From: Chris Lewis (no email)
Date: Thu Nov 13 2008 - 11:39:33 EST
John Bambenek wrote:
> Something to keep in mind. I don't believe it was McColo that was the
> end provider of "badware" per se (and I could be proven wrong), they
> simply played the enabling role by hosting it and looked the other way.
> Now don't get me wrong, they ought to be kicked offline for
> externalizing their costs on the rest of us, but what criminal charges
> could be filed here?
Aiding and abetting and conspiracy come to mind at the very least.
Knowingly facilitating child porn should have quite a few possiblities too.
But they're really hard things to prosecute on the Internet, in the face
of the plausible deniability shields they work at so carefully to erect.
> That said, of course this information should be turned over to law
> enforcement. It often is.
Don't assume it hasn't already. Previously. Repeatedly. And I don't
think the dust has quite settled yet.