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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 21:52:53 -0500
From: adam <adam@...sy.net>
To: noloader@...il.com
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: VPN providers and any providers in general...

>>Its frightening how much power judges have, and how poorly they
are overseen.

Definitely agree there. Some of the civil cases are disgustingly bad, due to
there being no media attention and no real oversight. The civil case
mentioned above is a good example, and all of the excessive child support
orders even further that.

On topic: I haven't read every single reply here, but from what I've seen:
no one has mentioned the VPN provider being held personally responsible.
Being that the attacks originated from machines they own, if they failed to
turn over user information, could it really be that difficult to pin the
attacks on them and convince a judge that they were responsible?

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Jeffrey Walton <noloader@...il.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:32 PM, adam <adam@...sy.net> wrote:
> >>>
> http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00754.htm
> > Did you actually read the link you pasted?
> > [...] and "criminal penalties may not be imposed on someone who has not
> been
> > afforded the protections that the Constitution requires of such criminal
> > proceedings [...] protections include the right [..]
> > Then take a look at the actual rights being referenced. Most of which
> would
> > be violated as a result.
> > In response to 0x41 "This is ONCE you are actually in front, of the
> > judge...remember, it may take some breaking of civil liberty, for this to
> > happen... "
> > No, you're absolutely right. That's the point here. Contempt is attached
> to
> > the previous court order, there wouldn't be a new judge/new case for the
> > contempt charge alone. All of it is circumstantial anyway, especially due
> to
> > how much power judges actually have (in both criminal AND civil
> > proceedings).
> Its frightening how much power judges have, and how poorly they are
> overseen. Confer: Judge James Ware, US 9th Circuit Court (this is not
> a local judge in a hillbilly town).
>
> Jeff
>

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/