First sorry to bring up a month-old topic. I'm (way) behind on this forum.
It's been our understanding that CALEA has no historical logging
requirement - that an ISP isn't required to do anything (short of having
the means to do something, and to have it documented) until a subpoena
is issued.
On the other hand, DMCA does have a requirement to know who was,
historically using a given IP at a given point in time.
Are either of these correct?
Thanks
Sam
On 12/27/2016 3:15 PM, [email protected] wrote:
I think CALEA requires a best effort to log NAT assignments. Something
requires it.
We just do it so we can help the cops catch the bad guys.
*From:* David Sovereen
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 27, 2016 2:05 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Search Warranty too broad?
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/>____
____
