MovieChat Forums > Deep Web (2015) Discussion > The doc succeeds in some ways, fails in ...

The doc succeeds in some ways, fails in others

posted 9 years ago by Jimbo_BSD
5 replies | jump to latest

Deep Web is somewhat interesting documentary that succeeds in many ways but fails in others. My familiarity with the Deep Web itself is limited. I've never visited a site, used a TOR browser or had access to Silk Road itself. I've read the various articles online for the past few months. Some very supportive of Ulbricht that look at him as kind of hero. The filmmakers obviously fall into the category of people that feel Ulbricht is being unfairly prosecuted.

How it succeeds: The filmmakers do a good job of informing the viewing of the issues at hand. They do an excellent job introducing the deep web and Silk Road. It's quick and interesting.

They also do a very good job at questioning if the government violated the 4th amendment in their investigation of Ulbricht. That to me is the most compelling question in Ulbricht's defense against the government. Was the investigation itself legal? Also, did he get a fair trial from the judge? They make a compelling case that the government played dirty pool by disallowing witnesses and document dumps.

How it fails: Ulbricht's mother thinks he's a good boy who wouldn't do anything illegal. So what? Prisons all over the world are filled with guys that have sympathetic parents who think their baby is innocent. That means nothing.

Ulbricht is clearly at least one person that goes by DPR. Ulbricht wants you to believe that others are DPR as well. But they never provide any evidence that would prove that. We're supposed to just take his word for it. It's the equivalent of throwing something against the wall and hoping it sticks.

The doc outlines how the war on drugs has been a failure, which is clear to anybody paying attention. They outline Ulbricht's view that Silk Road is intended to provide a safer way to purchase drugs that he feels should be legal anyway. But here's the thing, it's irrelevant if Ulbricht or anybody else thinks drugs should be legal. They aren't. So if you traffic in drugs you're breaking the law. It's that simple. Your philosophy doesn't matter.

They also outline that many other things are on the deep web and not just drugs and porn. Again, so what. Nobody is being charged for the conversations about politics. They're getting busted for trafficking drugs. Whatever else they do is irrelevant.

Ultimately, I think Ulbricht has a solid case for his appeal based upon the possible violation of the 4th amendment in the investigation. Ulbricht is clearly guilty of being a drug trafficker but he might be able to get off on the illegal way that information was obtained. It should be interesting to see how it goes. Even with his crimes, getting a life sentence for what he did is ridiculous. Rapists and murderers get less time for more serious crimes.

There other issues discussed in the doc regarding privacy but I've provided enough of a word dump already. So I'll mercifully stop here.

[–] sinsemilla420071 9 years ago

Agree with much of what you have said. He is most likely at least one of the DPR's that was involved in the drug trafficking. One thing to remember though is that the judge would not allow the defense to use the evidence of the undercover agent questioning whether or not Ross was *the* DPR that was running the site at the time, asking for murders-for-hire, or trafficking drugs. They had plain evidence that this guy (his name escapes me at the moment) knew there were multiple DPRs. That was a solid reasonable doubt defense and would have given the jury a plausible alternate scenario. The judge wouldn't allow that into evidence, nor would the judge allow testimony from experts as to how that would be possible.

[–] Movienaut 9 years ago

not to mention how misleading the documentary is, the synopsis is "A feature documentary that explores the rise of a new Internet; decentralized, encrypted, dangerous and beyond the law." where it should just tell us straight away that this is about Ross Ulbricht's case, and that's it. awful documentary on my opinion, and after seeing that Alex Winter is the same guy that have made "Downloaded" I'll make sure I'll keep this guy on my black list.

[–] bacci40 9 years ago

the synopsis is just sensationalistic

and the "dark web" is not beyond the law

and it isnt just tor

[–] GazTruman 9 years ago

Agree completely, the name of the documentary and the synopsis is pretty inaccurate.

[–] aliencat 8 years ago

I agree with your synopsis. If Silk Road would have just been selling shoes or French perfume, nobody would have been investigated or arrested. The documentation of the shenanigans of the government during the trial was eye opening. I am wondering how Ulbricht's appeal will go now that two of the investigating agents have been imprisoned for extorting money from Silk Road.

I also was blown away when I learned he got life without parole. You are right; rapists and murderers get less time. I think this was a case of the government wanting to prove something -- you cannot hide from them, even on the deep dark web.

And while I can understand how difficult his arrest and imprisonment must be on his family, particularly in lieu of how the court proceedings were going, the scenes with his mother and father got a bit tedious. They could have been trimmed. (Remember the scene with the mailbox in Indiana? A fourteen kid was buying drugs from Silk Road. I think that mother might have had a different view of their son.)

All in all, I found it to be a fascinating documentary about a case that really didn't catch my eye when it was happening.