
How the Feds Took Down the Silk Road Drug Wonderland - hepha1979
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/11/silk-road/
======
belorn
If this has not been posted before, its good to see that all the worries about
the tor protocol can be laid to rest.

They did not identify the server by some advanced technical hacks against tor.
They used simple basic police methods and arrested an administrator with the
use of an undercover agent posing as a drug seller. The administrator
purchased a kilo of cocaine, and by doing so, gave his home address to the
undercover agent. After interrogation, they gained user credentials that even
included DPR's private messages.

This could have easily been a episode script for the wire.

~~~
bediger4000
If simple, basic police methods sufficed here, then why the massive dragnet
surveillance the rest of us are caught up in?

Either (a) the dragnet surveillance isn't doing what it's supposed to or (b)
there's another reason for the spying.

And yes, I could be accused of whipping on the NSA no matter what, that in my
view, they're damned if they do, and damned if they don't. So what? Even if I
don't have "standing", and the NSA is doing "legal" things, and the 3 Prong
Test for Violations of Privacy hasn't been met, the NSA is still doing things
that until recently were considered grossly unamerican, a violation of the
principles that made the USA different than commie Russia.

~~~
nitid_name
You're forgetting: (c) parallel construction lead to the "simple police work"
success.

It possible that this wasn't such a cut and dry case of police work, and
instead the police were handed leads that came from the NSA work.

~~~
belorn
The differential factor of an conspiracy theory, and a plausible event is the
matter of indicating clues. In this case, there is not a single indicating
factor to point towards the conspiracy theory of parallel construction, so why
should it be considered?

An other equally plausible would be that the silk road was a false flag
operation, run by a undercover unit. Nothing points in that direction either,
but hey, it "could be" right?

~~~
aliakbarkhan
I think you're too quick to dismiss the possibility. The point of parallel
construction is that the police construct a plausible (and, more importantly,
legal) means of finding the evidence that they used in an investigation that
masks its true, illegal origin. More importantly, unlike false flags -- where
the only "evidence" for their use is the ravings of conspiracy theorists and
some internal suggestions by government officials in the 60's -- parallel
construction is a technique that we know the government uses by their own
admission.

From Reuters ([http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-
idUSBRE...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-
idUSBRE97409R20130805)):

> The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the
> investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information
> originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's
> Constitutional right to a fair trial. [...]

> After an arrest was made, agents then pretended that their investigation
> began with the traffic stop, not with the SOD tip, the former agent said.
> The training document reviewed by Reuters refers to this process as
> "parallel construction."

> The two senior DEA officials, who spoke on behalf of the agency but only on
> condition of anonymity, said the process is kept secret to protect sources
> and investigative methods. "Parallel construction is a law enforcement
> technique we use every day," one official said. "It's decades old, a bedrock
> concept."

> A dozen current or former federal agents interviewed by Reuters confirmed
> they had used parallel construction during their careers. Most defended the
> practice; some said they understood why those outside law enforcement might
> be concerned.

> "It's just like laundering money - you work it backwards to make it clean,"
> said Finn Selander, a DEA agent from 1991 to 2008 and now a member of a
> group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which advocates legalizing
> and regulating narcotics.

Given how they talk about parallel construction, it certainly sounds like it's
not an uncommon technique, so do you think it's so implausible? I'm not going
to say they did or didn't use it, because the simple fact is that I don't
know, but given that "Parallel construction is a law enforcement technique we
use every day" that is "decades old, a bedrock concept," it doesn't seem too
implausible that they would use it in such a high profile and important case.

~~~
belorn
One should not quickly to dismiss the possibility. Especially, one should keep
a eye out since the proof of parallel construction as a tool is indeed
verifiable true.

But in the mean time, one should not jump to it directly when more simpler
explanations are available. Using undercover cops to entrap drug sellers is
even older, and even more common method than parallel construction. It also
extremely simple and effective.

I would also suspect, that entrapping a first time offender, an 47 year old
administrator who sells drugs anonymously on-line from his home, to not be
very hard. Especially if the undercover cop could impersonate flawlessly
established "trusted" drug sellers by taking over their accounts, as it seems
to be in this case.

All points toward parallel construction as an something that might had been,
but in this case, is less likely to actually have happened.

------
tptacek
_Investigators staged the torture and killing — which included mock
waterboarding according to officials — and sent Dread Pirate Roberts about
half a dozen pictures, including photos depicting what they said was his
corpse._

So much for the absolutely inane "it was all a face-saving ruse" theory of the
murder-for-hire scheme.

~~~
MichaelGG
I think that "face-saving ruse" was in relation to the second "hit", which
sounded incredibly implausible. Someone says they need $500K and blackmails
DPR, then the creditor shows up and is willing to kill the blackmailer for 20%
of that? Yeah, OK.

The details on the first "hit" weren't known before, were they?

And it still doesn't invalidate the logic behind it some people were
proposing: _Given the prior that the USG will do harm to SR users and dealers_
, is it less harm to kill one person that is going to give information to the
USG? (Again, that logic only works if you take the assumption that the USG is
acting immorally and will impose a large amount of suffering onto many
others.)

~~~
tptacek
It freaks me out that anyone would believe that any amount of message board
political bullshit could justify murder. But I bet you're right.

~~~
MichaelGG
Murder is justified for all sorts of reasons. IIRC, the US was founded on a
base of murdering people over disputes on taxes and government. Treason was
(or is?) punishable by death. I'm not sure why message board political
bullshit is intrinsically less valid than "official" government or LE reasons.

Additionally, most people believe lethal force is justified in cases of
defense. It's not a huge jump of logic to view these hits as defense.

~~~
georgemcbay
"Additionally, most people believe lethal force is justified in cases of
defense. It's not a huge jump of logic to view these hits as defense."

uh, wat?

The dude was a drug dealer protecting his criminal empire. If I'm robbing a
bank and shoot a cop who is going to shoot me, is that also defense? So I
should be charged for the original crime but not for killing the cop? Because
that's pretty much what your argument sounds like to me.

~~~
MichaelGG
I'm not saying he's right and not criminally liable for his actions. I'm just
questioning why people are so confused as to why this is justifiable, in some
peoples' opinions.

As to the specific example: If someone is trying to shoot you, no one would
wonder why you shoot back. The bank robber would be held responsible because
it's his action of robbing the bank that started the whole mess.

If you were sitting peacefully in your home, and someone broke down the door
and started firing, you'd be quite justified in returning fire. (Even legally,
depending on state, AFAIK.)

Folks sympathetic to DPR are more likely to view him in the second category.
He was peacefully minding his own business running a marketplace when someone
threatened him, his buyers, and his vendors. These folks are likely to view
access to medicines as a moral action, and thus DPR and people involved with
SR to be people doing the right thing, despite an oppressive government

------
jdmitch
This seemed a bit worrying:

 _Federal agents say the use of Tor and Bitcoin were major obstacles for them
and that investigating the site was “uncharted territory” that involved a
reversal of their usual investigative methods. Instead of starting with
probable cause against a specific suspect who is already identified and then
obtaining a search warrant to collect more evidence, the investigation of Silk
Road involved collecting evidence from the site first and then trying to
identify individuals._

Sure it is "uncharted territory" in terms of the technology for maintaining
anonymous identities, but shouldn't most investigations start with evidence of
the crime and an empirical investigation into who could have committed it,
rather than starting with suspects and trying to link them with the crime?
Maybe I am naive, but sounds like dodgy criminal investigation methodology to
me...

~~~
saraid216
> shouldn't most investigations start with evidence of the crime and an
> empirical investigation into who could have committed it, rather than
> starting with suspects and trying to link them with the crime?

This might surprise you, but there are very often situations where the police
and the public are remarkably aware of the facts of the crimes being
committed, but unable to do anything about it. Drugs fall into this category.
Everyone knows that "that's where the deals go down" and "that's where they
count the money", but that's only because we're not completely stupid. Proving
direct culpability, on the other hand, is an entirely different story, as is
proving the culpability of people who matter. (Street level dealers, for
instance, are pretty interchangeable: one gets shot, you get someone else to
do his job. Ain't no thing.)

If you find a druggie on a corner, it's not exactly a stretch of the
imagination to recognize he's probably guilty of possession. It's also sort of
pointless to prosecute him, since the actual issue you're fighting is lots of
people _taking_ particular drugs, which means what you care about are the
people _managing_ the city-wide operation. You want evidence of that crime?
That's also the druggie on the corner. Half of whom can tell you exactly who
it is who manages the city-wide operation. None of which are willing to take
the witness stand to accuse him in a court of law. Because he knows that he
goes right back to that corner the next day and not only does he no longer
have someone bringing him drugs, but he's also get a bullet in his head for
the trouble.

If you want a visceral primer, watch _The Wire_.

~~~
WildUtah
_the actual issue you 're fighting is lots of people taking particular drugs,
which means what you care about are the people managing the city-wide
operation_

That is a complete non sequitur.

Actually, if you really want people to stop using drugs, arresting and
imprisoning users is the single most effective technique yet known. It's
especially effective against the middle class white population that consumes
most drugs in the USA, but it works against poor minorities and addicts, also.

And if you want to stop dealers, arresting and imprisoning retail dealers is
the most effective technique. It clears the ones that work in public or sell
to strangers out quite quickly.

Arresting the kingpins or traffickers is totally ineffective at reducing drug
use or reducing drug availability. If reducing public harm were a priority,
the kingpins and traffickers could be ignored. Once the users and retailers
are imprisoned, the bosses are out of business, anyway.

And if you do catch the kingpins and traffickers, your efforts are completely
ineffectual. There are always more kingpins in line to get rich quickly and
easily. Decades of police targeting kingpins has only seen increases in drug
availability. In fact, the faster you turn them over, the more violent the
whole business becomes.

The reason police agencies target kingpins and traffickers is because the
purpose of the war on drugs, from the point of view of police administration,
is to seize cash to fund police operations. There is no law enforcement
justification for such a policy, merely an agency budgeting justification.

~~~
saraid216
> That is a complete non sequitur.

Agreed. I'm not remotely a fan of the war on drugs or its consequences for the
prison-industrial complex or the militarization of the police.

The real root is really shitty legislation based on shitty moralizations based
on shitty philosophical grounds, the absurd nature of how the police are
funded, and the ridiculous political reality of law enforcement offices. It's
such a multifaceted problem that I'm unwilling to try to tackle it myself.

But all of this was just a handy example for why wishing for an "empirical
investigation" is not necessarily the right way to go about things.

------
Xeroday
I wonder how much of this was actually parallel reconstruction vs
"investigative research"

~~~
tptacek
How exactly would parallel construction have helped here? To effect a search,
with or without "parallel construction", you have to have probable cause.

~~~
bandushrew
the entire _point_ of parallel construction is to construct a legal
explanation for the presence of data needed for the conviction.

ie, I would use illegal means to obtain proof that you have convicted a crime,
then I would use parallel construction to provide a legal explanation for how
I obtained the proof.

iee, parallel construction is what they use when they did not have probable
cause.

I am having trouble believing that you do not understand that? what am I
missing?

~~~
tptacek
You're having trouble because you are incorrect about how parallel
construction works. Parallel construction is not the Orwellian term for simply
"coming up with a bullshit story about where you got your evidence when it in
fact came from NSA". Instead, it is the Orwellian term for "coming up with the
complicated story of what precise piece of unrelated probable cause enabled
you to effect a search that was motivated by evidence that came from NSA".
Notice that the latter definition includes some notion of some kind of
probable cause. The NSA is not PC in a "parallel construction" scenario.

~~~
bandushrew
ok, I do understand the distinction you are making.

I am not sure how you are so confident that the NSA was not at all involved in
this capture, and that parallel construction was therefore entirely
unnecessary.

When reading that article, and various other sources, one thing that stands
out is that even after arresting an administrator - which did lead to various
other arrests - they still had no direct link or identification for Ulbricht.

Ulbricht was careful enough that although the police were apparently
communicating directly with him, and arresting a number of others that were
more directly involved, there was no way for them to locate or identify him.

Note, that this remains true even after he believes that one of his contacts
has murdered someone on his behalf. He maintains the firewall between himself
and that contact.

Frankly, that is fairly impressive, he must have been a careful man.

Suddenly they find a link buried in the forever webs between a nickname he
uses and his actual name and bingo, they have him.

Now, it entirely could have gone down like that. It is completely plausible.
Most likely the link was there all along, just waiting for someone to stumble
on it.

BUT, that is rather the point of parallel construction, isn't it? to bridge
the gap between the information they have and the information that they can
present in court, in a totally plausible way.

I am not claiming the truth to be one way or the other, who knows (hell, who
cares in this case), but I am claiming that to disregard the possibility and
maintain that it is absurd is to ignore the fact of parallel construction and
the fact of its frequent use.

------
ChuckMcM
Sounds like a police thriller novel. That said, and BitCoin hitting an all
time high, is it even possible to convert BitCoin into dollars any more? I
note that the article says the agents seized over two million dollars from the
Mt GOX founder [1]. So given how many btc to dollar exchanges have been
targeted how does that work now? Western Union or something?

[1] "The seizures included $2.9 million from a Dwolla account that was
controlled by a U.S. subsidiary of Mt. Gox and $2.1 million seized from two
Wells Fargo accounts, one controlled by the same subsidiary, the other by Mt.
Gox CEO Mark Karpeles."

~~~
Synaesthesia
Yes, it's easy to convert Bitcoin to USD. You can sell them at Coinbase,
Bitstamp, LocalBitcoins and all kinds of other exchanges.

------
etler
Wow, this is the funniest thing I've read all week!

