just remember when saving that money on the lawyer that big greg down on cellblock D does not like too much starch on his drawers and jimmy spoons likes your hair grown out cause it makes you pretty
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:05 PM, David Sovereen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <(989)%20837-3790> > 2719 Ashman St Ste 1, Midland, MI 48640-4434 > 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 <(989)%20837-3790> >>> 2719 Ashman St Ste 1, Midland, MI 48640-4434 >>> http://www.mercury.net >>> >>> >>> >> > -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
