Feeds

back to article Silk Road 2.0 busted! At least two arrests as federal crackdown begins

If drugs traffickers thought the anonymous online black market calling itself Silk Road 2.0 would be any safer from law enforcement than the original, it looks like they had better think again. According to reports by Forbes and TechCrunch, the FBI have made "multiple arrests" of people believed to be involved with Silk Road 2.0 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

Exactly.

"The identity of this new DPR is still unknown. But on Friday he issued a statement to Silk Road 2.0 users saying the site had not been compromised by the recent arrests, since neither of the forum moderators that were charged had access to sensitive material."

That's exactly what the Feds would want him to say.

: )

11
0
Paris Hilton

Re: Exactly.

Especially if he *is* a fed...

7
0
Anonymous Coward

Silk Road 2.0 busted?

Think again.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

It's all good

More scum off the streets for a long time.

6
19
Anonymous Coward

Re: It's all good

Yeah, those evil forum moderators. Real scum of the earth them. Going round, errr, moderating forums. Twat.

10
4

Re: It's all good

No, more "scum" on the street as that's were dealing will move back to if it proves impossible to carry out online. You can't win the drugs war.

18
2
Silver badge

Re: It's all good

> You can't win the drugs war

...unless you own a prison or draw salary arresting people for the botanical equivalent of wine, no. Or are a judge getting kickbacks from prison owners for sentencing people.

19
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: It's all good

It's better to keep consumption under control than just let it explode.

Why do you think drugs are controlled, it's simple. They're not good for you. Even prescription drugs are bad enough, people dying or very nearly dying from addictions to codeine and other things.

While there's a case for some milder strength weed to be allowed, the opiates and highly psychoactive substances should be kept under control.

Plenty of good reasons for it being not legal there. Employers used to give it to their workers to get more out of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine#Prohibition_of_cocaine_in_the_United_States

7
11
Silver badge

Re: It's all good

And the worst part about the inhumane drugs war is that it has resulted in people lumping pretty much any psychoactive compound under the umbrella demonisation term "DRUGZ". Alcohol is a drug, you know, with far more harm potential than many of the illegal substances out there.

Really, comparing weed to cocaine? Might as well compare an egg whisk to a jackhammer.

9
3

Re: It's all good

All drugs should be controlled. I believe we should have stronger controls on alcohol as one of the most dangerous, addictive and socially harmful drugs available.

Criminalizing drugs is not an effective means of controlling them.. Heroin and other opiates would be the first drugs I would control properly with some kind of legal framework to as far as possible destroy the illicit market.

You say drugs are not good for you but almost all of the downsides are related to the distribution and use being criminalized. The health issues with heroin given a pure supply and administered properly are constipation and physical dependance, compare that to alcohol which can also cause physical dependance but has a massive list of other health issues it causes that are much worse than constipation. While heroin is certainly more addictive than alcohol that's not the main reason that many more heroin users become addicted. Alcohol has been tolerated legally and socially for generations and the rules and customs of it's relatively safe use are built into the fabric of our society. Where alcohol has been introduced into cultures without that share understanding it is almost as disruptive as heroin can be. In our society alcohol has been controlled properly but the control of heroin use is in the hands of sociopaths with predictable results.

9
5

Re: It's all good

Isn't the botanical equivalent of wine, like, wine?

7
0
Anonymous Coward

@ moiety

The story is about meth. It's not the botanical equivalent of wine.

0
0
Happy

Re: It's all good

"It's better to keep consumption under control than just let it explode"

Not so sure there would be the explosion you think. Amsterdam or Holland have never exploded in drug use.

Obviously medical drugs need to be controlled but they are not taken for pleasure so are outside the parameters of this debate.

Opiates should be controlled but psychoatives are not really addictive except for the mentally disturbed. People in my experience only take these types of drugs for an experimental period of time.

As for coke and meths well they should be marketed like champagne and vodka. Cocaine is very popular in the USA and certain British politicians.

4
1
Silver badge

Re: It's all good

"All drugs should be controlled. I believe we should have stronger controls on alcohol as one of the most dangerous, addictive and socially harmful drugs available."

But also SO ingrained in many cultures that people would sooner declare war on their countries than declare war on their vices. Look at America's Prohibition era. If people want something badly enough, they'll get it in spite of God, Man, or the Devil. That's why the US hasn't even tried anything serious with tobacco: it's in the same boat.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: It's all good

"As for coke and meths well they should be marketed like champagne and vodka. Cocaine is very popular in the USA and certain British politicians."

The trouble is these some of these drugs can have side effects: FATAL ones. Cocaine can cause fatal heart attack and certain opiates like heroin can cause your heart to stop. In ONE controlled dose. I think even Ecstasy can do that in one pill. Drugs that can kill when used as directed MUST be controlled for the same reason we control uses of strong acids and the like: they're life-threatening.

1
6
Silver badge

Re: It's all good

Coke, possibly, over a long period of usage. There's a reason it's also known as "Forced March". Ecstasy (as in MDMA, not the research chemicals you buy outside a nightclub for a quid), no. That has a different side effect of depression caused by you exhausting your serotonin supply in repeated bursts of I LOVE YOU, MAN. Leah Betts is the poster child everyone brings out for MDMA-related deaths, and she didn't die from ecstasy poisoning. She died from water overdose after listening to government FUD about "OMG YOU WILL DEHYDRATE UNLESS YOU DRINK LOOOOOADS." Heroin's major problem is the extreme addiction.

Weed's only a problem if you're schizophrenic. But then, if you have that sort of problem, you should also be avoiding alcohol, and possibly strong coffee.

6
2

Re: It's all good

I think you're overreacting a bit

0
0

Re: It's all good

Wars always have people profiteering without doing anything to advance either cause.

0
0
Silver badge
Stop

Re: Blowhard Re: It's all good

".....Weed's only a problem if you're schizophrenic....." One of the "joys" of working in the IT industry is you get to meet plenty of potheads, and they all rebleat that "only if you're a schizo" line, do they print it not he Rizzla wrappers now? I am talking people I have known from secondary school right through to their middle-age. It's got to the point where I can spot the casual smokers, the ones that have a few joints a week as opposed to a few each day. Believe me, when you look at casual potheads that have done "just a few joints a week" after they have been doing it for thirty years you can really see the difference in levels of lucidity and reasoning capability compared to people that don't smoke weed. The ones that are smoking several joints a day usually drop out of the IT industry all together, they just can't hack the pace. And that's thirty years of the old "soft" weed, not the "hard" weed that seems to be becoming the vogue. Sorry, not a "formal study", just empirical observation, but if you really think that weed in the long term will have no effect then you're definitely smoking something.

2
5

Re: It's all good

"It's better to keep consumption under control than just let it explode."

Are you really under the impression that anyone who wants drugs is not already able to get hold of them?

Lol.

1
0

Re: Blowhard It's all good

"but if you really think that weed in the long term will have no effect then you're definitely smoking something."

True. But I would sooner hang out with those casual smokers then the hypocritical pissheads that claim "They would never touch drugs and thinks anyone who does is a dirty hippy" as they light up their umpteenth fag of the day.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: It's all good

> Or are a judge getting kickbacks from prison owners for sentencing people.

Or a politician because after all what could possibly go wrong with giving people an incentive to store people like cord wood for profit? Its not like they will then bribe the politicians to encourage more incarceration. Its only a coincidence the US leads the world in prison population per capita and has so many private prisons.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: It's all good

>It's better to keep consumption under control than just let it explode.

>Why do you think drugs are controlled, it's simple. They're not good for you. Even prescription drugs are bad enough, people dying or very nearly dying from addictions to codeine and other things.

You do realize you just made the case for why outright banning drugs is the stupidest thing to do if you want to control drugs right? All you do is make it more lucrative for organized crime. True generations ago true today. I am not saying legalize everything but pissing away taxpayer money on a failing drug war is stupid. Doing it for 45+ years is beyond retarded. The only people now that defend it profit from the current policy continuing.

1
1

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Jimboom Re: Blowhard It's all good

".....as they light up their umpteenth fag of the day." Whilst I support the way you demonstrate the hypocrisy of smokers that call potheads "hippies", you fail to realise that smoking was once not only socially acceptable but even praised for it's "healthy benefits"! You also fail to see that smoking has become unacceptable due to the realisation of its damage to the body and the addictive potential of nicotine, yet you fail to see that smoking cannabis is both addictive (if only psychologically) and ALSO that the smoking action presents many of the health threats of cigarette smoke. In short, you are pointing out one hypocrisy by illustrating your own.

Oh, and I don't smoke.

0
2
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: AC Re: Blowhard It's all good

".....how many people have you seen ruin their lives with alcohol?...." Actually, in the IT industry, not that many, and certainly less than have gone overboard on weed. The problem for your argument is that the problems of "evil" alcohol have been known for years and IT people are usually above average intelligence, so they get and accept the "excessive drink is bad" concept, but they often fall for the fuzzy-feel-good "but weed is harmless" schpiel. But you go on trying to ignore the potential issues of being a pothead by trying to equate it with the "evils" of the legal drug alcohol if it helps you cope.

"......People who drop out of anything in such a manner frequently have more going on in their lives than weed smoking....." So you can see that "evil" alcohol can be used excessively by those trying to escape their lives, but you fail to see that the same applies, that excessive weed use could be for EXACTLY the same reasons - to escape their humdrum existence. All you have done is point out that the people that use weed heavily are more than likely compensating for problems in their lives, but you suggest it is fine for them to hide from their issues behind cannabis but not to do so with "evil" alcohol? Major fail!

".....Furthermore, I suffered from crippling anxiety and depression for years (at one point I couldn't leave the house for 2 years), weed helped me to cope with all of that when conventional medicines and psychiatrists struggled to help......" Gee, and no other medicine has any side effects? Please do go read up on Prozac and the long list of side effects, which doctors have to take into account when prescribing Prozac. Just about any drug, even Asprin, have negatives against which doctors have to balance the benefits of using it. The issue is Prozac and other similar drugs have been tested and approved, whereas weed has largely not. In cases of medicinal use I actually support medicinal marihuana, but only if it is first tested and approved, and not when it is skunk from some guy on the corner, and not when it is being passed off as "cool" for those with no medical requirement. I know people that take Prozac (and have side effects), that doesn't mean I would support the idea of everyone being told Prozac should be taken as a recreational drug just because it is OK for medical use. Another fail.

".....The amount of absolute horseshit....." So, what you're saying is that anyone that supports a view that doesn't agree 100% with yours is "horseshit"? How open-minded! I do not rule out either the future legalisation of cannabis or the possible medical benefits, but unlike you I'm not just going to accept it without some actual scientific evidence. Until then, I would suggest you try a more constructive argument rather than just accusing all your opponents of "horseshit" if you actually want to try convincing people being a pothead hasn't rendered you incapable of calm and reasoned discourse.

0
2
Silver badge

FBI in doing same thing twice shocker!

Apparently it's possible to do the thing you did once before a second time - who'd have thought it?

5
0
Silver badge

Re: FBI in doing same thing twice shocker!

A mole would seem the obvious source.

3
0

Panic Attack.

If you are a cop, you've have got to love this:

"Guys I was arrested yesterday and out on bond now. But something is fucked! I know I'm risking more warning you guys and my attorney doesn't even want me on the internet but you guys need to know this. When I was in the interview they showed me all sorts of shit that they should not know or have access to ... Something is definitely wrong and they have the ability to see things on here only mods or admins should like transfers and a dispute I had."

The first to spill their guts gets a deal, the rest will be hung out to dry.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Panic Attack.

Might be thinking twice about RSA encryption now.

4
0
Bronze badge

Re: Panic Attack.

There is nothing wrong with RSA. Ecliptic curve pseudo random number generators are another matter entirely.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Panic Attack.

Er, that should have been elliptic, as in Dual Elliptic Curve Deterministic Random Bit Generator.

Stupid autocomplete or well played Mr NSA.

0
0
Bronze badge

Try harder

As always the attempt to create a honey trap is painfully obvious (Silk Road 2.0); oh please. Any previous user who is not missing his/her cerebrum is long gone, and the saps getting caught are new users who have been invited to search for drugs through TOR, because the TV recently said that they could.

10
0
Silver badge

Re: Try harder

Anonymity means that a citizen can never be sure that they are not dealing with an FBI agent. Anonymity means that entrapment can't be proven. Even if the FBI didn't bother creating a honey trap, the mere threat of one will act as a disincentive.

4
0
Bronze badge
FAIL

Honey Trap?

I don't believe an Honey Trap is involved. All that is required is that a significant number of the nodes within TOR, especially entrance and/or exit nodes, be monitored and you can roll up the network whenever you have sufficient suspects. One of the things that I looked at was donating an AWS node to TOR. It became clear to me exactly what would be required to break anonymity on TOR. Nothing special, just own a bunch of it.

2
2

Re: Honey Trap?

I think you would also need control over a significant number of relay nodes, as well as exit nodes. So then in theory, you could follow the white rabbit throughout your own network (exit node > relay node > relay node > relay node > destination)

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: Honey Trap?

Nope. All you need is recording of packets entering the system of nodes and those exiting them, then sufficient computing capability to match one to the other. You need not have all the nodes, as you might expect, just a sufficient number. MITM capabilitiy would be nice at these exact points. (Where have I heard they have that?) At best, the relays would allow you to check the coverage on the overall system, but they contribute nothing to the actual process. Toss a few million, actually close to a billion I expect, given exactly the level of retention of all traffic and you too can be the NSA.

Waving the 'Cryptographic Magic Wand' over something doesn't make it secure. Packets are still packets and entries and exits are where they have a much lower level of protection. Or as I prefer to put it, plumbing is still plumbing. I was there for the birth of ARPAnet, Unix, and a bunch of other stuff. Assuming complexity where there is no such a requirement is a failing of the modern today.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: Honey Trap?

I think theoatmeal needs to do a chart on when to use an. :)

1
0

Ultimate honey trap not likely but...

It would be impressive to have Silk 2.0 being operated by the Feds as ultimate honey trap. But more likely they use social media to get the idea out there of those markets being unsafe and risky. Which of course they are but they want to exaggerate that aspect so one can expect to see these news items in greater sequence appearing to drive the point home. Not sure it will work though, people often go by a trusted word of mouth to determine if it's doable or not. Not some online statement here or there.

3
0
Silver badge
Pirate

ROFLMAO!

Seriously, they were surprised the FBI had been supplied with what looks like eavesdropped info? We're they smoking something all through the Ed Snowdope "revelations"? Oh, come to think of it, they probably were.

6
1

Oh FFS

The sooner Our Generation grow the feck up and decriminalise the better.

All the 'soldiers' in the retarded 'war on drugs' are wasting more of our taxes in their unwinnable 'war' than 'benefit scroungers' 'tax evaders' 'immigrants' and expenses troughing members of parliament combined.

70 years of 'war' and nothing to show for it but repetitive crap headlines and middle class hypocrisy.

#Team Nigella

16
4
Joke

Re: Oh FFS

<Best Hispanic accent> Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You hashtagged the Reg's comments section. Prepare to die...

2
0
Hoe

TOR is NOT safe but people stupidly believe it too be, stop for a second and think seriously...

IF IT WERE SAFE & UN-TRACABLE...

Would the American government not have taken down the distribution of it immediately?

YES.

IT IS NOT SAFE.

Sorry for caps but I am fed up of reading of people falling foul of the law because they think they are hidden online, if you really want to be hidden online you need some form of intelligence, a little money and a paranoid outlook and even then there are oh so many ways to slip up and suddenly expose yourself.

2
0
Silver badge

Of course TOR isn't 'safe'. No lock with even one key is 'safe', and indeed TOR never claimed to be. If you look at their website they tell you exactly that. However, used with care, with other security measures and not too frequently, it can be a life saver.

1
0

The NSA buys TOR Network in Secret Deal

Oh... oops, Eddy hasn't released that one, yet.

Read the first three paragraphs on the following page, then report back the number of alarm bells that went off!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)

I just don't think I can handle this any more.

0
0
Coat

The Internet is too dangerous

People should get their illicit drugs the old-fashined way -- on the street, from their friendly neighborhood dope pusher:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIzRGHuJt_I

0
0
Silver badge

Kids these days.......

What's wrong with the traditional venue; meeting in the pub car park?

1
0
Happy

Re: Kids these days.......

Well I guess the problem is that you'd have to walk or get out of a car or some kind of exercise, but if you can buy them on line they are just delivered. Far more convenient.

2
0
Childcatcher

Re: Kids these days.......

I was under the impression that the majority of clients of the original silk road were middle aged folks who felt they'd reached a point in their lives where they shouldn't have to deal with shady characters in dark alleys and were willing to pay a premium for a low-effort high quality service.

Grownups these days. . .

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Kids these days.......

You still have to get out of your computer chair and climb the stairs from mommy's basement to get the post though!

Seriously why can't these kids just say no?

0
5

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.