Dark net drug markets kept alive by great customer service

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/21/buying-drugs-on-the-dark-net

by rosser • 12 years ago

81 66 12 years ago

wired.co.uk

dang• 12 years ago

Url changed from http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/dark-net-drug-mar..., which points to this.

userbinator• 12 years ago

and are accessed using a special browser called "Tor"

Tor is a browser now?

djent• 12 years ago

It's a browser bundle. They were close.

bramgg• 12 years ago

Tor isn't a browser. The Tor Browser Bundle is just the most used application that uses Tor. Not that it really matters though, I doubt that line caused any confusion.

chrisbennet• 12 years ago

Your commented helped me. I'd heard of Tor of course but I didn't know what the user interface was. When the article said that it used a Tor browser I didn't know any better.

sixQuarks• 12 years ago

How is it that these drugs make it through international mail? Doesn't the US government have ways to detect drugs that are shipped in this manner?

gerbal• 12 years ago

I'd expect it's a question of volume. The USPS and Customs do inspect international mail, however there is probably just so much of it that most contraband sneaks under the radar.

dageshi• 12 years ago

Pretty sure it is. I know there's a pretty substantial trade in cuban cigars entering the US, there are plenty of websites based out of Hong Kong and Switzerland who'll send cubans into the US. Again customer service is key. If the cigars don't arrive within a certain timeframe the vendors will send again, if it's stopped again they'll give you your money back.

The vast majority do seem to make it through though although some odd things do happen, some packages appear to have been held up in customs for literally years before they're released, it's not unusual to hear stories of people receiving orders that they already received (because they were shipped a second time and those got through) a couple of years after the initial order. You've got to suspect that might be an attempt to damage the companies selling them economically by making them re-send to destroy their margins.

But the trade still thrives, not just for the US but also for high tax countries ordering from abroad is a much cheaper and practical option.

llllllllllll• 12 years ago

International shipping is much riskier, so people are usually advised to only order domestically. Certain countries are known for stringently checking international packages -- Australia is at the top of the list, though the US is tough too.

Good packaging consists of multiple layers of vacuum seal and some kind of visual barrier. Fake names, vacant addresses, no return address, trying to mask smells with coffee/foods, etc. are all generally thought to be criteria for 'flagging' a package for more careful review (drug dogs, x-ray machines).

tomjen33• 12 years ago

Many of my coworkers order tons of crap of things like aliexpress or deal extreme and those packages are substantially never opened in customs - they may be checked by sniffer dogs, but I doubt it.

chippy2• 12 years ago

What types of products are these? Are they illegal in your country? Or is it mainly import/customs charges that is being evaded?

unfunco2• 12 years ago

When I was a teenager a friend used to send me LSD through the post, it always arrived (Royal Mail).

I've also purchased Zopiclone and Valium through Silk Road which has been shipped from the U.S. without issues (Hyperdontia, so with frequent toothache I need to know I can get to sleep at night so that I can work the next day, and I've had better experiences with the vendors on SR than I have with doctors and dentists.)

junto• 12 years ago

Out of general interest, has the state of the NHS dentists got so bad that you can't see a dentist, or do you have a fear of dentists?

FYI if you have an abcess then you should really get it seen to!

http://worldental.org/teeth/abscessed-tooth-complications-an...

Exenith2• 12 years ago

As far as I'm concerned, all of these drug markets are an absolutely fucking wonderful thing for society. Even if you think drugs should be illegal, incredibly violent cartels still exist. Markets like Silk Road can take all their power away.

100,000 people have died so far in the 8-year Mexican Drug War. How would you like if that number turned into 0 without any need for political intervention?

This is what Ross Ulbricht described his goal as on LinkedIn:

"I want to use economic theory as a means to abolish the use of coercion and aggression amongst mankind."

Is that clear enough? The guy studied organic solar cells and EuO thin-film crystals for 5 years as a grad student, describing his goal then as to expand the frontier of human knowledge.

Do you think a person like that would suddenly plunge himself into a crazy get-rich scheme? Let's be honest here: that kind of person meticulously plans these kind of things, and they do it ultimately to help the world in an abstract way -- not constantly empathetic of each individual person, but ultimately concerned with the total human condition.

grimtrigger• 12 years ago

Why would these markets take any power from the cartels? Don't they give the cartels a larger consumer base to sell to?

unchocked2• 12 years ago

They make it impossible for cartels to exclude competition, in the same way they make it (theoretically) impossible for governments to prosecute distribution.

the_cat_kittles• 12 years ago

if you need an example of a PhD claiming to have altruistic motives gone awry, look no further Ted Kaczynski

contingencies2• 12 years ago

His motives for the violence were to get published somewhere with serious readership... and he succeeded, IIRC?

chippy2• 12 years ago

From the article:

"Dark net markets make drugs more available more easily, and that's nothing to celebrate. It will, I suspect, tend towards higher levels of use, which -- legal or illegal -- creates misery. "

So, the argument is that increased supply probably will actually increase misery, and will not be "an absolutely fucking wonderful thing".

I think it's this discussion which is the key one to be having - what will happen to society, and what do we want our societies to be?

Symmetry• 12 years ago

It's a complicated issue which, as far as I can tell, mostly comes down to whether illegal drugs tend to displace alcohol use or not. If someone who regularly uses alcohol to become intoxicated switches to weed that's a big public health win. If they use weed in addition that's a public health loss. If they switch to heroin they're clearly worse off, but they're less likely to harm others due to drunk driving or induced belligerence.

A couple of independent harm analyses: http://welshcouncil.org.uk/english/dangerlist.html http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_caus...

ObviousScience6• 12 years ago

The statistics from places with lax drug laws, decriminalization, partial legalization, etc suggests that everyone who actually wants to do drugs long term already does, and that most (if not all) of the rise in drug use you see at a law change is just people experimenting and then deciding against routine use.

Similarly, higher drug use isn't necessarily a problem, since legalization would allow for treating drug addiction as a health problem, which would likely lead to decreased health problems as people are now free to seek treatment for their issues without worrying about arrest or other legal consequence.

Also, drug violence is a HUGE source of crime. The Mexican cartels, for instance, receive about 10x the funding of NASA by selling to the US drug market.

There's no way to overstate just how bad it is that we're funding paramilitary groups around the world to the tune of hundreds of billion of dollars a year, and the small increases in misery caused by any rise in drugs (which we haven't seen in nations that have taken laxer stands on drugs) would be offset by removing hundreds of billions of dollars in funding to some of the most violent organizations on Earth.

I don't think anyone wants our society to be a constant civil war so we can lock people in boxes for liking altered states of consciousness. It's clear that people who want drugs aren't going to stop, even if the other people threaten to throw them in cages and murder them for their habit. The only path drug prohibition can lead us down is to continue this civil war.

I think people who are against drug legalization literally don't know what's happening or how things work, because when they try to explain their stance to me, it always critically depends on things that are simply untrue.

There is no debate over prohibition: it's a failed policy and gives us an objectively worse outcome, no matter what your goal was, unless your goal was to see constant violence between large organizations, such as the US government and paramilitary groups.

aetherson• 12 years ago

It's not "what do we want our societies to be" -- everyone wants the same ideal society. It's "what do we want our societies to be, within the constraints of what is actually possible," and the key disagreement is over what is actually possible -- indeed, people's assessment of what is possible is so different that their world views are irreconcilable.

mehwoot2• 12 years ago

This is what Ross Ulbricht described his goal as on LinkedIn: "I want to use economic theory as a means to abolish the use of coercion and aggression amongst mankind." Is that clear enough? The guy studied organic solar cells and EuO thin-film crystals for 5 years as a grad student, describing his goal then as to expand the frontier of human knowledge.

And then twice paid money to (what he believed) have somebody killed that was causing him a problem.

anonbanker2• 12 years ago

I still use reiserfs on my drives, ever after knowing Hans Reiser is a murderer. Doesn't make his contributions any less valid.

fabulist• 12 years ago

This was my immediate reaction as well.

But upon further contemplation, maybe there was more wisdom behind donning the name Dread Pirate Roberts than Ulbricht realized. Power is a corrupting influence, and theres the old saying about what happens to those who fight monsters.

But ultimately, such corruption was his downfall, and delivered him into FBI custody. Now theres not only a new DPR, but a slew of new Silk Roads to replace him.

Exenith2• 12 years ago

Would you end 2 lives if it saved millions in the future? Someone concerned with direct empathy wouldn't. Someone concerned with the human condition might.

Anyway, I'm not saying that it was right, because that holds the assumption that he 100% would be helping people. What if you're wrong? What if there's a better way? 2 lives gone and nothing to show for it. In reality, it's pretty likely that he just went a bit fucking crazy. The point is that the creation of Silk Road was likely with the goal of changing the world for the better, and I can absolutely see that happening.

unchocked2• 12 years ago

This is a breeding pool for techniques that are resistant to state security measures. Fed would have been smart to leave SR 1.0 up as it had dominated that environment and would have suppressed "evolution".

zo14• 12 years ago

I often posited/mused that one of the main reasons hard drugs haven't been legalized yet is that there is very little variety in them. Let me elaborate a little. With alcohol, there are hundreds/thousands of different flavors/types/process/names/combinations. But, with most of the hard drugs, it's pretty much "a chemical". That's it, nothing to it. No "Alabama Whiskey" or "Russian Vodka No 5." to make it into a giant favor-winning game.

Now, I don't know how the state of such a product range would change if it were legalized. Who knows, they might even come up with ingenious ways to spice things up without increasing dosages. Flavors, combinations, negative-effect suppressants, whatever. Or how about people come up with ingenious places/ways to take drugs that prevent addiction, or simply enhance the setting.

I don't know. What I do know is that we should let people use/do what they want to their bodies. Will this have negative effects? Sure, they might, they might not. Personal choice trumps any sort of wide/vague societal benefits, otherwise society is just a bunch of tyrants. As long as what individuals do doesn't physically harm anyone, then they should be allowed to do it.

bronbron6• 12 years ago

I don't know. What I do know is that we should let people use/do what they want to their bodies. Will this have negative effects? Sure, they might, they might not. Personal choice trumps any sort of wide/vague societal benefits, otherwise society is just a bunch of tyrants. As long as what individuals do doesn't physically harm anyone, then they should be allowed to do it.

Eh, I dunno. I can see both sides of it. I worry that heroin is basically an advertiser's wet dream and you'd see all sorts of shady shit encouraging addiction. On the other hand we've already semi-successfully navigated those waters with tobacco. But then, I don't see people on the street in the bronx willing to blow someone for a cigarette. Maybe that's because it's legal. I dunno. Seems like something we should investigate before making policy decisions.

There're a lot of factors to be considered and "personal choice trumps all" is just as silly of an axiom as the opposite. There's a plethora of disallowed personal choices that the vast majority of people would agree are net positives for society, if only because "doesn't harm anyone else" is a very gray area.

ObviousScience6• 12 years ago

Do you think those advertisers will be more effective than the current generation of street pushers that try to get your high school kids addicted?

As a high school kid (a decade ago), it was FAR easier to get marijuana, opiate pills, shrooms, and other drugs than it was to get alcohol, because alcohol required that we go through someone we knew personally not invested in the criminal market for their income, and was vaguely watched by the government (since they could regulate the caution the stores took).

There's a plethora of disallowed personal choices that the vast majority of people would agree are net positives for society, if only because "doesn't harm anyone else" is a very gray area.

And being gay should be discouraged because it spreads AIDS.

The simple fact is that drug use doesn't require any risks to the public that we don't allow already for other substances, drugs are already being used by almost everyone who wants them, and our prohibition has cost us being able to effectively deal with the reckless uses of drugs because people are hiding all uses of drugs.

That you're trying to argue against the facts - prohibition is a failed policy that makes drug use more dangerous than treating it as a social health issue - seems awfully reminiscent of people who don't like gays inventing reasons they're dangerous.

Edit:

I made a several off-topic replies in my posts, including this one, to the person above me. For a more complete discussion of it, see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8218789

JonnieCache• 12 years ago

In the words of doug stanhope, the drugs sell themselves.

collyw2• 12 years ago

I suggest you go to a grow shop and look at all the seed varieties. There are a lot.

spindritf• 12 years ago

And marijuana is being legalized. I'm sceptical of the hypothesis but this certainly bolsters zo1's point.

bluedino• 12 years ago

How are you guaranteed to actually receive your $5,000 worth of drug XYZ while purchasing from an anonymous network? What if the guy mails you a box of baking soda?

cmdrfred• 12 years ago

I believe the system is sort of like Ebay, do that too many times and people will leave negative reviews and future buyers will not do business with you.

zo14• 12 years ago

Reputation. People don't necessarily just go out and buy $5000 worth of goods from an unknown seller. They start small, with a value they're willing to lose. Say $20. Over time, the seller consistently delivers the goods requested, and so their trust in the seller increases.

You can imagine that with a consistent system, this reputation can be transmitted/communicated to new parties. Think EBay for a clear example. Perhaps not the best of analogies, as EBay has money back guarantees/insurance, etc. But as long as drugs remain in the dark underbelly of government-hate, don't expect much protection from conventional institutions.

aburan28• 12 years ago

In my experience the people that I know that are on "safe" drugs such as Prozac, Adderall, Ritalin, Xanax are the ones having the tougher problem with addiction compared to the people I have met that have used illicit drugs such as Heroin. Companies like Shire Pharmaceuticals selling amphetamines to kids are no better for society than your average heroin dealer. I mean atleast the heroin dealer is honest with the fact that the drug he is selling is absolutely going to have an addictive effect whereas giving kids speed or even methamphetamine (prescription brand Desoxyn in the pharma world) to treat ADHD is somehow a more noble profession.

Dark net drug markets kept alive by great customer service

Related Stories