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]

Message-ID: <CAExQ7u+kR1_t0SqW7-7C3ZSdVEe+NpDB4LfRTtV-5RCM6-=QZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:59:40 -0500
From: adam <adam@...sy.net>
To: Laurelai <laurelai@...echan.org>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: VPN provider helped track down alleged
	LulzSec member

"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?"

I'm not sure you understood the example, and the mixing and matching you're
doing here doesn't really work. If they're being "extradited" for violating
a court order - it wouldn't very well be cybercrime, would it? No. Secondly,
in the example provided, the service [provider] resides in the same place as
the court handling the case - so there'd be no need for extradition in the
first place. Third, If you take things out of context, twist them and then
question them - of course they're not going to make much sense.

Lastly, you're talking about the prosecution of such crimes. That's entirely
different than a court ordering that X service turn over Y information about
Z user.

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/