> I think the concern here revolves around "posse comitatus" law.
>You no doubt know far more about the subject than I do, but at least as I
>understand it the USAF is NOT allowed to participate in hot pursuit off
>their own premises except in very, very, narrow circumstances.
Okay, okay. My understanding based on some *very* brief questions because
I know and trust some of the people involved (they do not tell me everything
but generally tell me when they can't and I do believe what they do say) is
that before trace 1 occured both civilian authorities and the Department of
Justice were lined up and some very narrow "rules of engagement" were defined.
I do not know who did what to whom but that 1) USAF sites were involved and
2) Backtraces were performed and at least one arrest was made.
IN NO CASE did USAF sysadmins just decide to catch hackers, the people
involved were specialists partly recruted from the USAF Security Service
and had prior clearance from both civilian and military agencies to respond.
In fact, my biggest amazement was not that it had been done, nor that it could
be done, and close but not max that they had gotten permission, but that in
the biggest hall NIST had at Baltimore (and it was packed) very few people
seemed to realize just *what* had been done.
Warmly,
Padgett
ps can we stop now ? Am not really the person to ask.
|
|
