It's not about logic or feasibility, it's about the government needing to feel important. Bureaucracy on autopilot.
I had the FBI office call me asking about an IP and they simply didn't understand NAT or SSL. On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 5:50 AM Forrest Christian (List Account) < li...@packetflux.com> wrote: > I see CALEA as a holdover from those days when most of the traffic on the > internet was unecrypted. Law enforcement wanted to be able to wiretap the > internet just like they could wiretap POTS. > > Nowadays, I'm not sure what law enforcement could actually do with the > captured data. What an isp has access to is largely encrypted over the > wire. I guess some data might be useful but I'm guessing that law > enforcement has learned that looking at a capture of customer data isn't as > useful as they thought it would be. > > About the only thing I can think of right this second which might be at > least frequently unencrypted anymore is VoIP and/or DNS depending on your > configuration. But if I was carrying on criminal activities across the > net I'd probably be looking at ways to encrypt everything which isn't hard > to do. > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 4:17 PM Mark Radabaugh <m...@amplex.net> wrote: > >> While CALEA is still on the books it doesn’t seem to be of much interest >> to LEA. >> >> No - you do not have to be able to identify the user. If LEA can >> identify a specific end user for you out of the WiFi, then yes, they could >> ask for you to monitor it but keep in mind that CALEA isn’t meant for >> historical data. It’s meant to be real-time capture once they have >> identified a particular person of interest (well, a specific phone number, >> IP address, etc.). >> >> Every year I get a phone call from the FBI verifying our contact >> information and how to get hold of us if they need something. I point out >> that we file our CALEA documents and ask why they are calling - and they >> say ‘oh, we don’t use that’. Uh, got it. But the FCC still thinks it’s >> important and you best follow the rules and file it anyway. Local and >> State LEA has never heard of CALEA. It’s just one more bureaucracy on >> autopilot that has outlived it’s usefulness. >> >> Mark >> >> >> On Mar 18, 2024, at 6:29 AM, dmmoff...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> CALEA hasn’t been on my radar much, so this is probably an old topic, but >> it’s one I don’t know much about. >> >> If you provide WiFi in a public space how do you handle compliance? We >> have parks, airports, and other public spaces with managed WiFi. There are >> also MDU’s with WiFi in a public area like a courtyard, lounge, lobby, etc. >> >> My understanding is you have to be able to capture traffic if you’re >> ordered to do so. Do you also have to be able to identify the individual? >> >> If they ever asked me to capture all traffic from the park WiFi….sure no >> problem. If they gave me a particular IP, port, and time, and they wanted >> me to start capturing traffic AND identify who it was, then I would only be >> able to tell them it was someone at the park. At *best* I could give >> them a MAC address and hostname. If I have to identify the *customer* >> that’s easy: the municipal parks department, but I’m guessing that’s not >> what they will want to know. >> >> Will this stuff get us in trouble? >> >> -Adam >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
