The Washington Post article did a great job summarizing what
I would expect to happen from the FBI shutting down the illicit online drug
market. Meanwhile, it felt like the article claimed that the FBI shutting down
the first Silkroad caused the online drug market to explode, but where is such
evidence? Maybe the online drug business would have expanded even more without
the FBI shutting down the first Silkroad or much less, but that other side of
the issue didn’t seem to get the deserved exploration. It appears many
assumptions were made in the course of the article, and assumptions are just
assumptions. Just because there was some user that collected some data about
Silkroad 2.0 doesn’t mean that user’s numbers were accurate and truthful.
Independent investigations would have proved to be more valuable than simply
relying on what some user says because there is no guarantee there is no
interest or conviction that is swaying what is written by that user. How do we
know the FBI was wrong? There are many bright FBI employees, and someone just
saying that what they do is wrong seems to neglect their knowledge and
experience. How do we know the assumptions stated by the article are correct
and that what the RBI does is incorrect? I, obviously, do not know much about
law enforcement to make some assumption and tell someone with knowledge and
experience fighting crime what to do. How would an engineer, nurse, teacher,
doctor, or lawyer like being told what to do and what not to do by someone that
not have the credentials? What I’m saying is there are always at least two
sides to something, and it can only be beneficial to have that approach on many
issues of economics, or anything else. All in all, the FBI did shut down something
that was illegal, and that is part of their job description.
No comments:
Post a Comment