News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin announces. Parent comment

Re:Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin... by jacquesm on Monday December 21, 2015 @08:18PM (#10774969)
No, he definitely was not saying that.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin... by cpncrunch on Monday December 21, 2015 @09:44PM (#10775446)
That seemed to be the implication.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin... by wrong_internet on Monday December 21, 2015 @10:47PM (#10775691)
OP specifically asked if it was pursuant to an MLAT obligation. That alone makes it clear they were asking in earnest.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin... by cpncrunch on Monday December 21, 2015 @11:09PM (#10775766)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cock.li e-mail server seized by German authorities, admin... by s73v3r on Wednesday December 23, 2015 @04:29PM (#10785782)
Really? Cause that sounds exactly like what he was saying.
[ Parent | on HN ]