full-disclosure - Re: VPN providers and any providers in general...

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: <4E8BD8B3.4040308@oneechan.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 21:10:27 -0700
From: Laurelai <laurelai@...echan.org>
To: adam <adam@...sy.net>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: VPN providers and any providers in general...

On 10/4/2011 6:50 PM, adam wrote:
> "That actually depends on the situation, contempt can be criminal. And 
> frankly if you refuse a court order for information like that, the LE 
> officers will just seize it by gunpoint legally, then arrest you."
>
> I'm curious as to what you think would cause contempt to be a criminal 
> offense, especially in that example.
>
> Secondly, without the appropriate warrant - they couldn't legally take 
> anything. If they disregarded that truth and did so anyway, they'd 
> open themselves up to a pretty big lawsuit for violating that 
> individual's civil rights as well as due process. Not to mention, 
> anything found would likely end up being inadmissible because it was 
> obtained illegally.
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Laurelai <laurelai@...echan.org 
> <mailto:laurelai@...echan.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 10/4/2011 6:35 PM, adam wrote:
>>     "(Option 3 - the guy heads downtown on a contempt of court charge
>>     - happens so
>>     rarely that it's basically a hypothetical)."
>>
>>     You do realize that (at least in the US) - contempt is *not* a
>>     criminal offense, don't you?
>>
>>     On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 8:05 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
>>     <mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>> wrote:
>>
>>         On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 03:15:02 EDT, Jeffrey Walton said:
>>         > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Ferenc Kovacs
>>         <tyra3l@...il.com <mailto:tyra3l@...il.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         > > As I mentioned before it is hard to expect that a VPN
>>         provider will
>>         > > risk his company for your $11.52/month, and maybe they
>>         would try it
>>         > > for some lesser case, but what Lulsec did was grant, so
>>         I'm not
>>         > > surprised that they bent.
>>         >
>>         > "Alleged"
>>
>>         Yes. So?  In most jurisdictions, "alledged" and "probable
>>         cause" is sufficient
>>         to get a court to sign off on a subpoena and/or warrants.
>>
>>         "Dear Judge:  On Aug 23, a hacker using the handle
>>         "JustFellOutOfTree" did
>>         violate Section N, Clause X.Y of the criminal code by hacking
>>         into
>>         BigStore.com.  The connection was traced back to the provider
>>         VPNs-R-Us.  We
>>         would like a court order requesting VPNs-R-Us to provide any
>>         and all
>>         information they may have regarding this user".
>>
>>         That will usually do it (after bulked up to about 3 pages
>>         with legalese and
>>         dotting the t's and crossing the i's).
>>
>>         The next morning, the manager at VPNs-R-Us gets to his
>>         office, and finds
>>         two guys with guns and a signed piece of paper.  At which
>>         point one of two
>>         things will happen:
>>
>>         1) the guy rolls and gives up all the info.
>>         2) the guy calls his lawyer and makes sure that he gives up
>>         all the required info,
>>         and not one byte more.
>>
>>         (Option 3 - the guy heads downtown on a contempt of court
>>         charge - happens so
>>         rarely that it's basically a hypothetical).
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>>         Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>>         Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>>     Charter:http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>>     Hosted and sponsored by Secunia -http://secunia.com/
>     That actually depends on the situation, contempt can be criminal.
>     And frankly if you refuse a court order for information like that,
>     the LE officers will just seize it by gunpoint legally, then
>     arrest you.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>     Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>     Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>
>
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00754.htm

And they can hold you indefinitely until you comply, or use your lack of 
compliance as reasonable suspicion to get that warrant, oh and lets not 
forget that they are declaring kids cyber terrorists and then the 
patriot act takes effect in cases of suspicion of terrorism, when that 
happens you don't have any rights anymore. Realistically we should stop 
calling them rights since they aren't really rights, they are privileges 
that can be revoked at government convenience.


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/