jimji - 9:46 am on Sep 27, 2010 (gmt 0)
Yes, you are quite right, piatkow, a bad choice of vocabulary, federal.
I was trying to indicate central government, as in the highest legislature or lawmaking body of the nation making the particular laws for that particular crime.
So national, federal, central might be a way to make the point.
To move on, I understand completely about limited law enforcement, but isn't it against the law not to report a crime?
By the way, I realized that I did make one big mistake in my post up there. I took for granted that the owners of the web hosting company were correct when they stated law enforcement authorities would remove the server from the data center to study its contents. I have since been informed, and I thank that member for the information, that may not necessarily be true. Except the member admitted to not being familiar with enough cases to be sure about all, or most. Just with one that she was personally involved in.
So I am wondering if indeed law enforcement agencies would actually cause such harm to the web host company that the idea of cooperating with law enforcement receives another minus in the minds of the owners on top of all the other problems associated with reporting the crime.
As I wrote to the owners of that company, if they keep on turning the other cheek, so to speak, the criminals are simply going to keep attacking them, aren't they? Those same folks have been attacked at least once before and I have received word, although unsubstantiated at this time, that they have been hit twice in the past three years. Well, that would be three times, now.
And these folks are not a GoDaddy-size operation.
I just don't see how one can help stop a criminal operation if the crimes committed go unreported. That doesn't seem like the responsible course of action. Not socially correct. Not socially responsible. Sure the world isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean we have to give up, does it? The criminal element wins when people start to give up.
I also don't understand how an audit of the security breach can be accomplished if the web hosting company does not provide all the information they have about the security breach. In all honesty, these are not my brothers, so how can I be 100% sure they are telling us all we need to know?
I just don't know, so that's why I'm asking here and will evetually send a letter off the the Director of the FBI in the United States, where this company is located, and ask him what is wrong if a company feels it's more to their advantage not to report a crime. Especially a crime that affected 40 websites all at the same time.
Somehow the United States FBI must be doing something wrong. People are more scared of what they will do to the company than what the criminals will do. That can't be right.