North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: law enforcement contacts

  • From: JC Dill
  • Date: Tue Nov 11 21:20:42 2003 
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