Slashdot Mirror
Silk Road 2 Founder Dread Pirate Roberts 2 Caught, Jailed for 5 Years (vice.com)
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.
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.
Inconceivable!
Conducting criminal transactions on a website.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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.
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?
He probably means a lot of money was wasted putting this guy in jail for a crime that doesn't necessarily hurt anyone else.
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.
Multiple crimes, and they're actually in the summary:
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.
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
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.
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"
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.
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:
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.