[65101] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: law enforcement contacts
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (JC Dill)
Tue Nov 11 21:18:45 2003
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:03:03 -0800
To: nanog@trapdoor.merit.edu
From: JC Dill <nanog@vo.cnchost.com>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031111022019.021cb6b0@gold.dbscom.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 11:23 PM 11/10/2003, Dave Stewart wrote:
>At 02:13 AM 11/11/2003, J. Oquendo wrote:
>>Uhm... Correct me if I missed something, but LEO's get paid to uphold the
>>law BY ACTING on crime in their expertise and if it's out of their range
>>(juridstiction) an `LEO` should have better contacts than someone on the
>>outside.
>
>Perhaps they will have contacts, but c'mon... how many of 'em do you
>really believe care?
And even if they do care, (and have clue) if it's not obviously within
their jurisdiction they can't justify working on the case.
>They don't care to get involved in a problem that could potentially
>involve multiple jurisdictions... it's just too much hassle, and they have
>plenty going on locally.
Some do care, but generally they can only become involved in one of two ways:
A) They have clear reason to believe a crime was committed in their
jurisdiction (and thus reason to "open" a case and investigate), or
B) A LEO in another jurisdiction has done A, and calls them in because the
crime crosses jurisdiction boundaries.
For instance, I have a friend in the SFPD who would care, but if you call
him from Tulsa OK and want him to help investigate a DDoS on servers hosted
at Equinix in Ashburn VA, he's not going to be able to do a thing, unless
you can give him a "clear reason" to suspect that part of the crime took
place within SF and thus that investigating *that part of the crime* is
within his job description as a SFPD. And as much as he may care and have
contacts, he's not likely to have contacts in Ashburn.
jc
