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 12:45:34 -0500
From: Laurelai <laurelai@...echan.org>
To: adam <adam@...sy.net>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: VPN provider helped track down alleged
 LulzSec member

On 9/30/2011 11:59 AM, adam wrote:
> "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. 
Its possible i misread it i have been up for over 24 hours

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/