privacy
and
the government

The relationship between privacy and the government is a delicate balancing act. In Deep Web, this relationship is contentious. The US government first took an interest in the Silk Road after Sen. Chuck Schumer brought attention to the “most brazen attempt to peddle drugs online”, which launched the government’s case against the Silk Road [1].

There are many scenes in the movie that criticizes the government’s apparent disregard for privacy. Through interviews with Ross Ulbricht’s parents, the viewer learns that Ulbricht’s fourth amendment rights may have been violated after the explanation, or lack thereof, of how Ulbricht’s identity was connected to the Dread Pirate Robert (DPR) pseudonym. Conversations with digital privacy advocates elicit the comment that “an observed life is not a free life” [1]. Messages exchanged between Dread Pirate Roberts and a journalist reveal that “the Silk Road is a way to get around regulation from the state...” as “...the state tries to control nearly every aspect of our life” [1]. The Silk Road functions as a “political statement” to thwart the government's War on Drugs [1]. This documentary sympathizes with digital privacy advocates, emphasizes how the government claws away at individual privacy and provides examples of how individuals try to minimize online monitoring.

Covert Government Surveillance

Ross Ulbricht’s parents believe his Fourth Amendment rights might have been violated by the US government. The Fourth Amendment is the right for a US citizen to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government [2]. Ulbricht’s name was connected to DPR’s identity after the government obtained access to the Silk Road’s servers located overseas. An affidavit provided by one of the FBI investigators explained how the government confirmed DPR’s relationship to Ulbricht, but security experts interviewed in the documentary believe the information in the affidavit is not truthful, as the method the FBI allegedly used to get access to the servers would not provide the information the FBI says they obtained. If it was found that Ulbricht’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated, any evidence obtained in violation could not be brought into the case, which would potentially exonerate Ulbricht.

Covert government surveillance is complicated, especially if the surveillance method is classified. If a classified method was used to obtain access to the Silk Road servers, the court should have worked with the prosecution to deliver evidence in a sealed and protected manner [3]. However, the documentary does not consider that a classified method was used to identify Ulbricht. The viewer is biased against the government’s methodology as the FBI’s affidavit is disputed and its validity questioned.

References

1. Winter , Alexander, director. Deep Web. BOND360, 2015.

2. Ferguson, Andrew Guthrie. “The ‘Smart’ Fourth Amendment.” Cornell law review 102.3 (2017): 547–. Print.

3. US Court of Federal Claims . “U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS GUIDELINES FOR CASES INVOLVING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.” United States Court of Federal Claims, United States Court of Federal Claims, n.d., https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/REVISED-FINAL-Public-Guide-to-Classified-Information.pdf.