- Test - lists.nanog.org

AS3215 in the house?
by Christopher Chin 18 Mar '04

18 Mar '04

If anyone from AS3215 (France Telecom Transpac) lurks here, I'd appreciate it if they'd contact me off list. Thanks, - Christopher AS25 -- UCB ======================

1 0

RE: US Extradition rights (was Re: Spamhaus Exposed)
by McBurnett, Jim 18 Mar '04

18 Mar '04

->Joshua Brady wrote: ->> The "Child" you speak of caused destruction over a network, the same ->> applied for the 2 hackers here who were sent over without even ->> questioning the UK. If the US Government is Satan then I ->suppose I am ->> going to hell, because I sure as hell support it. -> ->Do you support the converse, where some little s*** hacks my ->London network ->from some random US college ? At the moment, I have no ->recourse of any kind ->and the UK authorities have no power, and as a consequence, ->no interest. -> ->Peter The world is full of Attorneys.. And I bet you could find a nice one in the states to sue him.. Or report it to the FBI.. Http://www.fbi.gov US authorities had no ability to hand those hackers in Taiwan, so what did someone do? they contacted the Taiwan Gov't... Can you do that? J

1 0

RE: US Extradition rights (was Re: Spamhaus Exposed)
by cproctor＠epik.net 18 Mar '04

18 Mar '04

> Joshua Brady wrote: > > The "Child" you speak of caused destruction over a network, > the same > > applied for the 2 hackers here who were sent over without even > > questioning the UK. If the US Government is Satan then I > suppose I am > > going to hell, because I sure as hell support it. > > Do you support the converse, where some little s*** hacks my > London network from some random US college ? At the moment, I > have no recourse of any kind and the UK authorities have no > power, and as a consequence, no interest. > > Peter I would have to say yes. Globalization of trade and markets is dependant to some degree on a commonality of law. As you say, there's presently no reason a US firm couldn't destroy the network of a UK firm with whom it competes to get a competitive advantage. If spammers are any example, then there are people out there low enough to take advantage of such a loophole. It is probably reasonable to expect that every country will maintain its own speed limits and decency statues. I do believe that crimes against people and property should be prosecutable across international borders. Unfortunately, that is probably a utopian dream. Chris Proctor

1 0

Re: Spamhaus Exposed
by Dr. Jeffrey Race 18 Mar '04

18 Mar '04

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:54:00 -0000, Peter Galbavy wrote: > Wonder what other countries have sold their souls to Satan ? Are any leases on offer? :)

1 0

Re: Spamhaus Exposed
by Steven M. Bellovin 18 Mar '04

18 Mar '04

This thread is making the script-kiddie name-calling look on-topic and mature. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb

1 0

Re: Hi
by milton＠isomedia.com 18 Mar '04

18 Mar '04

1 0

Re: who offers cheap (personal) 1U colo?
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 18 Mar '04

18 Mar '04

>Restrict it to people you've met or spoken to enough >to think you know them.. ^^^^^ That is the problem. Password access to a members-only looking glass can prevent temptation and grief. And nobody needs shell access per se because we are talking about people who have root on their own servers. Some people have done a lot of work on locking down the original looking-glass script. Is there a version of this that is generally accepted to be the best? How useful would it be to folks to have access to a set of looking glasses that have a few more options than the classic one, i.e. TCP traceroute, PathChirp one-way latency measurements, etc.? --Michael Dillon

1 0

RE: Spamhaus Exposed
by Dave Hart 18 Mar '04

18 Mar '04

Dan Hollis said: > > federal interest site. thats automatic prison time, isnt it? Alexei Roudnev replied: > Of course, not - he is not from USA (more likely), the end. > Why people believe, that this acts means ANYTHING? In > Internet, they (acts) means NOTHING. Unless, of course, she happens to travel to the US at some point. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ivanovSent_NJ.htm http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/gorshkovSent.htm In the Gorshkov/Ivanov case the Russian FSB formally charged the US FBI with breaking Russian law by hacking in to the gang's Russian computers and gathering evidence. One ruling in the cases said Russian law does not apply to the FBI agents operating in the US. So basically you have both sides claiming that "I am the law", and whoever has the body wins. Dave Hart

1 0

Re: Hi
by srh＠merit.edu 18 Mar '04

18 Mar '04

1 0

Protected message
by milton＠isomedia.com 18 Mar '04

18 Mar '04

1 0