-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Paul Ferguson <fergdawgster@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 8:36 PM, William Pitcock <nenolod@systeminplace.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 23:25 -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 11:13 PM, William Pitcock <nenolod@systeminplace.net> wrote:
It "worked" against Indymedia UK: http://www.indymedia.org/fbi/
indymedia is in texas, no mlat required.
It was an MLAT initiated by the Dutch government because someone posted pictures of a Dutch policeman breaking the law that they wanted removed.
Yes, the M in MLAT stands for *Mutual*. As in, it goes both ways.
The IndyMedia incident illustrates the problem, in my opinion -- going after child's play instead of hardcore criminals.
Que Sera...
I apologize for deviating from the original issue at hand -- which I almost forgot. :-) And (I believe) it had something to do with something along the lines of (paraphrased) "What are ISPs supposed to do about $WHATEVER activities within their realm of responsibility?" -- where $WHATEVER could be spammers, criminal malware purveyors, or something else equally illegal. I would suggest following the lead of two other ISPs who have found themselves in similar positions in the past -- Hurricane Electric and GLBX - -- that, when presented with hard, documented evidence of criminal activity, disconnected downstream parties for violating their Term of Service agreements. You don't always have to have a Fed knocking on your door with a subpoena to do The Right Thing. - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003) wj8DBQFLPDNbq1pz9mNUZTMRAhlZAKD0AkSTnva4PCaMo1fawaid/aGfKgCg1qwG 7kiDiuflc4X6xeYJDBU4eYQ= =+kNv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawgster(at)gmail.com ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/