zlacker

Agreed. From the FBI press release on his conviction[1] no mention of the murder-for-hire charge. This conviction and sentencing all stem from the drug-selling business enterprise.

Our war-on-drugs sentencing is quite disproportional, IMHO; imputing societal harms that are unfounded. After all, Mr. Ulbright simply provided a safer way for consenting individuals to enter personal financial transactions.

Silk Road is a drop in the bucket compared to all the transactions arranged over SMS messages and using cash - but we don't hold AT&T and the Federal Reserve responsible for running a criminal enterprise.

===== ULBRICHT, 30, of San Francisco, California, was found guilty of: one count of distributing narcotics, one count of distributing narcotics by means of the Internet, and one count of conspiring to distribute narcotics, each of which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years; one count of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison; one of count of conspiring to commit computer hacking, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; one count of conspiring to traffic in false identity documents, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years; and one count of conspiring to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The maximum sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided for informational purposes only, as the sentence will be determined by the judge. ULBRICHT is scheduled to be sentenced on May 15, 2015.

  [1] http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2015/ross-ulbricht-the-creator-and-owner-of-the-silk-road-website-found-guilty-in-manhattan-federal-court-on-all-counts

>>mckoss+(OP)
You seem to suggest that silkroad was an innocent market place that was used for drug trafficking without the knowledge of its creator...

>>mckoss+(OP)
Er, you're drawing a completely ridiculous parallel.

If AT&T made a Text 81841 For Guns and created an anonymous infrastructure for arms dealers to sell guns to gangsters, yes, they would be in trouble.

Here's another example - I'm sure that some people have used Reddit for illegal transactions, but no one is going after Reddit for facilitating drug trafficking because it's a small part of their customer base.

In contrast, the Silk Road was wholly dedicated to selling illegal goods. That's why it was created, and that's why it made money.

>>cm2187+K1
Does that matter? There was nothing drug specific about the site implementation - you could sell anything you wanted to (gold, collectables, etc).

He provided a system that could be used as a valuable service for legal activities. It could also be used for illegal or banned activities in various jurisdictions.

I'm just saying that it's a dangerous precedent to say that anyone creating a communication or transaction platform can be held liable for conspiring with users who use it to commit crimes.

>>mckoss+xs
It does. If you create "the drug and other illegal products and services" market place, it is hard to argue you are not a drug dealer. Intent is a big deal when determining whether a behaviour is criminal.

>>mckoss+xs
Intent absolutely matters, yes. Silk Road was promoted by the staff as primarily a drug marketplace. Ross grew mushrooms to sell on the marketplace. It had links to drugs on its sidebar. They had a doctor to give advice to drug users. It was designed specifically not to comply with the law. These are all factors when determining criminality. If a site like Amazon accidentally sold child porn (as an example) via self publishing features, then they wouldn't be liable because Amazon was designed and promoted as a way to sell legal things that follow the law, and they would action the removal of those items when brought to their attention. These would make a strong case that there was no criminal intent on Amazon's part and that the fault was with a third party and so nothing would come from it.

It is extremely obtuse to act as if this sets a scary precedent By reducing the situation to absurd levels. Context has always mattered and will continue to matter.