lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 10:45:59 +0200 (MET DST) From: Paul Wouters <paul@...net.nl> To: Alex Russell <alex@...Windows.org> Cc: "Thomas C. Greene " <thomas.greene@...register.co.uk>, <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>, <full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>, Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de> Subject: Re: Popular Net anonymity service back-doored On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Alex Russell wrote: > > It's likely were legally prevented from issuing a clear warning, which is > > why I say they should have taken the service down in protest. I don't know > > German law, but I'd be surprised if the courts can force you to provide a > > communications service just so the Feds can use it. > > I wouldn't be so suprised at such a ruling, although I'd really like to hear > from someone with familiarity with German law. A court order might be able to tell you that they want to tap some individual, and you have to co-operate in such a way that the target will not notice this. However, *nothing* can order you to stay in business. The obvious move would have been to tear down the anonymiser and stop doing business. I am sure under Dutch law, I could stop the service. I strongly suspect this is true for at least most of Europe. Paul _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists