Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:50:19 -0400
From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@...il.com>
To: secn3t@...il.com
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: VPN providers and any providers in general...

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.

_______________________________________________
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