CALEA isn't a type of request, it's a law that enabled par function access for LEO's e.g. "the ladder" pin register, trap+trace, DTMF translation, three-way/off hook ops and the call content (not necessarily in that order).
You can see the non national security activity here: On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Mike Joseph <[email protected]> wrote: > I can say via firsthand knowledge that CALEA requests are definitely > happening and are not even that rare, proportional to a reasonably sized > subscriber-base. It would be unlawful for me to comment specifically on > any actual CALEA requests, however. But if you have general questions > about my observations, feel free to reach out directly. > > -MJ > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Brian Mengel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> My comments were strictly limited to my understanding of CALEA as it >> applied to ISPs, not telcos. A request for a lawful intercept can entail >> mirroring a real time stream of all data sent to/from a customer's Internet >> connection (cable modem/DSL/dedicated Ethernet) to a LEA. AFAIK this >> requires mediation before being sent to the LEA and it is the mediation >> server itself that initiates the intercept when so configured by the ISP. >> Perhaps some LEAs have undertaken the mediation function so as to >> facilitate these intercepts where the neither the ISP nor a third party can >> do so. If that were the case then very little would be needed on the part >> of the ISP in order to comply with a request for lawful intercept. I can >> say with certainty that these types of requests are being made of broadband >> ISPs though I agree that they are very rare. >> >> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Ricky Beam <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:00:54 -0400, Brian Mengel <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > AFAIK being able to do a lawful intercept on a specific, named, >> >> individual's service has been a requirement for providers since 2007. >> >> >> > >> > It's been required for longer than that. The telco I worked for over a >> > decade ago didn't build the infrastructure until the FCC said they were >> > going to stop funding upgrades. That really got 'em movin'. (suddenly >> "data >> > services" people -- i.e. ME -- weren't redheaded stepchildren.) >> > >> > have never heard of a provider, big or small, being called out for being >> >> unable to provide this service when requested. >> >> >> > >> > Where existing infrastructure is not already in place (read: >> T1/BRI/etc.), >> > the telco can take up to 60 days to get that setup. I know more than one >> > telco that used that grace period to actually setup CALEA in the first >> > place. >> > >> > did not perform intercepts routinely. >> >> >> > >> > The historic published figures (i've not looked in years) suggest CALEA >> > requests are statistically rare. The NC based telco I worked for had >> never >> > received an order in the then ~40yr life of the company. >> > >> > The mediation server needed to "mediate" between your customer >> aggregation >> >> box and the LEA is not inexpensive. >> >> >> > >> > And also is not the telco's problem. Mediation is done by the LEA or 3rd >> > party under contract to any number of agencies. For example, a telco tap >> > order would mirror the control and voice traffic of a POTS line (T1/PRI >> > channel, etc.) into a BRI or specific T1 channel. (dialup was later >> added, >> > but wasn't required in my era, so we didn't support it.) We used to test >> > that by tapping a tech's phone. Not having any mediation software, all I >> > could do is "yeap, it's sending data" and listen to the voice channels >> on a >> > t-berd. >> > >> > --Ricky >> > >> >>
