| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAH8yC8mGhQiD0rfvN=jFTb2gcNdSwb5p2iXdV8+StotwaY_Tjw@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 22:50:19 -0400 From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@...il.com> To: secn3t@...il.com Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: VPN providers and any providers in general... On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:19 PM, xD 0x41 <secn3t@...il.com> wrote: > This is ONCE you are actually in front, of the judge...remember, it may take > some breaking of civil liberty, for this to happen... or i maybe wrong. > cheers Yep. Though some are probably not nice people, the Guantanamo Bay detainees were denied US Constitutional Rights (so said the US Supreme Court, 3 times). The folks who perverted our highest laws and precepts were not brought up on charges, or even censored. Sparta had it right: put the politicians on trial for their [alleged] crimes when their term is up. Who are the real terrorist against our [US] democracy? Jeff > On 5 October 2011 15:10, Laurelai <laurelai@...echan.org> wrote: >> >> 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> 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> 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> >>>> > 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). >>> >>> 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. >> >> >> 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. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists