On 10/4/2011 7:50 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:19 PM, xD 0x41<[email protected]> 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<[email protected]> 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<[email protected]> 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,<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 03:15:02 EDT, Jeffrey Walton said: >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Ferenc Kovacs<[email protected]> >>>>>> 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/
