Re: [Full-disclosure] VPN providers and any providers in general...

[Laurelai <laurelai@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/4/2011 7:50 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:19 PM, xD 0x41<secn3t@xxxxxxxxx>  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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  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@xxxxxx>  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@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> 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.
Good point Jeff, the real question is what does one do to fix it?

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