I've posted a lot on CALEA here, and some of you are likely tired of
hearing from me, if you haven't already filtered :)
Just a general point from reading:
Some of you are going to / have already gone with TTPs. Just be
careful. Having read some of their posts over in the AskCALEA forums,
ther
I have been quietly watching and waiting as the CALEA compliance issue has
been discussed and information pertaining to it has become available over
the last few months.
I have seen numerous posts on the WISPA list indicating that a cost
effective and compliant solution for this issue was being
Would I cover myself for calea by having a mikrotik router on the
shelf, set up as a bridge, with the calea module installed. Then if I
get subpoenaed for a tap, I just run out to the appropriate tower and
put it on the ethernet interface of whichever AP the subscriber is on?
Thanks,
Roger
-
Hi,
As a new member of WISPA I am reading with interest all of the postings
about CALEA from the past few weeks.
Thankfully, we have designed our network in such a way that all customer IP
traffic passes through at least one Cisco switch before it can be bridged to
any other customer or rout
> I have seen numerous posts on the WISPA list indicating that a cost
> effective and compliant solution for this issue was being worked on and
> would become available in the near future.
>
I think that is wishful thinking on some people's part. When you see
companies like Cisco struggle to provid
I'd like to add my own brief CALEA comments and concerns. Out of respect
for the "maximum of 5 posts per day" proposal, I'll keep it short.
I'm thinking that extending CALEA to small WISPs without compensating
them for their costs has more to do with "the big fish eating the little
fish" than
I personally do not believe that any CALEA can be cost effective. Quite
simply, solving CALEA requires spending money without earning any
additional revenue. The only way to justify the CALEA expense is to accept
it as a cost of doing business. This means simply that your market
opportunity is l
EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 9:14 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
>I personally do not believe that any CALEA can be cost effective. Quite
>simply, solving CALEA requires spending money without earning any
>additional rev
hose ttp's have already gotten figured
out.
Someone's gonna make money off of those out there that can't/won't figure it
out for themselves. Might as well be you!
marlon
- Original Message -
From: "Todd Barber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "&#x
tegy for dealing with the fallout.
Some real legal eagle shark type stuff. I suspect whether we do our utmost
or ignore it, we're mostly going to end up in the same shoes.
- Original Message -
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List&
- Original Message -
From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
I went to email him, but his website says he will not respond to emails from
outside his district.
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Todd Barber wrote:
I have seen numerous posts on the WISPA list indicating that a cost
effective and compliant solution for this issue was being worked on
and would become available in the near future.
All I can say is please be patient. An answer to your question is
co
John Scrivner wrote:
We look forward to proving that this thinking is wrong. What part of
CALEA compliance is it that makes you think we cannot develop a low
cost and reasonable solution which will not break the bank?
Even if you do come up with a way to handle LI in time for the deadline
t
a need that
will largely be an expensive dust collector in most businesses.
Anyone know if this has been posed to the FBI.
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 7:54 AM
Subject: Re
, 2007 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
Ross Cornett wrote:
I still would like to know the amount of incident that this CALEA will
cause for all of its costs to our industry. Did anyone ask the FBI, why
they cannot have several machines and deliver them as needed
pre-configured the
y, May 01, 2007 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
If we can come up with a device to capture and send to an FTP server and
allow for VPN connectivity then why can the most powerful law agency in
the world not do the same. This way they controll it all. We just
provide the pip
Ross Cornett wrote:
I still would like to know the amount of incident that this CALEA will
cause for all of its costs to our industry. Did anyone ask the FBI,
why they cannot have several machines and deliver them as needed
pre-configured then we can install them when they are needed. It is
You need to filter out data that is not under the subpoena.
And (as I understand it) the LEA should work with you to get the data.
Ross Cornett wrote:
If we can come up with a device to capture and send to an FTP server
and allow for VPN connectivity then why can the most powerful law
agency
But more importantly... from this day forward, you will not be able to
start, or deploy a wireless or any other kind of internet providing network
that doesn't have ALL aspects of CALEA compatibility built in. That
pretty much rules out the vast majority of present equipment and methods of
deploym
rt of appeals upheld FCC's
CALEA Broadband Order in American Council on Education vs. FCC.
Hope this helps.
Tim Kery
BearHill Security, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 09:40:06 -0500
From: "Ross Cornett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALE
Tim Kery wrote:
Hi Ross,
You also have to remember that Law Enforcement's primary focus is Law
Enforcement and not developing technology. The FBI/DEA/DOJ said as much
when in 2004 they petitioned the FCC to expand CALEA to broadband and
VoIP. Essentially, they argued that it isn't possib
it. lol
Ross
- Original Message -
From: "Sam Tetherow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
Tim Kery wrote:
Hi Ross,
You also have to remember that Law Enforcem
Hi all-
I'm just curious if anyone has a contact for someone that is
a CALEA compliance contractor.
Essentially we are looking for a third party that can verify
compliance.
Hit me offlist, please.
Regards,
-chris
Depends who you ask. Some might say the customer could notice a "change in
network" and hence non compliant.
On Mar 5, 2011 10:43 PM, "Roger Howard" wrote:
> Would I cover myself for calea by having a mikrotik router on the
> shelf, set up as a bridge, with the calea module installed. Then if I
>
Ok, but the FBI wouldn't know I stuck the hardware there at the last
minute. And the tower glitches off whenever I do a firmware upgrade
anyway. The customer wouldn't know the difference.
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Josh Luthman
wrote:
> Depends who you ask. Some might say the customer could
The FBI told me (and I am paraphrasing) that if you work with them that they
will work with you. Basically as long as you are not acting like you do not
think they have a right to do the tap and are not being a pain in the behind
then you will get all the support you need from them in a lawful inte
On 03/06/2011 09:18 AM, John Scrivner wrote:
> The FBI told me (and I am paraphrasing) that if you work with them
> that they will work with you. Basically as long as you are not acting
> like you do not think they have a right to do the tap and are not
> being a pain in the behind then you will
The easy answer is if you get a warrant you should ask the agency for
help before doing anything. They are more than willing to help in my
experience. My advice is:
1.Get your attorney involved to the point they know what you are doing
2.Call the agency who the warrant is for and ask for techni
pa.org] On
Behalf Of Roger Howard
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 10:50 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea Compliance
Ok, but the FBI wouldn't know I stuck the hardware there at the last
minute. And the tower glitches off whenever I do a firmware upgrade
anyway. The custome
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 5:59 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Calea Compliance
You would be better off putting a passive tap inline and the router as a
"probe". If you do that, it will be completely invisible to the end customer.
Regards,
Jeff
ImageStream Sal
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:49:43 -0400, Adam Greene wrote
> Hi,
>
> As a new member of WISPA I am reading with interest all of the
> postings about CALEA from the past few weeks.
>
> Thankfully, we have designed our network in such a way that all
> customer IP traffic passes through at least one Ci
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:49:43 -0400, Adam Greene wrote
>
>
> A: No. The petition proposes CALEA coverage of only broadband Internet access
> service and broadband telephony service. Other Internet-based services,
> including those classified as "information services" such as email and visit
Mark, your info is 3 years old
We have to be ready to "tap our lines". Even IMs.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: "wispa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:09:23 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote
> Mark, your info is 3 years old
>
> We have to be ready to "tap our lines". Even IMs.
> marlon
>
I think you missed my point, Marlon... That being that not even the
government is a reliable source of information about what the go
Mark,
wispa wrote:
I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people that
this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from the FCC, where
it's attempting to write law instead of Congress.
It's a mess, because it's NOT LAW, only Congress can write law and it has
Mark,
CALEA IS LAW. There are interpretations of that law, but they have been upheld
by courts.
CALEA is not the opinion of the DOJ or FCC. It is not far-reaching (like say the Patriot Act) or secret and possibly illegal like the NSA-AT&T wiretapping / surveillance.
It is part of the 2 big
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 07:31:56 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote
> Mark,
>
> wispa wrote:
> > I have been attempting for how long now, to get across to you people that
> > this whole CALEA flap for ISP's is NOT LAW, but opinion from the FCC,
where
> > it's attempting to write law instead of Congress.
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:21:53 -0400, Peter R. wrote
> Mark,
>
> CALEA IS LAW. There are interpretations of that law, but they have
> been upheld by courts.
YOu're arguing against things I'm not saying.
>
> CALEA is not the opinion of the DOJ or FCC. It is not far-reaching
> (like say the Patr
I, for one, welcome our new overlords.
Our Canadian brothers and sisters are going to be dealing with their
version of CALEA soon. This is a first reading of a bill in the Canadian
legislative body.
At least they address the issue of cost to ISPs; unfortunately, they
also don't believe in un
one has any point of view about any of the
compliance methods that I discussed in my original post, from a technical
standpoint.
Thanks,
Adam
- Original Message -
From: "wispa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List"
Sent: T
tandpoint.
Thanks,
Adam
- Original Message - From: "wispa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 08:21:53 -0400, Peter R.
Mark,
Wireless providers DO have to comply with CALEA whether you like it or not.
As quoted from the link I sent you earlier;
"Nor does our interpretation of section 332 of the Communications Act
and its implementing regulations here alter either our decision in the
CALEA proceeding to apply
The best stratergy to take towards CALEA is to get familiar and get
ready to comply. If for some reason it turns out some don't have to
comply, then no loss. If it turns out that we all have to comply, then
we're ahead of the game.
Think positive!
Dawn DiPietro wrote:
Mark,
Wireless provi
ver they want out of my own
pocket.
>
> I'm still interested if anyone has any point of view about any of
> the compliance methods that I discussed in my original post, from a
> technical standpoint.
>
> Thanks,
> Adam
>
> - Original Message -
>
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:17:09 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote
> Mark,
>
> Wireless providers DO have to comply with CALEA whether you like it
> or not.
>
> As quoted from the link I sent you earlier;
>
> "Nor does our interpretation of section 332 of the Communications
> Act and its implementing reg
s.
Here is a link to the threads
http://forum.mikrotik.com/search.php?mode=results&sid=723d81c229563812d900d2
0b3a31a900
Ralph
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Greene
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:08 PM
To: WISPA General Li
at we should
follow the original intent of the Constitution...but that cat left the bag
decades ago.
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of wispa
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:20 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compl
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:29:18 -0400, Jeff Broadwick wrote
> Mark,
>
> Right or wrong, Congress regularly delegates rule-making to the various
> agencies. They pass laws that are purposely vague and/or broad and they
> empower the various agencies (and the courts, ultimately) to fill in
> the blan
ds
http://forum.mikrotik.com/search.php?mode=results&sid=723d81c229563812d900d2
0b3a31a900
Ralph
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Adam Greene
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:08 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance
Mark,
Enough with the analogies.
CALEA is law - not once but twice - 1934 and 1996.
Courts have upheld the FCC decision on what CALEA covers.
The same laws that give the DOJ the right to wiretap, gives the FCC the
right to create guidelines.
I don't like it, any more than I like AT&T letting
Original Message -
From: "Clint Ricker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
> Just as a general rule, CALEA monitoring is not something that you
> need to--or wan
Clint Ricker wrote:
Just as a general rule, CALEA monitoring is not something that you
need to--or want to--do at each individual CPE or router.
Wouldn't it be cool, and cheap, if it was just that easy?
Here's your encrypted access to xxx customers radio / port, it's yours
to monitor...?
I've been watching this discussion for a bit.
Up front, I have to say I agree with Mark.
Say the FBI and DOJ wanted a way to track any automobile in the country
in real time, (so the bad guys can't hide their movements). They go to
the DOT and the the DOT decides that the way to do this is to
- Original Message -
From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'"
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:22 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods- For Clint
Hello Clint.
You are confusing me. When I mention MT, I said routers,
Blair,
Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that
WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the
WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now
the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the majority of
the mem
Blair Davis wrote:
Because at WISPA, we don't have to all think the same and have the same
opinions all in step. We're not clones. We're individuals who each have
our own beliefs and run our operation individually, sometimes uniquely
And fortunately WISPA is an organization made up of individ
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:20:15 -0400, Blair Davis wrote
> I've been watching this discussion for a bit.
>
> Up front, I have to say I agree with Mark.
>
> Say the FBI and DOJ wanted a way to track any automobile in the
> country in real time, (so the bad guys can't hide their movements).
> They
George
As to form 477 and CALEA, no, no one has spoken of making membership
contingent on their position on these issues.
But, I do recall a discussion, on this list, 'Dealing with bad players',
starting on Feb 8, that basically proposed requiring the use of
stickered equipment to be a memb
Sounds vagely familiar,
Like I said, from my opinion, wispa would not be an industry association
Remember once had a guy selling jock straps with the wispa logo thinking
that was a good idea too.
Blair Davis wrote:
George
As to form 477 and CALEA, no, no one has spoken of making membershi
Inline
wispa wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:20:15 -0400, Blair Davis wrote
I've been watching this discussion for a bit.
Up front, I have to say I agree with Mark.
Say the FBI and DOJ wanted a way to track any automobile in the
country in real time, (so the bad guys can't hide t
Mark,
Right in time.
WISPA will be having elections in the very near future.
Now is the time to join WISPA and be eligible to cast your vote or run
for a board seat.
Membership is a very low 250.00 per year.
And you get to vote!
Try the new automated sign up:
http://signup.wispa.org/wispa-n
We're close guys. Just waiting to get a doc fine tuned and double checked.
marlon
- Original Message -
From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance
eloped (for *nix or Windows) ...
... and here's an interesting document I found linked to from the Mikrotik
threads:
http://contributions.atis.org/UPLOAD/PTSC/LAES/PTSC-LAES-2006-084R8.doc ...
Adam
- Original Message -
From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'
On another subject
Two months ago, we were ready to join WISPA. At the time, I felt that
WISPA had proven its longevity and was becoming a mature voice for the
WISP's. But, after the form 477 issue, FCC sticker issue, and now
the CALEA issue, I'm pretty sure that I disagree with the ma
7;t
figure it out for themselves. Might as well be you!
marlon
- Original Message - From: "Todd Barber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'"
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 8:19 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] CALEA Compliance
John,
The part that
s
42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 9:42 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Calea co
ot;
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:36 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:09:23 -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote
Mark, your info is 3 years old
We have to be ready to "tap our lines". Even IMs.
marlon
I think you missed my point, Marlon..
] On
Behalf Of Clint Ricker
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
Just as a general rule, CALEA monitoring is not something that you
need to--or want to--do at each individual CPE or router. Likewise,
although assistance fro
There are 3rd party vendors, like IP Fabrics with CALEA compliance gear.
For data it shouldn't be that big of a deal since the Edge Router
(connecting your WAN with your upstream) should be able to be tapped, if
you use what I will call a brand name (Cisco, Juniper, Redback, blah,
blah and soon
magestream have to hope that
our hardware provider will come up with a way, too.
Aren't we really on the same page, here?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Clint Ricker
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subje
- Original Message -
From: "Clint Ricker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods- For Clint
Ralph,
My apologies for the confusion.
I think we are more or less on the
71 matches
Mail list logo
