full-disclosure - Re: VPN provider helped track down alleged LulzSec member

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]

Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:45:33 -0500
From: adam <adam@...sy.net>
To: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@...rr.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk, Ben Crabtree <bencrab@...il.com>,
	secn3t@...il.com
Subject: Re: VPN provider helped track down alleged
	LulzSec member

"User location determines Judicial Jurisdiction - how is that irrelevant?"

Jurisdiction in the prosecution of such crimes, yes. In the investigation
itself, no. Which seems to be where all the confusion is coming from. If you
use a service in the US to commit a crime, and that service is ordered by a
court to turn over information about you, they're legally obligated to do
so. The content (e.g. your location) of that information isn't relevant in
terms of the court order - it only becomes relevant in the prosecution of
whatever crime you've committed. What "glow" is suggesting is that if the
service provider determined the user's location to be somewhere in Russia,
that they could then tell the court "Sorry, but the user is located in a
place that this court doesn't have jurisdiction" - which not only wouldn't
work, but would also cause them to personally face punishment for violating
a court order.

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/