AFAIK being able to do a lawful intercept on a specific, named, individual's service has been a requirement for providers since 2007. I have never heard of a provider, big or small, being called out for being unable to provide this service when requested. I would be surprised if a national broadband ISP with millions of subs did not have this ability and did not perform intercepts routinely. I would be surprised if a small town providing it's own Internet access or small WISP serving a few hundred customers went through the trouble and expense of being able to provide this service. The mediation server needed to "mediate" between your customer aggregation box and the LEA is not inexpensive. I believe there was talk about "trusted third parties" providing mediation-as-a-service but I do not know if any such entities exist. The logistics of running a mediation server in the cloud and being able to signal from the cloud to the aggregation box to begin a mediation and ensuring that the data exported from the ISP to the cloud to the LEA remained private would seem to be significant but not insurmountable. On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Josh Reynolds <josh@kyneticwifi.com> wrote:
The first rule of prism is...
*silence*
:)
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Josh Reynolds <josh@kyneticwifi.com>
wrote:
This is a large list that includes many Tier 1 network operators, government agencies, and Fortune 500 network operators
no one gets calea requests because prism gets all requests?