On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Barry Shein wrote:
> A major concern is indemnification and immunity for the ISP.
This sort of power was greatly expanded by a suspiciouly intentioned US
bill-turned-law from 2001 whose name I dare not mention in cleartext (),
which allows such subpoenaless probes into far mo
A major concern is indemnification and immunity for the ISP.
When someone is prosecuted they usually face major legal expenses, and
often are incapable of paying them. The prospect of a lengthy prison
sentence and/or criminal record does not portend well either.
Defense lawyers know this all to
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Owen DeLong
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 1:31 AM
> To: Jason Frisvold; Fergie (Paul Ferguson)
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Administration Asks Appeals Court T
On 6/1/05, Chris Kuethe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/31/05, Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not having received one, I have no gag order, so, I am free to tell you I
> > haven't received one.
> >
> > Owen
>
> This assumes that the new breed of NSL doesn't require you to deny
> hav
On 5/31/05, Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not having received one, I have no gag order, so, I am free to tell you I
> haven't received one.
>
> Owen
This assumes that the new breed of NSL doesn't require you to deny
having received an NSL when questioned, unless you want to have some
No.
An NSL is a letter that does not require any sort of court approval and
allows Law Enforcement to demand specific records and logs without
disclosure
and with no way to challenge the NSL short of challenging the
constitutionality
of the law authorizing NSLs in general.
The primary differe
At 01:53 PM 5/31/2005, W. Mark Herrick, Jr. wrote:
At 01:39 PM 5/31/2005, Jason Frisvold wrote:
Ugh.. Ok, so it's a "Hi, I'm an FBI Agent. Gimme info on Joe Blow
and Mary Jane" and I'm supposed to jump and give out that info... No
questions asked...
An NSL is hand delivered to an ISP, no
On 5/31/05, Chris Ranch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just reread the article, and realized I got it wrong. There is some
> paperwork: "The ruling came in a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties
> Union and an Internet access firm that received a national security
> letter (NSL) from the FBI d
At 01:54 PM 5/31/2005, Chris Ranch wrote:
> I'm not so opposed to the "don't tell anyone" part. When we
> receive a subpeona for a criminal case (as opposed to a civil
> case), the subpeona usually states that the subpeona and
> information being requested can't be discussed by anyone.
> Where
On May 31, 2005 12:39 PM, Jason Frisvold wrote:
> On 5/31/05, Chris Ranch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Looks like they want us to turn over customer info without the
> > subpoena, but simply with a phone call (or whatever) from an
> > investigator. I would hope that would be just for specific
At 01:39 PM 5/31/2005, Jason Frisvold wrote:
On 5/31/05, Chris Ranch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks like they want us to turn over customer info without the subpoena,
> but simply with a phone call (or whatever) from an investigator. I
> would hope that would be just for specific accounts,
On 5/31/05, Chris Ranch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks like they want us to turn over customer info without the subpoena,
> but simply with a phone call (or whatever) from an investigator. I
> would hope that would be just for specific accounts, and not the entire
> customer list. In any eve
age-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jason Frisvold
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 11:53 AM
> To: Fergie (Paul Ferguson)
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Administration Asks Appeals Court To Compel ISP Searches
>
>
> On 5/31/05,
On 5/31/05, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Worth knowing how this all falls out, methinks.
>
> http://www.securitypipeline.com/163702151
Am I understanding this correctly? Are they trying to get ISP's to
release all customer information up front without any sort of legal
re
14 matches
Mail list logo
