Re: 23,000 IP addresses

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>]

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com> wrote:
> 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.

yes, sorry... I got confused by william's interjection of calea...

> 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

there's been a push (or was a while ago) to change the calea
requirements such that 'service provider' was the application service
provider as well. AOL IM, Facebook, Google-Search... etc. with
calea-like exfil of relevant data in 'near realtime' and 'at no cost
to LEA'.

-chris