Advertisement

The Digital and Legal Divide: Silk Road, Transnational Online Policing and Southern Criminology

  • Monique Mann
  • Ian Warren
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explores transnational online policing and the global digital divides that remain wedded to national governance theories, regulatory structures and surveillance practices, largely emanating from the Global North (Carrington et al., British Journal of Criminology, 56(1), 1–20, 2015). The bulk of the world’s digital infrastructure has been developed and is physically located in, or transmitted via, hubs owned by US corporations (Price, Monthly Review, 66(3), 43–53, 2014). This chapter demonstrates how the ensuing transnational ‘information feudalism’ (Drahos and Braithwaite, Information Feudalism. Earthscan Publications, 2002) also produces a form of transnational legal feudalism that reflects power disparities between other English-speaking nations, which are played out in distinct ways through US extraterritorial policing and online surveillance. The Silk Road cryptomarket reveals the importance of Southern Criminology in understanding the transnational implications of these developments.

Keywords

Silk Road Dark Web Cryptomarkets Criminal conspiracy Surveillance Online policing Extraterritoriality Extradition 

References

  1. Andreas, P., & Nadelmann, E. (2006). Policing the Globe: Criminalization and Crime Control in International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bauman, Z., Bigo, D., Esteves, P., Guild, E., Jabri, V., Lyon, D., et al. (2014). After Snowden: Rethinking the impact of surveillance. International Political Sociology, 8, 121–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boister, N. (2012). An Introduction to Transnational Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boister, N. (2015). Further reflections on the concept of transnational criminal law. Transnational Legal Theory, 6(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2015.1042232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bojarski, K. (2015). Dealer, hacker, lawyer, spy. Modern techniques and legal boundaries of counter-cybercrime operations. The European Review of Organised Crime, 2(2), 25–50.Google Scholar
  6. Bowling, B. (2011). Transnational criminology and the globalisation of harm production. In M. Bosworth & C. Hoyle (Eds.), What is Criminology? (pp. 361–379). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowling, B., & Sheptycki, J. (2012). Global Policing. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowling, B., & Sheptycki, J. (2015). Global policing and transnational rule with law. Transnational Legal Theory, 6(1), 141–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2015.1042235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, I. (2015). The feasibility of transatlantic privacy-protective standards for surveillance. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 23(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eau007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carrington, K., Hogg, R., & Sozzo, M. (2015). Southern criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 56(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azv083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clement, A., & Obar, J. (2015). Canadian Internet ‘boomerang’ traffic and mass NSA surveillance: Responding to privacy and network sovereignty challenges. In M. Geist (Ed.), Law, Privacy and Surveillance in Canada in the Post-Snowden Era (pp. 13–44). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
  12. Connell, R. (2007). Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  13. Dardot, P., & Laval, C. (2014). The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  14. Department of Justice. (2015). Australian Man Pleads Guilty in Manhattan Federal Court To Helping Run the ‘Silk Road’ Website. US Attorney’s Office Southern District of New York, March 13. Retrieved January 23, 2017, from https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/australian-man-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-helping-run-silk-road-website
  15. Dolliver, D. S. (2015). Evaluating drug trafficking on the TOR network: Silk Road 2, the sequel. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(11), 1113–1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.01.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drahos, P., & Braithwaite, J. (2002). Information Feudalism. London: Earthscan Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Forte, D. (2002). Analysing the difficulties in backtracking the Onion router’s traffic. Paper presented at The Digital Forensic Research Conference: 6–9 August. Syracuse, NY. Retrieved January 23, 2017, from http://dfrws.org/sites/default/files/session-files/paper-analyzing_the_difficulties_in_backtracking_the_onion_routers_traffic.pdf
  18. Goldsmith, J., & Wu, T. (2006). Who Controls the Internet: Illusions of a Borderless World. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Guarda, N. D. (2015). Governing the ungovernable: International relations, transnational cybercrime law, and the post-Westphalian regulatory state. Transnational Legal Theory, 6(1), 211–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2015.1042226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hilderbrandt, M. (2013). Extraterritorial jurisdiction to enforce in cyberspace: Bodin, Schmitt, Grotius in cyberspace. University of Toronto Law Journal, 63, 196–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Human Rights Committee. (2014). Communication No. 1973/2010L Views adopted by the Committee at its 112th Session (October 7–31, 2014).Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, D. R., & Post, D. G. (1996). Law and borders: The rise of law in cyberspace. Stanford Law Review, 48(5), 1367–1402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kamensky, D. (2016). American peanuts v. Ukranian cigarettes: Dangers of white-collar overcriminalisation and undercriminalisation. Mississippi College Law Review, 35(1), 148–196.Google Scholar
  24. Kenney, M. (2007). The architecture of drug trafficking: Network forms of organization in the Columbian cocaine trade. Global Crime, 8(3), 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. King, I. (2004). Internationalising Internet governance: Does ICANN have a role to play? Information and Communications Technology Law, 13(3), 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lyon, D. (2015). Surveillance After Snowden. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mark, G. (2013). RICO’s extraterritoriality. American Business Law Journal, 50(3), 543–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin, J. (2013). Lost on the Silk Road: Online drug distribution and the ‘cryptomarket’. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 14(3), 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin, J. (2014). Drugs on The Dark Net: How Cryptomarkets Are Transforming the Global Trade in Illicit Drugs. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. May, T. (2012). Gary McKinnon extradition case: Home secretary’s statement. Home Office and The Rt Hon Theresa May MP, 16 October. Retrieved January 11, 2017, from https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/gary-mckinnon-extradition-case-home-secretarys-statement
  31. McCoy, A. (2014). Surveillance and scandal: Weapons in an emerging array for US global power. Monthly Review, 66(3), 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McDonough, R. (1992). Collaring drug kingpins: International extradition and continuing criminal enterprise in United States v Levy. Journal of International Law and Trade, 16, 127–145.Google Scholar
  33. Medeiros, F., & Bygrave, L. (2015). Brazil’s Marco Civil da Internet: Does it live up to the hype? Computer Law and Security Review, 31, 120–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morselli, C., & Petit, K. (2007). Law enforcement disruption of a drug importation network. Global Crime, 8(2), 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nadelmann, E. A. (1990). Global prohibition regimes: The evolution of norms in international society. International Organization, 44(4), 479–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Palmer, D., & Warren, I. (2013). Global policing and the case of Kim Dotcom. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 2(3), 105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pflaum, I., & Hateley, E. (2014). A bit of a problem: National and extraterritorial regulation of virtual currency in the age of financial disintermediation. Georgetown Journal of International Law, 45, 1169–1215.Google Scholar
  38. Price, D. (2014). The new surveillance normal: NSA and corporate surveillance in the age of global capitalism. Monthly Review, 66(3), 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Purkayastha, P., & Bailey, R. (2014). US control of the Internet: Problems facing the movement to international governance. Monthly Review, 66(3), 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reidenberg, J. (2002). Yahoo and democracy on the Internet. Jurimetrics, 42, 261–280.Google Scholar
  41. Ron, D., & Shamir, A. (2014). How did Dread Pirate Roberts acquire and protect his Bitcoin wealth? In R. Böhme, M. Brenner, T. Moore, & M. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of the Financial Cryptography and Data Security (pp. 3–15). Rainer, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  42. Rousseff, D. (2013). Statement by H.E. Dilma Rousseff President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, at the opening of the general debate of the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly. Retrieved January 11, 2017, from https://gadebate.un.org/en/68/brazil
  43. Schiller, D. (2011). Geopolitical-economic conflict and network infrastructures. Chinese Journal of Communication, 4(1), 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sheptycki, J. (1998). Policing, postmodernism and transnationalisation. British Journal of Criminology, 38(3), 485–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simon, J. (2007). Governing Through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Slobogin, C. (2010). Government dragnets. Law and Contemporary Problems, 73(1), 107–143.Google Scholar
  47. Sugden, P. (2008). You can click but you can’t hide: Copyright pirates and crime—The ‘drink or die’ prosecutions. European Intellectual Property Review, 30(6), 222–231.Google Scholar
  48. Svantesson, D. (2014). Sovereignty in international law—How the Internet (maybe) changed everything, but not for long. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 8(1), 137–155.Google Scholar
  49. Svantesson, D. (2015). A new jurisprudential framework for jurisdiction: Beyond the Harvard draft. AJIL Unbound, 109, 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Svantesson, D., & Gerry, F. (2015). Access to extraterritorial evidence: The Microsoft cloud case and beyond. Computer Law & Security Review, 31, 478–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Urbas, G. (2006). Cross-national investigation and prosecution of intellectual property crimes: The example of ‘Operation Buccaneer’. Crime, Law and Social Change, 46(4), 207–221.Google Scholar
  52. Valverde, M. (2015). Chronotopes of Law: Jurisdiction, Scale and Governance. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Warren, I. (2015). Surveillance, criminal law and sovereignty. Surveillance & Society, 13(2), 300–305.Google Scholar
  54. Warren, I., & Palmer, D. (2010). Crime risks of three-dimensional virtual environments. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 338, 1–6.Google Scholar
  55. Warren, I., & Palmer, D. (2015). Global Criminology. Sydney: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
  56. Weiss, M., & Archick, K. (2016). US-EU Data Privacy: From Safe Harbour to Privacy Shield. Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar

Cases

  1. Attorney-General v Davis [2016] IEHC 497.Google Scholar
  2. Government of the United States of America v Love (2016) Westminster Magistrates Court, Tempia J, 16 September.Google Scholar
  3. Griffiths v United States of America and Another (2005) 214 ALR 665.Google Scholar
  4. In the Matter of a Warrant to Search a Certain E-mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Corporation v United States of America (2014a) United States District Court Southern District of New York, JC Francis IV, 25 April.Google Scholar
  5. In the Matter of a Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Corporation v United States of America (2014b) United States District Court Southern District of New York, Loretta A Preska, 29 August.Google Scholar
  6. Kotteakos et al. v United States (1946) 328 U.S. 750.Google Scholar
  7. McKinnon v Government of the United States of America [2008] 4 All ER 1012.Google Scholar
  8. Microsoft Corporation v United States of America (In the Matter of a Warrant to Search a Certain E-mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Corporation v United States of America) (2016) United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Lynch, Carney and Bolden, 14 July.Google Scholar
  9. Ulbricht v United States (2016) United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, New York (oversized appeal brief), 12 January.Google Scholar
  10. United States v Ulbricht, a/k/a ‘Dread Pirate Roberts,’ a/k/a ‘DPR,’ a/k/a ‘Silk Road’ (2014) 31 F. Supp.3d 540.Google Scholar
  11. United States of America v Ulbricht, a/k/a ‘Dread Pirate Roberts,’ a/k/a ‘DPR,’ a/k/a ‘Silk Road’ (2014) US District Court for the Southern District of New York, 10 October.Google Scholar
  12. United States v Ulbricht, a/k/a ‘Dread Pirate Roberts,’ a/k/a ‘DPR,’ a/k/a ‘Silk Road’ (2013) US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Maas, 27 September.Google Scholar
  13. United States of America v Andrew Michael Jones a/k/a ‘Inigo,’ Gary Davis a/k/a ‘Libertas’ and Peter Phillip Nash a/k/a ‘Samesamebutdifferent,’ a/k/a ‘Batman73,’ a/ka/ ‘Symmetry,’ a/k/a ‘Anonumousasshit’ (2013) United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Griesa J, 19 December.Google Scholar

Legislations

  1. Continuing Criminal Enterprise Act (US).Google Scholar
  2. Marco Civil da Internet (Brazil) (2014).Google Scholar
  3. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (US).Google Scholar

Human Rights Instruments

  1. European Convention for Human Rights (EU) (2010).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monique Mann
    • 1
  • Ian Warren
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Law, School of JusticeQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Deakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia

Personalised recommendations