Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:57:08 +0200
From: Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@...il.com>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: VPN providers and any providers in general...

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 3:53 AM,  <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 20:35:16 CDT, adam said:
>> "(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?
>
> tl;dr: Doesn't matter, you can end up in the slammer anyhow.
>
> Actually, the general rule is that if it's a civil proceeding it's only civil
> contempt.  Refusing to comply with warrants or subpoenas pursuant to a criminal
> proceeding could very well get you criminal contempt.  And even in civil
> proceedings the judge can stick you in jail till you decide to change your
> mind.
>
> And we're certainly discussing a criminal proceeding here.
>
> Journalist Judith Miller got to spend 4 months in jail for refusing to cooperate
> with a grand jury investigation.
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Judith_Miller_(journalist)#Contempt_of_court
>
> And this dude spent 14 years in jail on a *civil* contempt charge:
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick

http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2116048/Google-Forced-to-Release-WikiLeaks-Volunteers-Gmail-Info

"Google and Sonic.net, a small Internet service provider, have been
forced to hand a WikiLeaks volunteer’s email information to the U.S.
government under a secret and controversial court order. The type of
information released includes login IPs of the volunteer and those
with whom he communicated by email, as well as their email addresses.

Sonic fought the order, dated January 4, 2011, but lost. Chief
executive Dane Jasper told the Wall Street Journal that although the
legal battle was expensive, “... it was the right thing to do.” It is
unclear whether Google fought the order or willingly complied."

...

"The law under which this questionable seizure of private
communications is permitted is called the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act. It dates back to 1986, three years before the World Wide
Web was born. Google and Microsoft are both members of a coalition
fighting for reform, as this law allows law enforcement easier access
to emails than postal mail. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has
previously warned U.S. citizens that their Facebook, Yahoo, and Google
account information is quite accessible to U.S. government officials.

In fact, law enforcement officials don’t even need a search warrant to
access private emails. While a search warrant would require they show
probable cause that a crime has been committed, they must only
demonstrate that they have “reasonable grounds” to believe the email
records could be “relevant and material” to an investigation under the
ECPA.

Another controversial element of this type of email seizure is that
the person isn’t notified that their email has been searched. Google
and Sonic both lobbied, in this case, to be allowed to notify
Appelbaum of the seizure. Under the 1986 law, however, they are
prohibited from doing so. This type of court order is usually sealed."

-- 
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu

_______________________________________________
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