Anonymous F replied with this 11 years ago, 19 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,867
@previous (C)
If the crime is committed in the United States, it makes no difference where the servers are based. Example: if a US citizen posts instructions on how to build a pipe bomb and encourages people to blow up public buildings in the United States, they will still be held accountable, even if they were using a server based in Russia.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 32 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,868
@previous (F)
sure, but they'll never be located and the fora itself won't be impacted
Anonymous F replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,871
@previous (C)
If the feds can track down drug traffickers using the deep web, an obscure online BBS will present no problems whatsoever.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 42 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,872
In 2013, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) shut down Silk Road and arrested Ross William Ulbricht under charges of being the site's pseudonymous founder "Dread Pirate Roberts". On 6 November 2013, Silk Road 2.0 came online, run by former administrators of Silk Road. It too was shut down and the alleged operator was arrested on 6 November 2014 as part of the so-called "Operation Onymous”. Ulbricht was convicted of all seven charges in U.S. Federal Court in Manhattan relating to Silk Road and was sentenced to life in prison. Further charges alleging murder-for-hire remain pending in Maryland.
> also lol @ thinking the feds will involve themselves with people telling each other to kill themselves online
If someone dies as a result of you telling them to commit suicide, the law will come after you.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 22 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,883
@previous (F)
If you actually followed that whole ordeal they only found Ross Ulbricht (who was the operator of a darknet market, not a "drug trafficker") because he was a total moron. He signed up for some forum with his real name and email address and then asked for help related to building a tor site. Then a few years later he used that same account and made it known that he ran silkroad. That's how the feds got him. Try again.
> If someone dies as a result of you telling them to commit suicide, the law will come after you.
Go kill yourself, you fucking imbecile. I really, really hope you die. I would be so happy if your computer exploded right now and started a fire, painfully burning you to death.
Anonymous F replied with this 11 years ago, 22 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,885
@previous (C) > Ross Ulbricht...was the operator of a darknet market, not a "drug trafficker"
If his market was selling drugs, he was a drug trafficker.
> Ross Ulbricht ... was a total moron.
Yes, he was. And apparently, his successors on Silk Road 2.0 didn't learn from his mistakes.
> Go kill yourself
No
> you fucking imbecile
You're in denial if you think the FBI doesn't recruit black hats to infiltrate the Deep Web. Hell, there's talk that the feds even set up certain hidden sites as honeypots.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,886
@previous (F)
You're the one who seems to think the same people going after "drug traffickers" go after people who tell others to kill themselves on the internet :') It's kind of cute, in a way.
Anonymous F replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,888
@previous (C)
The law goes after both. If it doesn't, then why has an 18 year old girl been charged with manslaughter in Massachusetts?
Do you seriously believe that the FBI can't infiltrate the Deep Web?
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,889
@previous (F)
You seem to think minichan is on the "deep web", or something? But sure, they can. Luckily for us the darknet markets are set up in a way where that absolutely doesn't matter. All messages between sellers and buyers are encrypted where only the recipient can read it, not even the market operator can. All the FBI could do is create new vendor accounts to try and lure in unsuspecting buyers, but they tend not to go after buyers. Or they could shut the website down, which they've done, but then another one just pops up. No gain.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 11 years ago, 18 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,891
@previous (C) > You seem to think minichan is on the "deep web", or something?
No. I stated that MC was just an obscure online BBS in this post.
What are you on at the moment?
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 41 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,892
@previous (F)
So why do you keep whining about the deep web, then?
Anonymous F replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,893
@previous (C)
Simply answering your remarks regarding its supposed impenetrability.
You haven't answered my questions. If the law doesn't go after suicide enablers/encouragers, why was Michelle Carter charged with manslaughter? And what are you on at the moment?
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,894
@previous (F)
Because 1) They were stupid enough to get caught 2) They lived in 'merika
And I'm on an euphoric high of freedom, since I don't like in merika
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,895
itt: Triptych neglects her school update responsibilities..
Anonymous F replied with this 11 years ago, 11 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,898
@595,894 (C)
So, you agree that the law goes after suicide inciters, regardless of how obscure the online venue is, or where its servers happen to be located.
> And I'm on an euphoric high of freedom, since I don't like (sic) in merika.
What country would that be? I know that Canada, the UK and Australia all have laws far more restrictive than the US (if you don't believe me, just run a search) to the point where posting negative comments on memorial sites can result in prison sentences. At least the US offers some degree of protection under First Amendment. By comparison, many other countries have never codified Freedom of Speech into law (again, run a search if you require confirmation on these points).
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,901
@previous (F) > So, you agree that the law goes after suicide inciters, regardless of how obscure the online venue is, or where its servers happen to be located.
> Police went through Roy’s cellphone and allegedly found a number of text messages from Carter, right up until the time he died, when she allegedly urged Roy to go through with the suicide, according to court documents
So in the article you're linking it didn't even happen online, in any kind of anonymous way. It happened through a text message from her own phone. Sure, if they just stumble across the evidence they'll act upon it. If someone tells someone to kill themselves on minichan they'd have to get the ip address of the poster somehow. For which they'd need to figure out who owns minichan, get in contact with them and deal with cross-country jurisdictions. On top of that I recall that some american judge recently ruled that ip addresses aren't identities, so there's that too.
> What country would that be
None of your business, but also none of the ones you've listed. Go kill yourself.
(Edited 53 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 11 years ago, 14 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,906
@previous (C) > some american judge recently ruled that ip addresses aren't identities, so there's that too.
The article states that the case is one exception out of thousands.
> it didn't even happen online, in any kind of anonymous way. It happened through a text message from her own phone.
Text messages are a form of electronic communication, same as email, instant messenger, online BBS etc. The point is that yes, the law goes after suicide inciters, regardless of the media, regardless of whether it's anonymous, and regardless of the intellect of the perp. BTW: a truly intelligent person would simply avoid all legal problems by not breaking the law in the first place.
> None of your business, but also none of the ones you've listed.
Well, wherever you're living, I'm pretty certain there are laws against inciting suicide. They may not have caught up to the digital equivalent yet, but it's just a matter of time.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,907
@previous (F) > Text messages are a form of electronic communication, same as email, instant messenger, online BBS etc. The point is that yes, the law goes after suicide inciters, regardless of the media, regardless of whether it's anonymous, and regardless of the intellect of the perp
It's also directly tied to someone's name. We've already discussed this. Go kill yourself.
> Well, wherever you're living, I'm pretty certain there are laws against inciting suicide. They may not have caught up to the digital equivalent yet, but it's just a matter of time.
I really do hope you kill yourself. You're such a pathetic excuse of a human being.
kook !!Phkn/3Gic joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,910
@previous (C)
So you're the op from the Good News American gun crime topic?
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,911
Anonymous F replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,913
@595,907 (C) > It's also directly tied to someone's name. We've already discussed this.
Anonymous accounts can be hacked and traced.
> I really do hope you kill yourself. You're such a pathetic excuse of a human being.
Seriously, what are you on? This level of paranoia suggests either a drug-induced psychosis or a severe mental disorder.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 47 seconds later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,914
@previous (F) > Anonymous accounts can be hacked and traced.
hahahaha go back to watching csi (and then afterwards, kill yourself)
Anonymous F replied with this 11 years ago, 7 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,915
@previous (C)
OK, if you're certain your anonymity cannot be compromised, list whatever crimes you've committed in the past. Put it all in writing on this board.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,917
@previous (F)
1. I've stolen candy from supermarkets a few times
2. I once "hacked" an indian website that I think may have belonged to some indian government agency.
3. I once ordered drugs through the internet
4. I jaywalk
5. I've bicycled while drunk
And that's about it, I think. Happy?
Anonymous F replied with this 11 years ago, 14 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,921
@previous (C)
Oh, trivial stuff. The way you were talking, one might've thought you were a major league cyber-criminal.
Anonymous C replied with this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,922
@previous (F)
I don't see what could have given you that impression. But no, you're just a clueless little idiot and the way you think is hilarious
Anonymous F replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#595,925
@previous (C)
Yeah, whatever. Don't hold your breath waiting for me to die any time soon.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#596,288