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.