I do have a volunteer from EFF...
I had mentioned that both VeriSign and Neustar have people that are
fluent in the
technical and general legal issues as well as the legal aspects. It
would seem to make more sense to solicit one of those organizations
since NANOG is about operations, and not p
On May 23, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I do have a volunteer from EFF...
excellent!
steve, can we get this in?
Unfortunately, not in the general session.
We've filled the available time, and it looks like we will be running
until 12:30 Monday and Tuesday, and 13:00 Wednesday.
> I do have a volunteer from EFF...
excellent!
steve, can we get this in?
randy
On Wed, 23 May 2007 16:02:35 -0400
Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 07:08:21PM +, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 23 May 2007, Joe Abley wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Oh! That was a really old message I just replied to. Mail got
> > > kidnapped in a ro
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 07:08:21PM +, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2007, Joe Abley wrote:
>
>
> > Oh! That was a really old message I just replied to. Mail got
> > kidnapped in a rogue barracuda, it seems, and someone just paid the
> > ransom. Sorry about the noise :-)
>
>
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Joe Abley wrote:
> Oh! That was a really old message I just replied to. Mail got
> kidnapped in a rogue barracuda, it seems, and someone just paid the
> ransom. Sorry about the noise :-)
don't swim with them and bait... Was there a final disposition on this? (I
suppose ma
On 23-May-2007, at 14:56, Joe Abley wrote:
On 11-May-2007, at 13:55, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
If there is interest, perhaps I can make a call to DoJ and
see if someone can present on CALEA at nanog in a few weeks?
(incase
the PC can accomod
On 11-May-2007, at 13:55, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
If there is interest, perhaps I can make a call to DoJ and
see if someone can present on CALEA at nanog in a few weeks? (incase
the PC can accomodate them).
that seems like a great idea, atle
On Fri, 11 May 2007 12:47:56 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
Todd Glassey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gee Steven, that's what everyone thought prior to a Federal Judge
> ordering Microsoft to produce seven years of Email...
>
We're getting off-topic here, but I'll respond.
First -- the context of the conve
On 5/11/07, Todd Glassey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gee Steven, that's what everyone thought prior to a Federal Judge ordering
Microsoft to produce seven years of Email...
I believe that was because they knew MS *had* that email. Of course,
any missing email can probably be tossed together p
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
As Bill Simpson has quite correctly pointed out, you're also not
required to roll over and play dead when someone from the government
asks you for some data. There are laws they're obligated to follow,
too. Even if you want to look at it from a pur
On Fri, 11 May 2007 12:17:04 -0400
Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If there is interest, perhaps I can make a call to DoJ and
> see if someone can present on CALEA at nanog in a few weeks? (incase
> the PC can accomodate them).
>
And perhaps someone from CDT? I mean that in all
On Fri, 11 May 2007 10:52:21 -0400
William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> David Lesher wrote:
> > > Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
> >> You work so hard to defend people that exploit children?
> >> Interesting. We are >> talking LEA here and not the lat
A _much_ longer version of this was sent privately- but I had to take
public exception to the following comment:
I'm not surprised that when they are dealing with companies that delete
all evidence they might need or push as much red tape as possible, that
the LEA turns around and scrutinizes
On Fri, 11 May 2007 10:42:14 -0400
"Jason Frisvold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 5/11/07, Brandon Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My understanding was data you had needed to be turned over when
> > requested, but CALEA provides no specification/guidance on log
> > retention.
>
> A
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> If there is interest, perhaps I can make a call to DoJ and
> see if someone can present on CALEA at nanog in a few weeks? (incase
> the PC can accomodate them).
that seems like a great idea, atleast a lightning talk would be nice.
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:42:14AM -0400, Jason Frisvold wrote:
>
> On 5/11/07, Brandon Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My understanding was data you had needed to be turned over when requested,
> > but CALEA provides no specification/guidance on log retention.
>
> Agreed. My underst
David Lesher wrote:
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
You work so hard to defend people that exploit children? Interesting. We are
talking LEA here and not the latest in piracy law suits. The #1 request from a
LEA in my experience concerns child exploitation.
That
On 5/11/07, Brandon Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My understanding was data you had needed to be turned over when requested,
but CALEA provides no specification/guidance on log retention.
Agreed. My understanding, to date, is that the data to be turned over
is data collected from the b
Donald Stahl wrote:
Working hard to defend privacy does not automatically equal protecting
people who exploit children- and I'm getting sick and tired of people
screaming "Think of the children!" It's a stupid, fear mongering tactic-
and hopefully one day people will think of it in the same wa
On 5/10/07, Jack Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think what he meant was "My DSL has been broke for 3 months now, and I haven't
not be able to use it. You can't charge me for something which wasn't working!"
Question #1 - Did you bother to call our technical support hotline?
No? Well then
On Thu, 10 May 2007, Stasiniewicz, Adam wrote:
Anyway, here is what I have learned from my experience with our friends in
law enforcement (be it local, state, or federal). First and foremost, they
like us are only humans trying to make a living. They are not out to get us
The troublemakers a
ubject: Re: ISP CALEA compliance
On Thu, 10 May 2007, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 May 2007, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>
> > Follow the usual best practices, and you may save time and money.
> >
> > 1. Ensure that your DHCP, RADIUS, SMTP, and other logs are al
On Thu, 10 May 2007, Joe Provo wrote:
Highly likely for most old requests. Your voice folks can tell you the
#1 CALEA request is neither kiddie pron nor terrrists, but rather DEA.
Remember, CALEA compliance is separate from any intercept orders you
receive. If you ask your voice folks, you'l
On 5/10/07, Chris L. Morrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jon,
there is no way this fellow is serious, nor is there anyway this fellow's
advice should be taken without some serious legal discussions with
in-house counsel... the penalties for non-compliance for CALEA are very
steep (100k/day while a
On Thu, 10 May 2007, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 May 2007, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>
> > Follow the usual best practices, and you may save time and money.
> >
> > 1. Ensure that your DHCP, RADIUS, SMTP, and other logs are always,
> > ALWAYS, *ALWAYS* rolled over and deleted within 7 da
On Thu, 10 May 2007 16:03:49 -0400
William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Congress "authorized" CALEA (and there is also argument about whether
> the recent expansion to ISPs was authorized at all), it cannot be
> required of the public until Congress *appropriates* the funds, and
>
David Lesher wrote:
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
You work so hard to defend people that exploit children? Interesting. We are
talking LEA here and not the latest in piracy law suits. The #1 request from a
LEA in my experience concerns child exploitation.
I thi
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
>
> You work so hard to defend people that exploit children? Interesting. We are
> talking LEA here and not the latest in piracy law suits. The #1 request from
> a
> LEA in my experience concerns child exploitation.
I think you'll f
Thus spake "Donald Stahl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Working hard to defend privacy does not automatically equal
protecting people who exploit children- and I'm getting sick and
tired of people screaming "Think of the children!" It's a stupid,
fear mongering tactic- and hopefully one day people will th
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 03:42:27PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
[snip]
> You work so hard to defend people that exploit children? Interesting. We
> are talking LEA here and not the latest in piracy law suits. The #1 request
> from a LEA in my experience concerns child exploitation.
Highly likely fo
You work so hard to defend people that exploit children? Interesting. We are
talking LEA here and not the latest in piracy law suits. The #1 request from
a LEA in my experience concerns child exploitation.
?? ???
Working hard to defend privacy does not automatically equal protecting
people w
William Allen Simpson wrote:
We've never charged on a "usage" model. We always charged on a fixed
tier bandwidth model, payable in advance.
I think what he meant was "My DSL has been broke for 3 months now, and I haven't
not be able to use it. You can't charge me for something which wasn't
William Allen Simpson wrote:
Speaking from experience, that's very likely -- a lot of negotiation
trouble. No matter what happens, you'll pay some attorney fees.
Also, the gag order was ruled unconstitutional, so always inform your
customer! They may be willing to work out attorney fees, and/
7 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: ISP CALEA compliance
On Thu, 10 May 2007, Patrick Muldoon wrote:
We've been under the impression that is *all* data. So for us, things
like PPPoE Sessions, just putting a tap/span port upstream of the
aggregation router will not work as you would miss any traffic goi
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:44 AM
Subject: ISP CALEA compliance
I have interpretted CALEA to apply only to providers of VOICE service, be
it VOIP or traditional, however I was told this morning point blank by the
FCC that CALEA most definitely applies to all
I recommend Kris Twomey... lokt.net
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: ISP CALEA compliance
Nikos
CTED]>;
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: ISP CALEA compliance
On 5/10/07, Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you're not offering VoIP services, your life may be easier as
you will only need to intercept the data. Depending on your environment
you cou
Jon Lewis wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Follow the usual best practices, and you may save time and money.
1. Ensure that your DHCP, RADIUS, SMTP, and other logs are always,
ALWAYS, *ALWAYS* rolled over and deleted within 7 days without backup.
I'd recommend 3 days,
Jason Frisvold wrote:
Here's a question that's come up around here. Does a CALEA intercept
include "hairpining" or is it *only* traffic leaving your network?
I'm of the opinion that a CALEA intercept request includes every bit
of traffic being sent or received by the targeted individual, but
t
Sean Donelan wrote:
The DOJ/FBI has been pretty consistent. They want it all and if there is
a technicality in the law that doesn't give it to them they have
consistently tried to expand the laws, regulations and court cases to
give it to them. ...
Very true!
But its also important to rem
On Thu, 10 May 2007, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Follow the usual best practices, and you may save time and money.
1. Ensure that your DHCP, RADIUS, SMTP, and other logs are always,
ALWAYS, *ALWAYS* rolled over and deleted within 7 days without backup.
I'd recommend 3 days, but operational re
On Thu, 10 May 2007, Daniel Senie wrote:
Just had this conversation with one of my clients, and it's a good question.
Seems like the telco providing the ATM (or other) access cloud might be the
responsible party. The ISP reselling that DSL is too far upstream anyway to
capture traffic between
On May 10, 2007, at 3:23 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
If you are doing PPPOE over another carrier's ATM network, are you
really
a "facilities-based" provider? Or is the CALEA compliance the
responsibility of the underlying ATM network provider to give LEA
access to the ATM VC of the subscribe
At 03:23 PM 5/10/2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007, Patrick Muldoon wrote:
We've been under the impression that is *all* data. So for us,
things like PPPoE Sessions, just putting a tap/span port upstream
of the aggregation router will not work as you would miss any
traffic goin
Jared Mauch wrote:
You need to have a router or some appliances that will assist
you in the required lawful-intercept capabilities that are necessary.
But anything whatsoever is OK. Since you don't know of the capabilities
required in advance, there's no reason that it be a fast route
On Thu, 10 May 2007, Patrick Muldoon wrote:
We've been under the impression that is *all* data. So for us, things like
PPPoE Sessions, just putting a tap/span port upstream of the aggregation
router will not work as you would miss any traffic going from USER A <-> USER
B, if they where on the
On Thu, 10 May 2007, Jason Frisvold wrote:
Here's a question that's come up around here. Does a CALEA intercept
include "hairpining" or is it *only* traffic leaving your network?
I'm of the opinion that a CALEA intercept request includes every bit
of traffic being sent or received by the target
On 5/10/07, Patrick Muldoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We've been under the impression that is *all* data. So for us,
things like PPPoE Sessions, just putting a tap/span port upstream of
the aggregation router will not work as you would miss any traffic
going from USER A <-> USER B, if they whe
On May 10, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Jason Frisvold wrote:
Here's a question that's come up around here. Does a CALEA intercept
include "hairpining" or is it *only* traffic leaving your network?
I'm of the opinion that a CALEA intercept request includes every bit
of traffic being sent or received by t
Jason Frisvold wrote:
On 5/10/07, Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you're not offering VoIP services, your life may be easier as
you will only need to intercept the data. Depending on your environment
you could do this with something like port-mirroring, or something
more adv
On 5/10/07, Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you're not offering VoIP services, your life may be easier as
you will only need to intercept the data. Depending on your environment
you could do this with something like port-mirroring, or something
more advanced. There are a numb
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 08:44:00AM -0700, Nikos Mouat wrote:
>
>
> I have interpretted CALEA to apply only to providers of VOICE service, be
> it VOIP or traditional, however I was told this morning point blank by the
> FCC that CALEA most definitely applies to all ISPs that provide internet
Nikos Mouat wrote:
> I have interpretted CALEA to apply only to providers of VOICE service,
> be it VOIP or traditional, however I was told this morning point blank
> by the FCC that CALEA most definitely applies to all ISPs that provide
> internet access at speeds over 200k.
That, and the defin
On Thu, 10 May 2007, Nikos Mouat wrote:
>
>
> I have interpretted CALEA to apply only to providers of VOICE service, be
> it VOIP or traditional, however I was told this morning point blank by the
> FCC that CALEA most definitely applies to all ISPs that provide internet
> access at speeds over
I have interpretted CALEA to apply only to providers of VOICE service, be
it VOIP or traditional, however I was told this morning point blank by the
FCC that CALEA most definitely applies to all ISPs that provide internet
access at speeds over 200k.
The FCC said that routers must send a cop
56 matches
Mail list logo
