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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <4E85F08B.10107@oneechan.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:38:35 -0500
From: Laurelai <laurelai@...echan.org>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: VPN provider helped track down alleged
 LulzSec member


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
On 9/30/2011 10:45 AM, adam wrote:
> "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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Cause them to face punishment in what country? Wouldn't they have to
extradite them? What if their extradition treaty didn't cover
cybercrime, or they didn't have one with the US?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
 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=ebyU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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/