The FBI Finally Says How It ‘Legally’ Pinpointed Silk Road’s Server

[johncarpe64]

If it was not for drug dealers then drug users would never be able to get ahold of drugs, nor would they have ever gotten into using illegal drugs. Also drug dealers will often take advantage of a person's addiction and do things like extend credit and give a discount to a person who is unable to pay to prevent them from potentially breaking their habit.

As if people that support the war on drugs really give a shit about drug addicts.

Drug addiction isn't the problem, it's just a symptom.  That's why trying to take away the supply won't eliminate the demand.  Only counseling and treatment can do that.

Furthermore, not all drug users are drug addicts.  Many are recreational users with no danger of becoming addicted.

If drugs are not available in the first place then people would never get addicted.

You are correct to say that not all users are addicts, but the majority of the drugs consumed are done so by addicts. This and many "hard" drugs more or less guarantee that people will get addicted and many people get addicted after using it just one time.

This is true. You can get addicted to cocaine after using it just one time. Same with many other drugs. They ruin people's lives.

Cocaine isn't physically addictive. So I guess you think people become psychologically dependent after wanting to ride on one night?

Being physically or psychologically addicted is the same thing from a public policy standpoint (they are different from a medial standpoint). Both kinds of addictions cause horrible problems with society, increase crime rates cost the government money, and ruin lives.

[rikkejohn]

If drugs are not available in the first place then people would never get addicted.

Drug availability isn't the cause of drug addiction.  Drug addiction is just a symptom of other psychological issues.  Regardless of how good one's intentions may be, drug availability can't be eliminated by politicians declaring war on drugs.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

You are correct to say that not all users are addicts, but the majority of the drugs consumed are done so by addicts. This and many "hard" drugs more or less guarantee that people will get addicted and many people get addicted after using it just one time.

You've been exposed to far too much propaganda.

It's a valid point, but availability causes those with a propensity to become addicted to drug X, to become addicted to it.

But you're right to dismiss the other post. If you don't crave altered states, not even heroin will light your fire.

Drug addiction is complicated, and very rarely, if ever, a problem merely due to physical dependency (hardly any drugs are physically addictive).

Cigarettes, alcohol, benzos are the hardest to kick. Heroin is hardish. But they are the ones that give withdrawal.

The rest are only hard insofar as they are pleasurable for some people and they can't imagine life without them.

You're terribly misinformed. Using drugs(especially Heroin, Cocaine, Meth, etc etc) over a long period of time creates a dependency on them. Some countries even give long-term drug addicts free drugs, because the Physical withdrawal they'd receive if they stopped taking the drugs would kill them.

There are some drugs that require a slow taper, like any type of benzos (xanax) Alcohol. But drugs like Heroine, Meth, cocaine, can be stopped, you wont die, but you will want to die if the reports are correct they are hell and you feel like dying.. but there are some drugs that you cannot stop cold turkey..some will doctors will want you to stay on some drugs while your pregnant as if you stop the baby will go into distress, so there are truths to both sides.. but in general, not too many drugs cant be stopped cold turkey..youll just feel like shit...

Heroin gives youa serious shit feeling, but 3 days later and you're through it.

Xanax is the worst, goes on for weeks, even on a taper. The worst benzo out there. But the doctor's drug of choice in the US. They should switch to Valium. Much smoother to taper.

[rikkejohn]

If it was not for drug dealers then drug users would never be able to get ahold of drugs, nor would they have ever gotten into using illegal drugs. Also drug dealers will often take advantage of a person's addiction and do things like extend credit and give a discount to a person who is unable to pay to prevent them from potentially breaking their habit.

As if people that support the war on drugs really give a shit about drug addicts.

Drug addiction isn't the problem, it's just a symptom.  That's why trying to take away the supply won't eliminate the demand.  Only counseling and treatment can do that.

Furthermore, not all drug users are drug addicts.  Many are recreational users with no danger of becoming addicted.

If drugs are not available in the first place then people would never get addicted.

You are correct to say that not all users are addicts, but the majority of the drugs consumed are done so by addicts. This and many "hard" drugs more or less guarantee that people will get addicted and many people get addicted after using it just one time.

This is true. You can get addicted to cocaine after using it just one time. Same with many other drugs. They ruin people's lives.

Cocaine isn't physically addictive. So I guess you think people become psychologically dependent after wanting to ride on one night?

Being physically or psychologically addicted is the same thing from a public policy standpoint (they are different from a medial standpoint). Both kinds of addictions cause horrible problems with society, increase crime rates cost the government money, and ruin lives.

They are not the same thing from a public policy standpoint, unless public policy is poorly conceived.

They require different treatment programmes, and most that have psychological addictions continue to function in some form or other within society.

[shawshankinmate37927]

The war on drugs has ruined more lives than the drugs themselves.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Here's just one example of the lives that have been needlessly lost due to the war on drugs:
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13001-calderon-reign-ends-with-six-year-mexican-death-toll-near-120000

[rikkejohn]

The war on drugs has ruined more lives than the drugs themselves.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Here's just one example of the lives that have been needlessly lost due to the war on drugs:
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13001-calderon-reign-ends-with-six-year-mexican-death-toll-near-120000

The war on drugs, the prison sentences, the families split up, the children taken into care, the gossip, the loss of income, job and future.

Just a few more to add on.

darkota is a Troll, and serious attempts to engage him intellectually will end in tears (yours).

He is famous for his self-moderated "litecoin is officially dead" thread, where he deleted every post that disagreed with him.

He's also famous for asking users here for bitcoin to start his own exchange. He failed to get it off the ground.

[AGD]

Some of the "Dread Pirate Roberts" fanboys should not forget that he also hired hitmen to kill adversaries.  Nobody was actually killed, but that only because the FBI was setting up a trap including fake pictures of a "done job". He deserves any sentence for that.

[TheButterZone]

Some of the "Dread Pirate Roberts" fanboys should not forget that he also hired hitmen to kill adversaries.  Nobody was actually killed, but that only because the FBI was setting up a trap including fake pictures of a "done job". He deserves any sentence for that.

No, someone who was in control of Silk Road did that. And DPR wasn't the only person in control after FBI seized it, when the nonexistent "hitmen", including one allegedly a "civilian", were "hired".

[Jungian]

Some of the "Dread Pirate Roberts" fanboys should not forget that he also hired hitmen to kill adversaries.  Nobody was actually killed, but that only because the FBI was setting up a trap including fake pictures of a "done job". He deserves any sentence for that.

Evidence? I'm not saying that didn't happen, but I don't think the smoke has cleared yet.

[shawshankinmate37927]

Some of the "Dread Pirate Roberts" fanboys should not forget that he also hired hitmen to kill adversaries.  Nobody was actually killed, but that only because the FBI was setting up a trap including fake pictures of a "done job". He deserves any sentence for that.

Entrapment?

[validium]

Came across this article by nik.

https://www.nikcub.com/posts/analyzing-fbi-explanation-silk-road/

Since the FBI explanation doesn’t hold up to the IP address being revealed at lower layers, and since “typing in miscellaneous entries into the username, password, and CAPTCHA fields” (aka fuzzing) could only alter application-layer data, we need to find an explanation for what the FBI did that fits both the reality of how Tor, hidden services and the Silk Road application work and what the FBI are describing in their legal affidavit

[AGD]

I can't and I don't need to provide a proof for this, but the FBI surely has some which I believe they have.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/11/21/alleged-silk-road-ross-ulbricht-creator-now-accused-of-six-murder-for-hires-denied-bail/

http://www.businessinsider.com/ross-ulbricht-charged-in-2nd-silk-road-murder-for-hire-plot-2013-10

[spazzdla]

So it begins..

"We won't abuse our complete surveillance of everything"

"Okay okay only here and there"

"Well we have it set up so now if you do anything wrong expect to get arrested by our new state of the art drones!!!"  Expect this with in 10 years if Russia can not free us.

[Datcracktho]

They can keep trying, but they cannot corrupt Bitcoin. Math will protect it for life.

[Marlo Stanfield]

Everything that DPR has done has been pretty amateur to be honest. I don't think he knew what he was getting in to at the time.

Clearly he wasn't qualified to run such an operation. But he kept it going for a while so hats off to him I guess.

[leannemckim46]

Came across this article by nik.

https://www.nikcub.com/posts/analyzing-fbi-explanation-silk-road/

Since the FBI explanation doesn’t hold up to the IP address being revealed at lower layers, and since “typing in miscellaneous entries into the username, password, and CAPTCHA fields” (aka fuzzing) could only alter application-layer data, we need to find an explanation for what the FBI did that fits both the reality of how Tor, hidden services and the Silk Road application work and what the FBI are describing in their legal affidavit

The technical details regarding the CAPTCHA program and TOR and how they work would likely be too advanced for a jury to understand. If the defense were to try to challenge it in court, it would only confuse the jury and there would be a 50/50 chance the jury would believe the agent regardless of if he was proven wrong or not.

[Marlo Stanfield]

Came across this article by nik.

https://www.nikcub.com/posts/analyzing-fbi-explanation-silk-road/

Since the FBI explanation doesn’t hold up to the IP address being revealed at lower layers, and since “typing in miscellaneous entries into the username, password, and CAPTCHA fields” (aka fuzzing) could only alter application-layer data, we need to find an explanation for what the FBI did that fits both the reality of how Tor, hidden services and the Silk Road application work and what the FBI are describing in their legal affidavit

The technical details regarding the CAPTCHA program and TOR and how they work would likely be too advanced for a jury to understand. If the defense were to try to challenge it in court, it would only confuse the jury and there would be a 50/50 chance the jury would believe the agent regardless of if he was proven wrong or not.

That's actually pretty sad when you think about it.

Wouldn't the defense call an expert witness who would testify on their behalf that what happened was illegal though? And shouldn't the jury decide whether or not they believe that? I mean I guess this is probably exactly what you meant. And it's unfortunate that peoples lives can be dependent of whether a few average people have an understanding of a technical issue or not.

[murraypaul]

Wouldn't the defense call an expert witness who would testify on their behalf that what happened was illegal though?

What exactly was done that was illegal?
If they don't know what was done, how can they testify that it was illegal?

[leannemckim46]

Came across this article by nik.

https://www.nikcub.com/posts/analyzing-fbi-explanation-silk-road/

Since the FBI explanation doesn’t hold up to the IP address being revealed at lower layers, and since “typing in miscellaneous entries into the username, password, and CAPTCHA fields” (aka fuzzing) could only alter application-layer data, we need to find an explanation for what the FBI did that fits both the reality of how Tor, hidden services and the Silk Road application work and what the FBI are describing in their legal affidavit

The technical details regarding the CAPTCHA program and TOR and how they work would likely be too advanced for a jury to understand. If the defense were to try to challenge it in court, it would only confuse the jury and there would be a 50/50 chance the jury would believe the agent regardless of if he was proven wrong or not.

That's actually pretty sad when you think about it.

Wouldn't the defense call an expert witness who would testify on their behalf that what happened was illegal though? And shouldn't the jury decide whether or not they believe that? I mean I guess this is probably exactly what you meant. And it's unfortunate that peoples lives can be dependent of whether a few average people have an understanding of a technical issue or not.

The jury does decide, but if they do not fully understand the issues being described by the expert witnesses are too complex then they could easily side with either the government or the defense.

No witnesses are actually able to testify that someone broke the law. That is not something they are able to conclude. A witness needs to give facts and the jury can conclude if the law was broken or not.

[dankkk]

Wouldn't the defense call an expert witness who would testify on their behalf that what happened was illegal though?

What exactly was done that was illegal?
If they don't know what was done, how can they testify that it was illegal?

They can question the FBI agent to get more information as to exactly what happened. If the FBI agent admits to doing something outright illegal then the defense can request that the evidence be thrown out and if the judge declines then the case can be appealed.

If the FBI agent does not admit to doing something illegal but leaves things out of his testimony then he could either be considered to not be credible or the defense could hire an expert witness to say that what the FBI agent is saying happened would not be possible 

[wasserman99]

Everything that DPR has done has been pretty amateur to be honest. I don't think he knew what he was getting in to at the time.

Clearly he wasn't qualified to run such an operation. But he kept it going for a while so hats off to him I guess.

From what I can tell it looks like he was somewhat inexperienced in being able to keep his identity secret. I think that some of his early customers (and likely mods) were more experienced  in security and likely helped him. From what the media reports have reported he would sometimes get advise as to security leaks and would get helps in "plugging" them