The FBI exists to justify itself. An up-front, moralizing tone is reassuring to non-technically literate people who don't realize this is equivalent to tracing all of our most intimate conversations.
As it sounds like it was social engineering [e.g. Getting into the private/admin areas of the forum via an undercover agent] I'm not sure you can state that.
Sorry, I meant it in terms of the ominous "nobody is safe behind a keyboard"—not only do they seem to be proud to be so invasive, but they're even adopting a moralizing tone.
Not sure what your point is. It's okay for government representatives to threaten citizens for circumventing laws that are demonstrably foolish? Regardless you should step back and think about how a representative democracy should function.
That statement nonspecifically threatens anyone who "hides behind a keyboard". Also, this threat comes without any determination that the law has been broken; there has been no conviction.
I have no problem with assurance that the law will be faithfully executed. This isn't that. This is inflicting fear to suppress people you disagree with. If only we had a buzzword for that.
This is assurance to the public that the law will be faithfully executed. They are assuring the public that the FBI is capable of investigating crimes even on the internet.
It would just be nice if they operated under the same judicial rules that they are enforcing. It seems like a large portion of US agencies (who enforce 'justice' in one way or another) these days feel like the same laws they are enforcing don't necessarily apply to them, especially when said law(s) limit their ability to do their job.
Or more simply put, exceptional circumstances have now become a rule rather than an exception.
I'm not sure if they did, "in this investigation".
I was commenting more on the general tone of US agencies, since the PATRIOT ACT, and their contradictions of what is breaking the law when it applies to them vs. whomever they are investigating.
Commenting more on the general tone of US agencies, since changing the law to specifically allow an expanded set of investigatory techniques, is them "breaking the law"? What?
You can argue they shouldn't have such authorities, but when the law explicitly gives them authority it's foolish to then claim they're breaking the law when using those same authorities.
It can still be breaking the law if they: a) exceed even the authority granted to them explicitly by the Patriot Act or b) the contents or interpretation of the Patriot Act violate the letter (and possibly the spirit/interpretation) of a higher law, namely the Constitution. IANAL so I don't know whether either of those are true, but is something that has been called into question (beyond the ethical or social-impact concerns over the laws and practices enabled by the act). I don't feel shutting down a black market is illegal (or unethical) unless the means to do so were illegal (or unethical). However, saying that US agencies violate the law more often after being given more powers within the law is not necessarily a self-contradictory or strange notion.
It's possible to be skeptical of the government and government agencies while at the same time thinking that the arrest of (alleged) drug traffickers is a good thing.
The context of the entire paragraph from which that statement is drawn refers pretty clearly to "hiding behind a keyboard" to commit crimes such as running an online drug bazaar.. of course the government disagrees with and wants to suppress that. I don't believe it's nearly as nonspecific and ominous as you seem to.
The premise of sites like Silk Road is that they exist entirely beyond the reach of the law - and the government is, understandably, refuting this premise.
Nevertheless, selling illegal drugs on the internet is illegal. I don't think you can say that attempting to bring down darknets is an example of government corruption in this case, notwithstanding the inevitable argument that the government is corrupt in any case.
He probably pays taxes on that money, too. Does that make the government an accomplice? Really, you just can't apply logic and consistency to laws across all members of society. On the one hand, they contradict themselves in application, and on the other hand you have special exceptions for state-actors among others.
He bought a top end tesla with a $70,000 down payment in bitcoin a few months after taking over. You really want to contend that he "probably pays taxes on that money, too."?
There are many cases of drug-police taking bribes from drug dealers. If you can't believe that happens in the US, at least accept that it happens in other places.
Just a few years ago the President of INTERPOL was convicted of taking bribes from a drug dealer.
I can say exactly that, watch me: their persecution priorities are corrupted. How many rights violations is this darknet thingy causing? More than the megabankers that get away with a slap on the wrist? And how much easier is it to arrest megabankers than technical-minded hacker guys and gals that try their best to hide their crimes?
There's a much higher beneficial payoff that can come from arresting bankers (like Iceland did), and at much less effort, than trying to make sure anonymous people don't put silly substances in their mouths.
So yes, attempting to close down darknets is a shining example of our government's corruption, today, with everything that is happening with the economy, courtesy of the bankers.
There is absolutely nothing untowards or abnormal about their claim, nor are they threatening the "public", which overwhelmingly doesn't operate black market sites.
Law enforcement absolutely includes an element of making examples, and deterring crime. That is one of the major purposes why organizations like the FBI exist. Not quite sure what this has to do with democracy.
You have to look at it not from the perspective of a black market site, but from the perspective of anonymity. Sites operated on the TOR network are supposed to be anonymous which is a valuable contribution to the existence of free speech. The freedom of a country that outlaws acts between consenting adults can be debated, but there are many countries that are undeniably oppressive. If the US government can track down an anonymous site, then it is likely these countries can too.
Arguably anonymous sites can harbor truly dangerous crimes like murder for hire, pedophiles, and terrorists. However, they can also protect political activists and whistle blowers. So while this isn't necessarily a cut and dry issue, it is much more complex than just saying these are black market sites so who cares.
There is absolutely nothing untowards or abnormal about their claim, nor are they threatening the "public", which overwhelmingly doesn't operate black market sites.
Sure, most people don't operate black market sites. But the problem is that if the government is able to use technology to have near-perfect knowledge of what everyone is up to then bad things happen when you get a bad person in charge of the government. Possible case in point just happened:
The bottom line is that there should be a way for people to be anonymous behind their keyboard. That's what prevents people from dying for expressing opinions that are counter to the government. Just picture a radical Prolife president who feels justified in murdering people who advocate for Prochoice policies. Don't focus on the one example - there are all kinds of bad things that a bad person in power could do. Enforcing laws is not a justification for absolute power.
The government is saying that they will pursue people who break the law through any means possible. In this case, they apparently socially engineered their way in.
And? How is this possibly a problem? Is it really an attack on potential legitimate uses of anonymity? Is it really useful to conjure up a murderous prolife president?
>>Law enforcement absolutely includes an element of making examples, and deterring crime.
It is very sad that you believe that... Sad indeed.
>>Not quite sure what this has to do with democracy.
It has everything to do with "democracy" which is mob rule, the FBI is the attack dog of the mob (aka the people) which has deemed running an unapproved website results in a life time of sadistic treatment in a human filled zoo where humans are locked in a small cages and emotionally tortured, we call them "prisons"
What a weird tone...