[ILUG] Jailed for using a nonstandard browser

[Thomas Bridge]

On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 04:16:09PM +0000, Gareth Eason wrote:
 
> 	I don't know the details of the story, so I cannot comment. However, 
> your point which deride the story are meaningless.
 
> 	It's MUCH more likely that the ISP hosting the site was monitoring 
> 	the logs - likely because it was a one off event with a HUGE cash flow. 
> Much of the monitoring may have been done manually / semi-manually. So no, 
> BT would have (possibly) nothing to do with looking at the logs.
 
> 	BT are most likely implicated because they may have been the 
> 	arrested user's ISP - and provided, clearly without following due process, 
> the resolution to his home address from an IP and timestamp. SO yes - I'd 

No clearly at all - firstly the article implies BT were the hosting provider,
not the end users ISP.    Secondly, there's nothing in the article to imply
that anyone provided information to the police without the relevant
police warrant being provided.

> say a bit of bad publicity may very well be in order, if this is the 
> case. (I reiterate, I DO NOT know the details of this story so I cannot 
> verify that this is or is not the case.)
> 
> 	The police may or may not deserve the bad PR since they would appear 
> from the article to have reacted without checking facts, without 
> consulting a technical expert and to have used force surely vastly out 
> of proportion to what was warranted. I know if I was having my lunch at 
> home, I would quite happily open my door if the police knocked - 
> breaking down my door would be most unnecessary. But again, let me say 
> that I am basing my writing on exactly and exclusively the content of 
> the article posted below. I do not know any more details, not can I 
> personally vouch for the accuracy of the details contained therein.
> 
> 	In summary, unless you know significantly more details about the 
> 	case than I do, your comments do not ascertain that any elements of the 
> story are any more or less likely.

My point is that the original story as presented has no credibility.   I do
find it highly unlikely that any competent hosting company would mistake lynx
for a hack attempt, and as we're talking a Tsunami contribution that's 
a sign of a fairly competent hosting company as the SSL server being used for 
the donations didn't crash.

All we have is a rumour and speculation - the linked story from the BBC provides
no corroboration and I find it unlikely that nearly a week non of the reputable
news sources (or even the Register :) have picked it up.

Thomas