Re: [WISPA] Calea ComplianceRight.
There are documents that WISPA has created to help with this.
http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=2022
We also have an implementation guide but the board has not determined how
that's to be distributed. We can certainly get a copy to you if you are a
member
] On
Behalf Of Roger Howard
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 10:50 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea Compliance
Ok, but the FBI wouldn't know I stuck the hardware there at the last
minute. And the tower glitches off whenever I do a firmware upgrade
anyway. The customer wouldn't know
The FBI told me (and I am paraphrasing) that if you work with them that they
will work with you. Basically as long as you are not acting like you do not
think they have a right to do the tap and are not being a pain in the behind
then you will get all the support you need from them in a lawful
On 03/06/2011 09:18 AM, John Scrivner wrote:
The FBI told me (and I am paraphrasing) that if you work with them
that they will work with you. Basically as long as you are not acting
like you do not think they have a right to do the tap and are not
being a pain in the behind then you will
The easy answer is if you get a warrant you should ask the agency for
help before doing anything. They are more than willing to help in my
experience. My advice is:
1.Get your attorney involved to the point they know what you are doing
2.Call the agency who the warrant is for and ask for
Depends who you ask. Some might say the customer could notice a change in
network and hence non compliant.
On Mar 5, 2011 10:43 PM, Roger Howard g5inter...@gmail.com wrote:
Would I cover myself for calea by having a mikrotik router on the
shelf, set up as a bridge, with the calea module
Ok, but the FBI wouldn't know I stuck the hardware there at the last
minute. And the tower glitches off whenever I do a firmware upgrade
anyway. The customer wouldn't know the difference.
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Josh Luthman
j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote:
Depends who you ask. Some
Hi Chris,
Butch would be a good place to start. I've also cc'd the rest of the WISPA
calea team. Maybe there are people on there that do things I don't know
about.
laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)
-
From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:32 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] CALEA
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
1. The ISP will know a actual intercept subpoena is coming before
they receive it.
Actually, in a couple
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Frank Muto wrote:
I have a question though you may or may be able to answer it. In
point 1, you said you gave the LEA information on how to word their
subpoena? Was this knowledge based on an attorneys consult? I'll
assume it may have been unless you are an attorney
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
1. The ISP will know a actual intercept subpoena is coming before
they receive it.
Actually, in a couple of cases, this was true. In the others, the
subpoena came without any notice.
3. The LEA would like the ISP to have all the CALEA I's
Comments Below...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Frank Muto
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:37 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA
I have a question though you may or may be able to answer it. In point 1,
you said you
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Larry Yunker wrote:
If I am not mistaken, when you are being asked to provide
information in a legal matter in which you are not a named-party in
the legal action, you are being placed in the position of a
witness.
Exactly. This is where the duty that I mentioned in my
Of Jeromie Reeves
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 8:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA
It looks like the FCC making us be CALEA compliant was a total waste of time
effort (on both parties sides) and only made a atmosphere of fear. It also
sounds like while they filed for information
I have a question though you may or may be able to answer it. In point 1, you said you gave the LEA information on how to
word their subpoena? Was this knowledge based on an attorneys consult? I'll assume it may have been unless you are an
attorney yourself.
Secondly, why would an attorney or
Thanks for posting this Butch! It illustrates a number of things that I've
believed from early on:
1. The ISP will know a actual intercept subpoena is coming before they
receive it.
2. The LEA staff requesting the subpoena are generally less technically
savvy than most service providers.
3.
It looks like the FCC making us be CALEA compliant was a total waste
of time effort (on both parties sides) and only made a atmosphere of
fear. It also sounds like while they filed for information that has
classically been available pre-calea, has anyone had to comply with
the real time streaming
In theory, you should be able to bill the government for your time/costs
incurred for THE INTERCEPT, not any recurring or upfront charges. In
theory...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dylan Bouterse
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 1:33
Hi Dylan,
I am not compensating for this. I am not sure that customers would be
appreciative or understand. Also, the costs that you are referring to
could possibly happen only when you are given a subpoenaed unless you
are paying a monthly fee for a product you bought from a vendor.
Martha
I understood from a vendor who was looking to sell me a calea solution
that they would bill us for the cost of each intercept, etc, but not
expect us to pay them until we get re-reimbursed by the government.
Light bulb went off.
Jeff Broadwick wrote:
In theory, you should be able to bill
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA (recovering costs) ???
Hi Dylan,
I am not compensating for this. I am not sure that customers would be
appreciative or understand. Also, the costs that you are referring to
could possibly happen only when you are given a subpoenaed unless you
On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 09:37 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote:
Marlon,
I have been reading the WISPA CALEA FAQ and was a little concerned about
question #10. If the LEA does not know who the suspect is using an open
access point does this mean that everyone that has used that access
point will
I have been reading the WISPA CALEA FAQ and was a little concerned about
question #10. If the LEA does not know who the suspect is using an open
access point does this mean that everyone that has used that access
point will have their data handed over to the LEA? It would seem that if
the LEA is
This is not the sense that I get from the meeting we had with the FBI.
They will know who the target is and be issuing an order for that
person. However, if they happen to live with several people all on one
wireless network, then the traffic is going to be mixed most likely. The
best you can
Hi Dawn,
Please let me preface this by saying that there are not always easy answers.
And we can't always come up with a pre-made solution for every situation
that may arise. We've talked with the FBI about all of these issues. We
all know what the law says, and we all know what's actually
This is one of the things that has always bothered me when it comes to
wire tapping a data connection. On a phone call it can be pretty easy
to tell if your suspect is involved in the conversation, assuming they
have not used a voice modulator. But when it comes to a data
connection, how do
Sam,
The evidence that LEAs collect is just part of a case. If a suspect is
doing bad things then data will be collected. Next steps would usually
involve a warrant to get the computer and have it looked over. I have
seen other tools used by LEAs to gather evidence. I am guessing that
PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
There will likely be cases where that's impossible.
Lets say that I have a customer that's a hotel. They, at first, only know
the ip addy or mac addy. A subpoena comes to me
PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
- Original Message -
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 3:48 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
Marlon,
I was under the impression
- Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
In my opinion, I don;t think it will fly because of NAT.
The law inforcement agrency needs to be able to differenciate what
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 3:48 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
Marlon,
I was under the impression the providers are only supposed to send the LEA
the data covered in the subpoena and no more.
Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
Marlon K
Tim Kery wrote:
Examples of these types of establishments may include some hotels,
coffee shops, schools, libraries, or book stores. DOJ has stated that it
has no desire to require such retail establishments to implement CALEA
solutions, DOJ Comments at 36, and we conclude that the public
David E. Smith wrote:
The FCC wrote:
we conclude that establishments that
acquire broadband Internet access service from a facilities-based
provider to enable their patrons or customers to access the Internet
from their respective establishments are not considered facilities-based
broadband
Peter R. wrote:
Why not check with a knowledgeable legal professional instead of guessing?
That'd be my boss's department. :D
I'm just a pundit - full of opinions and hot air.
Now you can choose to ignore it, and say a prayer daily that Barney Fife
or any other LEA officer does not knock on
.
What are you thougths on this.
- Original Message -
From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
Peter R. wrote:
Why not check with a knowledgeable legal professional instead
List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
The FCC wrote:
we conclude that establishments that
acquire broadband Internet access service from a facilities-based
provider to enable their patrons or customers to access the Internet
from
Ross Cornett wrote:
I give up I just signed a contract to ensure my protection under
CALEA. My hope is tht those that become compliant do not get
underminded by those that have hidden in the bushes and took the risk
upon themselves by not becoming compliant.
It appears that it is time to
are you thougths on this.
- Original Message - From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
Peter R. wrote:
Why not check with a knowledgeable legal professional instead
.
There is nothing wrong raising your prices to be competitive with the
'big boys!' :)
Cliff
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 2:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
I think you better
Sounds good thanks Sriv.
- Original Message -
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
I think you better just take a rate increase and chalk it up to
increased expenses
.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Ross Cornett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
I give up I just signed a contract to ensure my protection under CALEA. My
hope is tht those that become
Read the FAQ. In some cases they may have to sort through ALL data to get
at what they want.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
In my
are also
way up. I'll take $3 fuel with $6 wheat any day :-)
marlon
- Original Message -
From: John Scrivner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
I think you better just take a rate
, 2007 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
I think you better just take a rate increase and chalk it up to
increased expenses all the way around as opposed to creating a CALEA
charge line item. Adding a fee as a line item could get you in trouble
with the FTC if not approved
]
Sent: Thu, 03 May 2007 20:00:17 -0800
Subject:
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
gas 3.20 per gallon here. $95.00 to fill my truck yesterday.
Sheesh
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
We have a line item of:
Surcharge to cover the cost of a sales tax being charged against our
fiber connection
- Original Message -
From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
Tim Kery wrote:
Hi Ross,
SNIP
You also have to remember that Law Enforcement's primary focus is Law
As I understand it anyone who runs a router has to be CALEA compliant.
Call the FCC ... these guys will answer your question and call you back:
www.fcc.gov/calea
Or ask a Legal Professional like Kris Twomey.
Chris Savage or KC Halm from Davis Wright Tremaine LLP will take your
questions about
Well, everybody gets their Internet from someone else.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: David Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 1:57 PM
Subject:
Hmmm,
Well during the dial up days, Jokingly, I was thinking about starting a
new internet business. Internet on a disk! . Each week we send you a
new disk. We start you off with disk labeled, beginning internet a-ab,
next week it will be ac-ad. This way the sites will be fast loading and
My opinion is that you're not helping the big picture by saying compliance
is more than you can handle. The FCC is not going to go out of their way to
hand out more spectrum to providers that can't perform basic requirements.
Just like they're not going to help providers that refuse to file 475
Dear cw,
Thank you for your opinion. I respectfully disagree.
There's nothing wrong with admitting that small local providers can't
afford to comply with the same requirements that big carriers like ATT
can comply with. That's the problem here; small local businesses are
being asked to shell
I believe the feds have secret deals with the telcos so they can do what
ever they want besides calea. Just like I pointed out that fiber att
wiretapping deal in the very first days of wispa calea discussion.
This is where I see the imbalance,
The little guys carry the weight and the big guys
My opinion then, is that the FCC can get off their duffs and provide
internet to the hinterlands themselves.
There is more to CALEA than having a $500 unix box, and sharing a $7000
turnkey box is not an option unless you are sharing it within a tight
geographical area since response times on
: Todd Barber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 8:19 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
John,
The part that is causing disbelief for me is the deadline is only
days away
and I haven't seen this solution or the costing for the solution
for a
mile or two.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Exemption for Small Wireless ISPs
My opinion then, is that the FCC can get off their duffs
, 2007 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Exemption for Small Wireless ISPs
My opinion then, is that the FCC can get off their duffs and provide
internet to the hinterlands themselves.
There is more to CALEA than having a $500 unix box, and sharing a
$7000 turnkey box is not an option unless you
The FCC wrote:
we conclude that establishments that
acquire broadband Internet access service from a facilities-based
provider to enable their patrons or customers to access the Internet
from their respective establishments are not considered facilities-based
broadband Internet access service
Thank you Jack. I am glad to see someone doing something for their
beliefs instead of kicking WISPA in the chins for not doing it for them.
WISPA is here for all of you to interact and decide what and how you
want to represent yourselves and your industry. Jack knows that means he
can do
- Original Message -
From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
I went to email him, but his website says he will not respond to emails from
outside his district.
his website
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Todd Barber wrote:
I have seen numerous posts on the WISPA list indicating that a cost
effective and compliant solution for this issue was being worked on
and would become available in the near future.
All I can say is please be patient. An answer to your question is
John Scrivner wrote:
We look forward to proving that this thinking is wrong. What part of
CALEA compliance is it that makes you think we cannot develop a low
cost and reasonable solution which will not break the bank?
Even if you do come up with a way to handle LI in time for the deadline
a need that
will largely be an expensive dust collector in most businesses.
Anyone know if this has been posed to the FBI.
- Original Message -
From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
Ross Cornett wrote:
I still would like to know the amount of incident that this CALEA will
cause for all of its costs to our industry. Did anyone ask the FBI, why
they cannot have several machines and deliver them as needed
pre-configured then we can
:59 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
If we can come up with a device to capture and send to an FTP server and
allow for VPN connectivity then why can the most powerful law agency in
the world not do the same. This way they controll it all. We just
provide the pipe to get the data back
Ross Cornett wrote:
I still would like to know the amount of incident that this CALEA will
cause for all of its costs to our industry. Did anyone ask the FBI,
why they cannot have several machines and deliver them as needed
pre-configured then we can install them when they are needed. It is
You need to filter out data that is not under the subpoena.
And (as I understand it) the LEA should work with you to get the data.
Ross Cornett wrote:
If we can come up with a device to capture and send to an FTP server
and allow for VPN connectivity then why can the most powerful law
agency
.
- Original Message -
From: Ross Cornett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
I still would like to know the amount of incident that this CALEA will
cause
for all of its costs to our industry. Did
Council on Education vs. FCC.
Hope this helps.
Tim Kery
BearHill Security, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 09:40:06 -0500
From: Ross Cornett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED
I have seen numerous posts on the WISPA list indicating that a cost
effective and compliant solution for this issue was being worked on and
would become available in the near future.
I think that is wishful thinking on some people's part. When you see
companies like Cisco struggle to provide a
I'd like to add my own brief CALEA comments and concerns. Out of respect
for the maximum of 5 posts per day proposal, I'll keep it short.
I'm thinking that extending CALEA to small WISPs without compensating
them for their costs has more to do with the big fish eating the little
fish than it
I personally do not believe that any CALEA can be cost effective. Quite
simply, solving CALEA requires spending money without earning any
additional revenue. The only way to justify the CALEA expense is to accept
it as a cost of doing business. This means simply that your market
opportunity is
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 9:14 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
I personally do not believe that any CALEA can be cost effective. Quite
simply, solving CALEA requires spending money without earning any
additional revenue. The only way
of those out there that can't/won't figure it
out for themselves. Might as well be you!
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Todd Barber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 8:19 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
John,
The part
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
I personally do not believe that any CALEA can be cost effective. Quite
simply, solving CALEA requires spending money without earning any
additional revenue
.
- Original Message -
From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Costs-Shifting Relief
Peter,
Thank you for posting this information. Since there is a $5000
application fee
On one of the documents that I've rad that maybe is not that public,
they have taken into consideration that some isp's can not afford to
impliment calea and they have a solution for that.
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
Peter,
Thank you for posting this information. Since there is a $5000
- Original Message -
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Costs-Shifting Relief
On one of the documents that I've rad that maybe is not that public,
they have taken
Peter,
Thank you very much for taking the time to prepare this very informative
CALEA page and especially for the following link:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/CALEA/?f=faq.html
jack
Peter R. wrote:
A collection of CALEA info:
http://www.rad-info.net/fcc/calea4.htm
BTW, I even
We're waiting on the FBI to check a sample data intercept we've sent to
them.
Image Stream is very close to a fairly inexpensive box that can be used in a
pinch. I'll let Jeff B. get into any needed details.
We (wispa) are still working on this issue. We're in a holding pattern for
the
Ron, you've lost me.
What has Saudi got to do with anything here?
Also, there's nothing at all wrong with CALEA. Did you read the FAQ or
anything else about it? They have to come to US for the data. They won't
be putting anything on our networks etc. They want us to be the ones to
pull
Ron,
I understand your concern but if you want to play in this game you have
follow the same laws as everyone else.
Regards,
Dawn DiPietro
Ron Wallace wrote:
To All,
Thanks to all that participated. I know you worked hard and used valuable time
which could have been spent on your
Message-
From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 8, 2007 11:07 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA FAQ-rant
Ron, you've lost me.
What has Saudi got to do with anything here?
Also, there's nothing at all wrong with CALEA. Did you read the FAQ
Thanks Dawn, I don't have to like the infringement on our freedom of speech
expression or my interpretation of it.
-Original Message-
From: Dawn DiPietro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 8, 2007 11:32 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA FAQ-rant
Ron,
I
CALEA is actually a MAJOR improvement over Carnivore. With Carnivore, they
took the whole stream of traffic from everyone, with CALEA, they only get
the info that the judge approved.
Do you have an issue with all wiretaps (judge approved), or just this sort?
Jeff
-Original Message-
However, Am I the only person in WISPA who disapproves of this 'STUFF'. This is
the way Saudi Arabia is run, and that's a total police state. I know, I spent
three years there.
Are we just supposed to just swallow whatever the Bureaucrats 'shovel' our way?
Man, this scares the bejesus out
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 14:07:01 +, Ron Wallace wrote
To All,
Thanks to all that participated. I know you worked hard and used
valuable time which could have been spent on your business. However,
Am I the only person in WISPA who disapproves of this 'STUFF'. This
is the way Saudi Arabia is
Marlon,
Below are just a few typos I found on this very informative WISPA CALEA FAQ.
Last paragraph section 1;
There are 2 periods at the end of the first sentence.
Section 9;
Should it be hash or Hash?
Question 2 Section 18;
Asymmetric is spelled wrong.
Last paragraph Section 18;
Can anyone
PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA
I doubt that is the case. If the upstream is inline and can provide the
data flow from a point of aggregation (upstream network connection) then
the TTP hardware connected upstream should be compliant.
Scriv
Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
A ttp
]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
- Original Message - From: Matt Liotta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:25 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA
Butch Evans wrote:
This is not acceptable
On another subject
Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that
WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the
WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now
the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the
- Original Message -
From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods- For Clint
Ralph,
My apologies for the confusion.
I think we are more or less on the same page
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:09:23 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote
Mark, your info is 3 years old
We have to be ready to tap our lines. Even IMs.
marlon
I think you missed my point, Marlon... That being that not even the
government is a reliable source of information about what the
Mark,
wispa wrote:
I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people that
this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from the FCC, where
it's attempting to write law instead of Congress.
It's a mess, because it's NOT LAW, only Congress can write law and it
Mark,
CALEA IS LAW. There are interpretations of that law, but they have been upheld
by courts.
CALEA is not the opinion of the DOJ or FCC. It is not far-reaching (like say the Patriot Act) or secret and possibly illegal like the NSA-ATT wiretapping / surveillance.
It is part of the 2
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:31:56 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote
Mark,
wispa wrote:
I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people that
this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from the FCC,
where
it's attempting to write law instead of Congress.
It's
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:21:53 -0400, Peter R. wrote
Mark,
CALEA IS LAW. There are interpretations of that law, but they have
been upheld by courts.
YOu're arguing against things I'm not saying.
CALEA is not the opinion of the DOJ or FCC. It is not far-reaching
(like say the Patriot
about any of the
compliance methods that I discussed in my original post, from a technical
standpoint.
Thanks,
Adam
- Original Message -
From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA
- Original Message - From: wispa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:21:53 -0400, Peter R. wrote
Mark,
CALEA IS LAW
Mark,
Wireless providers DO have to comply with CALEA whether you like it or not.
As quoted from the link I sent you earlier;
Nor does our interpretation of section 332 of the Communications Act
and its implementing regulations here alter either our decision in the
CALEA proceeding to apply
The best stratergy to take towards CALEA is to get familiar and get
ready to comply. If for some reason it turns out some don't have to
comply, then no loss. If it turns out that we all have to comply, then
we're ahead of the game.
Think positive!
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
Mark,
Wireless
1 - 100 of 191 matches
Mail list logo
