Here's a question for the techno-libertarians stepping up to say the government has no right to shut down sites like Silk Road. Where do you derive this supposed natural right for anonymity on the internet? Life, liberty, freedom from discrimination, due process--these things I understand, and there are well supported philosophical frameworks (rule utilitarian, Kantian, libertarian etc.) for deriving them from first principles. I can also understand a society guaranteeing a right to privacy in limited circumstances: crimes affecting children are one obvious example, records of education and medical treatment are another. In each such situation, the benefits, harms and impact on the rights of the public and the individual have been weighed.<p>But an anonymous free-for-all exchange being a natural right? We aren't born anonymous. In the "state of nature," without government, we are in no way anonymous. The fact that the internet sometimes allows us to be is in fact a very artificial circumstance that society has allowed to happen. Whether we like it or not, governments are ultimately the overseers that permit networking infrastructure comprising the internet to be built. That isn't some natural right any more than building a nuclear weapon in my backyard is a natural right. Society has weighed the pros and cons and decided that this particular set of technologies is on the whole good. That it might in fact want to limit the level of anonymity on the network seems reasonable, in the same way that making people put license plates on their cars is reasonable.<p>I'm not supporting the idea of a government ID to access the internet (although some first-world countries already require some level of this), or nationwide surveillance a la China or the NSA. Anonymity no doubt has societal benefit, in that it has fostered great works of creativity (from Mark Twain down through Anonymous). Unfortunately, society depends on accountability, and accountability and anonymity are competing principles in the construction of a just society. Neither of them are natural rights on their own.
><i>Extra-legal violence is often a part of black markets.</i><p>Curious turn of phrase. Extra-legal violence meaning "violence outside of the government," which implies that there is intra-legal violence, "violence within the government," which may be referring to how the government coerces its citizens to not transact drugs, by means of violence (that is, the government will arrest/hurt you if you do not comply), and that somehow that is more appropriate or noble.<p>Also it may be somewhat jokingly implying that the government's violence is "extra legal," meaning "more appropriate with respect to law." I wonder if the author had this is mind when they wrote the article. I don't mean to start a huge libertarian rant about government violence/coercion, only to point out that the sentence could have a clever hidden meaning.
One doesn't need to assert any natural rights. Once can make a completely utilitarian case for the decriminalization of controlled substances. In fact, nearly all available evidence points in that direction -- it is increasingly hard in w a world full of data to make the case that criminalizing substance use offers any utilitarian benefits at all. It makes the drug market a more dangerous place, controlled by violence. It destroys the lives and the communities of substance users by incarcerating them for long lengths of time. Etc etc etc. I don't need to lay out all the facts here, they are plain to see for anyone who looks into them.
Did Silk Road even put a slight dent in street drug sellers in the first place? I would be surprised if street level sellers and buyers are internet savvy enough to use a service like this. SR looks more like the ideal system for savvy college students and young techs to specifically avoid the street level market.
As the article itself said, successor sites are inevitable (and there are at least two that are thriving right now in SR's fallout).<p>Those who prefer online black markets over physical transactions will simply migrate to the new marketplaces and consequently turn them into the "new Silk Road".<p>The only true effect, perhaps, will be people taking security even more seriously. I read a statistic at some point that approx. 80% of SR users didn't use PGP (The Daily Dot sources this claim, otherwise I cannot validate it).
The whole Drug War is a colossal waste of time and resources. Those who choose to indulge in narcotics will continue to do so, despite the legality or accessibility of their preferred substances. Of course, the fact of the matter is that an entire industrial complex has sprung up to wage this "war;" the DEA, weapons and surveillance equipment manufacturers, and many local and national LEO, among countless others. In short, it's a very Big and profitable business. So despite any logic or rationale for maintaining a "safe" venue to conduct narcotics trade, there will always be resistance from the entrenched lobbyists and business interests.
If we supplant all street markets for drugs with online ones, will we be trading drug/gang/gun related death with a higher incidence of drug related deaths from overdose/drug abuse?<p>I'd imagine there would be net less deaths in a world where Silk Roads were allowed to exist. Thats not to say that drugs should be made legal, but we shouldn't wage a 'war' on them. I know drugs aren't safe but the last time I checked, wars aren't either?<p>And theres no way sites like Silk Road aren't inevitable. Its a more attractive approach to being a street dealer and how many street dealers are there in the world?<p>I'd imagine in another decade one of the thousands of SR copy cats will have (likely accidentally) made all of the right decisions with respect to anonymity and be the defacto online drug hub.<p>Reminds of the opening scene of Layer Cake:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5tzSks5lTI" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5tzSks5lTI</a>
I think one of the unintended consequences of shutting down Silk Road so publicly will be that the <i>existence</i> of the Tor network is now being advertised to <i>lots</i> of people for the first time.<p>A <i>lot</i> of regular people are probably now saying, "Wait, I can actually buy drugs online without getting caught or ripped off?"<p>We'll see if there is another spike in the Tor users after this news cycle: <a href="https://metrics.torproject.org/users.html" rel="nofollow">https://metrics.torproject.org/users.html</a>
Maybe in some rhetorical sense, but not in any measurable way. Silk Road was enormous for what it was, but it's nowhere near even a tiny fraction of the global drug market. It's probably still tiny compared to the drug market in any large city.
The author raises an interesting point, you could easily write a headline that says "Online Black Market The Silk Road Helps Keep More Than One Billion Dollars of Drugs Off Our Streets"
Shutting it down certainly didn't help the US Post Office.<p>Not a silk road user but being able to anonymously contract hitmen (and hitwomen) doesn't seem to make the world safer..
Stupid question and a stupid argument. Buying /selling drugs is illegal, so is buying /selling fake docs etc so why would anyone expect FBI to let such a service operate? Especially when sales numbers reach $1+ Billion and when the owner gives Forbes interviews saying FBI can't catch him?<p>Let's get back to basics: FBI is supposed to enforce the laws. They do have some leeway in prioritizing, but a $1.2 Billion market is way too big not to attract enforcement.<p>Now about the war on drugs...