We’ve complied with dozens of subpeonas without a problem. Most have been from local law enforcement agencies. Some from the FBI. The is the only one that I can think of that is from the Department of Justice and it has TONS of IP Addresses from TONS of ISPs and content providers. I really expected them to just say, “nevermind” when I told them it was a shared/NAT IP, but they didn’t.
I don’t want the lawyer bill (sorry Steve Coran!), so I just sent them the list. FYI, there is no legal requirement to keep track of whose NAT connections are whose. Dave ====================================================================== MERCURY NETWORK CORPORATION David Sovereen 989-837-3790 x 151 2719 Ashman St Ste 1, Midland, MI 48640-4434 http://www.mercury.net <http://www.mercury.net/> > On Dec 27, 2016, at 3:56 PM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > > Normally they will be pretty friendly if you call them and just tell them > your concerns. Ask them for a name and you see if the name they are looking > for is on your list. > And it depends on who issued the subpoena too. Sometimes for telcos it is a > domestic dispute and one person is trying to prove the other person called > the boyfriend/girlfriend etc. I just talk to the lawyer and try to be > helpful. > > If it is the FBI very well could be exploited children type of thing. I have > gotten up in the middle of the night to help them trace a guy that thought > he was chatting with a 13 year old. > > I used to have a statement that was published and given to all new customers > that I “fully cooperate with all law enforcement activities”. > > From: Forrest Christian (List Account) <> > Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 1:51 PM > To: af <> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Search Warranty too broad? > > Oh and I agree with chuck's statement too. In the end you're likely going to > end up giving them the list. You don't want to be a big pain in the rear and > become a target for their retaliation. My main concern is that whoever > actually approved the warrant approved what you can give them (customer > identity vs identities) > > On Dec 27, 2016 1:47 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" > <[email protected] <>> wrote: >> I'd be concerned about privacy violations. >> >> My response would be a call to my attorney, with the intent being to push >> back just enough to make sure the judge understands the response is going to >> violate the privacy of hundreds of innocent john does. I can think of >> several strategies but I'm not a lawyer so many of them probably aren't >> worth a hill of beans. >> >> On Dec 27, 2016 1:18 PM, "David Sovereen" <[email protected] <>> >> wrote: >>> What would you guy do if you got a search warrant containing a shared, NAT >>> IP serving hundreds of customers? >>> >>> We responded that the IP was shared and could not be used to pinpoint a >>> specific customer. >>> >>> They responded that they want a list of all customers that it could be, no >>> matter how many. This is the first time getting that kind of response. >>> Normally, they just say okay and go away. >>> >>> Is the request too broad? >>> >>> Do I just comply and give them a list of all those customers? >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> ====================================================================== >>> MERCURY NETWORK CORPORATION >>> David Sovereen >>> 989-837-3790 x 151 <tel:(989)%20837-3790> >>> 2719 Ashman St Ste 1, Midland, MI 48640-4434 >>> http://www.mercury.net <http://www.mercury.net/> >>> >>>
