Slashdot Mirror


Feds Shut Down Tor-Using Narcotics Store

Fluffeh writes "Federal authorities have arrested eight men accused of distributing more than $1 million worth of LSD, ecstasy, and other narcotics with an online storefront called 'The Farmer's Market' that used the Tor anonymity service to mask their Internet addresses. Prosecutors said in a press release that the charges were the result of a two-year investigation led by agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration's Los Angeles field division. 'Operation Adam Bomb, ' as the investigation was dubbed, also involved law enforcement agents from several U.S. states and several countries, including Colombia, the Netherlands, and Scotland. The arrests come about a year after Gawker documented the existence of Silk Road, an online narcotics storefront that was available only to Tor users. The site sold LSD, Afghani hashish, tar heroin and other controlled substances and allowed customers to pay using the virtual currency known as Bitcoin."

301 comments

  1. Headline = Misleading by alphax45 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why does Slashdot even bother to hire and pay an editor? They clearly don't do anything. That headline is so misleading. They didn't shut down the entire Tor network, they shut down a store that was USING the Tor network. Fix it!

    --
    K Man
    1. Re:Headline = Misleading by SendBot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      AGREED - I was jarred by this headline, then followed it with a heavy groan when I realized what was actually meant.

      Say what you mean, mean what you say...

    2. Re:Headline = Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just wondering how they used a store to shut down the network.

    3. Re:Headline = Misleading by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's obviously just a Case Of The Missing Hyphen. The headline should read "Tor-Using Narcotics Store".

    4. Re:Headline = Misleading by Nidi62 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Where does the headline say they shut down Tor? THe only way you could come to that conclusion with this headline is by reading that the Feds used a narcotics store to shut down the Tor network. Otherwise it clearly reads that the feds shut down a narcotics store that uses Tor. This is more a case of bad reading comprehension than poor editing.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re:Headline = Misleading by nchase · · Score: 1, Informative

      it should be "Tor-Using".

    6. Re:Headline = Misleading by jkflying · · Score: 1

      It could have been worded better. Such as "Feds Shut Down Tor-obscured Narcotics Store"

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    7. Re:Headline = Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they shut down tor!
      But they used a store to do it.
      No idea how that works.

    8. Re:Headline = Misleading by HJED · · Score: 0

      I think its actually supposed to mean "Fed showdown a narcotics shop, using tor". However I originally read it the same as the GP.

      --
      null
    9. Re:Headline = Misleading by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You don't need bad reading comprehension to come to the other conclusion, it's a poorly phased head line without the hyphen.

    10. Re:Headline = Misleading by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      It's true that I could have been worded better, yes, but I've seen much worse-worded headlines on news sites such as CNN. But the context of the headline should have overcome any ambiguity in the title (how likely is it that the Feds would use a narcotics-selling website to shut down Tor, vs the Feds shutting down a narcotics-selling website that was using Tor?) I would have figured that most people reading slashdot (especially those that speak English as a second language) would read based more on contextual clues than literal meaning of the sentence.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    11. Re:Headline = Misleading by Fluffeh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry chaps, I wrote the headline when I submitted it, it was before I had a coffee this morning my time. The heading is ambiguous and I will endevour to make sure that my headlines are no more so in the future.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    12. Re:Headline = Misleading by agentgonzo · · Score: 1

      That implies that the Feds used Tor to shut down a narcotics store, which is not what is meant. It is meant that there was a narcotics store that used Tor that the Feds have now shut down.

    13. Re:Headline = Misleading by azalin · · Score: 1

      It would have made some really interesting reading though. Not that I have any idea in what part of the TOR protocol the would be used as an attack vector.

    14. Re:Headline = Misleading by sheehaje · · Score: 4, Funny

      You should be ashamed... Because I really was wondering how using a narcotics store could shut down Tor.

    15. Re:Headline = Misleading by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      No, they shut down tor! But they used a store to do it. No idea how that works.

      Must have been an App Store

    16. Re:Headline = Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Several years ago I added the /. widget to my igoogle. I really enjoyed the tidbits of techo that showed up on a daily basis. Seems these days the majority of articles are trumped up misleading bs items or vague flamebait. It's sad /. has devolved to the point it has the same value as the Metro.co.uk widget that also sits on my igoogle. The only thing missing is the "Cute Alert" and adds.

    17. Re:Headline = Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Why does Slashdot even bother to hire and pay an editor? They clearly don't do anything. That headline is so misleading. They didn't shut down the entire Tor network, they shut down a store that was USING the Tor network. Fix it!

      More to the point, at what point does a routine drug bust become "news for nerds"? Because the dealers were using a Tor and bitcoin for their distribution?

      If there were holes in Tor and/or Bitcoin that allowed the authorities to gain access, then perhaps it's news for nerds. Perhaps. But no, this is just a routine drug bust.

      Next week, we'll be told that some mafioso has been arrested. Oh and by the way, he had a gmail account.

    18. Re:Headline = Misleading by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Where does the headline say they shut down Tor? THe only way you could come to that conclusion with this headline is by reading that the Feds used a narcotics store to shut down the Tor network.

      "Feds shutdown Tor..." Right there. And that IS how they're saying they parsed it.

      You're wrong. It's bad editing, since there should have been a hyphen between "Tor" and "using".

      If what is supposed to be a straightforward sentence is structured such that the reader responds "What the fuck...?" on the first parsing, it's badly structured.

    19. Re:Headline = Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does Slashdot even bother to hire and pay an editor? They clearly don't do anything. That headline is so misleading. They didn't shut down the entire Tor network, they shut down a store that was USING the Tor network. Fix it!

      This title is almost more annoying than "AYBABTU".

    20. Re:Headline = Misleading by nozzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      wow all this posting over a missing hyphen. If only we could turn our energetic posting into solving cold-fusion then the world would be a happier place. Come to think of it we can skip the cold-fusion and just use the hot air on this forum. Don't mark me Troll - I'm a nice person!

    21. Re:Headline = Misleading by Fnord666 · · Score: 2

      Where does the headline say they shut down Tor? THe only way you could come to that conclusion with this headline is by reading that the Feds used a narcotics store to shut down the Tor network. Otherwise it clearly reads that the feds shut down a narcotics store that uses Tor. This is more a case of bad reading comprehension than poor editing.

      Really? Do you know the difference between a direct object and a preposition in a sentence? As worded the direct object in the sentence is Tor. What was meant was that the Feds shut down a narcotics store. What was said was that the Feds shut down Tor. The only reading comprehension fail is yours.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    22. Re:Headline = Misleading by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have illustrated exactly why we have editors - so that a second pair of eyes can check your work, and hopefully one of you will have had your morning coffee.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:Headline = Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is slashdot! We don't RTFA, we don't RTFS and we don't RTFH! And in the rare cases where we do read the article, the summary or the headline, we make damn sure we misunderstand it.

    24. Re:Headline = Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At first, I misread it as "Feds Shut Down For Using Narcotics Store". That actually made more sense than saying they shut down Tor.

    25. Re:Headline = Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it's a poorly phased head line

      That's what happens when you leave them set on stun.

    26. Re:Headline = Misleading by gorzek · · Score: 1

      Or: "Tor-based Narcotics Store Shut Down by Feds"

    27. Re:Headline = Misleading by RulerOf · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot! We don't RTFA, we don't RTFS and we don't RTFH! And in the rare cases where we do read the article, the summary or the headline, we make damn sure we misunderstand it.

      Hear, hear!

      ...what are we talking about again?

      --
      Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    28. Re:Headline = Misleading by who_stole_my_kidneys · · Score: 1

      was wondering who they shutdown the entire Tor service. guess the wrote a misleading title to get you to read the article.

    29. Re:Headline = Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      >> Tor-Using Narcotics Store

      I tried Tor once. That shit will fuck you up. One hit and I was running around the parking lot naked, dueling with gnomes (or the Pasadena Police Dept, depending on what astral plane you were on at the time).

    30. Re:Headline = Misleading by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      They didn't shut down the entire Tor network

      In particular, they didn't shut it down using a narcotics store, as the headline claims. :P

    31. Re:Headline = Misleading by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Missing just one piece punctuation can ruin your whole day. Just think of how much you'd miss your colon. And on a more typical note, for the lack of one period... Anyway, you can't have hyphenation if you lose your hyphen.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:Headline = Misleading by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      For once this seems appropriate:

      Nothing to see here; move along.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    33. Re:Headline = Misleading by TheABomb · · Score: 1

      Hell, I misread (in parts thanks to the missing hyphen) it as "for using" and was giddy with excitement that the government would be shut down. On tax day.

      Imagine my letdown.

      --
      MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
    34. Re:Headline = Misleading by Dishevel · · Score: 0

      The headline is not ambiguous at all.
      It just looks downright misleading.
      But luckily your "Ambiguous" headline got you submission noticed and thrown up here.
      So.... Congratulations on your "mistake".

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    35. Re:Headline = Misleading by Dishevel · · Score: 0

      Yes. The readers figure it out.
      But the editors on /. are all like.
      "Holy shit! The Feds just shut down the whole fucking Tor network using only a drug selling store front."
      "I need to get this on the front page pronto!"

      To the /. editors.
      You have a fucking job. Try to do it. At least try.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    36. Re:Headline = Misleading by mwfischer · · Score: 0

      Assuming the headline is the same, the correct headline should be;

      "Feds Shut Down Tor-Using Narcotics Store"

      This is another case of Uncle Jack and the Horse.

    37. Re:Headline = Misleading by Bromskloss · · Score: 1, Funny

      A friend of mine had to have surgery. His is only a semicolon now.

      --
      Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    38. Re:Headline = Misleading by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

      That's nothing, I have seen a C++ method with colon cancer. They had to transplant a colon from some namespace.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    39. Re:Headline = Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Where does the headline say they shut down Tor?"

      In the first four words of the headline of course!

      In order for the headline to mean what the author wanted it to mean - and what you claim it "clearly" means - "tor using" would have to be an adjective, describing the narcotics store. This is however not the case. "Tor" is a name, and as such can be either the subject or the object of a sentence, but never an adjective; and "using" is clearly the present continuous tense of the verb "to use" and therefore also not an adjective. The only way to make these words into an adjective is by adding a hyphen, like so: "tor-using", which is what most everyone else here agrees would be the correct way to write it.

    40. Re:Headline = Misleading by jrumney · · Score: 1

      What's more, they shut down a purported narcotics store for selling substances which are not narcotics (neither according to the medical meaning, nor the more encompassing Yellow List which stretches the legal definition of narcotic to encompass other natural analgesics such as coca and cannabis derived substances).

    41. Re:Headline = Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this day and age, it would not be unthinkable that the Feds could try to use the fact that someone used Tor for illicit purposes, as an excuse to go after Tor itself. That is what they are doing to all the torrent sites.

      Besides, just because CNN doesn't know their grammar doesn't mean that everyone else should give up on it too! Why not strive to get it right? Instead of just hoping that people will figure out what you meant?

    42. Re:Headline = Misleading by biek · · Score: 1

      The heading is ambiguous

      ...which is strangely appropriate for a Tor-related story

    43. Re:Headline = Misleading by mcmonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      Came here to complain about the missing hyphen and the misleading headline.

      Since that job is taken, I'll just add LSD and ecstasy are not narcotics.

      I didn't RTFA, but I'm guessing whatever was done, it wasn't done by the Feds.

    44. Re:Headline = Misleading by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      I've been arguing for ages that when we bury people, especially important ones, they should be hooked up to generators. From the claims on Slashdot alone about what the Founding Fathers did or did not intend we should be able to produce enough grave-spinning to power a significant city.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    45. Re:Headline = Misleading by swb · · Score: 1

      I can't believe I had to scroll down so far to find someone pointing out that LSD and Ecstasy are not narcotics.

      Fucking geeks arguing over the technology, while silently accepting the big lie that helps keep the war on freedom alive.

    46. Re:Headline = Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Punctuation, and capital letters, too:

      I helped my uncle Jack off a horse.
      I helped my uncle jack off a horse.

    47. Re:Headline = Misleading by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Well, given that it's likely the Feds are going to use this (along with other cases) as an excuse to shut down Tor, it seems pretty reasonable to assume (or at least think of the possibility) of meaning #2.

      Sort of like:

      Feds Shut Down Filesharing Using Megaupload Site

      (They are indeed shutting down fileshare sites using the example of MegaUpload)

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    48. Re:Headline = Misleading by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Was it both Gnome 2 and 3, mate?

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    49. Re:Headline = Misleading by Compaqt · · Score: 2

      I hope your friend's OK. There's a chance of getting std's like that.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    50. Re:Headline = Misleading by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You have illustrated exactly why we have editors

      We have editors?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    51. Re:Headline = Misleading by StikyPad · · Score: 2

      The colloquial meaning of "narcotics" is different than the formal medical or legal definitions. You might as well argue about the definitions of "hacker," "gay," "the shit," "decimate," or any of the other various words that have different informal meanings or formal definitions that have changed as a result of such usage.

    52. Re:Headline = Misleading by KingRobot · · Score: 1

      Oh for a few mod points right now.

    53. Re:Headline = Misleading by houghi · · Score: 1

      Bit like how OS should work.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    54. Re:Headline = Misleading by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Okay. I'll bite. What is the colloquial meaning of "narcotics"?

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    55. Re:Headline = Misleading by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      If the energy that went into 200 posts of circle-jerking drivel about punctuation went into cold fusion research, we'd get 200 posts of circle-jerking drivel about cold fusion research, but no results. Just sayin'

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    56. Re:Headline = Misleading by elgeeko.com · · Score: 1

      We have illustrators?

    57. Re:Headline = Misleading by elgeeko.com · · Score: 1

      ...what are we talking about again?

      How much we all love/hate Microsoft/Apple/Google and hate/love all the other people who do/don't, also how much we all tired of Facebook this and Facebook that (except that one guy who thinks it's awesome...you know who you are).

    58. Re:Headline = Misleading by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Well, to the DEA, any illegal drug is a narcotic (despite the fact that "narcotic" means opiate or synthetic opiate). Just like to the MAFIAA, copyright infringement is theft.

      Sure is telling when someone has to lie to advance their agenda, isn't it?

    59. Re:Headline = Misleading by Threni · · Score: 1

      Illegal substance which affects mood or behaviour temporarily.

    60. Re:Headline = Misleading by __aasdno7518 · · Score: 1

      Add to this LSD and ecstasy are not narcotics.

    61. Re:Headline = Misleading by swb · · Score: 1

      Kind of like how the formal definition of "freedom" differs from the colloquial version?

    62. Re:Headline = Misleading by Smurf · · Score: 1

      Feds shut down Tor using narcotics store.

      Terrorists blow up bridge using dynamite sticks.

      So somehow we must understand the second one as "a group of terrorists blew up some dynamite sticks because those sticks were using a bridge"?

    63. Re:Headline = Misleading by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Feds shut down Tor using narcotics store.

      Terrorists blow up bridge using dynamite sticks.

      So somehow we must understand the second one as "a group of terrorists blew up some dynamite sticks because those sticks were using a bridge"?

      Again, context. Obviously a bridge is inanimate and cannot use dynamite. As I said in a previous post, which is more logical, that the Feds shut down a narcotics site that was using Tor, or that the Feds used Tor to shut down a narcotics website?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    64. Re:Headline = Misleading by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Well, to the DEA, any illegal drug is a narcotic (despite the fact that "narcotic" means opiate or synthetic opiate).

      Careful with that "means". The word means numbening, and has, tru enough, been used for opiates (and thionite).
      In general usage, both medical and not, it has acquired a broader meaning, which for some non-opiates matches the meaning better than it does for opiates - cocaine, for example, is definitely numbening.

    65. Re:Headline = Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your headlines are bad and you should feel bad

    66. Re:Headline = Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that LSD and MDMA aren't narcotics. Quite the opposite.

    67. Re:Headline = Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. I apologize for having an education.

    68. Re:Headline = Misleading by Smurf · · Score: 1

      Feds shut down Tor using narcotics store.

      Terrorists blow up bridge using dynamite sticks.

      So somehow we must understand the second one as "a group of terrorists blew up some dynamite sticks because those sticks were using a bridge"?

      Again, context. Obviously a bridge is inanimate and cannot use dynamite. As I said in a previous post, which is more logical, that the Feds shut down a narcotics site that was using Tor, or that the Feds used Tor to shut down a narcotics website?

      I'm sorry to appear rude, but you do have reading comprehension problems. You wrote "Obviously a bridge is inanimate and cannot use dynamite," but that is NOT one of the possible interpretations of the phrase I wrote.

      The correct interpretation is that the terrorists used the dynamite, and the incorrect interpretation is that the dynamite sticks used the bridge, not the other way around.

      My point is: you clearly seem to have reading comprehension problems, so it's no wonder that you don't find the original headline of the article misleading. BTW, they fixed it because, well, even the author thinks it's misleading!

    69. Re:Headline = Misleading by Smurf · · Score: 1

      Oooh, I must apologize to you because in my sister post I accused you of having reading comprehension problems for reading the terrorists/bridge/dynamite phrase in a third way. You are right: that is another way of reading that phrase incorrectly.

      Now, that interpretation that you came up with is fairly irrelevant to the discussion because it doesn't match either of the interpretations of the headline for TFA. Furthermore, unlike the other incorrect interpretation yours is slightly grammatically incorrect, but I sometimes hear people talk like that.

      On the other hand, the point is not whether the original headline is correct or not, but that it is misleading because while bridges and dynamite cannot use each other it is reasonable to believe that the Feds would want to shut down Tor.

    70. Re:Headline = Misleading by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      cocaine, for example, is definitely numbening

      Though locally rather than generally. We don't call lidocaine a narcotic. I believe that the legal definition is any drug which is scheduled, with the only difference being that schedules II-V are potentially legal, while schedule I are always illegal.

    71. Re:Headline = Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some girls discover they are missing a period after losing their hyphen...

    72. Re:Headline = Misleading by spazzmo · · Score: 1

      like billion = milliard trillion = billion etc.

      --
      The cheese stands alone...
    73. Re:Headline = Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VP Quayle said it best: "It's a terrible thing to loose your hyphen."

  2. Bad title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hyphenation is your friend. The title is extremely misleading. "Feds Shut Down Tor-Using Narcotics Store".

    1. Re:Bad title by Dark$ide · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hyphenation is your friend. The title is extremely misleading. "Feds Shut Down Tor-Using Narcotics Store".

      Real writers re-write to avoid the problem: "Feds shut down narcotics store that had been a TOR user". But you're right the standard of English grammar used today leaves a lot to be desired. Samuel Johnson, the Merriams and Noah Webster can be heard spinning at very high revolutions.

      --

      Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.

    2. Re:Bad title by AC-x · · Score: 2

      Real writers re-write to avoid the problem: "Feds shut down narcotics store that had been a TOR user".

      Or even the more catchy "Feds shut down Tor-based narcotics store"

    3. Re:Bad title by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      Samuel Johnson, the Merriams and Noah Webster can be heard spinning at very high revolutions.

      Maybe we could hook their corpses to a generator. The way Slashdot is going, we could probably power a small city!

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    4. Re:Bad title by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      Samuel Johnson, the Merriams and Noah Webster can be heard spinning at very high revolutions.

      just how high are their revolutions, mein fuhrer? I was taught to consider six feet under relatively low.

      p.s. "Feds Shut Down Tor-based Narcotics Store"

    5. Re:Bad title by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Except that there are rules in English writing that say that headlines must omit as much sentence elements as possibly to be as short and possible, and the ambiguity is welcome as publicity can never be bad, right? Seriously, you'd want to deprive us of such marvelous headlines as "Iraqi Head Seeks Arms", "Prostitutes Appeal to Pope", "Include Children When Baking Cookies", "Miners Refuse to Work After Death", "Eye Drops Off The Shelf", "Squad Helps Dog Bite Victim", "Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant", "Queen Mary Gets Bottom Painted", "British Union Finds Dwarfs in Short Supply", "Hospitals Sued by Seven Foot Doctors", and many others?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Bad title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is it wrong to mine the past to support the present?

    7. Re:Bad title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are kidding, right? Headlines are supposed to be brief, and yours is laughably long. There are people who write headlines as long as yours, where the length is part of the joke. (I've seen examples on Onion AV Club.) In short, you miss the point of a headline and fail as badly as the original headline -- simply in a different way and with a worse attitude.

    8. Re:Bad title by remus.cursaru · · Score: 1

      Samuel Johnson, the Merriams and Noah Webster can be heard spinning at very high revolutions.

      Frequency, not revolutions, unless YOU are high, in witch case you can revolve as you wish.

  3. Shut down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where does it say Tor was shutdown because of this bust? The title seem to indicate so..

    1. Re:Shut down? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Ambiguous headline. A hyphen would have helped, but so would rearranging the headline.

      Read as "Tor-using narcotics store shut down by Feds".

  4. first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most confusing title ever

  5. Finally by royallthefourth · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone's finally found a good reason to use bitcoin

    1. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought that was amazing too. I thought bitcoin was entirely useless. I had no idea you could buy anything with it.

    2. Re:Finally by azalin · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I thought. I mean slashdot had many stories about bitcoins getting mined or stolen but this is the first time I remember bitcoins actually being used to purchase real world goods in an online shop. Looks like they aren't hypeware after all.

    3. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      When Silk Road hit the mainstream media, Bitcoin went from sub-$1 per BTC to $30+ per BTC. It was basically what caused the big bubble. You could watch the trade graph on MagicTheGatheringOnlineExchange -- sorry, "Mt. Gox" -- and the prices would bump up on the weekends as everyone turned dollars into BTC to buy drugs, and then shot back down on Monday when the dealers turned them back into dollars.

    4. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is drugs for nerds, the stuff and matter.

    5. Re:Finally by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 0

      Apparently in this case it sounds like it was used for money laundering but not in a way sophisticated enough to fool the feds.

    6. Re:Finally by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately it's not a legitimate use of bitcoin. It's the kind of use that will be at risk of getting bitcoin banned, if someone doesn't popularize a legitimate reason for using bitcoin soon.

    7. Re:Finally by royallthefourth · · Score: 0

      hahaha "not a legitimate use" of fake money

    8. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably time to stop relying on slashdot for all your news.

    9. Re:Finally by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And what hasn't come under attack that has a single illegitimate use? We have bittorrent, home email servers, MP3, dvd rippers... If it has one illegal use, the whole lot of users will be deemed criminals.

    10. Re:Finally by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      define legitimate - porn? hookers? they already accept bitcoin...

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    11. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why nobody has bit torrent, home email servers, mp3s, or dvd rippers.

      Yes, it's clear that everybody using these technologies has been rounded and up and sent to internment camps for "re-education" by the RIAA/MPAA because we're all criminals for using these things!

      Or maybe you're an idiot.

    12. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If somebody takes away bitcoin, outlaws may develop a more private ledger. Who's to say they don't do that already anyway? There's always the "I may request a favor" debt, and "putting down my marker". You just need a database of favors and markers. Voila! Money.

    13. Re:Finally by icebraining · · Score: 2

      I don't think this store (The Farmer's Market) used Bitcoin; that's Silkroad. This used Paypal AFAIK.

    14. Re:Finally by clang_jangle · · Score: 2, Funny

      News For Turds, Stuff That Splatters

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    15. Re:Finally by nu1x · · Score: 3, Insightful

      BTC is as much fake money as you are a fake person.

      You are, after all, just some letters on screen.

      --
      I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
    16. Re:Finally by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, it is a legitimate use of bitcoin. Evading oppression is not only a legitimate use, but the most important possible use of technology. Buying drugs with Bitcoin is every bit as honest and just as, e.g., evading the Great Firewall with Tor.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    17. Re:Finally by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      If somebody takes away bitcoin, outlaws may develop a more private ledger. Who's to say they don't do that already anyway? There's always the "I may request a favor" debt, and "putting down my marker". You just need a database of favors and markers. Voila! Money.

      As long as it can be enforced. And at these levels, if you can force someone to repay you a debt, you can as well just extort him.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    18. Re:Finally by NeverSuchBefore · · Score: 1

      He meant that all of those things could be used in a way that is illegal, but they don't have to be. They have legitimate uses, too. You can't just ban something because it could be used illegally (the GP said bittorrent could be banned because of things like this happening). That's just collective punishment.

    19. Re:Finally by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Bitcoin is already practically banned by the finance industry. Changing between bitcoins and any kind of "real" currency is a black market.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  6. More stores will spring up by GeneralTurgidson · · Score: 1

    Clearly there is a market for this, and no amount of government bullying will stop it.

  7. Perfectly clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obviously, the feds used a narcotics store to shut down Tor.

    1. Re:Perfectly clear by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      You don't know how right you are...

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
  8. what the hell... by ticktickboom · · Score: 0

    Feds Shut Down Tor Using Narcotics Store http://t.co/HqsOjzQx that saysd the feds have shut down the tor network using their narcotics storage or a narcotics storefront. i used to enjoy /. the headlines were slightly offbeat, but now their a complete fabrication. the onion is more straight forward than this crap...

  9. Re:The Hyphen is your friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of "The importance of commas".

    "Lets eat, Grandpa!" and "Let's eat Grandpa!"

    A comma makes the difference between a family supper and... a family supper. Hmmm...

  10. I mis read it anyway.... by trancemission · · Score: 5, Funny
    I first read it as:

    Feds Shut Down For Using Narcotics Store.

    Hooray I thought.

    I should lay off the Narcotics......

    1. Re:I mis read it anyway.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read the same thing. I thought some federal agents had been caught using/selling their confiscated drugs.

    2. Re:I mis read it anyway.... by starworks5 · · Score: 1

      You mean like Iran-Contra? Except actually getting shut down this time?

    3. Re:I mis read it anyway.... by asylumx · · Score: 1

      I also (mis)read it that way... probably wouldn't have bothered clicking the link if I'd have read it correctly!

  11. Re:The Hyphen is your friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A better phrase might be, having family over for supper ... and having family for supper.

  12. Read between the lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The last thing government wants is to "solve" the "problem" and eliminate the black market. After all, they created the black market. They created it specifically to justify the expansion of their business (i.e. by "solving" the "problems" which they themselves created). Notice that I quite deliberately called government a business.

    If you need proof, simply follow the money. Prohibition has justified hundreds of billions in spending, and the kicker is that the "tougher" they get (i.e. the more they spend), the more sophisticated the black market becomes, and therefore the more money they need to "solve" the "problem". It's a cycle of WIN for government, and a cycle of LOSE for everyone else (at least the ones who can see through the smokescreen and admit the truth).

    When it comes to government, ALWAYS follow the money before listening to a word they say.

    1. Re:Read between the lines by bloodymad · · Score: 1

      Why would it be a "win" for the government to have to spend a lot of money?

    2. Re:Read between the lines by RadioElectric · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because of who gets the money that the government spends.

    3. Re:Read between the lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The harder the problem, the more people they need.

      The more people they need, the more managers are needed to manage. The more managers, the more upper level managers, etc.

      If you want to get promoted in the DEA, it is much easier to create a department to manage than to wait for somebody to retire.

    4. Re:Read between the lines by thej1nx · · Score: 3, Informative
      Kickbacks. If you as a govt official/senator/president/etc, spend govt. money(on pretext of "wars") to benefit your friends in the industries, you get a golden parachute and get a guaranteed place on the board of directors of some company with a hefty salary, and/or get nominated VP/Chairperson to more openly do your shilling and pimping. If you are a politician with any ambition, you get your next political campaign fully financed, as way of thanks.

      If you have laws that pretty much strictly punish the govt. officials for benefiting in this manner, once they leave their jobs, you will find plenty of "wars" and problems out-right disappearing.

    5. Re:Read between the lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is actually completely backwards. One of the primary reasons that prohibition was finally repealed during the depression was to increase government revenues through liquor taxes. And the repeal did exactly that. The same argument applies today, legalizing drugs would divert large amounts of money from criminal enterprises into government tax revenues. Unfortunately there is an quasi-religious motivation to ban drugs, prostitution, alcohol, etc. due to the sad legacy of the Protestant reformation against the "excesses" of the Papacy.

    6. Re:Read between the lines by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Employees care more about their paycheck than the companies bottom line. Same thing here.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    7. Re:Read between the lines by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Every manager wants to be a bigger manager, to manage a bigger department, to handle a bigger budget. Being a bigger manager handling a bigger budget means you're more important, you have more power, and you collect a larger paycheck. And that's in organizations which aren't corrupt. In corrupt organizations, managers want bigger budgets so they can give money to their buddies at contracting companies with no-bid contracts, and then collect handsome kickbacks.

    8. Re:Read between the lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More true than you know, my friend.

    9. Re:Read between the lines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your understanding of causality is flawed.

      There is no evidence that government deliberately sets out to screw things up in order to grow some sinister "empire". Your average government employee doesn't have an empire or anything like it. What they have is a career, which they will further by solving the problems that are put to them. If their solutions engender more problems - well, that's tomorrow's problems.

      Each solution breeds further problems of its own. That's no different from the private sector, except that in government there's less incentive to try to think ahead (partly because ahead = the next administration's problem, and partly because the systems involved are inherently much more complicated than anything any private-sector business has to contend with).

      And the money, quite simply, flows to those who are best at positioning themselves to receive it. As always.

      If you like controlling big budgets, you don't first work hard to get to be head of the DEA, then start to engineer a situation in which the DEA's budget increases. Much simpler to look for large, well funded agencies first, then aim your career for one of them.

      tl;dr: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence. Because incompetence is just so much easier.

  13. Nope by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Interesting
    1. Anonymous payment systems are not good because they let you evade the government, they are good because they protect spenders and merchants from various types of fraud.
    2. A large drug dealing operation that uses Bitcoin is no better off than one which uses cash. The drug dealers still need to pay their rent and buy their groceries, and they cannot do that with Bitcoin. All the DEA would have to do is to watch Bitcoin exchanges to gather lists of suspects.
    3. You still need to ship the drugs, so you are still going leave a trail that points to you.
    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You *can* pay rent with Bitcoin if you move to Vegas.

    2. Re:Nope by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      But since bitcoin is not anonymous (only the account holder's name is), all they have to do is find an account receiving money for drugs, then find out which hotel that account paid for and pick the person up.

    3. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you just switch your coins with someone out of jurisdiction. Duh.

    4. Re:Nope by TheLink · · Score: 5, Informative

      The drug dealers still need to pay their rent and buy their groceries, and they cannot do that with Bitcoin.

      The big boys just use stuff like Wachovia/Wells Fargo and Bank of America: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-29/banks-financing-mexico-s-drug-cartels-admitted-in-wells-fargo-s-u-s-deal.html
      A few more details here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs

      Wachovia admitted it didn't do enough to spot illicit funds in handling $378.4 billion for Mexican-currency-exchange houses from 2004 to 2007. That's the largest violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, an anti-money-laundering law, in U.S. history -- a sum equal to one-third of Mexico's current gross domestic product.

      Must have been really difficult to notice the flow of 378 billion over 3 years?

      Or maybe not:

      "It's the banks laundering money for the cartels that finances the tragedy," says Martin Woods, director of Wachovia's anti-money-laundering unit in London from 2006 to 2009. Woods says he quit the bank in disgust after executives ignored his documentation that drug dealers were funneling money through Wachovia's branch network.

      If you're going to make those drugs illegal you should make the money laundering illegal AND enforce those laws. No wrist-slaps. You see the Feds doing anything that would make the Banks change?

      "There's no capacity to regulate or punish them because they're too big to be threatened with failure," Blum says. "They seem to be willing to do anything that improves their bottom line, until they're caught."

      That's complete bullshit. All you have to do is throw those involved into prison. Keep the bank running and let others take over the jobs. I'm sure the bank can figure out who was involved in the 300 billion. If the bank can't then the people responsible for keeping track should go to prison, just for criminal negligence.

      They seem able to throw the small fry into prison:

      All three Oropezas pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Brownsville to drug and money-laundering charges in March and April 2008. Oscar Oropeza was sentenced to 15 years in prison; his wife was ordered to serve 10 months and his daughter got 6 months.

      So in my opinion this shutting down of narcotics stores is just an expensive and pointless show.

      --
    5. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it's not that easy, if it was they would have shut down silkroad a long time ago. But silk road is still running stronger than ever. Mt gox, the largest exchange has even been fully co-operative with an investigation into silk road. It did absolutely no good. As long as you rotate bitcoin addresses for every exchange and mask through tor, yeah good luck tracking anything. The feds sure haven't been able to.

    6. Re:Nope by SendBot · · Score: 1

      You know you can receive money at multiple addresses and manage them all with the same wallet, right?

    7. Re:Nope by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Yes, the shipment of the drugs is probably one of the main weak points where the feds can catch you. However, if you live in a major city and mail from a random mailbox every day, in a totally nondescript package, I think it would be very hard for them to catch you. Even so, to be profitable, you'd have to deal in a fair amount of volume, and patterns will emerge: your packages will probably have a certain look to them that postal workers in that city can be trained to watch for, so at least the supply of the drugs can be disrupted, and with enough agents watching mailboxes, the suspects nabbed. However, this is a large amount of resources to expend to catch some geeks selling a relatively small amount of drugs online (remember, Silk Road according to TFA isn't just one big seller, it's a whole bunch of small sellers, so each seller is probably only doing $100k a year, finding each seller would be a major task, and would be like whack-a-mole).

    8. Re:Nope by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      All you have to do is throw those involved into prison. Keep the bank running and let others take over the jobs. I'm sure the bank can figure out who was involved in the 300 billion. If the bank can't then the people responsible for keeping track should go to prison, just for criminal negligence.

      At the corporate level, just threaten the banks with Iran-level banking sanctions. Offer a decent award for disclosure/whistleblowing. They'll all squeal like pigs.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    9. Re:Nope by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      "Too big to punish"

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:Nope by BitterOak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Anonymous payment systems are not good because they let you evade the government,

      Well, that's a matter of opinion.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    11. Re:Nope by houghi · · Score: 2

      If you're going to make those drugs illegal

      That is your problem right there.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    12. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for this. Looks like a good read; bookmarked. Especially since I just finished watching The Wire.

    13. Re:Nope by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      ...and patterns will emerge: your packages will probably have a certain look to them that postal workers in that city can be trained to watch for, so at least the supply of the drugs can be disrupted,

      Note to self: next time put syringes INSIDE cardboard box.

      My bet is that this is not a very attractive distribution market. Either you make the customer pay for receive the package (leaving a written trail and some questions about why the junkies are so anxious to go the post office with cash) or one of the parties (seller or buyer) has to trust the other and send the money/drug hoping that they are not being crossed.

      I would not rule out some random screening by the P.O (searching for drug remains in the outside of the package would be legal?), but I best most of the discoveries happen after the police has been tipped of.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    14. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you have to do is throw those involved into prison. Keep the bank running and let others take over the jobs. I'm sure the bank can figure out who was involved in the 300 billion.

      The corporation would have even less incentive to care. All that would do is require employees to do illegal things to keep their jobs. Anyone asking for a raise could then be threatened with being reported. This may explain all the speeding bus drivers and truck drivers asleep at the wheel.

    15. Re:Nope by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      From TFA, it looks like they use an ebay-like feedback/rating system. So if a seller has 1000+ positive feedbacks from unique buyers saying "I got my shit in the mail and got really wasted on it!! yeah!", then trust has been established and buyers don't have much to fear. That's already the way things work on Ebay; very few people on there use an escrow service or COD, they just send the money and hope the package arrives, and most of the time, it does.

      For a typical $20 bag of weed, that isn't exactly a lot of money to lose in case the package gets intercepted in the postal stream.

      As for random screening, good luck with that. The postal system processes an insane number of pieces of mail every day, and with all the stuff people are ordering online these days (like from DealExtreme), the number of small packages they process is probably increasing constantly, partially making up for the huge decrease in 1st Class letters. The police aren't allowed to randomly search mail anyway from what I understand, and I doubt the USPS would be very willing to work with them if they wanted to: look what happened when the TSA tried to set up checkpoints at Amtrak stations. Even after the police get tipped off, what are they going to do? Look for manila paper envelopes? That describes a huge amount of mail. Even if they did get full cooperation of the USPS, which I doubt, they'd have a hell of a time tracking down similar packages with a decent success rate.

      The other thing they can do is pose as sellers, and get people to buy from them. But what good is that going to do? The penalty for buying a $20 bag of weed isn't that much, compared to the amount of effort they'd have to go through; that's why they go after dealers usually and not users. They could pose as buyers, but then they'll just receive a manila envelope from some random city (maybe in another country, namely Canada), with no return address and no way to track down the seller's identity.

    16. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the banks or bank workers problem - they must have made a lot of money from helping to launder billions.

      Making popular stuff illegal + selective enforcement = corruption and profit.

    17. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have never used bitcoin, have you? It's all about disposable addresses, you generate a new address for receiving, receive the money, then generate a new one for sending and pay for your hotel.

    18. Re:Nope by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      Even so, to be profitable, you'd have to deal in a fair amount of volume, and patterns will emerge: your packages will probably have a certain look to them that postal workers in that city can be trained to watch for, so at least the supply of the drugs can be disrupted, and with enough agents watching mailboxes, the suspects nabbed.

      Depends what the product is. I semi-regularly purchase LSD through Silk Road, and the suppliers usually send in a "business envelope" or occasionally one of those ubiquitous padded bags that small electronic parts come in. I don't see any way that they'd be able to distinguish it from the hundreds of thousands of legitimate business envelopes and padded bags.

      Of course, LSD on blotter is pretty easy to put anywhere (I even had it delivered once inside a musical christmas card - that was quite clever); other products may be more difficult to effectively package, but I'm sure it's something the suppliers are well aware of.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  14. Narcotics? by rover42 · · Score: 1

    It's not just the headline that is odd. The stroy itself has "more than $1 million worth of LSD, ecstasy, and other narcotics". Neither LSD nor ecstacy is a narcotic, so this is obviously nonsense. If they had said "other drugs" or "other controlled substances", that would have made some sense to me, though I suspect a lawyer might have a more recise meaning for "controlled substabce".

    1. Re:Narcotics? by arisvega · · Score: 1

      Drugs are bad, m'kay?

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    2. Re:Narcotics? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Heroin is though. It seems that all illegal drugs are often called "narcotics" even though that word has a specific meaning that isnt related to whether it is legal.

      Unfortunately the misuse of language extends well beyond the headline. I wouldn't blame law enforcement for bad use of language. Often the first time I see a new malapropism is in the press.

    3. Re:Narcotics? by agentgonzo · · Score: 1

      Neither LSD nor ecstacy is a narcotic, so this is obviously nonsense.

      Really? I thought they were. Wikipedia states "When used in a legal context in the US, a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited, or one that is used in violation of strict governmental regulation, such as heroin or morphine.". Does LSD/ecstacy not fall under this definition?

    4. Re:Narcotics? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Depends on how the term is used - in legal terms, a "narcotic" describes any prohibited / illegal drug. LSD and Ecstasy both count as narcotics in the legal sense. Considering we're reading a report about a legal action, it's entirely appropriate for them to use the term that way.

    5. Re:Narcotics? by Americano · · Score: 3, Informative

      Narcotic is mostly useless as a medical term, anyway. It originally described sedatives - e.g., "drugs that put you to sleep," hence the 'narc' in the name. It was also used to describe opioids - e.g., heroin, morphine - most of which DO have a sedative effect, but not all sedatives are opioids. Toss in the legal system overloading the term to mean "anything illegal," and you're pretty much left with relying on context to determine what's meant.

      DEA is a legal entity, arrests were made; it's reasonable to assume 'narcotic' is being used in the legal sense, rather than the medical/pharmacological meaning.

    6. Re:Narcotics? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The US legal definition of "narcotics" incorrectly includes cocaine and other coca leaf derivatives (and US courts have acknowledged that, and ruled that it is OK for the legal definition of a word to be scientifically incorrect), but it is not extended to LSD or ecstasy. There is another international convention on drug control that stretches the definition further than US law to include cannabis, but the only context which goes further than that is lazy sensationalist journalism.

    7. Re:Narcotics? by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      Last I heard LSD was a hallucinogen...

      I thought a narcotic was more of a CLASS of drugs, for example, from the tubes:

      What types of opiates are used during childbirth?
      The most frequently used narcotic medications are:
      Morphine
      Stadol
      Fentanyl
      Nubain
      Demerol

      Mrs. Flappinbooger had Nubain both times she gave birth, and they made it clear it was a narcotic, and it was quite effective. Mrs. Flappinbooger was quite loopy at times.

      Narcotic does not denote illegal, it is a label that denotes function.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    8. Re:Narcotics? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Depends on how the term is used - in legal terms, a "narcotic" describes any prohibited / illegal drug.

      The DEA does not use this definition, and nor does legislation. The majority of narcotics are not even prohibited or illegal, they are controlled medicines.

    9. Re:Narcotics? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Words have different meanings in different contexts and especially different languages when they're borrowed from other languages.

      For instance, in English, you're right: these drugs aren't narcotics, because they don't meet the scientific definition.

      However, that word was borrowed from English into Legalese, and in that language it has an expanded meaning.

    10. Re:Narcotics? by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Wikipedia states "When used in a legal context in the US, a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited

      The problem is that the in the legal context, it's a made up word. Narcotic comes from the Greek 'narkos' which means sleep. Narcotics are sleep inducing drugs, no matter what a LEO might tell you.

      The fact that law enforcement uses "narcotic" to refer to stimulant drugs is an indication that they don't actually care, or know, what these drugs do. They don't think about it. To them, drug = narcotic = bad. We should not promote, or even tolerate such sloppy thought on the part of our law enforcement.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    11. Re:Narcotics? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Remember that the next time you get a bacterial infection, and refuse the antibiotics. JUST SAY NO TO DRUGS!

    12. Re:Narcotics? by agentgonzo · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I'd never really needed to know what 'narcotic' meant, but now I do. I'd always used it synonymously as 'illegal drug'

  15. Re:The Hyphen is your friend by ledow · · Score: 3, Funny

    The reverse classic is obviously

    Panda: Eats, shoots and leaves.

    Putting commas in without thinking about them can be just as bad as leaving them out. Thus they *are* a vital part of communication.

  16. LSD and extasy by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    LSD and extasy (i.e. MDMA) are two of the least addictive drugs. In fact, LSD isn't addictive at all. And the side effects are very mild to none in either case.

    But yeah, good job federal agents of the USA, your work is making the world a better place.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:LSD and extasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yep, ask a tobacco smoker and he will tell you that tobacco isn't addictive at all and he can stop at any time. News at 11.

    2. Re:LSD and extasy by mbone · · Score: 1

      And, neither one is a narcotic at all, at least from a medical standpoint.

    3. Re:LSD and extasy by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except that scientists have studied LSD, for decades, and there has been little evidence of people forming dependences on it. This is in stark contrast to the three most popular legal drugs: caffeine, tobacco, and alcohol.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:LSD and extasy by blind+biker · · Score: 2

      To be precise, caffeine forms a light dependency, but tobacco and alcohol both create strong physical dependencies which require heroic efforts to overcome.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    5. Re:LSD and extasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that scientists have studied LSD, for decades, and there has been little evidence of people forming dependences on it.

      Reference please?

    6. Re:LSD and extasy by c0lo · · Score: 2
      Somebody said it best:

      It's easy to quit smoking. I've done it hundreds of times.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    7. Re:LSD and extasy by Iskender · · Score: 5, Informative

      Reference please?

      http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/infofacts/hallucinogens-lsd-peyote-psilocybin-pcp

      Most users of LSD voluntarily decrease or stop its use over time. LSD is not considered an addictive drug since it does not produce compulsive drug-seeking behavior. However, LSD does produce tolerance, so some users who take the drug repeatedly must take progressively higher doses to achieve the state of intoxication that they had previously achieved.

      I don't have the time to dig up a scientific paper but the article does have sources at the end.

    8. Re:LSD and extasy by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      https://www.erowid.org/references/refs.php?S=lsd

      Going all the way back to the 1950s, in several languages.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    9. Re:LSD and extasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks

    10. Re:LSD and extasy by AshtangiMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A friend did her dissertation on the long term effects of MDMA ... For people who have done it more than 25 times there is a remarkable decrease in ability to strategize. The 25 times did not have to be in a quick time period, but generally had occurred over 5 years. The population she used was one that was not using other substances (alcohol, marijuana, caffeine, etc). Strategizing in this case was things like skipping a question you struggle with and coming back to it after finishing the other questions. Very interesting. I think MDMA is useful, but should be used carefully.

    11. Re:LSD and extasy by Inda · · Score: 2

      Only 25 times?

      Shit.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    12. Re:LSD and extasy by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      That is very, very interesting! I would be very interested in all and any articles she might have published on this issue. We _should_ have subscriptions to most journals in the field.

      If you prefer, you can send by e-mail to howdilydoo {at} gmail {d0t} com

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    13. Re:LSD and extasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, ask a tobacco smoker and he will tell you that tobacco isn't addictive at all and he can stop at any time.

      Uh? You must not be a smoker; go out to the loading dock (or wherever smoker gather) and ask if tobacco is addictive. I'd be surprised if one person doesn't think that it's additive.

    14. Re:LSD and extasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      [Posting AC - not that because I believe using LSD is wrong but the ill-informed do].

      Anyone who has used LSD can attest to the fact it is totally non addictive. Once you have a trip, there is no immediate urge to do one for quite some time.

      And as for a reference, it's not hard to wikipedia and follow the references from there.

    15. Re:LSD and extasy by ehiris · · Score: 1

      I never trust any studies on drugs as they are generally biased. I prefer to experiment myself and make up my own mind.

    16. Re:LSD and extasy by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      However, alcocol dependance requires "heroic" effort to create in the first place.

    17. Re:LSD and extasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really that sheltered? Seriously. You really have no clue what lsd is, do you?
      How old are you? It's obvious you've never tried lsd, (and you probably should) but come on, haven't your friends ever done it? You don't know a single person who's done lsd? Where the hell do live? under a rock?

      Yeah i have a hard time walking through certain neighborhoods because of all the lsd addicts hitting me up for change.

    18. Re:LSD and extasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      O yeah and i just noticed you put up a link from the NIDA. -because the US government is such a trustable source of facts about drugs...
      LOL

    19. Re:LSD and extasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was this research published in a peer reviewed science journal and was its methodology meticulously scrutinized? If so, I'd love to read it.

    20. Re:LSD and extasy by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wrong. Addiction is a physical dependency. If you have physical withdrawal symptoms, it's an addictive drug. Caffiene's withdrawal symptom is headaches. LSD is neither addictive nor does it have habituation (in tobacco, the habituation is almost as bad as the physical withdrawal).

    21. Re:LSD and extasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Addiction is not physical dependency. If you give someone who is not an addict painkillers: after withdrawl they will not think about it. But, an addict will continue to obsess over it.

      You can become addicted to a drug that is not physically addictive. Or hell, for that matter: shopping, internet, sex, etc...

      Caffeine's withdrawl symptoms *include* headaches.

      LSD/psychedelic addiction is incredibly rare. It does happen.

      Tobaccos habituation is worse than its withdrawal, IMO.

      Where did you steal the 5 digit UID from?

    22. Re:LSD and extasy by YttriumOxide · · Score: 2

      Yep, ask a tobacco smoker and he will tell you that tobacco isn't addictive at all and he can stop at any time. News at 11.

      As a tobacco smoker and LSD user; I can tell you that tobacco is insanely addictive and hard to quit, whereas LSD is something I enjoy from time to time when the circumstances are right (anywhere between 2 and 6 times per year these days) but if I were to never take it again, I'd not feel the slightest "craving" as I do with tobacco (I'd probably miss it a bit, but no differently than I miss good friends who move away).

      Tobacco - extremely addictive. LSD - not at all.

      Wikipedia backs me up stating it is non-addictive. It also points out the very low harm/risk factor involved in use (also in stark contrast to tobacco, which is very harmful and will probably be the cause of my death).

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    23. Re:LSD and extasy by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      >> in tobacco, the habituation is almost as bad as the physical withdrawal

      No, in tobacco the habituation is much worse than the physical withdrawal. The physical withdrawal is due to nicotine. Nicotine is actually beneficial to your overall health, only not if you ingest it by inhaling burning tobacco smoke. Anyway, nicotine does have a physical dependency, but the withdrawal is a steady, mild craving that lasts about a week. Tobacco habituation, in contrast, is typically experienced as powerful "craving flashes" that strike the ex user up to 20 times per day at first, and take 6 months or more to finally cease. Chewing nicotine gum or wearing a patch is probably good for you, but the problem with the gum and patches for tobacco smokers going through withdrawals is that because their withdrawal from nicotine is extended, they experience greatly extended and more severe habituation withdrawals.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    24. Re:LSD and extasy by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      That part I don't know, but it was out of University of New Mexico in about 2003 or thereabouts, from the Psychology Department. Beyond the dissertation I doubt there is a lot that she did publish, but if there is anything I would think that it might have been through MAPS.

    25. Re:LSD and extasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So she studied their ability to strategize before and after the 25 times?
      Otherwise you could also conclude that those people were dumb to begin with.

    26. Re:LSD and extasy by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Nicotine is actually beneficial to your overall health, only not if you ingest it by inhaling burning tobacco smoke

      Then why do people who chew tobacco get mouth, throat, and esophagus cancers?

      Anyway, nicotine does have a physical dependency, but the withdrawal is a steady, mild craving that lasts about a week.

      I quite smoking ten years ago, and I can tell you from experience that whoever told you that is wrong.

    27. Re:LSD and extasy by Iskender · · Score: 1

      O yeah and i just noticed you put up a link from the NIDA. -because the US government is such a trustable source of facts about drugs...
      LOL

      Well, no one will probably read this since this is many days after the story was posted, but:
      That's precisely the point. I wouldn't trust a US government source too much about drug negatives.

      But this is about LSD not being addictive. It's a good thing about an illegal drug. If the organization felt it could say LSD will turn you into a junkie for life it certainly would. But it cannot, because no research says so. If that's still not enough you can do the scientific thing and check the sources which are conveniently listed at the end.

    28. Re:LSD and extasy by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      That part I don't know, but it was out of University of New Mexico in about 2003 or thereabouts, from the Psychology Department. Beyond the dissertation I doubt there is a lot that she did publish, but if there is anything I would think that it might have been through MAPS.

      OK, thanks. Usually dissertations are a fruit of one or more journal articles, but rarely they can also not have any.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    29. Re:LSD and extasy by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Addiction is a physical dependency. If you have physical withdrawal symptoms, it's an addictive drug. Caffiene's withdrawal symptom is headaches. LSD is neither addictive nor does it have habituation (in tobacco, the habituation is almost as bad as the physical withdrawal).

      Actually, I don't disagree with any of what you said. What exactly is that you think wrong in my comment?

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  17. Propaganda by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

    "Narcotics" sounds scary, so we should call all drugs narcotics! This is not a new propaganda strategy; marijuana was first called a narcotic in the 1930s during the hearings on banning the drug.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  18. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we've won the war on drugs right?

    Or did we just expand it... Cyber-drugs! We need more money, more laws, more power, more people or the evil cyber-drugdealers will kill your kids!

  19. They're not drug dealers, they're job creators by jholyhead · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just another example of the job killing regulations enacted by the Obama administration. When will the federal government get out of the way of small business owners and job creators?

    1. Re:They're not drug dealers, they're job creators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Laugh it up. A major reason for unemployment is that most work is illegal:

      1) Too young? No job for you.
      2) No state-sanctioned license, you can't practice in that guild-controlled field
      3) Want to work for less than $8/hr, sorry that would be unfair (not to you, the unions)
      4) Like drugs, gambling, and prostition? Cops and criminals run those markets and ensure it remains a bloody business.
      5) "No business license? No permits? No insurance?" Can't fix that shed of mine!
      6) You already worked 40 hours a week here? Sorry, go travel your ass elsewhere to work more this week. I have a budget!
      7) "You would lose money if you start working?" Who structured things so that employment causes financial distress*.

      Yes, job creators are punished. Severely. Yes, Obama (and Bush and Clinton and Bush and Reagan and Carter and Ford and Nixon and Johnson) are to blame. Any more wisecracks?

      * A 401k-like plan is how unemployment insurance is done. It should be your own damn money.

  20. Hyphen! by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is what hyphens are for.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:Hyphen! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is what hyphens are for.

      You mean they could have shut down Tor using hyphens?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Hyphen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Them fancy grammaticals is dangerous little buggers.

    3. Re:Hyphen! by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it helps, it was brought up during the submission phase of the post:

      http://slashdot.org/submission/2025187/feds-shut-down-tor-using-narcotics-store.

      That was a solid ten to twelve hours before it was posted, I had hoped that it might be fixed on posting. Now, please, lets move on from the poor hyphenation, and get back to the article at hand shall we? I am sure it has much more interest to the community at large compared to my poor grammar. The last reason I submitted this was to start a (at this time) thirty post thread on the ambiguity of how the headline can be read or misread.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    4. Re:Hyphen! by omnichad · · Score: 1

      The URL version of the headline has hyphens...unfortunately a few too many.

    5. Re:Hyphen! by ArhcAngel · · Score: 0

      Now, please, lets move on from the poor hyphenation, and get back to the article at hand shall we? I am sure it has much more interest to the community at large compared to my poor grammar. The last reason I submitted this was to start a (at this time) thirty post thread on the ambiguity of how the headline can be read or misread.

      You must be new here...

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    6. Re:Hyphen! by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      You must be new here...

      No, not really. Of course, compared to your number I am new, but I did read the site for a good few years before I became interested in posting to the threads, let alone submitting stories.

      Also: Your sig, I agree with it, but: "You know what the difference is between you and me? I make this look GOOD." - J

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    7. Re:Hyphen! by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 5, Funny

      You mean they could have shut down Tor using hyphens?

      No. That particular vulnerability was fixed a long time ago.

    8. Re:Hyphen! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      The story is actually not that interesting.
      Not nearly as interesting as grammar and /. editors.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    9. Re:Hyphen! by mortonda · · Score: 1

      You must be new here...

      No, not really. Of course, compared to your number I am new,

      And yet the old "You must be new here" joke whooshed right over your head.

      Get off the lawn, all of ya!

    10. Re:Hyphen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. So many things can be taken out of context. For example, "A teacher-loving child is called a teacher's pet." Remove the hyphen and see what meaning it takes.

      The Slashdot editors should be not only reading the article and verifying that the summary and title are correct, but they should scan for typos and ensure (or is it insure) proper grammar. Hey, there's a use for all those English majors after all!

    11. Re:Hyphen! by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you know as well as I do how many clients never get updates. I bet there are over 15% unpatched clients still sitting out there in the wild, just waiting to be mdash zombies.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    12. Re:Hyphen! by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Well, given that hyphens are dispensed by Grammar Nazis, and, according to Hollywood, Nazis have all sorts of exotic weapons, yeah, I guess they could have shut down down Tor like that.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    13. Re:Hyphen! by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      OMG, you say that proper punctuation is required to convey language correctly?
      You must be new to the interwebs.
      What's next? You'll ask for capitalization? Grammar? What has the world come to?

    14. Re:Hyphen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a feature, not a bug.

  21. More prisons will spring up by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 0

    The point of the war on drugs is to imprison people, create excuses for violating civil rights, militarize the police, and fatten corporate profits (especially pharmaceuticals, light arms producers, and prison operators). Nobody wants it to stop; it would not be possible for it to stop even if we tried, because human beings use drugs, period. People drink tea, people use tobacco, people take antihistamines, people drink alcohol, and yes, people smoke marijuana, snort cocaine, and use LSD. If everyone stopped using illegal drugs, we would just make more drugs illegal to continue the arrests.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:More prisons will spring up by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Yep. And pretty soon ISPs will be asked to identify customers using Tor at this rate.

      Utilizing Tor will become probable cause for a search and seizure of all interesting data processing devices, in order to search for evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

    2. Re:More prisons will spring up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rent a foreign VPS in a country that opposes your own* and use an HTTPS proxy to connect through Tor with it. Some of them are as cheap as 3$/month.

      * I've always wondered if N. Korea would mind running something like this. That would be THE country to do this in, as they will never help the US LEA, and no other country is going to extradite to them if they decided that 294gn3ioutvnw9ergh45g45g.onion were hosting `bad' content about them. Kinda unethical to patronize such a regime though.

  22. As usual, no technical details by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article, emphasis mine:

    ...the operators used software provided by the TOR Project that makes it virtually impossible to track the activities of users' IP addresses. The alleged conspirators also used IP anonymizers and covert currency transactions to cover their tracks. The indictment, which cited e-mails sent among the men dating back to 2006, didn't say how investigators managed to infiltrate the site or link it to the individuals accused of running it.

    I'm willing to bet that money transfers and the transfer of goods sold are still far more discoverable than individual Tor users but any assurances of that would certainly be welcome. I hope the Tor Project will be forthcoming with some as soon as some technically useful info is available.

    1. Re:As usual, no technical details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US government has been able to track people through Tor for years now. Anyone who really thinks they are anonymous on Tor are fooling themselves.

    2. Re:As usual, no technical details by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hope the Tor Project will be forthcoming with some as soon as some technically useful info is available.

      They might not even know. There are quite a few people in the computer security community who keep their work on breaking the security of systems like Tor a secret, and only tell US law enforcement about their results. I have met such people, and they are generally well-meaning -- they really do believe that they are helping to catch dangerous criminals (and they can cite cases where that happened, usually child sex abuse cases).

      Unfortunately, because such researchers believe that fixing these problems will help "the enemy," they generally refuse to disclose details. One of the common themes is variations on fingerprinting attacks, where you communicate with your target over Tor but use a covert channel that can be used to distinguish your target from other Tor users. These sorts of attacks usually involve narrowing down the geographic area where your target is, but for attacking a drug dealing operation that is not hard to do -- just look at where packages from the operation are coming from.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:As usual, no technical details by edave22 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From the article, emphasis mine:

      ...the operators used software provided by the TOR Project that makes it virtually impossible to track the activities of users' IP addresses. The alleged conspirators also used IP anonymizers and covert currency transactions to cover their tracks. The indictment, which cited e-mails sent among the men dating back to 2006, didn't say how investigators managed to infiltrate the site or link it to the individuals accused of running it.

      I'm willing to bet that money transfers and the transfer of goods sold are still far more discoverable than individual Tor users but any assurances of that would certainly be welcome. I hope the Tor Project will be forthcoming with some as soon as some technically useful info is available.

      They use bitcoin. The security reaches only as far as bitcoins security. You can hide behind an IP in the middle of the red sea if you wanted. If your bitcoin transaction can be tracked, you bet your ass you can be tracked as well.

    4. Re:As usual, no technical details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only if you use their nodes., they dilute the effectiveness of the network by flooding it with their own nodes.

    5. Re:As usual, no technical details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They weren't using bitcoin.

    6. Re:As usual, no technical details by green1 · · Score: 1

      bitcoin may hide the monetary side of things, but ther weren't selling bitdrugs, the real product had to get sent somewhere some how, That was most likely the weak link.

    7. Re:As usual, no technical details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many of the nodes in the Tor network are government owned, i wonder. I think Tor makes three jumps if they seed the network with enough nodes sooner or later they will own the whole trail from entry to exit node... Hey presto! No anonylity. :-(

    8. Re:As usual, no technical details by Hatta · · Score: 1

      There are quite a few people in the computer security community who keep their work on breaking the security of systems like Tor a secret, and only tell US law enforcement about their results. I have met such people, and they are generally well-meaning -- they really do believe that they are helping to catch dangerous criminals

      How does it happen that people who are so smart can be so stupid?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:As usual, no technical details by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Bingo.

      There was probably no technical failures of BitCoin or Tor leading to this. But a real product got transacted (and turning BitCoin into cash - at some point - also involves a real transaction with normal currency) and that would be how it was tracked.

      With enough intelligence, even a dead-drop system probably would've been compromised since there's only so far you can realistically go if you have limited manpower and a certain volume to move, and you'd only require 1 reuse of a drop site for surveillance to find someone to follow.

    10. Re:As usual, no technical details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you personally know they used Bitcoin? The article doesn't say that.

      The arrests come about a year after Gawker documented the existence of Silk Road, an online narcotics storefront that was available only to TOR users. The site sold LSD, Afghani hashish, tar heroin and other controlled substances and allowed customers to pay using the virtual currency known as Bitcoin, the article reported. It wasn't immediately clear what the relationship between Silk Road and Farmer's Market is.

      In fact, it's strange that the article brings up Silk Road at all other than (from the previous article) they also used Tor. As far as I can tell, only Silk Road used bitcoin and they weren't involved in this arrest.

    11. Re:As usual, no technical details by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      More likely they were able to track people using the USPS to deliver drugs.

    12. Re:As usual, no technical details by gregor-e · · Score: 1

      I bet a nickle they used social engineering to infiltrate. Probably had someone buy a bunch of product from several dealers, to establish a rep. Then seduced the operators by claiming to be doing an article/film/book for some big-name outlet and could they pretty please just discreetly meet for an interview? The operators would be reassured by the purchase history of the agent, and if the agent spun a pretty yarn that boosted the egos of the operators enough, it'd probably be no big deal to get them to come out of their protective shell.

  23. Example proves what many have long suspected... by dryriver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That none of the various "anonimizer" services out there, from HotSpotShield to Tor, actually give you any kind of tangible identity protection in the "real world" of the current internet. Hell, maybe these services were even setup expressly to lure people seeking "increased anonimity" for various reasons to make use of one these services, so it becomes that much easier to identify, tag, track & monitor them. Maybe some or all of these services have been electronically monitored 24/7 from the day they were born, but we are still told, over and over, and quite falsely, that these services magically "hide your identity" and give you some "online privacy"... In the increasingly Orwellian online and offline world we live in, precisely that being done by the powers-that-be would make a lot of sense, no? Tell all sorts of gullible internet users that using "Service X" magically "hides your identity on the internet", then monitor precisely that service 24/7, to get your hands on the data of a subgroup of internet users who seek to be "more anonymous" online. ... If your organizational mantra consists of "People who try to hide themselves online must have something important to hide, and must be monitored carefully", then you would to precisely that, no? You'd set up a dozen or so "anonimity services" under a variety of different names and front companies, then monitor the f__k out of the people who use those services, on an around-the-clock basis.

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    1. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The indictment, which cited e-mails sent among the men dating back to 2006, didn't say how investigators managed to infiltrate the site or link it to the individuals accused of running it."

      For all you know, they packaged up the drugs without wearing gloves and their fingerprints were in a database somewhere, and they then posted them (with a nice local postmark) to a Fed posing as a customer (how would you know? Their customer will be just as anonymous). Somehow you had to get a physical product to someone else - and that's probably the weak-point. Hell, they could have just offered to drop it off on a street corner as a "one-off" delivery and got caught that way, you have no idea.

      It's then only a small step and the simple matter of suspecting they may be a vast drug operation in place, finding out anything you can from the drugs collected by similar methods and narrowing down until you can just tap someone's whole Internet connection (Tor provides ANONYMITY, not SECURITY). Which they seem to have because they have emails of these people talking to each other.

      Or maybe they just talked their way into an IRC channel or something that these guys used. You have absolutely no idea how they were caught, or whether they were just incredibly thick.

      Using a tool badly does not mean the tool is broken.

    2. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, the fact that these people were shipping illegal drugs around the country had nothing to do with them being caught. Oh...wait a minute..

    3. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Informative

      That none of the various "anonimizer" services out there, from HotSpotShield to Tor, actually give you any kind of tangible identity protection in the "real world" of the current internet

      Except that these are not the be-all and end-all of anonymity systems. The anonymous remailer system is much more secure than Tor, and is not vulnerable to the sort of fingerprinting attacks that Tor is vulnerable to. Intelligence agencies have known for decades that perfect receiver anonymity is possible: broadcast an encrypted message (online, this is alt.anonymous.messages on Usenet, or other similar media).

      The problem is that people want to be able to do things in real-time. People are not content to wait 48+ hours to receive a message. People are generally willing to sacrifice some security to get speed and convenience, and thus Tor is the most popular strong anonymity system out there.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone knew as well that people using sky masks are up to no good. They cover enough part of the face to commit crimes and not be recognized.

      Yes, you can pick anything to commit a crime, from pantyhose to tor. Which doesn't necessarily means that anyone using the service (or wearing a sky mask) is guilty.

    5. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tor is open source so you can check what it is doing for yourself. It works, no-one can tell where a Tor connection comes from as long as you don't leak that information in some other way (DNS requests, exposing personal data and so on). It is known that there are Tor exit nodes being monitored but that was always assumed to be the case, i.e. Tor does not rely on trusting exit nodes.

      What got these guys was the need to exchange goods for real money. Goods have to ship or be collected from somewhere. Money has to change hands at some point. From the information we have it appears that the Tor part worked fine.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They didn't catch PFC Manning (who was likely using tor for communication) using any form of network snooping either, they caught her because she talked to Adrian Lamo. The human link is usually easier to subvert than the electronic one, and it gets weaker the more humans are in the loop. These were 8 people directly involved, all over the world, and likely more people with information. Something was bound to leak.

    7. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are speculating on how they were found, could as well be an exploit in the site or informer?

      Can anyone shed a light on how these people were actually tracked down?

    8. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but we really don't know if it was a flaw in tor or bitcoin or something similar that led to the arrests. It could easily have been social engineering - e.g. "Hey, I've got a whole bunch of good Afghani hash - let me know if you want in! I'll need your address of course...".

      It's not like law enforcement officials can't also use tor and communicate through the same anonymous channels.

    9. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by Americano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I doubt they even had to "crack encryption" on any of these services. Place an order, or two or three, and see where they originate. Chances are, you can locate the origin point pretty quickly. Then you just put some surveillance on the place(s) the shipments are originating from, and place some more orders, and find the people who are inexplicably rich while not leaving the house all day except to go to the post office. Put THEM under surveillance and chances are you just busted your Tor-using drug shop, congratulations Agent!

      As soon as you're shipping physical products through a public shipping network, you're going to be relying solely on "blending in with the crowd" to maintain your anonymity.

    10. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > PFC Manning
      > caught her
      > when she
      > mfw

      wtfamireading.jpg

      You forgot to mention that he was only apprehended by MI-5 and Interpol after he leveled unrelated sex by surprise charges against Julian Assange (the upstanding, raven-tressed New Zealander) in Norway and Finland! God, GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT, man.

    11. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by swillden · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but we really don't know if it was a flaw in tor or bitcoin or something similar that led to the arrests.

      It's much, much more likely that they compromised it through the physical distribution channels.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    12. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If anything, I viweed this as an example of TOR's power. An established deepweb site, running over $1m of narcotics into the US, took a two year investigation involving four other countries governments to find 8 guys? That tells me that they will simply never find a smart lone lurker or occasional poster on the deepweb. Ever.

    13. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, TOR provides so much anonymity that we're reading about a case where people were busted using it to try and remain anonymous.

      TOR doesn't provide anonymity or security, that's the real problem. Sympathizers like yourself can continue to blame the end user all you like, still doesn't change the fact that TOR doesn't do what it advertises. At best it's a quick way for a troll to get around an IP ban, that's about all.

    14. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by Rakarra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      TOR doesn't provide anonymity or security, that's the real problem. Sympathizers like yourself can continue to blame the end user all you like, still doesn't change the fact that TOR doesn't do what it advertises. At best it's a quick way for a troll to get around an IP ban, that's about all.

      And you know that how?

      The story doesn't give any details about how the criminals were caught -- for all you know it might not have had anything to do with TOR at all. What we do know is that the trafficers used TOR, Western Union, Paypal, Bitcoin, and real-world physical delivery. All of those other options are significantly less secure than TOR, and the whole chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Once you combine TOR with other systems, you're no longer secure.

    15. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Tor provides ANONYMITY, not SECURITY)

      Tor is a fully encrypted connection.

    16. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by ledow · · Score: 1

      To a random endpoint that you have absolutely no control over and could be recording every plaintext you ever send over the connection (which could include everything from browser history to email passwords if you neglect to encrypt everything to your FINAL endpoint all the time).

    17. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      broadcast an encrypted message (online, this is alt.anonymous.messages on Usenet, or other similar media).

      You'd still need an anonymized connection to your usenet server. Otherwise the server can/will log your ip when you view that message. All the feds have to do is get the logs for a few a major usenet providers to see who's looking at the message.

    18. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      You'd still need an anonymized connection to your usenet server. Otherwise the server can/will log your ip when you view that message. All the feds have to do is get the logs for a few a major usenet providers to see who's looking at the message.

      Or you do the smart thing: download all of the messages in alt.anonymous.messages, and select the ones you want offline.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    19. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      Tor hidden services, what the fools in TFA used, are in the Tor network and never touch an exit node (they are also completely encrypted, so no entry node can see the plaintext).

    20. Re:Example proves what many have long suspected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has someone done a porno of this yet? Because that would totally be worth buying. Could probably make some tie ins for other 'themed' porno work, like Military Tribunal VI and Finned Fuck IV.

  24. Perhaps Not Relevant to Silk Road by SaroDarksbane · · Score: 1

    Given the nature of Bitcoin, the feds would probably have to rely on tracking the shipments of illicit goods back to their source to try and bust Silk Road. But as I understand it, Silk Road does not sell the drugs themselves; they simply act as an eBay-like service for others to sell their drugs. So even if the feds do find the initial source of a package, the most they've accomplished is to remove one seller from Silk Road, and not the site itself.

  25. Operation Adam Bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They can't spell either.

  26. end justifies means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many ISPs dropped USENET after several state's AG decide it was a haven for kiddie porn, nearly crippling it.

    Megaupload was shutdown because SOME files on it were considered pirate files.

    The idea that the government might shutdown other services on the internet if only because some of the activity on that service is illegal doesn't seem so far fetched.

    They are the government. They are legion. They may or may not remember but they don't care. They don't forgive even if they are wrong. Expect them.

    1. Re:end justifies means by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      Actually, usenet is much better now that everyone on earth doesn't have access. All you have to do is filter the google groupers, and it's almost like going back in time. :)

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
  27. Even that is ambiguous.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Feds shut down narcotics store that had been a TOR user" could be taken that the store used TOR a little bit. A better rewrite would be "Feds shut down narcotics store that had used the TOR network for anonymizing distribution"

    I for one, think this is a HUGE step for the Feds. For once it seems, they're attacking the lawbreakers rather than the neutral network that is utilized, like Andrew Cuomo did with Usenet or Craigslist strong-armed into getting rid of the Adult section.

    1. Re:Even that is ambiguous.. by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now if they would just stop this crusade against people who don't choose alcohol as their drug of choice, it would be an even bigger step. Maybe if they stopped driving all this business underground, and stopped putting it all in the hands of major drug cartels....that would be swell too.

      Maybe if they let Glaxco-smith-kline put all the major drug cartels out of business? That should take all of a few months for them.

      Even dumber is...these sites tend to be pretty small. I doubt many cartels are using them, so its mostly small time dealers who are also techies. This isn't a win, this is more stupid. More lives ruined over a problem the government caused initially by creating the black markets.

      Nearly every drug problem they have tried to "solve" with prohibition has only gotten worst. The ones they have driven off the streets completely tend to be the less popular drugs anyway, and just drive the users to even less safe alternatived.

      Good job morons. Maybe if they keep banging their heads against the wall, the problem will just go away....clearly they just need to arrest, strip search, and lock up a few more people. That will totally solve the problem!

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  28. Re:The Hyphen is your friend by RulerOf · · Score: 2

    Capitalization is even more important.

    It's the difference between helping your uncle jack off the horse, and helping your Uncle Jack off the horse.

    --
    Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
  29. Comma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Feds Shut Down, Tor Using Narcotics Store

    Feds Shut Down Tor, Using Narcotics Store

    1. Re:Comma by beaverdownunder · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, a hyphen would fix it:

      Feds shut down Tor-using narcotics store.

  30. Silk Road isn't an "online narcotics storefront" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Silk Road is an "online anonymous person to person sales network for anything". The fact that drugs are sold on it is indicative of the "anything goes" nature of the network. As per the wikipedia article, you can also purchase freshly baked (no, not that kind of baked) cookies on it, too. Since most things are illegal to sell (cookies baked in your basement [no health inspection], "legitimate" goods and services that you don't charge tax for [how many private sales do that?], drugs, guns in many places [especially without paperwork]) does it come as a surprise that a completely free sales network would attract illicit usage?

    May as well say "pagers exist so drug dealers can meet up with their clients".

  31. Re:The Hyphen is your friend by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    The same can be said about capitalisation. The example I use is "While working on his farm, I had to help my Uncle Jack off a horse."

    Now switch the J to lowercase. o_O

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  32. Identifying Tor websites by gedeco · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's not a easy job, but the Feds have better resources.

    What I imagine as workable

    - Monitor up/down time of such website.
    - Match them with provider related or internet related troubles.

    Eventually when identifying the provider, you can tune it done by provoking a temporary connection failure. A connection failure on the right bottleneck will even make TOR traffic unreachable for the rest of the world. This should lead you to the ip of the TOR webserver

    1. Re:Identifying Tor websites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The IP of the tor website is not important,

      someone who is very clever would simply purchase a third party server using tor, and only communicate with that server using tor.

      For actual "security" you could use vpn over tor. Being even more clever, you could create your own "botnet" using those $35 linux pc's and disguise them as everyday objects. Once you've done that, you just have them connect to a tor hidden service under your control (since you would need to use reverse tunneling in order to connect to the pc's) and then route your connections over those before they connect to the tor service.

      Even if someone finds the third-party server, who cares, you would be a fool to keep something like that at your own home.

  33. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  34. s on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the real use of bitcoin. why do you think the creator tried to be anonymous. in this age of drugs and terrorism, not only bitcoin should be illegal, but printed currency, coins and bills, as well anything of inherent value such as gold, silver, recyclable materials, basically anything you could trade for money that doesn't have a trail of who bought it. things should have a serial number and be registered to a credit card or debit card at the point of sale. s off

    1. Re:s on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide and nothing to fear...

      I'm legally fucking your wife, but you don't need to know about that.

  35. Tor has limitations by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Informative

    It works, no-one can tell where a Tor connection comes from as long as you don't leak that information in some other way

    There are a number of well-known attacks on Tor that can compromise your anonymity, especially if your location can be narrowed down to a small geographic area. Suppose that I can narrow your location down to a small town, and I can make a reasonable guess that you are using WiFi. Here is an attack:

    1. I establish a connection with your computer over Tor. This might be done by convincing you to download a large file from a server I control (or visa versa if you are running a hidden service or connecting to a P2P network), or by engaging you in a chat, etc.
    2. I create a recognizable pattern of latency in my connection to you; that is, I create a covert channel that can be externally observed.
    3. I use a high-gain WiFi antenna and search for a signal that exhibits that latency pattern.
    4. I am now in a position to locate you, using radio direction finding equipment.

    Easy to pull off? Not at all -- this is something that would only really be done for a high-value target, a priority target on which resources can be spent. This attack has already been used in the past, not when dealing with Tor but when dealing with legal barriers to wiretapping. It is not unreasonable to think that the Chinese government might try something like this to crack down on political dissidents.

    Obviously there are some assumptions here that are hard to meet in the general case. How do I narrow down your geographic location? How can I be sure that you use WiFi? In the case of a drug dealer, narrowing down the geographic location is not terribly hard, since packages have to be shipped; the dealer might make long drives to far away post offices, but with enough packages one could get a good idea of where the deal is physically located (again, we should assume that this is a large-scale dealer, someone who would ship large numbers of packages -- someone the police could order a large number of packages from). WiFi is just a good guess, but it is not strictly necessary; an ISP could identify the covert channel too, and I would not be surprised if that was ruled legal by the courts.

    At the end of the day, Tor cannot protect you from a concerted, well-funded attack. There are other systems that offer a higher security level (Mixmaster comes to mind) but which are less flexible than Tor, and thus less popular. Tor makes several trade-offs to achieve low latency, and nobody should claim that it could protect you from an intelligence agency or a military force (the DEA comprises both).

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Tor has limitations by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      I create a recognizable pattern of latency in my connection to you; that is, I create a covert channel that can be externally observed.

      This isn't so much of an issue as you make it seem. On time I could be routing through Houston->Tokyo->Paris, while the next I could be going through Unnamed Village, Nigeria-> El Guapo, Mexico -> Bumfuckovick->Russia. The differences in latencies in the nodes will make your data useless. The timing corrolation attacks that you seem to be describing rely on the control of both ends. If an LEA is monitoring your connection to see if the timings of the packets you use to communicate with cheapchildporn.com through their node, then you are already fucked.

    2. Re:Tor has limitations by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      The differences in latencies in the nodes will make your data useless

      So there is a limit on the bitrate of my covert channel, since this extra noise will be introduced. That is not such a problem, it just means that I will ultimately need to collect a lot of data (hence a "large file").

      The timing corrolation attacks that you seem to be describing rely on the control of both ends

      It only requires control of one end, and the ability to monitor the target (or at least ISP traffic or radio signals in the area you suspect the target is in). This is not a hard thing to do, as it turns out; it has been done in the past, but not with Tor, which as you pointed out will add noise. If you would like a scenario, think about the recent bust of Dreamboard, and imagine the police trying to catch Tor users who connected to Dreamboard; the biggest challenge is narrowing down the location of those users. The police do not need to control any nodes in the network, they only need to control one of the computers communicating through the network.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:Tor has limitations by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Suppose that I can narrow your location down to a small town

      Okay, let me repeat myself:

      It works, no-one can tell where a Tor connection comes from as long as you don't leak that information in some other way

      This shutdown probably had nothing to do with Tor and everything to do with the need to actually ship the goods from somewhere.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  36. Silk Road was dumb for using bitcoins by Weezul · · Score: 4, Informative

    Bitcoins aren't even slightly anonymous. All these sellers were outed by the feds simply buying some drugs with bitcoins and watching the bitcoin transactions through block explorer. A few tracked bitcoins wound up passing their way through a legitimate exchange like Mt Gox. Voila, the feds start tracing the transaction history back up the chain. It's actually less secure than old fashioned money laundering.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    1. Re:Silk Road was dumb for using bitcoins by Time_Ngler · · Score: 4, Interesting

      All these sellers were outed by the feds simply buying some drugs with bitcoins and watching the bitcoin transactions through block explorer.

      Citation? This sounds like some serious BS. First, TFA states the feds never revealed how they caught the suspects. Second, according to the TFA, the farmers market used at least 4 methods of payment, including paypal and western union, so there was no need to trace somebody through bitcoin. Third, if the Feds were tracing purchases through bitcoin, then how would they know when the bitcoin had changed ownership? If the bitcoins that were used to buy the drugs were then spent by the selling party on incense candles, and then spent again by a third party for a pair of Alpaca socks, before being changed to dollars, how would the Feds know who the original purchaser was?

    2. Re:Silk Road was dumb for using bitcoins by Weezul · · Score: 1

      All transactions are visible in block explorer in the order they happened. Yes, they might need to trace the transaction through alpaca socks guy, well maybe even one guy arrested here sells alpaca socks, not drugs. It's a safe bet they'll threaten him into revealing his customer list though. Rinse repeat, eventually arrive at drug dealer. It's called old fashioned police work. In principle, they could encounter intermediate merchants that don't keep good enough records, but the bitcoins likely get fragmented meaning that some trail succeeds.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    3. Re:Silk Road was dumb for using bitcoins by Weezul · · Score: 1

      You could perhaps sell drugs in exchange for bitcoins, but then hold the bitcoins until a statute of limitations expired or drugs were legalized, or anonymously trade away a large amount to hoarder. If the bitcoins never pass back into the banking world, then they won't pass anyone required to obey "know your customer" rules.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    4. Re:Silk Road was dumb for using bitcoins by Time_Ngler · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, I know transactions are visible through the block explorer. What it doesn't reveal is who owns each address, and many are used for only a couple transactions at most. In fact, if you ever really dealt with Mt Gox, you'd realize that they create a new address to send to every time you deposit money. So how are the Feds going to find out that this address belongs to the alpaca socks guy, or that one belongs to Mt Gox? In other words, how would they have any clue, from looking at a record of transactions, that indeed it went through Alpaca, and then Mt. Gox, vs. some other random chain of merchants and exchange?

    5. Re:Silk Road was dumb for using bitcoins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet that the dealers just stiffed one of the partners who then turned the whole gang in. Or may be somebody's girlfriend had a bad day. Last time I've read about the way FBI "broke" encryption, they planted a chip into the suspect's keyboard.

    6. Re:Silk Road was dumb for using bitcoins by Weezul · · Score: 1

      I'm aware that Mt Gox's user facing bitcoin accounts are all single use, but I presume their internal holding accounts are persistent. If not, you simply harass Mt Gox about all the addresses in the drug money's chain, good chance they're amongst em'. If not yet, try again next month. There are obviously plenty of published recipient addresses with known owners as well, but I still think they'd harass the exchanges because they're legally obliged to cooperate.

      As I said, a drug dealer can protect himself by simple hoarding the bitcoins until the statue of limitations expires, an extradition treaty with the U.S. collapses, the drugs are legalized, etc. You might be independently wealthy from your regular drug business but think bitcoins sound like a investment opportunity. At minimum, you can leave em' all to family members who aren't involved in the drug trade when you die.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    7. Re:Silk Road was dumb for using bitcoins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also it is worth pointing out that this was Farmer's Market NOT Silk Road. Silk Road is still in operation.

  37. lessons learned by green1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What the lesson should be:
    - We already have the resources and abilities to tackle real crimes using new technologies. no new laws are required.

    What lesson law enforcment/government will likely spin on this one:
    - Criminals are now using new technologies, we need more draconian laws to allow us to catch every single one of them.

  38. Re:The Hyphen is your friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Let's eat, grandpa!"
    "Let's eat grandpa!"

    Commas. They save lives.

  39. Re:The Hyphen is your friend by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

    Or the importance of knowing apostrophes/spelling as in:

    Understanding the difference between knowing your shit, and knowing you're shit.

  40. Let's correct our focus here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it speaks volumes that you all missed the fact that they were shutdown EVEN THOUGH they were spoofing their ip addresses with TOR. This, in my mind, should make the question of 'is TOR any good?' the primary subject matter.

    1. Re:Let's correct our focus here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many stupid comments like this do we need?

      1) They were using tor and bitcoin.
      2) The were also using PayPal in some cases AND shipping REAL GOODS using REAL PHYSICAL POSTAL ADDRESSES.
      3) The article says absolutely nothing about how they were actually caught.

      So - you conclude that the problem must be with tor ??

      Please go away.

    2. Re:Let's correct our focus here... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      This is true. If I were a cop, when faced with something like TOR, I'd just ask myself if I actually needed to break the network to get the information I needed to make an arrest. It may well be trivial to monitor TOR users (and that would be real news for nerds), but unless it was, they'd probably just use an old-fashioned sting operation or following the money to get to the source.

      However, if they *did* figure a flaw in TOR, it could be a much more *efficient* way of locating the dealers and their customers. Particularly since the TOR users may well take fewer precautions while using the protocol.

      That said, nothing here indicates that they have found any way of directly breaking the TOR network. If they did use the actual network to locate the subjects, they probably tricked the users into leaving Javascript enabled or some other way of forcing the subject's computer to give up the identifying information that sidesteps TOR. There's a whole list of things you have to disable when you run TOR to ensure that you can't be tracked via what your own browser gives away or exposes.

  41. Nice excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to increase government revenues through liquor taxese

    Sounds more like an excuse to sweep the real reason under the carpet: the victims of prohibition (the people) finally realized they were being scammed. Bottom line is that alcohol prohibition was imposed because they calculated the reward to be greater than the risk, and in turn, prohibition was finally repealed because they later calculated the risk to be greater than the reward.

    Again, follow the money.

    1. Re:Nice excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, everybody is missing the real reason: The 'energy' industry. While yes they made a shitton of taxes when they 'repealed' prohibition, they'd also eliminated private and local brewing (which were the threat), which also lead to the elimination of local energy industry through the production of alcohol (As Henry Ford had said: 'But there's a still in every town.' which became no longer true after prohibition.) The only exception to this until the 80s was wine, the sole type of liquor that could be legally brewed at home.

      If you look deeper into the issues surrounding prohibition the world over, you'll see machiavellian machinations meant to further large-scale interests at the expense of local interests. There's no reason we couldn't today be manufacturing almost all needed materials locally, and while in many cases it currently wouldn't offset the cheaper labor/fuel costs to reach you, long-term it could mean less money leaving local communities allowing them to be more self sustaining, something which is against every tenant of big business, especially as it exists today.

  42. C++ Class Declaration Missing ending semicolon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A single missing semicolon at the end of a class declaration compiled but generated a linker error.
    Stupid mistake, several hours locating.

    Anonymous, cause programmers never make mistakes!

  43. What's the connection ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... between the bust and TOR?

    The indictment, which cited e-mails sent among the men dating back to 2006, didn't say how investigators managed to infiltrate the site or link it to the individuals accused of running it.

    For all we know, they slapped a GPS tracker on some customer or employee. Or a drug-sniffing dog alerted while driving by the location.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  44. Re:See, punctuation IS important after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try "TOR-using", not "TOR using"

    Panda enters a restaurant. Eats, shoots, and leaves.

  45. Re:Silk Road isn't an "online narcotics storefront by nu1x · · Score: 1

    Dude, this is not about silkroad, but an other site. Find out what it is yourself.

    --
    I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
  46. Re:Thank God they stopped LSD! by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Steve Jobs, Jimi Hendrix, Aldous Huxley...

    All dead.. obviously from LSD

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  47. Editing for.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For bloody hell's sake! Who wants to edit for a pond of vicious piranhas anyway? I advise having not coffee, but something more like whiskey or laudanum before such daring, daunting tasks. There be much wickedness here.

  48. technically incorrect, also by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Ars Technica is also at fault: neither LSD nor ecstacy are narcotics; they're psychedelics.

    Narcotics put you to sleep, y'know....

                  mark

  49. What a waste of time. by NeverSuchBefore · · Score: 1

    More wasted time and taxpayer dollars throwing people in prison over things that shouldn't be illegal to begin with...

  50. Re:The Hyphen is your friend by hairyfish · · Score: 1

    Or the importance of knowing apostrophes/spelling as in:

    Understanding the difference between knowing your shit, and knowing you're shit.

    Aren't they the same thing? ie you have to know your shit to know you're shit

  51. You guys are WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You guys are all wrong about why they were busted. Read the federal indictment, it goes way more in depth.

    TOR was NOT why they got busted. It originally started as an email address at hushmail. The idiots thought hushmail was secure, but they gladly hand over information to the fbi. Next they didn't use any encryption with emails til the end, when it didn't matter.

    The main reason they got busted was they accepted PAYPAL and WU. That is the stupidest payment processor you could ever use. A mole infiltrated the inner circle, as the owners of the site were also the ones selling the drugs. They were sloppy and its their fault. It operated since 2006 though.

  52. Re:The Hyphen is your friend by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

    No they aren't. Jeez do I really have to explain the joke? Is American education really that bad? I know you guys like to mangle things like spelling, but really?

    To "know your shit" implies you have a great understanding of something.
    To "know you are shit" implies you're a low life.

    Whilst not mutually exclusive, they are not the same thing at all.