[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: full-disclosure
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] VPN providers and any providers in general...
From: xD 0x41 <secn3t () gmail ! com>
Date: 2011-09-30 23:16:11
Message-ID: CALCvwp5cLJqVRC9WfVaO+ZjAjoL=aFuuyH=QHj4A4ntHanAyLQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
haha i should have just agreed with this bit from the start!
However, if you're going after somebody for
cybercrime, it won't work unless the country has laws against cybercrime
that
cover the situation in question.
!! lol!! still, a very funny story there with UK...but theyre, again, a
monarchy, and, they ckinda have laws to suit them :P
As you also said, murder is a no brainer in any place...well, maybe not iraq
or afghanistan just yet :P lol..
anyhow, thanks for the interesting place to take my head at 9am :P ,very
interesting the topic as a whole..very good to debate this stuff, and run
for/against it, because then you would probably see more to... so, i guess
some people should disagree for the sake of arguments sake or, just kill the
thread ;p
lol, take care Valdis,
xd / Dru
On 1 October 2011 08:36, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:55:18 +1000, xD 0x41 said:
>
> > there are KNOWN places, i have used, and known places wich will not store
> > data, or maybe, provide a proxxy but, they can certainly hide a botnet...
>
> As far as you know... :)
>
> > ONLy people who commit ANY crime in THEYRE country, will be
> arrested...ever
> > noticed the main BIGGER servers are hosted there, even chat ones ?
>
> Not sure how that should be parsed, and the parsing is crucial here - did
> you mean
> "they have to commit a crime in their country", or "They have to do
> something that
> *would* be a crime in their country"?
>
> The general rule is that in order for an extradition to happen, several
> things must
> be true:
>
> 1) The two countries involved need to have extradition treaties in place.
> 2) The activity must constitute a crime in the country harboring the
> accused.
> 3) The proposed punishment must not be drastically worse than what the
> harboring country would impose
>
> So the US can extradite somebody for murder from pretty much anyplace,
> because
> out of 213 or so recognized sovereign governments, there's something like 8
> that don't have reciprocal treaties in place for extradition, and murder is
> illegal in pretty much everywhere. However, if you're going after somebody
> for
> cybercrime, it won't work unless the country has laws against cybercrime
> that
> cover the situation in question. As for the third part, the US has on
> several
> occasions had to guarantee no death penalty for accused murderers they've
> extradited from countries that don't do capital punishment.
>
> So Gary McKinnon got hit with extradition even though he never got accused
> of
> breaking a British law (as far as I know)- because the charge *would* have
> been a crime if he *had* targeted a British server rather than a US server.
> Meanwhile, Julian Assange's extradition on a rape charge hit some serious
> legal
> snags because the exact behavior that Assange was accused of didn't
> actually
> meet the definition of "rape" in England.
>
>
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
haha i should have just agreed with this bit from the start!<br><br>However, if you're \
going after somebody for<br> cybercrime, it won't work unless the country has laws against \
cybercrime that<br> cover the situation in question.<br><br>!! lol!! still, a very funny story \
there with UK...but theyre, again, a monarchy, and, they ckinda have laws to suit them :P<br>As \
you also said, murder is a no brainer in any place...well, maybe not iraq or afghanistan just \
yet :P lol..<br> anyhow, thanks for the interesting place to take my head at 9am :P ,very \
interesting the topic as a whole..very good to debate this stuff, and run for/against it, \
because then you would probably see more to... so, i guess some people should disagree for the \
sake of arguments sake or, just kill the thread ;p<br> lol, take care Valdis, <br>xd / \
Dru<br><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 1 October 2011 08:36, <span \
dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu">Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu</a>></span> \
wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex;"> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:55:18 +1000, xD 0x41 said:<br>
<br>
> there are KNOWN places, i have used, and known places wich will not store<br>
> data, or maybe, provide a proxxy but, they can certainly hide a botnet...<br>
<br>
As far as you know... :)<br>
<br>
> ONLy people who commit ANY crime in THEYRE country, will be arrested...ever<br>
> noticed the main BIGGER servers are hosted there, even chat ones ?<br>
<br>
Not sure how that should be parsed, and the parsing is crucial here - did you mean<br>
"they have to commit a crime in their country", or "They have to do something \
that<br>
*would* be a crime in their country"?<br>
<br>
The general rule is that in order for an extradition to happen, several things must<br>
be true:<br>
<br>
1) The two countries involved need to have extradition treaties in place.<br>
2) The activity must constitute a crime in the country harboring the accused.<br>
3) The proposed punishment must not be drastically worse than what the<br>
harboring country would impose<br>
<br>
So the US can extradite somebody for murder from pretty much anyplace, because<br>
out of 213 or so recognized sovereign governments, there's something like 8<br>
that don't have reciprocal treaties in place for extradition, and murder is<br>
illegal in pretty much everywhere. However, if you're going after somebody for<br>
cybercrime, it won't work unless the country has laws against cybercrime that<br>
cover the situation in question. As for the third part, the US has on several<br>
occasions had to guarantee no death penalty for accused murderers they've<br>
extradited from countries that don't do capital punishment.<br>
<br>
So Gary McKinnon got hit with extradition even though he never got accused of<br>
breaking a British law (as far as I know)- because the charge *would* have<br>
been a crime if he *had* targeted a British server rather than a US server.<br>
Meanwhile, Julian Assange's extradition on a rape charge hit some serious legal<br>
snags because the exact behavior that Assange was accused of didn't actually<br>
meet the definition of "rape" in England.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br>
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic