What I find the most interesting about this article is that someone was able to be identified using a picture of their fingerprints.<p>Thus, any photos posted online could be scoured for identification information. And with computer vision technologies becoming more mature, it means that regular video footage of people could identify them the same way in seconds or less using a wide variety of different visual traits.<p>The implications of this on individual privacy are immense.
It's incredible that so much tax payer money and human resources are devoted to defend pharmaceutical companies monopoly on drugs. By his inventory it sounds like his customers would likely be people with chronic conditions that have strong presence of pharmaceutical lobby to prevent legal sales of cannabis and probably cannot afford Xanax through legal means because the cost of getting medical help is extortionate.
> The pictures included closeup pictures of Porras’ hand with visible fingerprint ridges.<p>I thought via the title that they fingerprinted the lens used to take the photograph, not that there was literal pictures of fingers.
'So we have these fingerprints, and we think they belong to this guy we already have prints on file for. Can you give us a yes/no answer if they match up?'<p>seems like a pretty low bar for evidence. Seems like the kind of thing that could heavily skew towards telling you what you want to hear. Maybe someone else knows if it actually works like that, the writeup made it sound like that to me.<p>I'm just some guy who saw a tv documentatary at some point about how forensic techniques that worked like that got called into question when conflicting DNA evidence started turning up.
I don't like to sound like I'm wearing tinfoil, but I'm not sure I believe this. We keep getting eyebrow-raising explanations for how computer criminals are caught; I always ask why bother?<p>The American intelligence apparatus has compromised nearly all network traffic, from hardware backdoors on up. I assume the real way this person was detected and caught would be too embarrassing to admit, hence the fingerprints-from-a-photo cover.
> Porras also admitted possessing a Model A uzi-style pistol; a MAK 90; and an S&W .44 caliber revolver. Although all weapons in Porras’ possession were legal firearms (the uzi-style pistol used post ban parts), a felony conviction for possession with intent precluded firearm ownership.<p>Can someone explain this part to me. Was he <i>previously</i> convicted of a crime that precluded ownership? Or are the police able to take legal behaviour and change it to illegal behaviour later on?
> We know, thanks to documents from other Operation Dark Gold cases, that Porras had used a money laundering service controlled by Homeland Security Investigations<p>Geeze
I’m reading a lot of comments here which tackle the thorny topic of decriminalization of drugs in the US that we have historically over-prosecuted. I happen to agree with this sentiment as well. But almost everyone here arguing for a middle ground agrees that things won’t change because all three branches of the US seem determined to keep a hard-line or zero tolerance policy on drugs, even when legalization and medical supervision, creation of new business and exploration of safer alternatives and research into benefits of said drugs are brought up as arguments and are summarily dismissed because “reasons”.<p>What are some actual, practical steps we all can take towards making decriminalization a reality?
I wish more resources were spent on law enforcement at the local level, fighting <i>real</i> crime. They could have more police patrolling the streets and subways, deterring assaults[0] and daylight shootings[1].<p>Does anyone really care that this drug dealer is locked up? Is anyone safer now? Do I have to worry any <i>less</i> about getting mugged on the subway at night?<p>Of course people are calling to defund the police, and if that happens I’ll have to be more worried.<p>[0]: <a href="https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-homeless-man-arrested-women-shove-penn-station-video-20200919-mvusy4lbk5fm5iqzis5samcdae-story.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-homeless-m...</a><p>[1]: <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/09/08/three-injured-in-broad-daylight-nyc-shooting/" rel="nofollow">https://nypost.com/2020/09/08/three-injured-in-broad-dayligh...</a>
I've always been conscious of fingerprints potentially showing up in the photos.<p><i>Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't after you.</i><p>The same thing goes about keys -- it's amazing how people willingly share photos of their keys (with full signature and all) in full view.
this guy should not be in jail. if he lived a little further north he could grow cannabis in his back yard. its wrong and its immoral but i guess the old white dudes in capes playing judge grew up thinking cannabis makes you into a rapist
>"Vendors sent the money launderer a certain amount of Bitcoin and the money launderer mailed cash back to the vendor."<p>My question:<p>If Party A sends Party B Bitcoin, and Party B sends Party A money, and that transaction is considered "money laundering" -- then let's suppose Party A sends Party B <i>gold</i> (coins, bars, bullion, etc.), and Party B sends Party A <i>money</i> -- does that transaction also count as "money laundering"?<p>?
Legal or otherwise, I've seen plenty of sellers holding their products while photographing, so I wonder why it's done --- personally I think it looks a bit unprofessional to have a hand or other things showing. Putting it on a table or otherwise featureless surface would look far better to a prospective buyer.
There's useful links at the bottom of the page, like the Darknet Market's Noobs Bible. =)<p><i>Hello and welcome to the Darknetmarkets bible for buyers.<p>The buyer's DNM bible aims to be a complete guide that covers all steps that users have to take in order to buy securely from darknetmarkets.</i><p>In case you're thinking about launching your criminal career or whatever.
What a colossal waste of time. Prosecuting someone for selling online something that is illegal in a lot of states. Mindblowing how stupid the war on drugs is.
A friend described that many in the government/military of Nazi Germany (including Hitler) were using significant amounts of amphetamines. Which in part lead to the atrocities of humanity that occurred. I can’t speak to the truth of this, and have definitely seen the US War on Drugs as a way to treat people unfairly based on race etc. I would certainly believe something similar is going on with the Trump administration. It would at least make a bit of sense as to why so little sense is being made. Anyways I thought it was an interesting theory so figured I would relay it here.