>>"Good point Jeff, the real question is what does one do to fix it?"
http://www.google.com/search?q=related:www.aclu.org On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Laurelai <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ >
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
