Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:04:40 -0500
From: adam <adam@...sy.net>
To: Laurelai <laurelai@...echan.org>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: VPN providers and any providers in general...

>>"Good point Jeff, the real question is what does one do to fix it?"

http://www.google.com/search?q=related:www.aclu.org

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Laurelai <laurelai@...echan.org> wrote:

> On 10/4/2011 7:50 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:19 PM, xD 0x41<secn3t@...il.com>  wrote:
> >> This is ONCE you are actually in front, of the judge...remember, it may
> take
> >> some breaking of civil liberty, for this to happen... or i maybe wrong.
> >> cheers
> > Yep. Though some are probably not nice people, the Guantanamo Bay
> > detainees were denied US Constitutional Rights (so said the US Supreme
> > Court, 3 times).
> >
> > The folks who perverted our highest laws and precepts were not brought
> > up on charges, or even censored. Sparta had it right: put the
> > politicians on trial for their [alleged] crimes when their term is up.
> >
> > Who are the real terrorist against our [US] democracy?
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >> On 5 October 2011 15:10, Laurelai<laurelai@...echan.org>  wrote:
> >>> On 10/4/2011 6:50 PM, adam wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "That actually depends on the situation, contempt can be criminal. And
> >>> frankly if you refuse a court order for information like that, the LE
> >>> officers will just seize it by gunpoint legally, then arrest you."
> >>> I'm curious as to what you think would cause contempt to be a criminal
> >>> offense, especially in that example.
> >>> Secondly, without the appropriate warrant - they couldn't legally take
> >>> anything. If they disregarded that truth and did so anyway, they'd open
> >>> themselves up to a pretty big lawsuit for violating that individual's
> civil
> >>> rights as well as due process. Not to mention, anything found would
> likely
> >>> end up being inadmissible because it was obtained illegally.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Laurelai<laurelai@...echan.org>
>  wrote:
> >>>> On 10/4/2011 6:35 PM, adam wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> "(Option 3 - the guy heads downtown on a contempt of court charge -
> >>>> happens so
> >>>> rarely that it's basically a hypothetical)."
> >>>> You do realize that (at least in the US) - contempt is not a criminal
> >>>> offense, don't you?
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:05 PM,<Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>  wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 03:15:02 EDT, Jeffrey Walton said:
> >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Ferenc Kovacs<tyra3l@...il.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> As I mentioned before it is hard to expect that a VPN provider will
> >>>>>>> risk his company for your $11.52/month, and maybe they would try it
> >>>>>>> for some lesser case, but what Lulsec did was grant, so I'm not
> >>>>>>> surprised that they bent.
> >>>>>> "Alleged"
> >>>>> Yes. So?  In most jurisdictions, "alledged" and "probable cause" is
> >>>>> sufficient
> >>>>> to get a court to sign off on a subpoena and/or warrants.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Dear Judge:  On Aug 23, a hacker using the handle
> "JustFellOutOfTree"
> >>>>> did
> >>>>> violate Section N, Clause X.Y of the criminal code by hacking into
> >>>>> BigStore.com.  The connection was traced back to the provider
> VPNs-R-Us.
> >>>>>   We
> >>>>> would like a court order requesting VPNs-R-Us to provide any and all
> >>>>> information they may have regarding this user".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That will usually do it (after bulked up to about 3 pages with
> legalese
> >>>>> and
> >>>>> dotting the t's and crossing the i's).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The next morning, the manager at VPNs-R-Us gets to his office, and
> finds
> >>>>> two guys with guns and a signed piece of paper.  At which point one
> of
> >>>>> two
> >>>>> things will happen:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1) the guy rolls and gives up all the info.
> >>>>> 2) the guy calls his lawyer and makes sure that he gives up all the
> >>>>> required info,
> >>>>> and not one byte more.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (Option 3 - the guy heads downtown on a contempt of court charge -
> >>>>> happens so
> >>>>> rarely that it's basically a hypothetical).
> >>>> That actually depends on the situation, contempt can be criminal. And
> >>>> frankly if you refuse a court order for information like that, the LE
> >>>> officers will just seize it by gunpoint legally, then arrest you.
> >>>
> >>>
> http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00754.htm
> >>>
> >>> And they can hold you indefinitely until you comply, or use your lack
> of
> >>> compliance as reasonable suspicion to get that warrant, oh and lets not
> >>> forget that they are declaring kids cyber terrorists and then the
> patriot
> >>> act takes effect in cases of suspicion of terrorism, when that happens
> you
> >>> don't have any rights anymore. Realistically we should stop calling
> them
> >>> rights since they aren't really rights, they are privileges that can be
> >>> revoked at government convenience.
> Good point Jeff, the real question is what does one do to fix it?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists