▲ 323 points
back
161 comments
"I felt relieved: gone was the posturing so obvious in the previous candidates. They worked in advertising, at startups—Twitter employees who talked about how much money they made and the exotic locales where they took their vacations. Ross was a techie, but he didn't act like one. He seemed eloquent, optimistic, down-to-earth. He seemed trustworthy."
As an aside, that's a sad little bit of commentary on the tech scene these days.
What an absurd statement by the author.
These people were interviewing for an apartment in a notoriously tough housing market - they were probably just "posturing" (mentioning their good jobs and money) because they thought it would help them get the apartment.
He sounds like an outlier of a landlord who prefers a sketchy semi-employed roommate to one with a guaranteed salary.
He's not really a landlord if he's looking for a roommate. I mean, technically he is, obviously, but it's not a traditional landlord - tenant relationship when you're living in the apartment together.
And I'm not sure in what world talking up how much money you make or the vacations you take would endear you to a potential roommate - it'll just make you sound pompous.
In his defense he has to cohabitate with the new tenant, not just collect rent checks from him.
Actually, I will pick somebody to be real over "posturing." I hate people who try to be "showy" more and refrain from easing up occasionally.
I know this is converse to the way the "professional" world is and also converse to people who play along the rules of professionalism.
But dammit, it ain't real! And it needs to stop! Be who you are! And then change it from the inside out, if you need to.
dudes got a right to feel vibes, man.
"Both Ross and I were subletters, so we never signed the same lease."
Did you read TFA? It says they were both subletters and were not on the same lease. He wasn't a landlord, he wasn't on the hook for Ulbrich's half of the rent. He wanted a friend, not a tool for a roommate.
... and they posture to get jobs, friends, romantic relationships, to feel good about their place in the social pecking order...
I know some such people well.
Also, it's as if only "normal people" act normally, when in reality even sociopaths tend to be very normal -- they enjoy music, good food and like having fun. I'm sure Saddam had a very human profile himself, so it befuddles me why people insist on contrasting people's humanness with their other activities, however abnormal some aspects might be.
Sounds like what I've heard about 1999. Sign of a bubble?
Definitely a sign of a bubble. Especially when reality is extremely close to the feelings expressed in that statement.
Someone else mentioned it, but you have to stand out when applying for a room in SF. Fairly-priced rooms (~$1200/mo) will go in less than 36 hours of posting.
I know several people who have "Renter's" resumes, where they try to sell themselves as awesome people to live with. My guess is he is remembering them only because of the renter market effects.
If anything, it's a sign of a property bubble in SF.
There were tons of insufferable dotcom jackasses in SF in 1999, but the industry was smaller so they weren't EVERYWHERE.
Modern day Silicon Valley is Wall Street's younger brother. The exact manifestations may differ, but the underlying psychology is analogous.
This isn't even necessarily "bad" objectively (though it could be bad subjectively depending on who you are). It's just how it is now.
So, I went to college with Ross. He was a year ahead of me.
I didn't know him personally, but several of my friends did. I had a few friends in college (some of whom I still talk to) who were good friends with him. When he got arrested, I looked up his Facebook page, and I found we have 5 mutual friends listed (and I know a couple of others who knew him but didn't have him on FB). Also, when he was arrested, my then-officemate looked him up, and it turns out he met Ross at a party once and had a conversation with him (though they didn't know each other beyond that). Small world.
That stunned me, but what stunned me more was when I found out Richard Bates did most of the technical work. I knew Richard. We were in a few of the same clubs, we had a class or two, we hung out in the same friend groups, and we were almost friends for a while. Richard was a... peculiar person. He had no people skills whatsoever, and he managed to be both shy and condescending at the same time. He treated people horribly. I ended up having a falling out with him in my senior year after he cut me out of his life for trying to patch things up between him and one of my best friends, who he suddenly cut out of his life with no explanation whatsoever (that is, Richard cut my friend out of his life). IMO, he wasn't a good person. Certain... nicknames for him based on his name began floating around as people got fed up with how he treated them. I'm still absolutely gobsmacked that this guy I personally knew and disliked built the Silk Road of all things. It's still hard for me to believe (and, yes, I know for a fact that this is the same Richard Bates because his email address was published in the trial, and I recognize it as his).
UTD was a special place.
(For the record, I changed my name last year, and I seriously doubt Richard knows my new name. I have to wonder if he'll read this and think "who the hell is this person?", because there's nothing about my username here, which is based off my new name IRL, that he'll recognize.)
> That stunned me, but what stunned me more was when I found out Richard Bates did most of the technical work.
'Most' is a gross exaggeration. Bates helped troubleshoot a few problems by fielding some questions. The trial transcripts and exhibits don't show he wrote any, much less 'most', of the SR1-related code; he had so little contribution that he had to be told what the project was by Ross.
Other people like 'Variety Jones' or especially the hired coder 'Smedley' contributed way more. (They just managed to avoid their real names coming up, as far as we know, and avoided lying to federal agents.)
From what I rememeber of the trial, Ross wrote the first version himself and then after he told Richard what it was, Richard ended up rewriting the whole thing because Ross's code was godawful.
I knew them vaguely as well, sharing some friends. (I'd wager we've probably met in real life at UTD a few times.)
Was Richard the guy who went as a flasher at a Halloween party? Because every time I read about him testifying in court, I'm imagining him doing so in that costume, which was ... graphic.
Oh, we did. I recognize your name. I remember hanging out with you at AFS (I miss the Abbey...).
And yeah, that was Richard. I was there. Oh god, that floppy dildo hanging out of those briefs. There are probably still pictures floating around on Facebook...
I never knew UTD had such goings-on, probably because I was just an evening student who attended business classes there :) (FYI: I have been a developer most of my life - just wanted to broaden my horizons re. business.)
I think I also know a Richard Bates from UTD, as a co-worker (but I am not real sure that it is the same person so I won't be too specific as to company and etc.). I found this Richard Bates to be a hard worker who was detail oriented and focused on doing the right thing.
UTD forever.
Ross lived above me my Freshman year. UTD was a special place.
I actually remember him crawling from our porch up to his apartment because the door was locked. They also had a recliner with a bong built into it.
This is a bit of an aside, but this line really stung:
>> Ross was a techie, but he didn't act like one. He seemed eloquent, optimistic, down-to-earth.
One of the main reasons I got into software development in the 90's was the fact that software engineers were (largely) eloquent, optimistic, and down-to-earth.
It's sad that a vocal minority has sullied the image of an entire industry.
Virtually every niche of society considers others of their kind as eloquent, optimistic, and down-to-earth. This is a common perception in a group of people with shared passions. From artists, techies, to politicians and even Nazi Germany.
Well,
If you read what the author wrote, he implied that as outside observer he found software engineer eloquent, optimistic and down-to-earth. So he wasn't just reflecting group bias.
I got into software engineer by finding software engineer down-to-earth at least in the sense that it seemed you didn't have to engage in the posturing implicit in finance, say.
That seems to be gone in Silicone Valley but that might be only a small sample of the whole software world.
Wow, Godwin's law struck hard and fast. Was that reference really necessary?
To be fair, that's been the stereotype for quite a while. Remember Revenge of the Nerds movies?
The tech industry has turned into a giant frat party. Sorry folks.
"Sure, we wanted Ross to go free. We wanted him to be innocent, to be a hero: the poster boy for privacy in the Information Age."
That may be partially true, but Ross polluted much of the goodwill the Internet community had for him when he decided to "order a hitman." I doubt he was ever that serious about hiring one. If you read the chats he had, he sounds completely out of his league, and probably never would have been capable of it if the FBI did not sort-of-entrap him with a murder-for-hire plot. Unfortunately, he really screwed himself by going down that road.
The best argument in defense of silk road and Ross, from a moral/philosophical standpoint, is that it represents a victimless crime. Indeed, by moving transactions into the online world, it may have actually facilitated a drop in real crime. Ross must have known that if the FBI ever caught up to him, he could defend himself with this moral reasoning, and at least stand a chance of acquittal in a jury trial. It's a shame that he had to completely ruin that chance by also trying to hire a hitman. He should have kept things simple and never strayed out of the territory of libertarian economic experiment.
Is it really victimless? I'll admit that for something like pot, that is responsibly grown and used, there is no victims (well maybe with second hand smoke, but you get that just as much from cigarettes). But many drugs being sold do not come responsible producers. Instead, they come from groups that cause a lot of harm in order to acquire the money from selling those drugs. Yes, legalizing responsible production would largely fix this problem, but a current purchase still funds a horrible group. Even though the seller and buyer never hurt anyone themselves, they are directly funding those who do.
Now, maybe he actually did more good than bad. Maybe for every sale funding a bad organization, he helped switch 10 from a bad organization to a responsible producer. And maybe that would still have been enough to get a jury to acquit him.
My personal belief on the matter is that Ross would at some point in time need to hire someone. When you're in the drug business, internet or not, at some point in time you will have to deal with this kind of people. At that point you either become an ferocious animal - more ferocious than your opponents - or you do as the say OR you go home. Strangely no one chooses to go home (a bit a la Walter White).
Of course I can't be sure if he was serious about the 'hitman' or not. Probably he wasn't all that serious about it BUT at some point in time he would have to become either digitally or physically violent one way or another to protect what is his.
Now, considering a guy who made loads of money bulding an illegal marketplace online the "poster boy for privacy in the information age" while having characters like Assange and Snowden around is a shame IMHO.
Since ancient Greece (e.g. Antigone by Sophocles) there is a strugle between Human law and God's law (e.g. Ethics, True, etc.). Snowden falls in that category IMHO. What Ross did was both illegal and unethical.
Oh c'mon, he ordered a hitman inside a play the FBI fully staged for him. There was never any harm done to anybody.
Pure entrapment. Create a fake simulated decision dilemma he never had to decide in real life, put a lot of emotional pressure on him, and then when he made a bad decision inside this simulation that harmed nobody, try to condemn him for it.
He hasn't lost my goodwill yet.
when he decided to "order a hitman." I doubt he was ever that serious about hiring one.
I'm not sure what's more horrific:
- Someone who orders murders.
- Someone who orders murders and doesn't think that seriously about it.
To be fair, contract killing is straight out of The Cyphernomicon. When the incumbent justice system shuns you, the remaining avenue of settling things is the old fashioned way. I primarily see him as yet another casualty of the drug war - if the law were congruent with morality, he would have respected the institution more to begin with instead of doubling down on a conspiracy.
> That may be partially true, but Ross polluted much of the goodwill the Internet community had for him when he decided to "order a hitman."
Never tried for murder.
Never charged.
Why not? That's a slam dunk if it were true. But it carries with it greater scrutiny by appellate courts, greater scrutiny by the press. Perhaps those accusations were bullshit.
Perhaps our prosecutors should be prohibited by law from making any accusations unless they're actually leveling charges. Just a thought.
The main thing I would like to know is why did he hire the lawyer he did? His defense basically sold him up the river, as can be seen from the scathing comments from the judge. Is it still a fair trial if your lawyer is incompetent?
It's possible to get a re-trial on the grounds of incompetent defence, but the bar is really high. And since Ulbricht is still using the same lawyer for his appeals, it doesn't look like he's trying that route.
His defense did seem pretty poor, but given the amount of evidence against him, its not really clear what a "good defense" would've looked like.
I'm looking forward to the day the http://nhlibertyforum.com/sessions/silk-road-how-the-governm... video goes online. It was a very interesting presentation about the case.
They were probably angling for the conviction to be overturned on appeal. There was almost no chance of getting a "not guilty" verdict in this situation.
> How could someone intelligent enough to graduate with a master’s from Penn State be dumb enough to use his own personal email to advertise an illegal bazaar on a message board as basic as Shroomery.org?
Does anyone honestly believe this is how he was caught? Or is it just parallel construction[1]? I wouldn't be surprised if Tor is completely compromised by the United States Government, and this fact is just being hidden.
Does it matter? The fact of the matter he did make that post, and several others, with his personal email clearly visible on Archive.org. Even if they caught on to him some other way, not much work is required to follow those traces right to him.
On the last line of the FBI seizure form [1], does it say "Filastine currency"? What do you think they meant by that? AFAIK the Palestinian territories use Israeli currency, so that's probably not it...
[1]: http://motherboard-images.vice.com/content-images/contentima...
First hit on google http://filastine.com/log/l00t/
Back in my days of credit card fraud and identity theft no one knew what I was doing. I simply refused to talk about what I did to earn money with friends. It was kind of fun to make it like a game.
It was a little sketchy but I never seemed like a sketchy guy so maybe they suspected porn or something like that. It's not hard to have an online life that's different from the real world, that you hide from everyone.
How come he says "he did not own a cellphone" but in a fbi report it clearly says "Samsung smartphone"?
Definitely checking this out later. I've been in a VICE documentary binge lately and this will add to my collection!