Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#51

Post by striking »

detaro wrote: post #14

Interesting that they only took one of the disks. a) a more aggressive forensic approach would avoid the server to be shut down if at all possible (getting data in RAM or on encrypted partitions) and b) it is very restrained in comparison to other seizures. I'd say that if they believed he were actively complicit or would do something to hinder the investigation, they would have been more aggressive, possibly went af…

http://pastebin.com/raw/YuU6931t

"We have a confiscation order for the disks of your server, but we were allowed to leave one of them installed, due to the fact that you have a Raid1 setup."

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#52

Post by wrong_internet »

cpncrunch wrote: post #44
jacquesm wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he definitely was not saying that.

That seemed to be the implication.

OP specifically asked if it was pursuant to an MLAT obligation. That alone makes it clear they were asking in earnest.

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#53

Post by gruez »

cpncrunch wrote: post #45
necessity wrote: post #42

Imagine if this was regular mail. It's the equivalent of German seizing private mail from EVERYONE that uses the hypothetical Cock Postal Service because one individual used that same service in the US to make a threat. This is ridiculous. Outright abuse of power and invasion of privacy. Yet another reason to encrypt everything.

It's more like seizing the customer records from Cock Postal Service (presumably operated by James May). My guess is that the fact this guy ran the operation from his bedroom, and they weren't sure whether he would co-operate or not, was the reason they seized the disk rather than just subpoena him. Presumably if it was hotmail or gmail this wouldn't have happened. I think it's good that this scumbag cocksucker is go…

>My guess is that the fact this guy ran the operation from his bedroom, and they weren't sure whether he would co-operate or not, was the reason they seized the disk rather than just subpoena him. Presumably if it was hotmail or gmail this wouldn't have happened.

Is this somehow supposed to be acceptable? "We weren't sure you would come down to the station and answer some questions, so we arrested you (without charge) and held you for a day."

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#54

Post by cpncrunch »

striking wrote: post #50
cpncrunch wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more like seizing the customer records from Cock Postal Service (presumably operated by James May). My guess is that the fact this guy ran the operation from his bedroom, and they weren't sure whether he would co-operate or not, was the reason they seized the disk rather than just subpoena him. Presumably if it was hotmail or gmail this wouldn't have happened. I think it's good that this scumbag cocksucker is go…

I think it sucks that all ~65,000 other people have their data seized because of him, though. The fellow running the service ran it on a German hosting service ( https://www.hetzner.de ), and not his bedroom. Full cooperation was provided by everyone, following in the letter and spirit of the law. It just really sucks that the German authorities took it upon themselves to take the entire thing.

He managed it from his bedroom.

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#55

Post by PhasmaFelis »

detaro wrote: post #15
s73v3r wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that one should be allowed to threaten to kill people in one country from another, and not be held accountable?

Are you saying that asking how something works is the same as saying the same thing happening is horribly wrong?

Don't pretend you don't know that "How, exactly did X happen" doesn't indicate that you disapprove of X.

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#56

Post by cpncrunch »

gruez wrote: post #53
cpncrunch wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more like seizing the customer records from Cock Postal Service (presumably operated by James May). My guess is that the fact this guy ran the operation from his bedroom, and they weren't sure whether he would co-operate or not, was the reason they seized the disk rather than just subpoena him. Presumably if it was hotmail or gmail this wouldn't have happened. I think it's good that this scumbag cocksucker is go…

>My guess is that the fact this guy ran the operation from his bedroom, and they weren't sure whether he would co-operate or not, was the reason they seized the disk rather than just subpoena him. Presumably if it was hotmail or gmail this wouldn't have happened. Is this somehow supposed to be acceptable? "We weren't sure you would come down to the station and answer some questions, so we arrested you (without charge…

Isn't it normal for police to seize evidence in cases like this? Your comparison doesn't seem very helpful, as there is a big difference between holding someone at a police station vs seizing evidence.

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#57

Post by jack9 »

x1798DE wrote: post #34
jack9 wrote: post #17

> I have no idea why this is happening." I'm very sure he does. It's been explained thoroughly.

Care to share with the rest of the class?

What? You mean you didn't read the article?

> Cock.li was reportedly used last week to send a bogus bomb threat e-mail from "madbomber@cock.li"

Of course they are going to take records (and from the files of how very unlike-the-US-can-the-germans-be) leaving the system running and intact. If you didn't read the US news about the trouble it caused, go back to skimming headlines.

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#58

Post by cpncrunch »

wrong_internet wrote: post #52
cpncrunch wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seemed to be the implication.

OP specifically asked if it was pursuant to an MLAT obligation. That alone makes it clear they were asking in earnest.

And yet OP also asked how California had jurisdiction in Germany, which implies that the question was more of a passive-aggressive disapproval. Even if it was MLAT, California still wouldn't have jurisdiction in Germany. OP seems to be implying "fuck off California, you have no jurisdiction in Germany".

The whole thing seems to be more about shared moral responsibility rather than MLAT, which is what s73v3r was getting it.

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#59

Post by gruez »

cpncrunch wrote: post #56
gruez wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My guess is that the fact this guy ran the operation from his bedroom, and they weren't sure whether he would co-operate or not, was the reason they seized the disk rather than just subpoena him. Presumably if it was hotmail or gmail this wouldn't have happened. Is this somehow supposed to be acceptable? "We weren't sure you would come down to the station and answer some questions, so we arrested you (without charge…

Isn't it normal for police to seize evidence in cases like this? Your comparison doesn't seem very helpful, as there is a big difference between holding someone at a police station vs seizing evidence.

I admit there is a big difference between someone's property and someone's liberty. However I still don't feel it's justified to potentially invade thousands of other user's privacy in order to gather evidence, especially since they could have subpoenaed him and he has a history of complying with such requests.

Re: Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces

#60

Post by mikeyouse »

aaronem wrote: post #47
cpncrunch wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might think differently if you were responsible for those children. Do you want to take the risk that it might be a real threat? How do you tell the difference between a real threat and one that isn't real? I'm guessing the people at the school district thought the small risk wasn't worth it, and decided to close the schools. Who would want to be labelled as the person who didn't close the schools if someone ende…

You might not, too. The LA district shut down. The NY district, which also received a threat, did not. Why? And why the difference in response?

Why a difference in response? A few days earlier, less than 100 miles from the LA school district, 14 people were killed by ISIS-inspired terrorists who also had a garage full of pipebombs. What administrator in their right mind wouldn't be extra cautious with specific threats?
Post reply on HN