BugTraq
Popular Net anonymity service back-doored Aug 21 2003 04:56AM
Thomas C. Greene (thomas greene theregister co uk) (4 replies)
JAP unbackdoored Aug 27 2003 07:43PM
Kristian Koehntopp (kris koehntopp de)
Re: Popular Net anonymity service back-doored Aug 21 2003 06:38PM
Florian Weimer (fw deneb enyo de) (1 replies)
Re: Popular Net anonymity service back-doored Aug 21 2003 12:05PM
Thomas C. Greene (thomas greene theregister co uk) (3 replies)
Re: Popular Net anonymity service back-doored Aug 22 2003 07:34AM
nordi (nordi addcom de)
Re: Popular Net anonymity service back-doored Aug 21 2003 10:30PM
Alex Russell (alex netWindows org)
Re: Popular Net anonymity service back-doored Aug 21 2003 09:41PM
Aron Nimzovitch (crypto clouddancer com) (2 replies)
Re: Popular Net anonymity service back-doored Aug 24 2003 09:42AM
Bernhard Kuemel (darsie gmx at)
RE: Popular Net anonymity service back-doored Aug 21 2003 10:29PM
Drew Copley (dcopley eeye com)
Re: Popular Net anonymity service back-doored Aug 21 2003 04:42PM
Andreas Kuntzagk (andreas kuntzagk mdc-berlin de) (1 replies)
RE: Popular Net anonymity service back-doored Aug 21 2003 08:16PM
Drew Copley (dcopley eeye com) (1 replies)
Re: Popular Net anonymity service back-doored Aug 21 2003 10:35PM
Richard Stevens (mail richardstevens de)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

first, let me make one thing clear, I think what happened is very bad. They
should have done anything else but secretly bug their system. But your logic
is seriously flawed.

> German police have no jurisdiction in the US, for instance, just as the
> US police have no jurisdiction in Germany -- apart from whatever
> agreement Germany has made with the US regarding post-WWII treaties or
> whatever.

Very unpleasant for sure but also higlhly irrelevant. The people running AN.ON
are German entities operating under German laws being situated in Germany.
They were the ones that received the court order so they had to do something.
If there are international users or not is really highly irrelevant in this
case. Nobody claimed that German police or courts had juristiction in the US.

> Still, I do not think anyone would be pleased if it was found that the
> NSA backdoored a US product. How much moreso of a problem would this be
> if local police backdoored a system such as this anonymity system?

Well, you can be sure, people are not pleased here, either. But do you really
think if american police or better yet the FBI would demand some kind of
tracking for an anonymizer in the US, they'd care about international users?
Maybe the individuals operating the anonymizer would react better but I'd be
surprised if american law enforcement agencies wouldn't use similar measures
if they could by law (not sure about american laws).

> This kind of crime sends a message to would be hackers. It says that it
> is okay to hack if the end is justified. Hackers, you may not have
> jurisdiction in Germany, but if you are hacking pedophiles or Neo-Nazis,
> they are law breakers, so your means must be okay. Do people really want
> this? Can anyone really be trusted with this? Wouldn't they hit the
> wrong people and make all sorts of bad mistakes for which they would not
> be held accountable for?

Not really. It's not a crime. You can argue about the correctness of their
decision to secretly implement this backdoor in an *anonymizer* instead of
standing up and tearing the service down. But following a valid court order
is not a crime. Even though I really don't like those laws but spying on
people seems to be hip after the events of Septembre 11th.

Regards,

Richard
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/RUkkCfA4EwqVdIQRAh7JAJ9Tgt7ZqhaQAuJ7eWt+bp0AlStjaACg7Hrc
W0PYxdAfEnCot0ORC2LlS+s=
=25Si
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ reply ]
Re: Popular Net anonymity service back-doored Aug 21 2003 04:37PM
MightyE (trash mightye org)


 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus