hmm.. yes interesting.. On the flip side would it be that hard for a malicious person who works at a VPN provider to blame it on a customer? I don't think that's what has happened in this case, but hypothetically what is to stop a rouge employee from abusing the trust that a LE official might have and doctoring logs sent to them?
Absolutely nothing :) This is where, as i was saying... a shell owner/employee, could easily make any police run in circles simply trying to get a decent tap on something... this is where it gets cloudy... but, this is what is being questioned on this threead to... I guess we have gotten somewhere. A. Do NOT use VPN and shell services, to commit crime B. Do NOT commit crimes, in USA,especially those of a large-scale cyber nature,and C. I apprently am laurelai and, i like popcorn (both are false) Cheers! xd On 5 October 2011 14:30, adam <[email protected]> wrote: > That raises a good question: could a good enough defense attorney convey > that point to a judge well enough to get the charges dismissed? Then again, > if they really believed a VPN service would protect them (even while > violating their agreement with said provider) - there's probably at least > *some* evidence on their machine implicating them. In the event that > there's not though, I do wonder how it would play out. > > It'd make for a relatively easy set-up, if that were to work the way you > suggested. You could doctor all of the logs to implicate them, and even go > as far as to use the same software/configuration that they use. No matter > how true their "I have no idea what you're talking about" actually is, the > logs plus added "evidence" could likely be enough. > > That entire thing reminds me of something I thought about after watching > "to catch a predator" a couple of times. You'll notice that in most cases, > the "predators" respond the same way: they play stupid, pretend not to know > what's going on, etc. Imagine if you knew someone in real life that worked > at a pizza delivery place. Now also imagine that you hated said person. > > The "undercovers" on that show are all pretty predictable, and some of the > tactics they use are present in every single bust. Keeping that in mind, and > with enough research, you could easily find one of their undercovers online. > Now imagine starting a dialogue with one of them, pretending to be the > person who works at a pizza place (for sake of simplicity, we'll call him > Mike). Imagine sending pictures of Mike to the undercover, talking about > having sex with her, sending her nude pictures of "you" or other people, and > so on. > > Then wait for one day that you know Mike person is working (and that you > know undercover would be willing to meet). Figuring out the former would be > a simple call to the pizza place "Hey [name], do you know what time Mike > comes in today?" From there, you could tell the undercover that you'll come > in your pizza delivery car so that no one suspects anything, so that > she recognizes you, whatever - and tell her that you'll bring a pizza (maybe > even go as far as to figure out her favorite kind for added "evidence"). > > During the day, lots of pizza places only have one or two drivers present. > You could sit outside the pizza place and wait for [other driver] to leave > and Mike to arrive (or do something to cause [other driver] not to make it > back to the pizza place, e.g. slashing one of his tires on a fake delivery). > There's lots of different ideas that could be implemented, as long as the > end result is that you can guarantee Mike will be delivering the pizza. At > which point, you call and request a delivery to undercover's house. Mike > shows up there, undercover invites him inside and asks him to sit down - and > at that point, Chris Hansen comes walking out. Even though everything Mike > would say is indeed true, it'd sound like BS if we believed he had been > talking to the undercover for a couple of months. He'd "play stupid" and > would be charged with felony offenses of trying to entice a child/yada yada. > > In that situation, even if he could somehow come up with proof that he was > set up - no one's gonna believe a pervert. It's just something that I've > thought about a lot, and I wonder how many others have as well (and I > especially wonder if anyone has ever attempted it). > > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Laurelai <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 10/4/2011 7:52 PM, adam wrote: >> >> >>Its frightening how much power judges have, and how poorly they >> are overseen. >> >> Definitely agree there. Some of the civil cases are disgustingly bad, >> due to there being no media attention and no real oversight. The civil case >> mentioned above is a good example, and all of the excessive child support >> orders even further that. >> >> On topic: I haven't read every single reply here, but from what I've >> seen: no one has mentioned the VPN provider being held personally >> responsible. Being that the attacks originated from machines they own, if >> they failed to turn over user information, could it really be that difficult >> to pin the attacks on them and convince a judge that they were responsible? >> >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Jeffrey Walton <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:32 PM, adam <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00754.htm >>> > Did you actually read the link you pasted? >>> > [...] and "criminal penalties may not be imposed on someone who has not >>> been >>> > afforded the protections that the Constitution requires of such >>> criminal >>> > proceedings [...] protections include the right [..] >>> > Then take a look at the actual rights being referenced. Most of which >>> would >>> > be violated as a result. >>> > In response to 0x41 "This is ONCE you are actually in front, of the >>> > judge...remember, it may take some breaking of civil liberty, for this >>> to >>> > happen... " >>> > No, you're absolutely right. That's the point here. Contempt is >>> attached to >>> > the previous court order, there wouldn't be a new judge/new case for >>> the >>> > contempt charge alone. All of it is circumstantial anyway, especially >>> due to >>> > how much power judges actually have (in both criminal AND civil >>> > proceedings). >>> Its frightening how much power judges have, and how poorly they are >>> overseen. Confer: Judge James Ware, US 9th Circuit Court (this is not >>> a local judge in a hillbilly town). >>> >>> Jeff >>> >> >> Also a good point. >> >> On the flip side would it be that hard for a malicious person who works at >> a VPN provider to blame it on a customer? I don't think that's what has >> happened in this case, but hypothetically what is to stop a rouge employee >> from abusing the trust that a LE official might have and doctoring logs sent >> to them? >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
