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,
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
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
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 :-)
don't swim
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 rogue barracuda, it
I do have a volunteer from EFF...
excellent!
steve, can we get this in?
randy
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...
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
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 it
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 way
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.
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
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 understanding,
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, 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.
Agreed. My
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
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 latest in
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 where
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
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
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
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
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 subscriber
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 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
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
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
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,
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 could do this with something like port-mirroring, or something
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: nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: ISP CALEA compliance
Nikos Mouat
Join the wireless list at wispa.org and the wisp list at part-15.org
They've been discussing it quite a bit. There's also a FAQ at wispa.org
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Nikos Mouat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
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 going from
USER
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,
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
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
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 for
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 think
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 find
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
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
they
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 days without
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 an
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,
use the Internet to help them in
their crimes.
My $0.02,
Adam Stasiniewicz
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Chris L. Morrow
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:50 PM
To: Jon Lewis
Cc: William Allen Simpson; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: ISP
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
54 matches
Mail list logo
