Slashdot Mirror
Ross Ulbricht's Lawyer Says FBI's Hack of Silk Road Was "Criminal"
First time accepted submitter apexcp writes Trading blows with the prosecution, defendants for accused Silk Road mastermind Ross Ulbricht continues to press for the exclusion of evidence seized during what he says is an illegal hack an awful lot like the one that got Weev 15 months in prison. "The government posits two standards of behavior: one for private citizens, who must adhere to a strict standard of conduct construed by the government, and the other for the government, which, with its elastic ability to effect electronic intrusion, can deliberately, cavalierly, and unrepentantly transgress those same standards. Yet neither law nor the Constitution permits rank government lawlessness without consequences."
"To declare that in the administration of criminal law the end justifies the means to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure conviction of a private criminal would bring terrible retribution."
"Our government... teaches the whole people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Silk Road Kingpin or not, I'm rooting for Ross here. The fact of the matter is that the Government has made a habit out of adopting these types of double standards and ignoring the civil rights that are guaranteed to us as citizens of the United States. If Ross' legal team can bring the government down a notch or two, I'll be forever grateful to them.
Depending on the situation that can actually be true. Classified documents, for example, are classified on the authority of the President. This means that if he decides to declassify something he doesn't have to go through any official procedures. So if Obama says something that's classified in a speech he hasn't broken the law. He's not above the law. He is the law. Literally.
Americans are under this absolutely bizarre impression that the Constitution is designed to be fair. That is ridiculous BS. The Constitution is designed to allow South Carolina to use the majority of it's female population as sex slaves (seriously, prior to the 20s most South Carolinians were black, and in 1789 the only thing stopping a black woman from being a sex slave was the good will of the highest bidder). It was passed largely because the previous set of governing documents (the Articles of Confederation) had not given the central government enough power to effectively steal Ohio from the Indians.
The fact that, with major additions, and an awful lot of motivated reasoning; it can be used to run a country that is vaguely fairish does not magically make every single clause of the damn thing fair.
I guess at this point we are finding out just exactly where the limits of "government of the people, by the people, for the people" really are.
[nothing else needs to be said]
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Today on Slashdot I learned that the only purpose of the constitution is to allow sex slaves in South Carolina and make it possible to steal Ohio from the Indians.
Thanks for that valuable analysis. No, no, don't bother with any citations, they aren't even remotely necessary. I'll just assume that Article V is all about sex slaves in South Carolina. Or the Ohio thing, whatever. I'm sure it's one of the two, anyway. I'll teach this to any child I can find. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go educate Facebook.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Who said anything about only? That's a straw man.
As for cites, I will note that the Constitution could not have been passed if South Carolina had any reason to believe the north could deprive it of it's sex slaves, therefore the document must have been designed specifically to allow SC to keep it's sex slaves.
I will also note that the first thing the new government did was recruit a Legion of the United States to conquer Ohio.
You don't seem to understand what "cite" means. Or "designed specifically".
I'll get you started on that second one with a hint: "Specifically designed for X" is not synonymous with "Not specifically designed for not X".
But it was never proven.... you can't argue "obvious" because brains are different.
Obvious to me is not merging into traffic going 25mph in a 70mph freeway... but today someone did just that, then flipped me the bird when I honked and slammed on my brakes.
Obvious to me is letting other people do what they want if they are not bothering society or killing people/raping/etc..... Yet some Alaskan Trooper will follow a group of teenagers 6 hours into the brush and bust them the instant they light a joint in the middle of nowhere.
But idiots block the fast lanes every day and utter things like "leave earlier" when I'm leaving work and trying to get home in time to see my family before bed..... Even though the road is 100% completely open in front of them, they aren't in the slightest hurry and refuse to move and let me exist at my pace.
I used to have a Grandpa that would drive 25mph and hold up traffic for miles behind us on single lane 55mph roads, then on the other hand complain about how the young people working 2 jobs and going to school are never on time.
I use car stories because cars to me involve simple human behavior that is *obvious* to me. Drive or move over and let me drive. Same speed, same lane. These are basic principles yet I see people that call themselves intelligent enough to lock me away, lacking any insight or logic that isn't self-centered. Sharing something to them is basically hogging 100% of something and bitching the second someone else complains. Those that aspire to nothing and lead boring lives can downright hold up and block those that are rushing between opportunities that grow the city. Society is okay with that which is mind boggling. I'm not asking to kill slow people or harm them.... Just the right to ignore them and *pass* by. But my own damn movement is not even my freedom around these people.... How could we *EVER* expect any form of society that blocks speed (progress) to ever go anywhere? It's like asking ants to answer philosophical questions....
If I can't even move at my own pace, freedom is non-existent!!!!! There is not a further higher level discussion possible.
You're missing the point. I'm not saying convict people without a trial. I'm saying have the trial, throw out no evidence on the grounds that it was collected improperly, and then try not only the accused but also the police in the event that they are apparently in violation of laws themselves.
The current status quo is that if the police break the law trying to catch you break the law then the evidence against you can't be used because the police didn't collect it properly. That is wrong. two wrongs do not make a right.
Two wrongs make two wrongs.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
One part you missed in this whole thing, as mrchaotica pointed out in his subject below: There was no warrant sought; let alone signed. The feds performed a potential act of war to gather the data by hacking into a server on foreign sovereign soil without direct authorization from either Congress or Presidential approval, and most certainly without the prior authorization of the country where the server is located. In this case the three letter organization involved went rogue, and imho completely botched this case, and Ross's lawyers are right in their attempt to get the evidence repressed. In reality heads need to roll for this within the organisation that overstepped its jurisdictional bounds, and the rolling heads must be done in complete view of the public.