Cyber Law: Silk Road Market Place - Term Paper Example

Silk Road market Place Silk Road operations started in February and it acted as an anonymous online market. It provided an online base that allowed sellers and buyers to conduct transactions like any other online business forum. Silk Road however stood out from the rest since it upheld anonymity of both the sellers and the buyers (Christin, 2012). The procedures of Silk Road involved some steps, which are Accessing silk road Making a purchase Ensuring delivery of goods Accessing Silk Road required that the buyer first install Tor on the machine or use a web proxy to the Tor network. This was necessary since the market only ran as a Tor secret facility (Wilfong). Instead of using a DNS name mapping to a recognized IP address, it utilized a URL that based upon pseuotop level domain, which can only be resolved using Tor (Christin, 2012). A client could only contact the buyer through a rendezvous point inside the Tor network and their IP addresses would remain anonymous not only from the public but from each other (Christin, 2012). The buyer would then have to create an account. He or she would thereafter be presented with the Silk Road front page, which contains Silk Road public listings. Silk Road placed minimal restrictions on the goods that the sellers could offer. The sellers guide contained one restriction that forbade them from selling items that served to harm or defraud and such included stolen items, personal info, assassinations, counterfeit currency, as well as any weapons (Christin, 2012). To add on, it forbade the listing of anything that related with pedophilia. It is evident that the list did not prohibit the sale of prescription drugs and narcotics as well as adult pornography and fake identification documents. Some listings were not available to the public hence silk road supported stealth listings, which were only accessible to buyers who had been given their URL. Purchases were usually done after the buyer has perused the items available for sale and a decision has been arrived at. Tor also ensures anonymity when it comes to payment. This way, Silk Road only supports Bit coin as a trading currency (Bitcoin, 52). This type of payment allows the participants to engage in verifiable transactions without the presence or requirement of a third party. Sellers and buyers use the escrow system and failure to do so leads to expulsion from the market place. Trial The FBI alleged Ross William Ulbricht owned Silk Road on October 2013 (Bohme et al. 2014). Charges pressed against Ulbricht included money laundering, computer hacking, attempted murder as well as conspiracy to traffic narcotics. He never got prosecution for killings although he was allegedly said to have awarded $730,000 to some people to effect various killings (“Silk Road Drugs”). His trial commenced on January 2015 in a federal court in Manhattan. Upon the commencement of the trial, Ulbricht acknowledged founding the website although he alleged that he had rested it’s to other people after he founded it (Bohme et al. 2014). As the trial proceeded into the second week, prosecutors delivered documents as well as chatting logs gotten in his computer, which indicated evidently that he had managed the site for quite a number of months. This therefore contradicted his statement that he had rested the control of the site upon other persons. Ulbricht’s attorney however suggested that the chat logs and documents might have been planted there. The judge in this trial is known as Katherine B. Forrest and during the trial; she received numerous death threats (“Silk Road Drugs”). Hackers on a site known as The Hidden Wiki unveiled her personal private information. The lawyer of Ulbricht known as Joshua Dratel together with Ulbricht however condemn the act and claimed that the anonymous posting had nothing to do with Ulbricht or his affiliates (“Silk Road Drugs”). All those affiliated to Ulbricht claimed that the legal system had targeted him without solid reasons. The prosecuting team however insisted that he was the force being the Silk Road as well as all the illegal activities that took place in the site. The judge also allowed the prosecutors to conceal the identities if their witnesses until the hearing that was scheduled for January this year. All this was done because the judge feared that Ulbricht might have the witnesses murdered harmed or murdered before the trial commenced (“Silk Road Drugs”). This move was stimulated by the fact that FBI reports indicated that Ulbricht had previously paid to have six people murdered ad one of them was a former employee of the silk road project (“Silk Road Drugs”). The FBI had this information because Ulbricht had contacted n undercover DEA agent to do the assassinations and had paid him a lump sum $80,000. Attorneys acting to Ulbricht defense argued that withholding the names would only make it difficult for them to prepare for the case. Moreover, they also claimed that Ulbricht will have minimal chances of harming the witnesses because he had been in jail hence had limited contact with the outside world either physical or online through mail (“Silk Road Drugs”). The judge however responded to this defense by claiming that despite being in prison for some time, Ulbricht could still make use of the limited chances he has to communicate with the outside worlds hence harm the witnesses. The judge base the claim on the fact that there had been similar incidents in the past but the culprits still found ways to make contacts with the outside world hence harm those that were to testify against them. Law of Conspiracy The crime of conspiracy refers to the agreement to commit a crime or illegitimate acts. Conspiring involves combining minds to commit an unlawful activity. For there to be said to be an agreement, harmonization of different minds occurs. The conspirators have to agree on a number of activities such as the object as well as the unlawful outcome. The essential nature of the plan is the main thing that they have to agree on. According to the law of conspiracy, there is no need to prove that the defendant agreed with the conspirators on conducting the activity. It only enough to show that the parties involved agreed to conduct the prohibited activity. A defendant cannot however be charged of conspiracy if he or she was found at the site of a crime or if he associated with others engaged in the crime. To charge and individual for conspiracy, the government must prove that the defendant agreed to commit an act that goes against the laws and should not base on mere agreement to do so. The crime of conspiracy therefore demands that a defendant both know the object of the crime and must have joined the conspiracy intentionally. This can be proven by the lack of surprise when discussing the conspiracy with others as well as a share of profits received or if the defendant possessed items important to the conspiracy. Ulbricht is alleged to have committed the crime of conspiracy by design silk road that allows anonymous transactions involving narcotics and malicious software as well as laundering the resulting proceeds (Silk Road Drugs, 2014). The court had the burden of proving whether the nature of the alleged conduct legally constitutes the crimes charged as well as whether the defendant had sufficient notice of the illegality of such conduct. Ulbricht site was different from others such as eBay and Amazon since its design and operation lead to the unlawful conduct of activities. It seemed like Ulbricht constructed the site with the intention of supporting transactions of illegal items. This is evident from the fact that Silk Road was nothing more than code until the third parties got involved. When the third parties started conducting illegal transactions in the site, Ulbricht design steered an instance of conspiracy. Charges tabled to the court demonstrated that Ulbricht received significant monetary benefit from the services he provided through Silk Road showed he knew of the activities that were going on in the site. To add on, since he was the force behind the site, he had the power to shut down the site at any point but he did not. This exemplifies the fact that he conspired in the illegal activities. Instead of pulling down the site, the defendant is alleged to have used violence to protect the site as well as monetary benefits he was getting from the same. Cases Related Court Cases include: Ningbo Victory Multimedia Co. V. China Yahoo Victory Multimedia was the plaintiff whereas China Yahoo was the defendant. The plaintiff holds the right of communication over information concerning the TV series, striving. A net friend then uploaded details of the TV series on BBS page of “yahoo.com.cn.” Disputed visual works of the TV series were then posted on the first page of BBS. The plaintiff then asked them to pull it down and the defendant did so with prompt effect. The first instant court decided that the plaintiff qualified for safe harbour protection under Article 22 of ordinance and rule against the accuser. The appeal court decided that the defendant was guilty of infringing on the copyrights possessed by the plaintiff. To add on, the court proved that the defendant knew that uploading the work was copyright infringement. The appeal court therefore disputed the ruling of the first instance court and the plaintiff was compensated for the damages. Universal Music ltd etc V. China Yahoo Universal music limited and ten other companies sued China Yahoo over infringement claims as well infringement of rights of communication over information network. The plaintiff found out that the defendant had provided the public with a site that contained links to music from unlicensed websites. The defendant provided a forum where users downloaded and played songs for free over the china yahoo network. The plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant asking them to pull down some linked URLs. The defendant only pulled down the stated URLs and left others. Both instances courts ruled out that the plaintiff did not directly infringe on their rights since it linked to a third party website and not its hardware. Wen Xiaoyang V China yahoo China yahoo, the defendant, offers an image search program that display thumbnails images to help users identify results corresponding to their search queries. Wen, the plaintiff, argued that the defendant committed, act of direct infringement by obtaining, and string the thumbnail images. Moreover, he accused the defendant for secondary infringement by providing inks for users to access full size images once they clicked on the thumbnails. The court decided on the first claim that using thumbnails is part of the search program. Although it did not mention that the act is still fair despite being mentioned as reproduction, hence infringement of the copyright law, the decision of the court seemed to mean that. The courts still ruled against the plaintiff in the second claim stating that the plaintiff did not prove that the defendant was aware of the direct infringement. United States v. Morris The word internet was first heard in 1990 at the court in United States v. Morris’ judicial opinion. The court convicted the student under the Act of Computer Fraud and Abuse because he released a worm that crushed educational and military computers and the Second Circuit upheld the conviction as well. Before the breakthrough of World Wide Web is when there was decision for the first copyright infringement case, which had internet implications. Atari Games v. Nintendo and Sega Enterprises Ltd. V. Maphia The two major cases associated with copyright infringement include the Atari Games v. Nintendo and Sega Enterprises Ltd. V. Maphia (Rustad et al, 108). The court undertook a wide stride in ending copyright infringement and this stride implicated the internet due to its uncertainty since it was hard to determine if other activities like caching entailed the infringement. Metro-Gold-win-Mayer, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd The year 1995 was the first time for the court to contemplate if an Internet Provider Service can be liable for allowing posting of infringed material in their sites. In MetroGoldwinMayer, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd, the Supreme Court unanimously reached on a verdict that anyone would be liable for distributing devices that promote copyright infringement (Rustad et al, 109). Grokster was guilty of direct infringement in their business and commercial model meant to target wide range of consumers. Since this case, the courts have been struggling to associate these laws with digital contents. The laws governing copyright issues include. Laws Cases’ involving copyright laws and cyberspace are most frequent and from mid-1990s the congress as well as courts have gone further with the law in order to accommodate electronic rights as well. Copyright law is for protection of authorship’s original work fixed in whichever medium. The federal law regarding copyrights affirms property interests in expressions, which are human intellect product. This ease of copying brings up challenges and difficulties for owners of copyright to protect their work (Bitcoin, 52). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is legislation specialized to address issues associating with internet copyright laws. It was first signed on October 28, 1998 and it aims at solving information systems issues. It aided in amendments to the Copyright Act of the USA such that it observes the World Intellectual Property Organization’s copyright treaties and it was the first time for the congress to revise the copyright law such that it can suit internet technologies. The second title of DMCA restricts the liability of service provider for infringement for system caching, information in systems or network at the direction of users (Fischer, 39). Although this DMCA gives disadvantage on liability for copying activities like caching and routing but the internet providers got dispensation on the secondary copyright infringement only if they appoint an agent to receive notice on these infringement. Executive Cyberspace Coordination Act (2013) This act was put in place to serve as the main office for coordinating issues concerning cyber space and surveillance. The act is also associated with the federal Cyber Security Practice Board and is responsible for developing as well as updating information security regulations (“Congress.gov”). The law requires that the director of the national office for cyberspace to: Supervise security policies and procedures Develop a national program that will conduct cyber security education to learners Review budgets of the federal agency relating to the protection of information structures Operate as a centre for Federal’s security information This Act requires that each federal agency be responsible for conducting an annual independent audit of all its information security programs and procedures and table results of these audits .The Act further prohibits any agency from engaging into contract for information technology without including requirements for effective information security supporting the practices and property of that agency. The Acts calls for the director of the office of management and budget to ensure that each agency carries out a vulnerability assessment for any major information system. Moreover, this Act gives the secretary of Homeland Security primary authority for the protection of the critical information infrastructure as presented in the Act. Cyberspace Electronic Security Act This is an Act of the US government, which recognizes the changes in the society evident from the development of the information superhighway hence establish a middle ground intended to enable law enforcement officials to conduct their duties as they protect the freedoms and rights of individuals. This law is set in place because it recognizes the possible risks that may arise from the growing use for computer information system. It therefore aims at protecting the confidentiality of the electronic communications as well as stored data using Cryptography. This Act identifies that other normal tools for law enforcement of search and seizure are insufficient because they may support the act of hiding and conducting unlawful activity. With respect to the privacy of citizens, the act claims that as much as it may enable investigators and prosecutors to obtain plaintexts, it does not intend to make it unlawful of individuals to use encryption for accepted purposes. Besides, this Act does not seek to affect export regulations on cryptographic products. This act was created following the numerous debates between law enforcement supporters and vendors who deal with strongly encrypted products. The USA atriot Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance and Cyberspace Privacy This act was passed on October 26, 2001 and was written only few weeks. Because of the haste in which it was passed, some provisions in the act contain some provisions, which were made inactive at the ending of 2005. The act posed implications on the privacy of the citizens of the United States. Civil right activist felt that it encroached on the rights of the citizens. The government passed the Act following the 911 terrorist attacks and it made great changes on the law that was there. Even if the changes were logical, some were considered unnecessary. The act included policies that involved increased government spending to ensure tight airport security as well as financial relief to the victims of the attack and controlled fraud over the internet (Fischer, 59). Additional provisions of the law comprised ways in which the government could monitor individuals and obtain private information without their consent. Privacy was also altered to accommodate monitoring of financial transactions as well as creation of a DNA bank to identify terrorists as well as other violent offenders. These changes increased the powers of CIA and FBI to monitor persons. This law provides ways of cyber surveillance and they include wiretaps, subpoenas, as well as search warrants. Work Cited “H.R.3032 - Executive Cyberspace Coordination Act of 2013.” Congress.gov. Web, 2014. “Silk Road Judge Has Allowed Prosecutors Not To Disclose Their Witnesses.” Silk Road Drugs. Web. 2014. Bitcoin Mania: The Birth of a Worldwide Virtual Currency or the Start of an Insane Bubble? 2015. Print. Böhme, Rainer, Michael Brenner, Tyler Moore, and Matthew Smith. Financial Cryptography and Data Security: Fc 2014 Workshops, Bitcoin and Wahc 2014, Christ Church, Barbados, March 7, 2014: Revised Selected Papers. Heidelberg: Springer, 2014. Internet resource. Christin, Nicholas. Travelling the Silk Road: A measurement analysis of a large anonymous online marketplace. 2012. Web. 26Th April 2015. Fischer, Eric A. “Federal Laws Relating to Cyber security: Overview and Discussion of Proposed Revisions.” Congressional Research Service. 2014. Web, 26Th April 2015. Rustad, M., Bodi, K, Jesse G., Jack L., Stephanie M., Brooke P. & Nathaniel R. “Copyrights In Cyberspace: A Round Up Of Recent Cases.” Copyrights in Cyberspace. 2011. Web. 27Th April 2015. Wilfong, Steven. “Silk Road 2.0 takedown indicates law enforcement may have developed a method to trace hidden for websites.” Jolt digest, 2014. Web. 26Th April 2015. Read More