Yeah, I think he ought to be writing dialog for HBO. From: Colin Stanners Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 2:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Search Warranty too broad?
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 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 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.
