[Chugalug] Silk Road and Bitcoins
mk6032 at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 6 10:59:05 UTC 2013
I'm not saying what he did wasn't bad or illegal... what I'm saying is
the means doesn't fit the end result.
Who really gives a flip about outright scams on a darknet illegal
trading post? I could care less about folks buying drugs online. In
fact, I think it was a good idea as it beats the heck out of the
traditional gangs doing it and the resulting turf wars. If you take one
kingpin down there's *always* another one to take his/her spot (
http://www.leap.cc/). Consider this guy's replacement... he/she may not
be so "civil" and take care of the problem in person instead of hiring a
As for the child porn cases, I agree that it's a horrible crime (more so
on the taking of the pictures/videos rather than the distribution of
them), but to intentionally insert malware to take control of a box, and
then turn around and inject more malware into the content the box serves
to uncover the locations of the visitors? These guys know better and
intentionally broke many, many laws to get the results they wanted. They
should be punished just as the hackers that've been caught from lulz,
anonymous, etc. This tells other cops that it's ok to break as many laws
as you need to as long as you get the result you're going after -- "If
the Feds can do it and not get in trouble, why can't I?"
On 10/05/2013 11:58 AM, Stephen Kraus wrote:
> The kid thought he hired a hitman. They even staged the hit and
> everything. He ran a buisness that (no matter your view on
> legalization) was illegal at the time he was arrested. Whats worse was
> he wasn't even a very competant buisnessman, his site was full of
> outright scams and he drew the ire of the FBI and IRS for it.
> Like bitcoins or not, if you are trading illicit goods, chances are
> you will get arrested
> Let him rot.
> On Oct 5, 2013 11:38 AM, "Matt Keys" <mk6032 at yahoo.com
> <mailto:mk6032 at yahoo.com>> wrote:
> I gotcha, thanks. I'll bet a chugalunch there will be blowback to
> follow. IMO the LEA actions in this instance are more criminal
> than the offender(s) they targeted. I mean c'mon... who are they
> to bitch about China's government sponsored hackers now? Stuxnet
> was one thing and questionably was worth it... but this?
> On 10/05/2013 10:35 AM, Dan Lyke wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 06:42:30 -0400
> Matt Keys <mk6032 at yahoo.com <mailto:mk6032 at yahoo.com>> wrote:
> Can someone explain to me how the FBI (or whatever gov 3
> acronym) "seized" a Tor domain? The Tor DNS resolution is
> supposed to
> be distributed to where it never reveals the actual
> location, is it
> They got to the server itself. Control the server, control what it
> For Silk Road, it looks like they found the guy through other
> For the other Tor related busts recently, they compromised one
> to deliver a worm that hit another site simultaneous with the Tor
> accesses, which gave them a correlatable IP address.
> But you
> knew that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Chugalug