nanog mailing list archives

Re: CALEA


From: Martin Hannigan <hannigan () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 09:12:22 +0200

Misfire. Sorry, early in the AM. The URL I intended to send is here:

    http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/wiretap-report-2014


Best,

-M<

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan () gmail com> wrote:
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 <mj () doze net> 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 <bmengel () gmail com> 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 <jfbeam () gmail com> wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:00:54 -0400, Brian Mengel <bmengel () gmail com>
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





Current thread: