Thursday, November 6, 2014

How the FBI just made the world a more dangerous place by shutting down Silkroad 2.0 and a bunch of online drug markets

How the FBI just made the world a more dangerous place by shutting down Silkroad 2.0 and a bunch of online drug markets

 November 6 at 12:27 PM  
The FBI has seized the website of Silk Road 2.0, a major "darknet" marketplace, and arrested its alleged operator, Blake Benthall, in San Francisco. On reddit, the darknet community is reporting that several other marketplaces may be down as well. (RELATED: Seized sites represent less than a third of Darknet commerce »)
The Irish Examiner reports that "an international day of action to disrupt global activity on the Darknet and remove certain websites and forums is to conclude within the next 24 hours under the FBI/Europol operation codenamed 'Onymous'".
In the post below, originally published last month, I outlined the darknet economy and discuss the findings of a computer programmer who scraped Silk Road 2.0's site to determine what types of drugs were for sale.
This story is still developing, but I'll note that there's a strong argument to be made that the darknet economy makes the world a safer place overall. By taking drug transactions off the street and putting them online, you eliminate a significant link in the chain of violence between drug suppliers and end users. Drugs purchased online are typically less adulterated with dangerous contaminants than street drugs are, and a system of reviews rewards sellers who provide high-quality product.
In their statement, federal authorities don't discuss these broad implications but say that, generating $8 million in sales, Silk Road 2.0 was used by " thousands of drug dealers and other unlawful vendors." They pledged to "return as many times as necessary to shut down noxious online criminal bazaars."
Regardless of how many of these sites the FBI has seized today, it's a near certainty that dozens more will spring up to take their place tomorrow.

In October 2013, the FBI shut down Silk Road, a thriving online black market where, with a bit of technical know-how, you could to purchase things like illicit drugs, forged documents and weapons. Think Amazon, but for drugs and other not-so-legal things. The FBI may have hoped that shutting down Silk Road would take a bite out of illicit drug sales online. But if anything, it appears the opposite has happened.
In the past year, dozens of similar sites -- so-called "darknet" markets — have sprung up in Silk Road's place. Just before it was shut down, Silk Road, along with three similar sites, had about 18,000 drug items listed for sale — everything from marijuana to ecstasy to heroin. By April 2014 -— six months later — there were 10 darknet markets listing 32,000 drug items for sale. By August of this year there were 18 darknet marketplaces with 47,000 drug listings, according to data compiled by the Digital Citizens Alliance.
Programmer Daryl Lau wanted to quantify the transactions happening on Silk Road 2.0, currently one of the largest darknet markets. From a purely practical standpoint, he also wanted to know if it was possible to scrape data from these sites, given the complicated security protocols. After "an hour or two of coding" he had a program up and running, and he's written up what he found at his Web site.
Not knowing quite where to start, he limited his queries to nine of the most commonly-used illicit drugs, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse: cocaine, heroin, opium, amphetamines, MDMA (ecstasy), ketamine, mescaline, LSD and marijuana. Taken together, these drugs account for about 28 percent of all drug items listed on Silk Road 2.0. Prescription drugs likely account for the lion's share of the remainder. A survey of the original Silk Road's users last year found that more esoteric drugs, with names like "2C" and "NBOMe", also accounted for a substantial share of purchases.
Among the nine drugs he queried, MDMA was the most popular item by far with nearly twice as many items listed as marijuana, the second-highest. LSD, cocaine and amphetamines rounded out the top 5.
Why the strong showing for MDMA? One of the appeals of markets like Silk Road 2.0 is that buyers can rate the quality of the purchased items after their transactions have been completed. If darknet markets resemble Amazon in their ease of ordering, they're more like eBay when it comes to the importance sellers place on maintaining a high rating. Over at Hacker News, user tedks succinctly explains why this especially crucial for drug sales:
It's interesting and probably not surprising that the most popular drug on the Silk Road 2.0 (and probably other darknet marketplaces) is MDMA. MDMA is difficult to find in pure forms and impurities can kill you. If you buy MDMA from a vendor with a 4.9/5 rating, you can be reasonably certain you're getting quality product.
By contrast, MDMA purchased on the street is often laced with potentially life-threatening adulterants.
Aside from the simple ease of use, the seller ratings, which serve as a stand-in for drug quality, are one of the most attractive features of these markets for potential drug buyers. In the run-up to its sting on Silk Road last year, the FBI made over 100 purchases from the market and had the drugs analyzed for purity. As FBI agent Christopher Tarbell explained,  "Samples of these purchases have been laboratory-tested, and have typically shown high purity levels of the drug the item was advertised to be on Silk Road."
Lau's data shows an average of 29 reviews for each product, meaning that the average drug item comes with a fairly substantial review history to evaluate it by. Beyond that, the reviews potentially allow for a back-of-the-envelope calculation of sales volume overall. Lau suspects that only users who have purchased an item can review it, although this is just an assumption.
"If, indeed every sale can map to a transaction," he writes, "some vendors are doing huge amounts of business through mail order drugs. While the number is small, if we sum up all the product reviews x product prices, we get a huge number of USD $20,668,330.05."
Remember, too, that the items Lau tracked make up only a fraction of the total items listed on Silk Road 2.0, which itself only accounts for about a quarter of all online black market item listings, according to the Digital Citizens Alliance.
The FBI estimates that the first Silk Road did about $1.2 billion in business over the 2½ years it was active, although there's no way to independently verify that number. Based on the current proliferation of darknet sites, it seems reasonable to assume that the majority of this darknet commerce has simply migrated elsewhere.
When it comes to the darknet economy, the general law enforcement impulse seems to be "shut everything down." But as Conor Friedersdorf noted at the Atlantic last year, there's a strong argument to be made that shutting down darknet sites makes the world more dangerous overall. For starters, the emphasis on quality means that darknet purchasers are getting purer, safer product than they would otherwise. This would lead to lower harm and loss of life due to ingesting adulterated drugs.
More to the point, if you're buying drugs online you're not supporting local drug dealers and the crime and violence that typically accompany open air drug markets, particularly in inner cities. By cutting those sellers out of the equation, you're seeing a net reduction in violence overall.
The question, though, is whether the ease of drug access on the darknet will lead to higher rates of use overall, particularly of the more dangerous drugs like heroin and methamphetamines. The overall societal harm from increased use could offset any benefits accrued from the safer online transactions.
In any case, law enforcement agencies and policymakers should think long and hard before deciding to take action against illicit online economies.
Christopher Ingraham writes about politics, drug policy and all things data. He previously worked at the Brookings Institution and the Pew Research Center.
18
 
COMMENTS
18 Comments
Mentioned in this story and want to comment? Learn more
JohnChase
7:35 AM GMT+0900
Trying to stop supply only makes the underground market -- and its associated violence -- worse. Recall the 1929 St Valentine's Day massacre, orchestrated by Al Capone. Everyone but the FBI/DEA/DOJ/NIDA/ONDCP knows that.
norfret
7:33 AM GMT+0900
It seems to me that the author is making the assumption that the purchases are for self use. There is nothing to stop a person from buying less adulterated drugs in bulk and then adulterating them and thus becoming the "local drug dealers and the crime and violence that typically accompany open air drug markets."
Poryhack
10:24 AM GMT+0900
This is a legitimate issue to take with the darknet markets. In the end I think the author is still correct in his assertion though. Some harm is undoubtedly being done but it is outweighed by the harm that is simultaneously prevented. For every person buying in bulk online and cutting their supply for sale locally 10 people are switching to buying online exclusively. The market will eventually reflect the safest and most convenient option and leave scummy street dealers without income unless they can match the online quality.
Nick Reil
10:47 AM GMT+0900
This is a bit illogical. What is the need for "local drug dealers" (on street corners, etc.) when all of their customers have now moved to the Dark Web? To claim that these "local drug dealers" could purchase bulk via the Dark Web for resell is to miss the point entirely. They're *losing* their customers (and thus power) because of the Dark Web. Who needs a distributor or local drug dealer when you can purchase directly from the source via the Dark Web?
Erforscher
7:17 AM GMT+0900
I just made this account to thank you for this article! Keep on doing what you do!
nedstark3
4:05 AM GMT+0900 [Edited]
Oh forgot to add another thing that shoots your argument all to hell. 
 
"More to the point, if you're buying drugs online you're not supporting local drug dealers and the crime and violence that typically accompany open air drug markets, particularly in inner cities. By cutting those sellers out of the equation, you're seeing a net reduction in violence overall." 
 
Let's say we accept this as a given for a moment, that online sales both eliminate danger and reduce prices. How in the world would it be a good thing to encourage more users to buy more often by eliminating any possible dangers and reducing prices by eliminating middle men? That's as crazy as arguing that the way to reduce smoking would be to cut prices in half and make cigarettes more easily available online!
Thoughtful Hedonist
5:32 AM GMT+0900 [Edited]
Once again we have run in to the addiction argument. Yes, cigarettes and heroin are addictive (the former engineered by tobacco companies to be even more so). I will again turn to the most popular drug, MDMA, which is not addictive. 
 
Repeated use of MDMA week in and week out does have detrimental effects on a person's brain and body. The same can be said of alcohol, which is a legal drug. (Yes, alcohol is a drug. So are caffeine and sugar, also both legal.) 
 
Studies have shown that adequate precautions can drastically reduce the harm MDMA can cause. It's like asking for a glass of water to go with that beer and shot of whiskey, or drinking a sports drink after several alcoholic beverages.
ThePar
8:20 AM GMT+0900 [Edited]
What if MDMA cured depression, anxiety, PTSD, etc. like the late great Sasha Shulgin (R.I.P.) showed us…and little need for antidepressants and experimental concoctions. What if Psilocybin revealed government corruption, as LSD’s effect in the 1960's (and on sociologists like Foucault)? How problematic it would be for Them. 
 
In a perfect world, if a drug should be prohibited then observe a "risk of irresponsibility." Alcohol prohibition ended because a majority of Americans (Doctors, lawyers, teachers, cops- respectable people) knew they consumed responsibly. The same is happening of marijuana, and will happen of other reasonably responsible drugs, as well..when as we stop letting the Government tell us what is bad for us. (As Generations X and Y grow up, vote, and become elected things should change. If not, we should worry.) 
 
Washington elites fear that if the big, bad "gateway drug" cannabis is legal then public support of MDMA and other drugs will grow until Americans are freely shooting smack in the street. They perceive a risk of irresponsibility...if certain psychoactive drugs cause citizen noncompliance...if MDMA upsets their constituent's (Big Pharma, prison industry, etc.) profits.  
 
They should worry. If people bought their crazy fallible arguments for decades on end, what’s going to happen as doctors and scientists continue to tell the truth? 
 
I used to advocate these things as a teenager, out of self-interest. Two years into my undergraduate and I’ve only further observed that prohibition really does hurt everyone. Prison sentences destroy families, criminalizing something only creates criminals/danger, and prison industries profit through contracts with the government. Some people really have addictions and we’re mismanaging our efforts into locking them up. 
See More
Poryhack
5:55 AM GMT+0900
What you should be taking as a given is that people (and more specifically drug users) want drugs and are going to do drugs regardless of the law. (This is the reason that the "war on drugs" has been a miserable failure.) With that in mind, not forcing drug users into dangerous situations or extorting money from them is simply the most humanitarian option. 
 
Additionally, if these drugs were legalized then tax revenue generated off their purchase could be used to fund treatment and prevention programs. The current reality is that American taxpayers are paying for the failed war on drugs in the form of law enforcement and prison costs; that money would be much better spent on treatment.
Thoughtful Hedonist
6:12 AM GMT+0900
I've been advocating across-the-board legalization of all drugs with the tax revenue funneled towards treatment and public good for quite some time. Nice to see I have allies. I can only wonder if we will see an end to the "War on Drugs" in our lifetime. 
 
I have hope.
nedstark3
7:54 AM GMT+0900
Pory 
 
My only way of replying to you is to guess that you have no experience with hardcore drug use. Again, I believe that pot should be legal and is very similar to alcohol. But if you think that coke or heroin should be, it's because you just don't get the harm.
nedstark3
3:55 AM GMT+0900
"This story is still developing, but I'll note that there's a strong argument to be made that the darknet economy makes the world a safer place overall. By taking drug transactions off the street and putting them online, you eliminate a significant link in the chain of violence between drug suppliers and end users. Drugs purchased online are typically less adulterated with dangerous contaminants than street drugs are, and a system of reviews rewards sellers who provide high-quality product." 
 
None of this makes any real world sense at all. First let's drop pot out of the equation since it's in the process of becoming legal everywhere. Not only that, there's nothing at all dangerous about buying pot. Any high school kid can tell you who to contact in their class to get some in Anywhere USA.  
 
As far as purity, you have it exactly backwards. The greater the purity of the drug you purchase, the greater the hit and the greater the addiction. In fact if you look at area wide deaths from drug overdosing, rather than focusing on a single individual, it often happens when drugs of a greater purity are introduced into an area from a new supplier.  
 
"Drug overdose deaths highlight Britain's recent heroin shortage" 
 
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/mar/15/her... 
 
So the very last thing in the world you want is to have illegal drugs with a high purity level. 
 
Thoughtful Hedonist
5:25 AM GMT+0900
Ned, you're missing a critical point: if a free thinking person has decided they are going to try an illegal drug, they will find a way to get it. You asked to put aside pot for this argument, so I will ask that we put heroin (arguably the most addictive drug out there) aside as well. 
 
Let's consider MDMA, which accounts for the largest portion of sales on dark markets. The median lethal dose (LD50) for MDMA is very, very high. Therefore, if a person dies from ingesting the drug, it is most likely due to a dose which has been adulterated. 
 
The number of MDMA users in the world far, far outnumber the heroin users. So by this logic, the world is indeed a more dangerous place without dark markets.
Poryhack
5:31 AM GMT+0900
The fact that marijuana is, as you said, "in the process of becoming legal everywhere" should tell you something about the state of American drug laws. Marijuana has always been demonstrably safer than alcohol and yet there is still a massive amount of opposition to its legalization. You seem to be under the impression that marijuana is the only such "harmless" drug and that all others are equivalent to heroin. That is far from the truth.
nedstark3
7:58 AM GMT+0900
No I did not pretend to go down the whole schedule with you, nor would I.
Poryhack
5:41 AM GMT+0900
Your argument on purity can easily be turned on its head. What is really causing those overdoses is a wildly fluctuating purity level for street heroin. If the purity started at 100% and stayed there would not be an issue with unexpected jumps in purity leading to overdose. 
 
Assuming the purity of heroin on the darknet markets is relatively high and relatively constant (I believe some research would confirm this) then they are indeed making drug users safer as the article suggests.
nedstark3
7:57 AM GMT+0900
That's just plain crazy. The higher the purity the worse the addiction, end of story. It's not even debatable. It's like saying if a relatively safe dose of a prescription drug is 20mg, then it's even safer taking 100 mg as long as you do so consistently.
Poryhack
10:08 AM GMT+0900 [Edited]
Replying to nedstark3 because of WP's stupid restriction on comment depth: 
 
I'm not saying that it's safer to take a higher dosage and I don't think any reasonable drug user would say that either. The issue of heroin overdose in the cases you mentioned is a result of uncertain purity in a fixed quantity of heroin. Regardless of what the purity is, it is in the drug user's best interest that the purity remain at a fixed percentage. If it drops below what they expect then they will redose, at best resulting in some annoyance and uncertainty and at worst resulting in an overdose. If it is above what they are expecting then they will probably overdose. If it remains the same as their last "benchmark dose" then they should be OK regardless of whether their benchmark was 25% or 100% purity. 
 
The addiction potential is the same whether it is 100mg consisting of 25% heroin and 75% cut material or 50mg consisting of 50% heroin and 50% cut material. Basic math dictates that, in both cases, the user gets 25mg of heroin. Purity only becomes a factor when one switches from one percentage to another and does not adjust their overall dosage. Addiction potential is the same in both cases. What isn't the same is the quantity of unknown adulterants that are potentially vastly more harmful to the user than the heroin itself. Having a diluted product isn't protecting anyone or anything but the street dealer's profits. The user will still get their 25mg fix, but in the event of a lower purity product they will have to inject/ingest/inhale more adulterants. That is irrefutable a bad thing and that is the point the author of this article is making.
NEXT STORY
Chris Mooney · 13 hours ago

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.