Wow, Steve, do you have a day with words sometimes. On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 3:08 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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. >
