Decoding hidden darknet networks: What we learned about the illicit fentanyl trade on AlphaBay

The opioid epidemic, impacted from the proliferation of fentanyl, has added impetus to the need to detect fentanyl, sources of fentanyl, and places where fentanyl and drugs adulterated with fentanyl are available. Many darknet marketplaces (DNMs) have rules that ban fentanyl. However, it is unclear how these affect the fentanyl market. Using the AlphaBay DNM as a case study, we conducted mixed methods qualitative research. We scraped and analyzed data from the AlphaBay I2P website using, among other methods, content and social network analysis, to uncover hidden fentanyl networks. Our research highlights the next evolution of darknet marketplaces – the migration of DNMs from Tor to I2P and the methods that can be used identify fentanyl networks, irrespective of where sites are: I2P, Tor, or multihomed on I2P and Tor. Despite its ban in the Global AlphaBay Rules, our research revealed the sale of fentanyl on the AlphaBay DNM. Unlike previous studies, our findings predominantly revealed the covert sale of fentanyl on AlphaBay and predatory vendors selling illicit drugs, which unbeknownst to buyers, contained fentanyl. To a lesser extent, our findings identified the overt sale of fentanyl patches on AlphaBay. Although we examined only one DNM, the prevalence of the covert sale of fentanyl and the presence of predatory vendors underscores the importance of research that decodes the language of vendors who surreptitiously sell fentanyl or drugs adulterated with fentanyl or other illicit substances. The results of our research can inform strategies aimed at disrupting and dismantling DNM fentanyl networks.     

The over-citation of Daubert in forensic anthropology

The 1993 US Supreme Court decision Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. presented new guidance for the judicial assessment of expert witness evidence and testimony in the determination of admissibility. Despite the rarity of admissibility challenges to forensic anthropology evidence, Daubert is frequently cited in published forensic anthropology research. This study undertook a qualitative thematic analysis of forensic anthropology articles published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences to assess why authors continue to cite Daubert and express concerns over potential exclusion. The results show a significant increase in the number of articles that cite legal admissibility standards over time (p < 0.001). Authors frequently cite these standards to contextualize their results within the Daubert framework or to justify the need for their research. Notably, many articles present Daubert as a constraining force, misinterpreting the guidelines as rigid criteria or that they require methods to be strictly quantitative. However, Daubert was intended to be a flexible tool for judges—not a standard or instruction for scientists. While it was reasonable to reflect on the scientific rigor of methods in the wake of the Daubert decision, a new perspective is warranted in which forensic anthropologists shift their focus from trying to “satisfy” admissibility guidelines to adopting quality assurance measures that minimize error and ensure confidence in analytical results, and developing and using methods that are grounded in good science—which is important regardless of whether or not the results are ever the subject of a trial.     

Protecting Childhood: Rights,Social Goals and the First Amendment in the Context of the Child Online Protection Act

In Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders, the Supreme Court of the United States reintroduced a subject matter test into libel law, holding that private figures defamed in the discussion of matters of private concern did not need to prove actual malice to collect punitive or presumed damages. The sweeping language of some of opinions, coupled with the Supreme Court's references to subject matter in subsequent cases, led to confusion over whether and how constitutional protections apply in private plaintiff-private issue cases. This article explores how lower federal and state appellate courts have interpreted Dun & Bradstreet and offers three alternate solutions to appropriately balance the First Amendment rights of defendants with the reputational interests of private plaintiffs in cases arising from the discussion of matters of private concern.     

Winners and Losers in the Postcommunist Transition: New Evidence from Estonia

An American specialist on Russian politics and federalism examines the democratizing effects, intended and unintended, of President Vladimir Putin's federative reforms. Focus is on the "harmonization" of regional constitutions and legislation with federal laws and the RF Constitution in the name of the "reintegration of Russia's legal space." On the basis of detailed analysis of changes in regional constitutions and laws ensuing from the harmonization policy, the author assesses the impact of this aspect of the reforms on democratization in Russia's regions. Regional issues examined include the separation and balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, political and civil rights, the level of demand for democratic laws and independent judicial review, and the emergence of stakeholders of these reforms within civil society.     

The origins of quare impedit

The writ of quare impedit was, until the mid-nineteenth century, a standard real action for the recovery of advowsons. This article argues that the writ was most likely created between 1187 and 1196, and that it was, at least in part, a response to pressure from religious houses that acquired advowsons by charter of gift and were precluded from bringing the writ of right of advowson or the assize of darrein presentment.     

Moral Foundations,Intuitions of Justice,and the Intricacies of Punitive Sentiment

Research on punitive attitudes has, so far, focused largely on people's retributive attitudes toward offenders. However, a large theoretical body of research indicates that concerns about different types of offenses and victims may be just as important in structuring punitive attitudes. Particularly, Moral Foundations Theory suggests that distinct punitive attitudes may be based in intuitive moral concerns (“moral foundations”) about offenses that victimize individuals, groups, and the “divine,” referring to bodily purity or sanctity. In this study, I develop measures of what I term “victim‐centered punitiveness,” and use data from a nationwide survey of adult Americans (N = 915) to compare the sources of offender‐ and victim‐centered punitiveness. As expected, different moral foundations shape offender‐ and victim‐centered punitiveness in different ways, suggesting that they have distinct intuitive, moral bases. Other factors, including racial resentment, also have distinct effects on each type of punitiveness.     

Demythologizing inaccurate perceptions of the insanity defense

Public opinion data show that the most prevalent concern expressed regarding the insanity defense is that it is a loophole through which would-be criminals escape punishment for illegal acts. This article examines the extent to which the public's perceptions of the insanity defense are consistent with newly collected empirical data. Specifically, it compares perceptions of the use, success, and outcomes associated with the insanity defense to data derived from a large-scale study of insanity pleas in eight states. The analysis reveals that the public overestimates the use and success of an insanity defense and underestimates the extent to which insanity acquittees are confined upon acquittal. The role of selective media reporting in the formation of public perceptions is discussed.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1992 meetings of the Society for the Study of Social Problems. Special thanks go to John Monahan and Joel Dvoskin for reviewing an earlier draft and to Sharon Steadman for providing editorial comments.     

Elmer's case: A legal positivist replies to Dworkin

Conclusion I have argued that Legal Positivism can accommodate the existence oftheoretical disagreements in law and that Ronald Dworkin is wrongto claim otherwise. As far as Legal Positivists are concerned, evenjudges who differ over both the truth of propositions of law and thegrounds or sources of law can have a legal duty to resolve their dis-agreements on the basis of legal arguments. The duty exists whenconventional legal practice creates it. Moreover, all Anglo-Americanlegal systems impose the duty on judges because all such systemscontain legal practices of the right sort: practices creating expectationsthat cases will be decided on the law even when they raise doubtsabout the content or proper formulation of a rule of recognition.Thus, Elmer's Case poses no threat to Legal Positivism. To the con-trary, it reveals the richness of that theory as few other cases can.Only if Elmer's Case is detached from the context of Anglo-American adjudication can it be said to undermine Legal Positivism.But then no theory of positive law could withstand its challenge.A draft of this essay was presented at a political theory workshop at the University of Chicago. I am grateful for comments received from Russell Hardin, Leo Katz, Steven Fletcher and Thomas Christiano on that occasion. I also thank Steven Walt and Jules Coleman, two of the better dressed philosophers I know.