Re: [Full-disclosure] VPN provider helped track down alleged LulzSec member

[Laurelai <laurelai@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/