Re: 23,000 IP addresses

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

On 5/11/11 8:26 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:16 AM, William Allen Simpson
> <william.allen.simpson () gmail com> wrote:
>
> > > Courts like precedent. I choose Facebook's precedent. Seems reasonable to
> > > me.
> > That's also roughly in line with Nextel and others for CALEA.
>
> Hrm, I had thought that CALEA specifically removed the ability of the
> Provider to charge for the 'service'? Though there is always the case
> where the Provider can say: "Yes, this doesn't fall into the CALEA
> relevant requests, we can do this for you though it will cost
> time/materials to do, here's our schedule..."
>
> or that's the stance a previous employer was taking... (at the
> direction of their lawyer-catzen)

A civil subpeona is not a calea request. This thread has done a fair bit
of intermingling of the two things to the detriment of it's utility.

While I'm sure facebook is served with plenty of valid search warrants,
I'm reasonably  unsure that they meet the definition of
telecommunications carrier.

there's some discussion in the light of recent hearings, here:

http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2011/02/deconstructing-calea-hearing.html