I don't think this is covered anyway, unless the guy is a permanent
resident at the hotel.  The subpoena will cover the suspect and any
known IP or MAC info and I believe would cover a particular physical
location.

I was told that a subpoena cannot simply say anything, anywhere.  It
has to get fairly specific, and traffic from a Motel is not very
specific.

Lonnie

On 5/4/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 looking for info on the
user in question.  There's no way to use the hotel's Linksys hardware to do
the tap to find the specific think that LEA is looking for.  Can't change
the network because any action on our side tips off the suspect.

In some cases it won't be possible to filter out all info.  Especially if we
don't know what we're looking for (which we won't and shouldn't) as far as
specific data goes.

I talked to the head of the FBI's CALEA group for about an hour again
yesterday.  They know full well that there are just some things that can't
be done.  At the end of the day, the just need our help when and where we
can give it to them.  There are far too many possibilities to deal with
every single possible situation, we know that, they know that.

As long as we make a real effort to help I don't think we have to worry
about getting in trouble.  It's those that thumb their noses that will run
enforcement risks.

I was told that there has NEVER been an enforcement issue occur.

laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)                    Consulting services
42846865 (icq)                                    WISP Operator since 1999!
[EMAIL 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 the providers are only supposed to send the LEA
> the data covered in the subpoena and no more.
>
> Regards,
> Dawn DiPietro
>
>
> Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
>> 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 opinion, I don;t think it will fly because of "NAT".
>>> The law inforcement agrency needs to be able to differenciate what
>>> customer traffic is comming from, and if you use NAT for any of your
>>> customers, the facilities based upstream provider would have no way to
>>> identify the end user, and the WISP would become the customer and be
>>> liable. To many degrees of seperation at the upstream for the captured
>>> data to be meaningful.
>>>
>>> Tom DeReggi
>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General 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 their respective establishments are not considered
>>>>> facilities-based
>>>>> broadband Internet access service providers
>>>> Hm.
>>>>
>>>> It'd be one heckuva stretch, but by reading the letter (as opposed to
>>>> the spirit) of that paragraph, many smaller WISPs would automatically
>>>> be exempt. I know my office has "acquired broadband Internet access
>>>> service from a facilities-based provider" (our upstream ISP) and we're
>>>> enabling our customers to access the Internet from their respective
>>>> establishments (i.e. our customers pay for Internet at their homes or
>>>> offices).
>>>>
>>>> By the letter of that paragraph (and, to be fair, I haven't read all
>>>> the context surrounding it) most any single-homed WISP would be exempt,
>>>> as they could just say "go talk to our upstream." (I doubt it'd work
>>>> for multi-homed ISPs, as that would require multiple upstreams to be
>>>> tapped and somehow synchronized, which is probably technically
>>>> annoying.)
>>>>
>>>> David Smith
>>>> MVN.net
>>>> --
>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>>
>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>>
>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>> --
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to