[c-nsp] CALEA was Re: OT - Dark Fiber

[jp]

I've never had to capture traffic for the LEAs, but we do ocassionally 
get legit subpoenas to determine who was using what IP address at a 
particular time. We don't get to know much about the subpoenas, but I'd 
suspect it's a mix of child porn, drunk chatters making death threats 
online in public forums, etc...  I wouldn't be suprised if we someday 
had to capture traffic for an LEA, so I keep it in mind. I know for 
certain some of these are from customers with wide open wifi routers.

I think it's mostly a scam to make us do more paperwork and for vendors 
to sell more equipment or upgrades. The vendors were big on this. 
Encryption is the source of your civil liberty here.

The upside is that LEAs are probably supposed to be somewhat more
knowledgeable at asking for information in their subpoenas as a result 
of the existence of a process. Ten years ago, I was talking with a 
detective in charge of a subpoena I'd been served. I asked him what 
time zone, and he said Green Mountain Time. I am not joking.

On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 01:07:36PM -0700, Scott Granados wrote:
> Why does anyone comply with CALEA?  Especially after the abuses of the last 
> 8 years and probably a lot farther back than that?  I've been reading about 
> the requirements and the idea that ISPs cooperate with law enforcement 
> really makes me uneasy on a civil liberties basis. Does Uncle Sam scare 
> tactic people in to compliance?  There's just something about making things 
> easier for the NSA and any number of alphabet soup agencies that strikes me 
> as unamerican (to use their own phrase against them) and wrong. Or was it 
> created simply to create a new space for security products and C, J and the 
> others were really good at lobbying?
>    Since it doesn't require the ISP to break open encrypted traffic it 
> almost makes me think a public key system that lets the end user encrypt 
> everything from phone to television with their own keys makes some sense so 
> there's nothing left in the clear for entertaining the James Bond crowd! 
> Probably not practical at all but this thread just convinced me not to use 
> split tunneling.;)
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "david raistrick" <drais at icantclick.org>
> To: "jp" <jp at saucer.midcoast.com>
> Cc: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 12:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] OT - Dark Fiber
>
>
>> On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, jp wrote:
>>
>>> Regarding the topic... If someone provides dark fiber, would they be
>>> subject to CALEA requirements to be able to tap and record the
>>
>> I haven't followed CALEA-for-ISPs for a few years, but at least when it 
>> was initially required, dark fiber providers won't need to comply with 
>> CALEA.  They're not providing network service.   -lit- fiber providers 
>> would because they're either providing network or telecom service....but 
>> they generally wouldn't do it at the physical layer.
>>
>> ...david
>>
>> --
>> david raistrick        http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
>> drais at icantclick.org             http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ 

-- 
/*
Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
    KB1IOJ        |   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting 
 http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Maine    http://www.midcoast.com/
*/