Silk Road 2 Founder Dread Pirate Roberts 2 Caught, Jailed for 5 Years (vice.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Silk Road 2 Founder Dread Pirate Roberts 2 Caught, Jailed for 5 Years (vice.com)

Posted by msmash on Friday April 12, 2019 @02:03AM from the end-of-road dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: In 2015, WIRED published a list of the 'dark web drug lords who got away.' That list included the Dread Pirate Roberts 2 (DPR2), the creator of the second Silk Road site, which launched almost immediately after the FBI ended the first with the famous arrest of founder Ross Ulbricht. Under DPR2, Silk Road 2 went on to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars a day. The FBI shut that one down too and arrested its remaining administrator. By that time, DPR2 had already passed ownership of the site on and, publicly, it looked like he had evaded prosecution.

But today, a court in Liverpool, England, sentenced Thomas White, a technologist and privacy activist, for crimes committed in part while running Silk Road 2 under the DPR2 persona, among other crimes committed under another persona. White pleaded guilty to drug trafficking, money laundering, as well as making indecent images of children, and was sentenced to a total of 5 years and 4 months in prison. White's arrest took place in November 2014, but the case has remained largely under-wraps because of the UK's strict court reporting rules, which prohibit journalists from covering cases before their conclusion. This is to stop suspects facing "trial by media," and in order to let cases run their course.

95 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

What? Caught?! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 02:09 · Score: 5, Funny

Inconceivable!
1. Re: What? Caught?! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  Mustn't have been using For. You'll never get caught on Tor, a friend told me so.
See? This is what happens by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 02:19 · Score: 0

To people who live as if the Internet and computers were the only reality, and "privacy advocate" largely means egoist with a minor technical bent who paid people to hide all of his illegal shit.
1. Re: See? This is what happens by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  I thought maybe it was a misspelling and that they were a piracy advocate.
  The privacy community needs to clean up their act. Outright criminals should not be prominent members.
2. Re: See? This is what happens by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  And government officials. They need privacy, talk to Assange about how much politicians don't won't to operate in the light.
Re:What? Caught?! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 02:21 · Score: 0

heh.
Third times a charm? by alvinrod · 2019-04-12 02:21 · Score: 0, Flamebait

If we've learned anything from all of the major drug kingpins that have been taken down over the years, it's that putting them in jail will stop the drug trade. Anyone taking bets on how long it takes for someone to start calling themselves Dread Pirate Roberts 3 assuming it hasn't happened already?
1. Re:Third times a charm? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  >If we've learned anything from all of the major drug kingpins that have been taken down over the years, it's that putting them in jail will stop the drug trade.
  Good point! Let's expound that logic a little more:
  If we've learned anything from all of the major money launderers that have been taken down over the years, it's that putting them in jail will stop money laundering.
  If we've learned anything from all of the major child pornographers that have been taken down over the years, it's that putting them in jail will stop child pornography.
  I mean, why bother? You think arresting this one guy is going to stop these crimes? Foolish!
  
  White’s motivation was a mix of financial gain and power, Chowles believes. Chat logs between White and Benthall said White planned to start a paid-for child pornography site to make money, Charles said. White would tell Benthall to work on a UK timezone and write in a particular way, the investigator added.
2. Re: Third times a charm? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  Clearly, we shouldn't beer prosecuting murderers our muggers either. Sadly, some retarded progressives truly believe that.
3. Re:Third times a charm? by BringsApples · 2019-04-12 02:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  They fucked it up when they called it "Dread Pirate Roberts II". It was supposed to stay Dread Pirate Roberts, from person to person.
  Also, people can still buy drugs, despite the fact that there are thousands of drug dealers in prison already.
  There are drugs that people can legally purchase, made by drug dealers that know how to bribe, I mean lobby, the government.
  In states where marijuana has been made legal for recreational use, no one selling marijuana is considered a drug dealer.
  The drug dealers are all made up. The drugs are all made up. The whole thing is a sham. ARRRRRG!
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
4. Re:Third times a charm? by Austerity+Empowers · 2019-04-12 03:12 · Score: 2
  
  He probably means a lot of money was wasted putting this guy in jail for a crime that doesn't necessarily hurt anyone else.
5. Re:Third times a charm? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  making indecent images of children
  Nope, no harm at all.
6. Re:Third times a charm? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  Well, if that's what he meant, it's a stupid take.
7. Re:Third times a charm? by vux984 · 2019-04-12 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  "It was supposed to stay Dread Pirate Roberts, from person to person."
  That only works if the previous one isn't caught and convicted.
8. Re:Third times a charm? by PPH · 2019-04-12 03:46 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  In states where marijuana has been made legal for recreational use, no one selling heroin is considered a drug dealer.
  FTFY. Welcome to Seattle.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
9. Re:Third times a charm? by Z80a · 2019-04-12 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  Dread Pirate Roberts 3,4,5,6, X,X2,X3...
  Police probably will never able to get Dread Pirate Roberts Legends 3
10. Re: Third times a charm? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Beyond the child porn, let's ignore the harm of enabling identity theft worth the wholesale trade in SSNS, credit card numbers and such.
11. Re: Third times a charm? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  Except the drug war is the second biggest farce (the first being religion) ever pulled on mankind. Gov'ts worldwide have to keep pouring mass amounts of the War on (some) Drugs Kool-aid down the populace's throat, because they know if citizens ever figure out the truth, there will be hangings, and top gov't officials guarding their buttholes from Bubba in the slammer.
  What sucks for them is that the Kool-aid is losing it's effectiveness as more and more people are seeing the War on (some) Drugs as the fraud that it is. The "people" are finding out that the drug problem, and the criminal empires built on it would not be the huge thing that it is had governments not started the War on (some) Drugs.
12. Re: Third times a charm? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  Beer prosecuting? That's either the awesomest use of the law, or the worst.
13. Re: Third times a charm? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 05:12 · Score: 0
  
  Clearly, we shouldn't beer prosecuting murderers our muggers either. Sadly, some retarded progressives truly believe that.
  They must be morans.
14. Re:Third times a charm? by alvinrod · 2019-04-12 05:43 · Score: 2
  
  Not just that, but that trying to wage a war on drugs is a pointless exercise that only causes more harm than it could hope to accomplish good. Illegal drug users aren't going to seek help, but addicts who don't have to worry about going to jail just might. Never mind the stupidity of putting people in jail for something that causes no harm to anyone but themselves if it even does that. Most of the ill health effects come directly from the low-grade drugs cut with all manner of things that make them more harmful than the drug itself and the inflated prices of a black market lead to additional crime committed in order to feed those addictions.
  
  We've tried doing it this way for how many times now and when did it ever work? Now there's just a vacuum for someone else to step in and even more profit incentive to do so which just ensures that it will happen.
15. Re:Third times a charm? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, "laws" are not concrete objects, and the words we use to express ideas are all made up. That's true, but that doesn't make it a sham.
  Making drugs legal is the correct way to ensure their availability to those who desire, can afford, and will responsibly use, them. Black markets will exist, that's how people do things, but that doesn't make it right. Utilization of black markets funnels economic resources into the hands of people that break other laws as well, such as laws against killing the children of people who owe them money, etc.
  Everything good about the modern world is held together by the widespread acceptance of the laws of the land. If we just throw those aside any time they inconvenience us, we will fall back into barbarism. That sucks.
  If you want to fight the good fight, then fund a lobby, not a black-market mafia boss.
16. Re: Third times a charm? by ShanghaiBill · 2019-04-12 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  identity theft worth the wholesale trade in SSNS, credit card numbers and such.
  The solution to identity theft is not a police state and massive spending on law enforcement.
  The solution is to fix the idiotic system where mere knowledge of someone's SSN, CC# and other semi-public information is enough to establish and access credit in their name.
17. Re:Third times a charm? by BringsApples · 2019-04-12 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Closest I've been to Seattle is Puyallup. But even there, I felt like there was no expectation that the city would ever cut the grass, there were a shit-ton of homeless people that all looked strung out on heroin. This was back in like 2006. I'm from Alabama and I thought the place looked like a shit-hole of losers.
  But then I met the clients that I'd gone out to work for, and they showed me a much nicer side to things. I wanna say they took me to eat at a place named The Rock Dock? It overlooked the water where big ships came in, and across the waterway, were all of the houses of the super-duper rich folks, most of whom started Microsoft. So odd that in most all societies, surrounding a very rich area, is a very poor area.
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
18. Re:Third times a charm? by nospam007 · 2019-04-12 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  "Anyone taking bets on how long it takes for someone to start calling themselves Dread Pirate Roberts 3 assuming it hasn't happened already?"
  Hopefully, it will be one using different Starbucks instead of the WIFI of his aunt with his cheap VPN this time.
19. Re:Third times a charm? by painandgreed · 2019-04-15 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  We've tried doing it this way for how many times now and when did it ever work?
  
  Depends on what you mean by "work". The point of the war on drugs was never to reduce drug use but to give the Nixon administration and excuse to spy and arrest people.
20. Re:Third times a charm? by BringsApples · 2019-04-15 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  If 'The Dread Pirate Roberts' was caught, then why does his mischief continue? ...Do you understand the point?
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
21. Re:Third times a charm? by vux984 · 2019-04-15 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  "If 'The Dread Pirate Roberts' was caught, then why does his mischief continue?"
  Do the majority of people beleive they caught the wrong guy, or that this is a copycat? That's all that matters.
22. Re:Third times a charm? by BringsApples · 2019-04-16 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  Ahhh, I guess it's a 'hive-mentality' that doesn't seem to play much of a role in the modern world. ...which is why it's so successful.
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Re:What? Caught?! by Anubis+IV · 2019-04-12 02:22 · Score: 1

Inconceivable!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re:What? Caught?! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 02:29 · Score: 0

I keep looking for a release date of Season 3 but I can't find it. Can someone please help me find "Silk Road 3", "DPR 3", "FBI Bust 3"?
(I don't get how these things are named. Randomly?)
Which is worse? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 02:29 · Score: 0

Which is worse, trial by media or trial in secret? I'm sure that there are subtleties here that I'm missing by being an American, but I wonder...
1. Re:Which is worse? by Anubis+IV · 2019-04-12 03:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Which is worse, trial by media or trial in secret? I'm sure that there are subtleties here that I'm missing by being an American, but I wonder...
  As a fellow American, I think the subtleties you're missing here are that:
  A) Contrary to the two extremes you presented, the Brits struck a middle-ground: temporary privacy.
  B) The danger of secret courts is that they undermine actual justice by preventing the public from even having an awareness of the actions of a judiciary that is supposed to be serving their interests. In contrast, having privacy until the case concludes has no such problem, because the judiciary will be scrutinized and held to account for its actions in a timely manner.
  C) When you excuse yourself from dinner and head towards the restroom, everyone knows what you're about to do (i.e. it's not a secret), but that doesn't mean there's a camera in the bathroom that records the details of your activities in there (i.e. it's still private). The two are distinct, and privacy, even in courts, can be a good thing. There's no legitimate reason to allow voyeurs tune in to family court proceedings, nor for people's names to be dragged through the mud for crimes they didn't commit. Rather than being concerned with the false dichotomy of "trial by media or trial in secret", why not be concerned with a real problem: that "innocent until proven guilty" rings hollow if your name will forever be tied to crimes you didn't commit?
2. Re:Which is worse? by itsdapead · 2019-04-12 03:16 · Score: 2
  
  I'm sure that there are subtleties here that I'm missing by being an American
  Not very subtle - its simply not "trial in secret" by any stretch of the imagination. Journalists can and do report factually on trials in progress. Here's a random example. Just strict rules on what can be reported while the trial is in progress (e.g. no interviews with witnesses, speculating on the outcome, no photography in the courtroom etc.). The facts of the trial are a matter of public record.
  ...this one just hasn't really made the news in the UK yet.
  
  --
  In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
3. Re:Which is worse? by edi_guy · 2019-04-12 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'm going to borrow that dinner/bathroom analogy, that's way more useful than the car analogy I was dreaming up.
  The Brits don't do it all right (CCTV unleashed, Brexit, etc) but they seem eminently sane when it comes to the courts and even some campaign laws.
4. Re:Which is worse? by Anubis+IV · 2019-04-12 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  I'm going to borrow that dinner/bathroom analogy
  Yeah, I wish I could claim credit for it, but I think I picked it up from the professor for an ethics class I was TAing during grad school. It perfectly encapsulates the idea in terms that everyone understands, so it's served me very well over the years.
  
  The Brits don't do it all right (CCTV unleashed, Brexit, etc)
  Completely agree. They get a lot of stuff very wrong (as do we, just to be clear), but this is one thing they certainly do better than us.
5. Re:Which is worse? by Antique+Geekmeister · 2019-04-12 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  The Swedish do it better. Their constitution guarantees public access to government documents. Keeping documents secret is very limited, and needs very clear justification.
6. Re:Which is worse? by Antique+Geekmeister · 2019-04-12 04:04 · Score: 2
  
  Such privacy can be abused, especially by never actually holding a trial. Review the US prisoners in Guantanamo Bay for precisely what "secret investigations" provide: I'm afraid those have helped justify more terror and abuse against the USA than they've helped prevent, and we still have no evidence of court proceedings for those detainees after years in isolation.
7. Re:Which is worse? by Anubis+IV · 2019-04-12 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed, hence my use of italics in "temporary privacy" in my last comment. The "temporary" part is important. While privacy is certainly more open than secrecy, it too can be abused, as you said.
8. Re:Which is worse? by Cederic · 2019-04-12 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  The things is, nobody seems to have reported on this investigation and trial until its conclusion, which suggests non-standard reporting restrictions were imposed.
  What were they, and why?
  I fully support the normal reporting restrictions but don't like secret courts. I want to know what went on here.
9. Re: Which is worse? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously. If your entire system (govt, business, etc.) is threatened by the public knowing information, you need to make some vast improvements.
10. Re:Which is worse? by RockDoctor · 2019-04-12 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  The things is, nobody seems to have reported on this investigation and trial until its conclusion, which suggests non-standard reporting restrictions were imposed.
  What were they, and why?
  I've not investigated, since it's under a different country's jurisdiction (I live, nominally at least, in the same country. For the moment.) with a completely different legal system. But from previous cases I've paid attention to, the commonest reason for suppressing reporting of trial X is that there is also a set of charges resulting in another trial (of the same person, or other people in a related case) still going on, and the reporting of the first trial is suppressed until the end of the second trial and the expiry of the window for lodging an appeal in the second trial.
  In this case, for example, Wossname (I've already forgotten his name) was convicted of running a drug-sales website, but he may have been using an accountant to launder the money whose defence to accountancy charges was that he didn't know the illegal source of the money.
  People have been jailed in consequence of such false connections, appealed, and their initial conviction quashed (made to not exist) because of contamination of the jury by the first trial by press reporting. Then the cost of the second investigation and trial (tens of millions of pounds, potentially) was wasted. Completely wasted, because of double jeopardy.
  A nasty little bigot called Stephen Yaxley-Lennon recently got thrown in jail for repeatedly violating these reporting restrictions. Because the reporting restrictions are about reporting on the trial, not about being in any professional sense, a reporter. He's not an accredited journalist, just a YouTube reject. Specifically, he was repeatedly live-videoing from outside the court room, showing the faces of the accused and relating their alleged crimes regardless of the restrictions imposed because of 3 or 4 linked trials. So, the judge threw him in jail until the trial was finished.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
11. Re:Which is worse? by Cederic · 2019-04-12 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  The thing is the reports of the trial/conviction usually also explain why reporting was restricted - if it was.
  It's possible that this one wasn't restricted, just never reported on by anybody. The UK press aren't mentioning any reporting restrictions at all. Unless additional references are found I can only conclude Motherboard are being their usual shit selves.
12. Re:Which is worse? by itsdapead · 2019-04-12 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  The things is, nobody seems to have reported on this investigation and trial until its conclusion, which suggests non-standard reporting restrictions were imposed.
  ...or it just didn't make the "news agenda" at the time of the trial. Not every criminal trial makes headline news...
  Just because they really are out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid :-)
  
  --
  In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Re: What? Caught?! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 02:31 · Score: 0

Any meaning in there is unvisible to me
Re:Honest question. by JaredOfEuropa · 2019-04-12 02:31 · Score: 2

Conducting criminal transactions on a website.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:Honest question. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 02:35 · Score: 0

What is the supposed "crime"? Running a web site?
making child porn. Maybe you should have read the article.
Re:Honest question. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 02:36 · Score: 0

Sending "forbidden bytes". (Unless you're not aware of it, like hardware manufacturers/software companies/telcos/ISPs, or unless you're a politician or a police officer.)
Re:Honest question. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 02:40 · Score: 0

Oh really, why hasn't HSBC, Wells Fargo and Citibank been been shut down yet? They have websites and commit money laundering every freaking millisecond. Oh yeah that's right, one law for banks and threst for everyone else.
I am sparticus by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 02:43 · Score: 0

Je Sui DPR
Re:What? Caught?! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 02:45 · Score: 0

I keep looking for a release date of Season 3 but I can't find it. Can someone please help me find "Silk Road 3", "DPR 3", "FBI Bust 3"?
(I don't get how these things are named. Randomly?)
Randomly? The site and the admin handle were literally copied and assigned the next numerical number.
Is your apparent confusion meant to be sarcasm in poor disguise, or do you not understand how 2 follows 1...
Re:What? Caught?! by Austerity+Empowers · 2019-04-12 02:52 · Score: 1

One...Two...FIVE!
Well Done by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 02:56 · Score: 0

Wow, these Motherboard's articles are actually well thought out and well written. I also am cheering for the media blackout. Wish they would do that more often in the US.
This news 24-7 and opinions are news hides makes finding the real story in the and politicians and paparazzi nearly impossible.
1. Re: Well Done by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  Censorship is good, right?
2. Re: Well Done by JonnyCalcutta · 2019-04-12 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  No. Lucky this isn't censorship.
What was his cut? by chill · 2019-04-12 03:01 · Score: 1

How much did Silk Road 2 itself make? The article says "hundreds of thousands of dollars a day", but that seems to refer to the total money in transactions.
Because if DPR2 was making that amount and only got 5 years in prison, this isn't a deterrent -- there'll be long lines of people wanting to make that deal.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
1. Re:What was his cut? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  Jeez, the summary has a link to an article that reports the money that flows in the dark web markets, but you just couldn't be bothered to take the 2 or 3 minutes to click the link and read the article which answers your question.
  The point of arrests and incarcerations isn't just to create a deterrent to other future criminals, its to prevent convicted individuals from further breaking the law and to punish them for their crime.
2. Re: What was his cut? by edris90 · 2019-04-13 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  It won't be an effective deterrent anyway. The greater risk the greater the glory , the greater the motivation to take the risk. And the greater the payout for the person who take that risk and is successful. The quickest way to advertise and motivate people to rise to the challenge is to tell them they can't, and show them someone else who failed in order to learn from their mistakes.
3. Re:What was his cut? by chill · 2019-04-13 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I read the articles and, as I said in my original post, it talks about the money made by sellers, not the transaction costs imposed by the markets themselves.
  
  --
  Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 03:20 · Score: 0

Just drug trade, helping people get high, you know. He didn't kill, rape, hack DNC nor spy for Russians.
Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 03:28 · Score: 0

making indecent images of children
Re:Honest question. by squiggleslash · 2019-04-12 03:29 · Score: 2

Multiple crimes, and they're actually in the summary:

White pleaded guilty to drug trafficking, money laundering, as well as making indecent images of children,

I'm sure he used a website to do that, but that's not the same thing as saying someone was convicted of "Running a web site" any more than murdering someone is the same thing as "using cash" because the murderer bought a gun with cash.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
5 years is reasonable. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 03:29 · Score: 1

A 5 year sentence is completely reasonable for setting up an online marketplace for drugs, especially for a first time offender.
Ross Ulbricht, the original creator of Silk Road got Life+40 years, with no possibility of parole. Essentially the government decided Ross Ulbricht should die in prison. That's a horrendous and a massive abuse of government power.
The murder for hire charges were recently dropped against Ulbricht. It's unclear if Ulbricht was involved in this or not, but the Government doesn't normally drop charges they don't think they can make stick.
Personally I don't believe his lame story about how he got out, then had to get back in again. It doesn't make any sense. Ross has been dishonest about the whole thing from the start, so I wouldn't trust him. But the sentence he got is still just a crime itself. 10 years would be something more reasonable.
1. Re:5 years is reasonable. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  I think he should have got the chair for all the lives he destroyed.
2. Re:5 years is reasonable. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  Please provide evidence of the lives he destroyed.
3. Re:5 years is reasonable. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  Start from you taking drugs he sold?
Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 03:34 · Score: 0

That does seem somewhat light. Maybe he made plea deal in return for providing information to the cops on other people involved.
Re:LOL by Computershack · 2019-04-12 03:42 · Score: 1

All the crap the scumbag did...and gets only 5 years?
And he gets a life-long entry on the Sex Offenders Register and as a result has to notify Police Forces when he changes address and any time he goes for a job that requires a Criminal Record Bureau check his child abuse will show up.

--
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Re:LOL by Computershack · 2019-04-12 03:43 · Score: 2

He didn't kill, rape, hack DNC nor spy for Russians.
Nah, he just took pornographic pictures of kids and put them up on the site. At least that gets him a lifetime entry on the Sex Offenders Register.

--
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
paper CAPTCHA: stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 04:07 · Score: 0

Slashdot probably knew of this but held off publishing till now. Is this a canary.
Re:Honest question. by BlueStrat · 2019-04-12 04:25 · Score: 1, Insightful

White pleaded guilty to drug trafficking, money laundering, as well as making indecent images of children,

I'm sure he used a website to do that, but that's not the same thing as saying someone was convicted of "Running a web site" any more than murdering someone is the same thing as "using cash" because the murderer bought a gun with cash.
Yes, and we all know that a suspect facing trial for a laundry list of charges never pleads guilty to anything he has not actually done in exchange for a chance at a reduced sentence.
Nope, never happens. Not in the good ol' USA! Why, that would empower prosecutors to simply point a legal shotgun of spurious charges at anyone, guilty or not, and tell them they can get off easy if they just plead guilty to X charge(s)! The USA does not treat their everyday citizens like they were proles in some godforsaken authoritarian hellhole!
Oh, wait ...
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re: What? Caught?! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 04:49 · Score: 0

Hukd on Monix wurkd 4 me!
Too Bad He Wasnt PM by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 05:26 · Score: 0

MI5 would have covered up his predatory sexual abuse of children just like did for a former PM & Cabiney bcuz Commies Bad!
Fucking UK.
Re: What? Caught?! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 05:35 · Score: 0

I know they say Americans don't get sarcasm, but really?
Re:Honest question. by CrimsonAvenger · 2019-04-12 05:41 · Score: 2

Nope, never happens. Not in the good ol' USA
Wait! Liverpool, England is part of the USA??? When did that happen?

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Honest question. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 05:46 · Score: 0

a court in Liverpool, England
Re:Honest question. by squiggleslash · 2019-04-12 05:59 · Score: 2

Yeah, that's not what I was answering. The question was what crimes was he convicted of, with a mocking "Running a website" theory posited. I pointed out they were real crimes.
Whether he was guilty or not is another question, but that said plea deals aren't a thing in the UK to the same extent that they are in the US. One can speculate as to his motives, but the chances are he believed he would be found guilty because the evidence was overwhelming, and hoped the judge would show leniency if he plead guilty and avoided a long drawn out trial. There are few other incentives to plead guilty to a crime in the UK.
As to why he believed he would be found guilty, TFA covers some of this. One rather damning piece of evidence is that DPR2 used a key to sign incriminating messages. The private key was found on his computer:

Paul Chowles, an investigator from the National Crime Agency (NCA) who worked on the case, told Motherboard in a phone call one piece of evidence included the private encryption key belonging to DPR2 on one of Whiteâ(TM)s computers. If someone possesses the private part of a PGP key, which is used to decrypt and sign messages, it can be a good indicator that they are behind a particular online identity.

Before anyone claims "He might have been hacked", bear in mind this would have been only one piece of evidence used against him, and DPR2 would have had to have some motivation to plant false evidence against White, which seems... stretching it.
No, he's guilty.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Oh, Americans get sarcasm. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 06:06 · Score: 0

It's just that in America, people *really are* like that, so you't "get" a lot of "sarcasm" in the US too, until you'd realize they really meant it.
I mean "Vote Trump ... or Hillary!" clearly was dual-core sarcasm.
And look where we ended up with.
Re:LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 06:14 · Score: 0

great, so we're making it so the guy who is really efficient at criminal enterprise cant get a normal job at all - what could go wrong?
Re: Honest question. by JonnyCalcutta · 2019-04-12 06:27 · Score: 1

He's not in the USA, but don't let that get in the way.
No, we should *cure* them! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 06:29 · Score: 0

How are people *so* literally medically retarded, that they don't get that punishment IS the cause of crime! THE cause! For very fucking OBVIOUS reasons!
You don't even turn on your brain, and think WHY they became criminals. Or that in most cases (like taking drugs, or sharing music) they did not even harm anyone, and the only harm commited *is* the punishment.
We should 1. *prevent* people being harmed... from criminals (like our legal system too) by blocking them, and 2. *cure* any harm that happened. (That means fixing the damage in the victim AND whatever made the criminal become a criminal, so they can *both* be happy membera of our society again.)
If we cannot manage to fix a child rapist in such an intense, complete and successful manner, that he/she is trusted to care for children by his former rape victims, then WE HAVE FAILED AS A SOCIETY AND ARE STILL IN THE DEEPEST DARKEST.DEPTHS OF THE DARK AGES!
1. Re:No, we should *cure* them! by Smallpond · 2019-04-13 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  I believe "A Clockwork Orange" described just the remedy you are thinking about.
You're not good with that pseudonym thing? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 06:35 · Score: 0

Are you?
Hint: Anyone can call himself whatever he wants, on the Internet.
Ever since the UK became their lapdog. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 06:40 · Score: 0

The UK's behavior inside the (of course just as dreadful) EU hasn't been enough of a hint?
When the US said "jump", the UK jumped.
I consider "The Thick Of It" and "In The Loop" documentaries.
Re:Honest question. by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 06:51 · Score: 0

Law is imperfect, enforcement is imperfect, understanding of the facts is incomplete, etc. These truths should be self-evident.
That doesn't mean we would be better off if we threw it all to the wind. History has shown us what lawless societies look like, and it sucks.
So, even with all the imperfections that come with every inhuman endeavor, we are better off with law than without it.
(+5, Reasonable and Well-Argued) by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 07:00 · Score: 0

If you wonder how one should comment on the Internetâ¦ This is a good example.
Re:WTF? It's not like it's a club! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 07:43 · Score: 0

fuck off ivan you fake ass imitation german
"as well as making indecent images of children" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 11:36 · Score: 0

"as well as making indecent images of children"? Huh? MAKING "indecent images of children"? Does that mean he drew cartoons of kids in sexual situations? Or that he photographed real naked kids? Why is this just casually mentioned without any explanation or clarification?
UK vs USA justice by aberglas · 2019-04-12 13:42 · Score: 1

Ever wondered why the US prisons are full?
Re:What? Caught?! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-04-12 19:17 · Score: 0

What do you think he thinks it means? And what do YOU think it means?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inconceivable
"pleaded guilty" by astrofurter · 2019-04-12 19:41 · Score: 1

It appears our cousins over in limey-land also enjoy the sweet smell of coerced false confession in the morning.