Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

After Over a Year of Police Action, Dark Net Black Markets Still Growing

Posted by Soulskill on from the waiting-for-the-war-on-drugs-to-go-digital dept.

When the original Silk Road was shut down in 2013, it provided definitive evidence that federal law enforcement was targeting online black markets. Later, after the fall of Silk Road 2.0 and the Evolution Market's admins running off with their customers' money, you might have expected people to become more wary of dark net markets — but that doesn't seem to be the case. The number of products being bought and sold is up significantly since last year, and it's quadrupled since the original Silk Road fell. "The most enduring institution on the Dark Net is Agora. Founded in December 2014, amid the rubble of Silk Road's fall, Agora now accounts for 37 percent of all Dark Net product listings. It's a drug-heavy market with substantial supplies in marijuana, ecstasy, prescription drugs, and stimulants—and nearly any other drug you can imagine."

87 comments

  1. Dark by ArcadeMan · · Score: 0

    Maybe all of the negative association was the reason Darkcoin changed its name to Dashcoin?

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    1. Re:Dark by jwinterm · · Score: 1

      Darkcoin changed its name to Dash, sans the 'coin'. There was already a preexisting Cryptonote-based currency called Dashcoin when Darkcoin made the switch.

    2. Re:Dark by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Oh well, that sure clear things up then. /Facepalm

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  2. The dark Net is Growing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Growing to the point that we get Slashvertisments for Agora on the front page

  3. 'Dark Net'... very funny by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    The honey tastes sweet, doesn't it?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:'Dark Net'... very funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah very, but it's hard to wash the LEO aftertaste.

  4. Bigger != Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not condoning the trade in illicit goods or services by any means. The way to "get around" the law is to change the law. Don't let technological workarounds fuel apathy if you want things to change.

    That said, if you're going to participate in that marketplace, stay far, far away from the big players. The smaller ones may be less of a known quantity, but they tend to be less of a target too. The same was true of music sharing services -- the more popular, the more likely they were to get targeted and shut down, and the more likely you were to get sued as a user. If everyone's saying to one thing, then you can be sure that's the last thing you want to use.

    1. Re:Bigger != Better by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The way to "get around" the law is to change the law.

      You cannot change the law without public support. One way to get public support for repeal is to show that a law is dysfunctional. If drug prohibition laws actually worked, did what they were designed to do, and had fewer bad side effects, then support for repeal would be much weaker. We are better off if people buy their drugs online, then if they get them on street corners. The only people harmed by these online markets are the drug dealers, the police, and the incarceration industry.

    2. Re:Bigger != Better by Z00L00K · · Score: 0

      The trouble is that what the authorities did was to bring down the marketplace, not track the sellers - the money.

      The primary objective when shutting down crime is to follow the money and make the crime unprofitable. That's how they did cut down Al Capone.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:Bigger != Better by moeinvt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IIRC, they got Al Capone for tax evasion.

      The best way way to make "crime" go away is to repeal stupid laws. No victim, no crime.

    4. Re:Bigger != Better by MagickalMyst · · Score: 2

      "You cannot change the law without public support."

      ...unless your name is "Bush" or you are the NSA.

      Actually, they don't change the laws; they ignore them. Nevermind.

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    5. Re:Bigger != Better by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Yep, and taxes - that's money.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    6. Re:Bigger != Better by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The primary objective when shutting down crime is to follow the money and make the crime unprofitable.

      A far simpler method is to legalize the activity so it is not a crime. The problem is not the profits of the drug dealers, but the profits from civil forfeiture, and the vast profits from the prison industry, more than $74 billion annually.

    7. Re:Bigger != Better by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      George Bush was elected by close to a majority of the people of the United States. The NSA exists due to law created by the elected legislative branch.

      Or do you mean that the people have to have approved every decision for it to have public support?

      There are a lot of people who support the *mission* of something like the NSA, while not enjoying some of the ways they go about fulfilling that mission. I suppose you could say that the warrantless wiretapping situations and dragnet on electronic communication does not have popular support, but would we directly support many of the things that we nevertheless know must exist by the nature of the mission of our intelligence agencies if we were directly asked?

      Here's some other things our intelligence agencies do: breaking and entering, obtaining foreign agents via extortion, spying on our allies and their military capabilities. They also spy on the opposition political parties in foreign countries and suggest which we should support based on our interests. Of course, we also likely have the occasional shoot out with foreign police and counter-intelligence agencies. Shall I go on?

      The fact that we do have civilian oversight and that our people do affect how we go about intelligence gathering is probably head and shoulders above the public support that you'd find in a lot of other countries.

    8. Re:Bigger != Better by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Though the public is made up of individuals and, I have seen many of them change their tune after running into some debate on the matter.

      Especially when you point out to them that despite the fact that 50% of people in burn units are there for accidents involved with making meth; then you point out that addiction rates don't change (they fluctuate but trace a pretty horizontal line).... it really does get hard to justify the benefits of drug policy.

      When you have a policy that can be directly linked as a major cause of the first wave of the HIV epidemic, that has skyrocketed prison populations, and created and funded violent gangs across the country.... all while....not even achieving its most basic goal.... most people do come around when presented with the onslaught of evidence that the current strategy is bullshit and bad for everyone.....

      Everyone except the cartels, the gangs, and the police unions whose membership lives off hem.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    9. Re:Bigger != Better by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      And Eric Garner. Taxes are regressive.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:Bigger != Better by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      That said, if you're going to participate in that marketplace, stay far, far away from the big players. The smaller ones may be less of a known quantity, but they tend to be less of a target too.

      While true, in a marketplace like that, a number of the smaller players are likely government* operatives. While hiring a hit man is likely illegal anywhere, there are legal methods for obtaining most of what you'd find on those sites -- it's just a lot more work, and significantly more public.

      *not necessarily the US government

    11. Re:Bigger != Better by jythie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is, drug laws are doing exactly what the designers intended. They were intended to be public weapons against minority groups and immigrants, as well as assist in the political careers of people involved.... of which they have been extremely successful.

    12. Re:Bigger != Better by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >George Bush was elected by close to a majority of the people of the United States.

      You mean a minority.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    13. Re: Bigger != Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and to get rid of a tax code that makes it necessary for the government to track income, thus eliminating many if the draconian reporting requirements and other oppressive measures.

      It's unfortunate that most of the more popular (as in, have think tank money behind them) suggestions are also designed to avoid taxing the wealthy pretty much at all let alone fairly.

    14. Re:Bigger != Better by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Actually, they don't change the laws; they ignore them. Nevermind.

      Doesn't matter, they won reelection after the fact. The voters approve (ie: public support). Resistance was less than feeble.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    15. Re:Bigger != Better by amias · · Score: 2

      gaining a majority is not a mandate , it is just persuading a large group.

      untill we get past the notion that one party/idiom should be in charge we will not have real democracy.

      the whole point of democracy is to have all the views represented in the choices the government makes
      not choosing one or the other every few years.

      we have only got to the point of this flip flop form one side to the other because of corporate funding of
      the major parties , its easy to fund the top two and switch between the too whilst they keep the same agenda.
      if you tried that with a proper democracy with more than a few parties it would be prohibitively expensive to
      by influence.

      IMHO government in a capitalist society should exist to protect the people from negative effects of the market, this isn't happening

      --
      [site]
    16. Re:Bigger != Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't let technological workarounds fuel apathy if you want things to change.

      Likewise, don't let delusion about our representation fuel apathy towards actually changing things by developing and supporting technological workarounds. Yes, technology doesn't cause a social change... but in the case of cannabis legalization, the social change has already happened and congress simply does not represent us. They represent big pharma, criminal cartels, and the prison industry. They want us to peacefully protest in free speech zones so long as it doesn't unduly interfere with everyday business, because this helps promote their propaganda of caring what we think of issues that aren't this season's hot election topic.

      I'll keep voting for candidates who support Instant Runoff and other ways to smash the two party system, but let's not kid ourselves about how practical it is to simply "change the law". The guys in charge aren't listening to us, and peaceful men going to prison for disobeying doesn't seem to be having the effect we'd like.

    17. Re:Bigger != Better by K10W · · Score: 1

      The way to "get around" the law is to change the law.

      You cannot change the law without public support. One way to get public support for repeal is to show that a law is dysfunctional. If drug prohibition laws actually worked, did what they were designed to do, and had fewer bad side effects, then support for repeal would be much weaker. We are better off if people buy their drugs online, then if they get them on street corners. The only people harmed by these online markets are the drug dealers, the police, and the incarceration industry.

      considering the funding, behind the scenes pressures over intrests and the privatisation of the prison system (not just the US sadly) somehow I think police and the prison industry wins the most. The goal isn't to "stop" drugs which is clear from methods of operations and who is targeted when

  5. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Haven't 'drugs' been winning the war on drugs by almost unbelievable margins more or less continually since it was declared?

    Why, if they were as dangerous as my kindly DARE officer claimed, we'd probably be living under the iron heel of a drugs occupation force right now.

    1. Re:I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by disposable60 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Like along the Rio Grande Valley? There are places outside of towns you just don't go any more.

      --
      You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
    2. Re:I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by HighBit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      yeah indeed, drug cartels have taken over in parts of Mexico and other Central / South American countries

    3. Re:I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are loosing the War on War.
      The War on Murder.
      The War on Robbery.
      We can even win the War on speeding.

      We might as well give up and move to Anarchy.

      But Anarchy. keeps loosing the war to civilization.

    4. Re:I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The actual winners:

      • police--budget and personnel increases.
      • lawyers--the lawyers always win.
      • police equipment manufacturers--where the increased budgets are spent.
      • private prison owners--constant supply of inmate and inmates are profit.
      • manufacturers --constant supply of slave labor, better known as inmates.
      • small business--they don't have to pay ex-cons as much.
      • drug testing companies--big brother.
      • politicians--winning elections because they win elections by being tougher on crime, (drugs), that the other guy.
    5. Re:I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Depends on what you consider "Winning". Sure, something like 85% of US citizens have tried marijuana and it's now not uncommon for presidents to admit to marijuana and cocaine use in their past (But they'd never do it NOW, oh no!) But it's a huge windfall for privatized, for-profit prison systems and an excellent tool for oppressing minorities in ever-greater numbers. It's also been wonderful for anyone with an agenda of eroding the bill of rights and militarizing police forces. I'd go so far as to speculate that the difference between being president and not being president, for the last three presidents, was that they didn't get caught. Naturally that depends on exactly how much of what they had on them at any given time, but all 3 seem like the kind of people who'd have a pretty decent stockpile of stuff they like. And if you're a black dude, misdemeanor possession can easily be turned into multiple felonies.

      So yeah, sucks for the average citizen, awesome for the people who actually make the laws.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    6. Re:I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by avandesande · · Score: 1

      I drive over the Rio Grande pretty regularly- care to go into a little more detail?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    7. Re:I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      You missed a big one:
      drug cartels -- when it's illegal, you drive up the price and limit the number of sources, which also limits the big players to those who operate without regard for the law in general.

    8. Re:I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by doramjan · · Score: 1

      Someone's losing the war on spelling...

    9. Re:I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by jythie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do not forget another big winner, retrogressive social reformers. The war on drugs has been a powerful tool in keeping racism alive while 'proving' it is all their fault in the first place and that brown people are simply too weak willed to join polite society.

    10. Re:I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by chihowa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't go there because of the war on drugs, not the drugs themselves. The US became a much safer place when the war on alcohol was abandoned and the world will be a safer place when the war on drugs is abandoned.

      Black markets create a criminal element, so it's important policy to only use prohibition when absolutely necessary (contract killing and the like). The war on drugs have killed more people and caused more economic damage than drugs ever have.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    11. Re:I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by sjames · · Score: 1

      And Arizona.

    12. Re: I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Weird, when I went through DARE about 17 years ago they didn't lie to us at all. They taught us about the perceived effects and the actual effects. They taught us how addiction can ruin lives. They never made drugs out to be a boogeyman. They only came close to doing that with crack, meth and ecstasy. They made it clear that it was up to the individual wether they abuse or enjoy in moderation or just abstain. Maybe the teachers were stoned?

    13. Re:I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... you drive up the price and limit the number of sources ...

      Driving the price up should, according to economics, increase the number of sources (vendors). The number of sources is limited because the police attack the low-hanging fruit, creating a monopoly. The US RICO and civil forfeiture laws were then created to bust these monopolies. Then the drug cartels used vertical integration (eg. freight company) to protect the merchandise and the money while the police used the laws to steal from law-abiding citizens.

    14. Re:I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      It's not just the private prisons that profit. The correctional officers' unions lobby relentlessly against any legislation to reduce federal prison sentences. It's perverse.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    15. Re:I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Cartels win, law-abiding citizens still lose.

    16. Re: I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting convicted of a drug offense also ruins lives.

  6. Whack-a-mole by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Black markets pop up when free markets aren't available. Legalizing drugs would do wonders for the economy. Not only do we spend a heap of money on the war on drugs: militarized police, overburdened legal system and oversaturated prisons, but then there's also the costs in terms of innocent bystanders who are injured or killed in this war. Over 70,000 people have been killed by drug cartels in Mexico alone. How do a lot of terrorists fund their activities? By selling heroin. If they were available for over-the-counter purchase at a reasonable price, like alcohol & tobacco are, it would make a whole world of problems disappear. That's not to say that there wouldn't be new problems in terms of addiction, but these problems would be minor in comparison to the ones we have now.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:Whack-a-mole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A militarized police is the goal.

      Also, free heroin in ulimited quantities for anyone who wants it. Problem self-corrects.

    2. Re:Whack-a-mole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Addiction rates pretty much universally drop in places where legalization/decriminalization are implemented.

    3. Re:Whack-a-mole by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While complete legalization has its downsides, the current drug prohibition and resulting paramilitary law enforcement response, not to mention everything else associated with the "War on Drugs" is far, far worse on so many levels. I'd go so far as to say the only way you could even remotely consider the War on Drugs as successful would be if your goal was to criminalize large swathes of the population, while putting them under a militarized, invasive police state where things like privacy and other rights are on the road to becoming a distant memory.

      Yes, there would be problems with addiction, just like there are now with alcohol and tobacco. It would also be far, far less costly to deal with those than with the negative affects of drug prohibition.

    4. Re:Whack-a-mole by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      "Laws too severe are seldom obeyed" -Ben Franklin.

      Addicts by definition will put themselves at risk unreasonably, so you have to be a fool to think addicts would stop even if you passed a law where the punishment was a shortening of their lifespan or torture them so badly it leaves them with permanent medical conditions! ( like the drugs already do to them on their own. )

      The simple solution is to destroy the black market (which is about as free market as you get; it exists outside regulation...) you simply have a no strings attached free socialized drug service with minimal safety regulation.

      Nobody would pay on the black market when they can go to the local free clinic and sit in a padded room and shoot up without any risks aside from what the drug does. It would be much cheaper but it also would likely cause another banking bailout since billions of laundered dollars would disappear... not that we'd not have more billions in savings from shrinking the police state to bail the banks out...

      We may as well forget actually fixing anything that makes big bankers bug bucks. In the USA, the Mexican drug cartels should incorporate and just buy some politicians and "think tanks" to ensure nothing ever is solved.

      Do not forget the drug research that shows unhappy people are way more prone to addiction...

      --
      Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
    5. Re:Whack-a-mole by swb · · Score: 1

      I question how bad the "addiction" problem would actually be.

      I think some subset of the population may be prone to abusive use of opiates, but I would bet that most would settle into a maintenance habit that might technically be called addiction but wouldn't otherwise be a major obstacle to living a more or less normal life.

      And that's of people who actually would find the effect pleasant. I've known many people who *complain* about opiates they get after surgery -- "it makes me too sleepy", "it makes me kind of sick to my stomach" -- "I don't like the way it makes me feel". I think there's a fair amount of people who just would never develop a habit at all because they find it dysphoric in some way or other.

      I had major hand surgery about a year and a half ago and was on oxycodone for about six months. On paper, I was supposed to be taking about 50 mg per day but at that level I was just foggy and dragging and I found it to be unsustainable. It was easier to take it as needed (chewing a 5 mg tablet brought fairly quick relief). And while it brought a pleasant euphoria, when the meds ran out I just walked away from it and never had a craving or a desire for it.

    6. Re:Whack-a-mole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Black markets pop up when free markets aren't available. Legalizing drugs would do wonders for the economy.

      Not true. Most markets are neither black nor free. Many people argue that one of the advantages of legalizing drugs would be that they could be taxed, raising revenue for the government.

      A totally legal, unregulated, and untaxed market in drugs is a fantasy. Dark markets are the closest we'll see to this in our lifetimes.

    7. Re:Whack-a-mole by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      I also don't think legality factors into it massively, particularly if it's legalized with the facts about safety and addiction clearly marked on the package.

      The reason I don't get up in the morning and smoke heroin has nothing to do with the law, it's very similar to the reason I don't start the day with a double whisky - it's because it wouldn't have a positive impact on my life. Generally nobody believes they'll be caught anyway - there might be a little novelty at first, but by and large the people who want to abuse opiates are already abusing opiates.

    8. Re:Whack-a-mole by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      Similar experience here. On several occasions I was given demerol in a hospital. The first two or three times it was like the best buzz ever. All my pain was gone and I was floating on a happy cloud of bliss fog. After that the next few times i got no pain, bliss and nausea like a boat ride in 12 foot waves. Never really enjoyed it once the nausea hit. Maybe if i took gravol first.....

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    9. Re:Whack-a-mole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they were available for over-the-counter purchase at a reasonable price, like alcohol & tobacco are, it would make a whole world of problems disappear

      You just don't get it, do you? Me and the rest of the leap-to-judgement minority have a real issue with you just doing as you please all by yourself without bothering anyone. Though I think we should just exterminate your kind of filth, most of us seem to feel that keeping you as miserable as possible by blocking your self-autonomy over your own body is sufficient.

    10. Re:Whack-a-mole by swb · · Score: 1

      I think you're right if you're talking about who would start using opiates if they became legal tomorrow -- most people who don't abuse them now wouldn't rush out to abuse them tomorrow just because they became legal.

      That being said, I think there would have to be limits on what big pharma could do in terms of advertising and marketing. Considering the kinds of ad pushes you get for Naproxen or other drugs, I could see Big Pharma being less than honest about the risks and subtly hooking people.

      If it was free of marketing and had clear instructions (how much to take, how much you could take before you ran the risk of it being physically habit forming based on actual known data like biological half life, etc) it would probably steer clear of any kind of naive addictions of people who may be physically prone to addiction but simply lack the interest or personality to seek it out.

    11. Re:Whack-a-mole by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's also the current problem of getting reasonably pure drugs at a known efficacy. If the drugs were legalized, they could be regulated, so we could be sure that our LSD was actually LSD, and of a known dosage. It seems very likely that this would eliminate a lot of medical problems associated with drugs.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. Police are afraid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe Police are afraid of taking action against dark net black markets? Societal pressure?

  8. Angora is lacking by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

    I can't find anyone selling SuperCool or Glint in any form; powder, gel, runtime-capulets, particulary-waveform, in-grease suspension, toenail suppositories, etc.

    --
    This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    1. Re:Angora is lacking by un1nsp1red · · Score: 1

      I'll trade you some Glint for some Gleemonex

    2. Re:Angora is lacking by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      I'll trade you some Glint for some Gleemonex

      Are either of those like Plutonian Niborg?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  9. We've seen this before... by Thaelon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The exact same thing happened in the '90s with online purchasing.

    At first everybody thought it was crazy. "Who would give their credit card details to people over this new fangled Internet thing?" There were legitimate businesses and total scams. But things grew and grew, and now nobody bats an eye about one click purchasing on Amazon.

    I figure this will go the same way. Right now it's the wild west, but things will settle down and eventually nobody will bat an eye about spending a few doge on an impulse.

    --

    Question everything

  10. It's a demand-side problem ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... and we can't fix that.

    As long as people want stuff, someone's going to supply it.

    It's not a war, it's whack-a-mole.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:It's a demand-side problem ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and we can't fix that.

      As long as people want stuff, someone's going to supply it.

      It's not a war, it's whack-a-mole.

      Supply-side economics... A supply of any good or service will create is own demand. Macro-econ 101, it's called Say's Law
      As long as there are intoxicants, there will be a demand for them. It's not the doper's fault that heroin is way better than whiskey and cigarettes.

    2. Re: It's a demand-side problem ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's bullshit, if that was true there would never be a glut in a market.

      People want to have altered states of mind, and we are not the only animals that do, we just come up with more creative ways since we outlaw the naturally occurring plants.

      Demand is why drug use exists.

    3. Re:It's a demand-side problem ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Supply-side economics

      I don't care how many tons of frosted elephant dung cereal you put on the market, demand will remain minimal.

  11. I don't get this by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    I read a little about how this system works because it seemed soooo sting-able. It turns out nope, they send their shit through the mail. THE MAIL! The US postal service. I have an idea. Put a drug sniffing dog at every USPS hub. Problem solved. 100% of packages intercepted. Why the hell aren't they doing this?!

    1. Re:I don't get this by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 2

      Erm, would not work, they are super careful to double airtight bag shit.

      And not just USPS, stuff gets sent in the mail international, passing through customs of numerous countries, still undetected.

      --
      You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
    2. Re:I don't get this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's waste more money trying to control people's lives! Let's also force drug users to go to even more dodgy sources for their drugs! The number one cause of death amongst drug users is taking contaminated drugs, so let's have more of them die. It's for the sake of goodness and morality! Why the hell aren't they doing this?!

    3. Re:I don't get this by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I am sure you are right. The criminals would adapt quickly there are plenty of inexpensive packaging materials that could be used which be sufficient to defeat detection by a dog. The biggest challenge for drug packers would probably be developing handling protocol to avoid contaminating the outer packaging with product.

      That does not need to be perfect either just 'pretty good' assuming the postal service/government deployed a detective device more sensitive than a dog it would have to be tuned down otherwise the false positive rate would be insane.

      Did the guy working packing at the Amazon roll a J before coming to work? Think that canabis oil from his skin won't transfer in some quantity to the absorbent porous cardboard he handles?

      I doubt TSA style x-ray scanning would work well either, I don't know how you could distinguish drugs from many perfectly legal frequently shipped substances. Its a difficult problem unless you are willing to raise the costs of parcel shipping to insane levels to pay for manual inspections and all the abuse, theft, and fraud that will entail

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:I don't get this by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You used an illegal scenario, but how about these:

      Did the guy working packing at the Amazon eat a poppyseed-lemon muffin on his coffee break? Instant FP (goes for inhalers too, btw).

      Did someone who handles large amounts of cash also wrap a package? There's likely trace amounts of cocaine present on the outside of the package then.

      Did someone wrap a package after their macrame class or civil war re-enactment? Oils from the rope will likely cause an FP.

      There are so many drugs out there that to test for all of them means you're also detecting perfectly safe items such as hemp, poppy seeds, etc. as well as traces of illegal items that just happen to be smeared over a significant portion of publicly used cash.

      You know those swabs they take in Airport Security? Those don't test for the majority of drugs or explosives, only a select few. And the sensitivity is turned down quite a bit. Otherwise, anyone who had been around, say, fertilizer, would set the thing off every time they flew.

    5. Re:I don't get this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe other causes of death include "free hits" that are designed to get the user hooked, and people running out of money and killing themselves out of despair. Both of those could be mitigated better through regulation than through prohibition.

    6. Re:I don't get this by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Why the hell aren't they doing this?!

      It would kill the market!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:I don't get this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there was an effective way for drugs to get found, I would just send out tons junk mail rubbed with coke or whatever substance I was supplying. Effectively DDOS the post office. Eventually they would be choked up and stop, and the real packages would start going through. There's just no way to stop this.

    8. Re:I don't get this by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      there was a thread about this last time dark-net markets were discussed on /., there is a law against drug sniffing or any other type of detection method against US postal items, it relates to an unlawful search, i.e. each parcel is the same as a car or home search, unlawful unless probable cause or a warrant.

    9. Re:I don't get this by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt some dumbass that's the equivalent of a darknet ebay seller can reduce the particle count to below what a dog can sniff.

  12. and nearly any other drug you can imagine by neo-mkrey · · Score: 2

    I don't know about that, I can imagine quite a bit.

    1. Re:and nearly any other drug you can imagine by neminem · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Do they have ThreeEye from the Dresden Files? Spice melange from Dune? Glitterstim from Star Wars? Jet from Fallout?

    2. Re:and nearly any other drug you can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I'm wondering what happens if one were to blend melange and glitterstim in the experimentally-determined proper dose. What would the effects be on a typical person?

    3. Re:and nearly any other drug you can imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure that if you bought ThreeEye over the Internet then either the ThreeEye or your Internet connection would stop working. Magic is like that.

  13. let em be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seriously, why is it such a big deal? the world is facing possible nuclear war. and we have the time and resource to focus on the "dark net". which is mostly comprised of people that want to safely purchase their medications?
    priorities, people... priorities.
    and the war on drugs has been extremely successful? oh that's right, it created some of the most notorious drug mobs in world history. mexico is now a very wonderful and safe place to travel, all because of the grand gods behind the war on drugs.
    God help us all.

  14. Dark matter black markets? by CryoKeen · · Score: 1

    For a second I thought the title said Dark Matter Black Markets still growing like wow people are trained the stuff on the black market? Wow

  15. I hate Illinois Grammar NAZIs... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Thank God the Grammar NAZIs lost the war!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  16. The "war on drugs" is still an abysmal failure by gweihir · · Score: 1

    No surprise. Has been running almost a century now, no positive effects, but a lot of negative ones. To any sane person that would suggest it was not a good idea in the first place, but, quite obviously, its proponents are insane.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  17. AOL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because law enforcement continues to use their AOL email accounts to log in to dark sites?

  18. works as designed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sounds like you're saying potus office self-selects for people w/aptitude for not getting caught or at least protecting their plausible deniability if they do?

    film at 11...

  19. Shutup about DOGEcoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is nothing special about dogecoin. BTC serves all its purposes and more.
    You stupid clone coiners are wasting efforts.

    1. Re: Shutup about DOGEcoin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up about BTC. It's only purpose is to trick people into buying it.

  20. Behold! The power of capitalism and corruption! by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    By making drugs illegal, they become expensive and create a pool of dark money which can then be rerouted to:

    1) Banks ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... )
    2) Federal agencies and lobbyists ( http://www.thenation.com/artic... )
    3) Three letter agencies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... )
    4) Local police ( http://my.chicagotribune.com/#... ) where traffic stops are now an entrepreneurial opportunity, as in "I had a thought about drugs, so give me all of your money."

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  21. Other Agencies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ATF is probably putting many crates of guns on there for sale.
    The FBI most likely stuffing those 'dark' markets full of drugs.
    And the TSA? Well someone has to buy those rape and snuff pornos...