Bitcoin Forum

I wonder how many Bitcoin-related crimes they authorized when they were running LulzSec?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/04/fbi-informant-crimes-report/2613305/

ok

I doubt they authorized in the sense like, go forth and make mischief my young apprentice.....
They most likely turn a blind eye for that long awaited promotion....or some other office politics. Who's screwing who on the director's desk.

nah, they have to authorize the crimes. If the Crime Boss orders the CI to commit a crime and he doesn't do it, he's designated a rat by de facto Criminal Code and will surely be killed.

I think you watched way too many movies.

actually i've lived in real life and know.

Whatever.
Let's not go overboard now.

Point is, if they admit to about 5600, the amount is most likely twice that.

$
yeah, i won't dispute that either. its no doubt they lie. i'm just saying they wouldn't have no snitches if they were going to charge them for whatever crimes they commit undercover.

Be interesting to know what they reap, for what they sow.  What if convictions was 2000, and admitted and allowed crimes were 5600?

Is any of this surprising? America is no longer the land of the fee (if they ever were).

Yes I am American. 

Some Americans would call you unAmerican.  But I call you, aware.

Not a big deal, as long as it's not a homicide, it's fair game for the FBI.

You should go ahead and modify that from FBI to every agency with any authority.

Really?

So, it's just dandy for FBI to say, bag up and sell drugs as long as they're catching someone? Is there not some cognitive dissonance going on here?

This is just the FBI. In one year. The US Governmental authority figures, such as the FBI and LEOs, commit countless crimes every year, there is no justice in this system, it is perverted.

I agree, it is perverted, but it doesn't change the FBI's policy.

No, that duty is upon Americans to halt unethical behavior within government.

What if their "policy" changed? And the "policy" included a plethora of things that you felt infringed by. Would it just be protocol or "policy" then..?

The bottom line is that crimes should not be committed in order to catch criminals. It is a fundamental failure of how a justice system should work as far as I am concerned.

Good luck catching a high-value criminal target without engaging in criminal behavior as an informant to gain trust.

Sounds good to me. Let's let the justice system do it's work instead of engaging is Stasi like behavior. Or no?

And perhaps that is arguable. If that's all they were doing. Instead they take kids to jail by selling them drugs, allowing the seller to sell, or selling them themselves. Alternatively, they are on the other side of the coin - buying "illegal" substances. I'm sorry - but why exactly can you possess or distribute these substances if Joe Sixpack doesn't pass GO and hangs out in a cell for doing the same innate action.

Don't buy it. That isn't American, as far as I am concerned. Governmental agencies should not be allowed to engage in crime or facilitate it. However the type of lackluster response most people give (oh, hard murder.. oh just a "terrorist", or just a "druggie") allows them to more easily facilitate much larger crimes (PRISM? Gun Runner..? List goes on indefinitely) over time. The mentality of "it's for the bad guys" HAS to go.