Quote from: a_blackbird on May 02, 2012, 04:21 pmQuote from: pine on May 02, 2012, 08:09 am1. Many people are actually using the same handles or avatars on the clearweb. I couldn't believe it. Including some of the most paranoid people on here. Without using a single 'hack', I could easily ID 25% - 50% of the people on here. No, that's not me boasting, that's you being insecure.Wow. I knew there were some egregious breaches of security (a couple of really bad ones are what led to a post I made a couple weeks back) but I would not have expected (hoped? pleaded with the gods?) that it would be this bad. Even at the low end, 25% is pretty significant.It's sad really. It's simple to counteract, just don't use identifiers you use on other websites -> usernames, emails, avatars. Like kmf has been saying so frequently, it's the 'I'm not hurting anybody so I'm a good person and the law can't touch me' baggage that's the root of this. If you are posting, or even reading this forum, the the law considers you a criminal, it merely remains to prove it. It's no good thinking there's no laws on the books that prevent you reading or talking about drugs, there are, the criminal conspiracy laws are extremely wide ranging, and in most cases are very suspect.I mean, you don't even actually have to sell drugs, to be convicted of drug trafficking offenses. I kid you not. As long as LE can show you 'intended' to sell drugs, that is more than enough. This is universal, in Australia, if you are caught selling tablets which are placebos, but marketed or inferred that they were MDMA, then you go to prison for as long as if you actually had sold them. Similar rules apply in America. This is from DEA guidelines:QuoteDefendants convicted of conspiracy or an attempt to commit any offense involving a controlled substance warrant the same level as if they had completed the object of the conspiracy.Furthermore, merely having an account on SR, whether you acquired drugs or not, makes you guilty of criminal conspiracy. People don't understand these laws at all. They are very draconian. Essentially, LE has given up because it's not smart enough or has enough resources to actually prove anybody broke the law. So they apply a new kind of a law, called the conspiracy laws, which are quite literally straight out of the Middle Ages (England in 1305) Again, the DEA says:QuoteA conspiracy is an unlawful agreement by two or more persons to violate the law. Whether or not the persons accomplished what they conspired to do is immaterial to the question of guilt or innocence in regard to a conspiracy. The success or lack of success of the conspiracy doesnt matter. The laws of the United States and many individual states provide that if a defendant is convicted of a conspiracy to commit any offense involving a controlled substance, the punishment is the same as if the object of the conspiracy had been completed. In other words, the punishment is identical to the crime the conspirators sought to commit. Conspiracy is not a lesser-included offense of the object of the conspiracy; it is a separate crime within itself. If the conspiracy ended before the goal of the conspiracy could be accomplished, this fact alone does not absolve the conspirators of their crime.Notably:QuoteWhether other members of the conspiracy knew the crimes were going to be committed or even if they discouraged other members from committing these crimes is irrelevant. The prosecution must only show that these crimes were committed to further the goal of the conspiracy. The prosecutor does not have to prove that as a member of the conspiracy, the defendant either participated in, or even knew of the existence of these crimes, only that he was a member of the conspiracy at the time they were committed.You know, even the Old Testament, not exactly a model for 21st century judicial proceedings, says the crimes of the father shouldn't result in punishment on the child. The basic concept that scapegoating is fundamentally unfair. Yet under the law of the USA, if one of us murders another person to further his drug enterprise, then we are all held accountable as if we had committed murder ourselves despite not knowing each other, aiding or abetting that person in any way. There are caveats to conspiracy laws as there are for all legal matters, but the gist of them, is what I've just told you. These laws are not almost Orwellian, they actually are 1984 inventions, where thought-crime is prohibited. Now, whether those laws are enforceable, now that is a different matter. But that is the law.Quote from: a_blackbird on May 02, 2012, 04:21 pmQuoteI'd say that's about the size of it psychologically. Topix is like walking through the valley of the moonbears.I finally have sufficient post count to give you some karma. Valley of the moonbears is worth a +1 just by itself. :DBut we fear no evil!