The new site is a cheap copycat fraud that fails to respect others rights. They threaten more clones like a game of whack a mole. No respect for intellectual property at all. How can you trust that kind of operation? Next thing you know the FBI will replace with front page with "It's a trap" and even the murders for hire will be fraudulent...

Silk road 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45395017)

Silk Road 2: Blatant honeypot edition! Join today!

A new Silk Road? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#45395213)

A new Silk Road went online and the value of bitcoins dipped nearly USD$50 around 24~48 hours ago. Is it related?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...