full-disclosure - Re: Popular Net anonymity service back-doored

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308221044250.23373-100000@expansionpack.xtdnet.nl>
From: paul at xtdnet.nl (Paul Wouters)
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