{"id":24522,"date":"2014-06-11T10:10:07","date_gmt":"2014-06-11T16:10:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/?p=24522"},"modified":"2014-06-11T14:25:05","modified_gmt":"2014-06-11T20:25:05","slug":"australian-jurisdiction-the-sks-tcp-php-server","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/2014\/australian-jurisdiction-the-sks-tcp-php-server\/","title":{"rendered":"Australian Jurisdiction: The SKS TCP.php ‘server’."},"content":{"rendered":"

I have a question for Australian legal-eagles or even legal-eagles from other countries. <\/p>\n

Suppose someone’s theory is that Brandon Shollenberger’s connecting to a computer and obtaining data in some way that violated some statute somewhere. (For example, Eli suggests things like “Eli Rabett (Comment #130142) Better look up the Queensland and Illinois laws.”.<\/p>\n

Now, further suppose the fact pattern includes:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. That computer would be the one that hosted ‘mysecretdomain.com’ in this address “2929\thttp:\/\/secretdomain.org\/tcp_results.php” discussed at Brandon’s blog<\/a>. (Note: the actual domain is not ‘mysecretdomain.com’. That’s made up to obscure the real domain name.) <\/li>\n
  2. The IP of the server in question is 98.129.229.16, which corresponds to a machine physically located in San Antonio, Texas, USA.<\/a> <\/li>\n
  3. When accessing that computer Brandon’s butt was sitting in Southern, Illinois<\/li>\n
  4. The access was accomplished using a service providing ISP that is located in the US so his IP is US based. (No proxies were used to connect to the machine in San Antonio, TX.)<\/li>\n
  5. The existence of ‘mysecretdomain.com’ was discovered by crawling ‘sksforum.org’<\/a> which appears to be served from IP=208.111.41.41. That IP is owned by a provider that operates ‘cloud’ hosting, but appears to be headquartered in either in California<\/a> or Washington State.<\/a>. The IPs in the range used by SkS are in the US. The company does own some machines that appear to be in Europe. None appear to be in Australia or on any other continent. <\/li>\n
  6. Brandon is not an Australian citizen and is not incorporated in Australia.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Given this fact pattern:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Does Australian jurisdiction extend to this sort of thing? I think I’ve found the document that describes jurisdiction on computer crimes. It’s “15.1 Extended geographical jurisdiction – category A” in this document<\/a> I think this Australia would not have jurisdiction for any alleged computer abuse crime. Further, it doesn’t even recognize the possibility that the fact pattern above would be<\/I> against Australian law as it seems to fall under “does not commit the offence unless”. But perhaps I am mistaken. <\/li>\n
    2. Those in other countries: Do you think there is any possibility that any other country might have jurisdiction in the event some infraction occurred. <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      I ask the former because many people want to discuss the hypothetical that some suit could be brought forward in Australia, and the latter someones has throw around principles of law (‘computervredebreuk’) in the Netherlands. <\/p>\n

      While I respect the fact that other countries laws can and do apply in those other countries, if someone is discussing whether any action could be brought against someone, the issue of jurisdiction matters. I’d be interested in knowing jurisdiction under a fact pattern like this. If there are other facts relevant to jurisdiction, please let me know and I can fill in to the extent I know the facts. <\/p>\n

      Update<\/b>: Interestingly, sks regular Collin Massae snipped the IP address of the server in question which I posted in a comment at his blog 98.129.229.16. Your guess why is as good as mine. That “is” the relevant IP and it is in TX.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      I have a question for Australian legal-eagles or even legal-eagles from other countries. Suppose someone’s theory is that Brandon Shollenberger’s connecting to a computer and obtaining data in some way that violated some statute somewhere. (For example, Eli suggests things like “Eli Rabett (Comment #130142) Better look up the Queensland and Illinois laws.”. Now, further … Continue reading Australian Jurisdiction: The SKS TCP.php ‘server’.<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[134],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24522","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24522","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24522"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24522\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24522"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24522"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rankexploits.com\/musings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24522"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}