Misfire. Sorry, early in the AM. The URL I intended to send is here: http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/wiretap-report-2014 Best, -M< On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com> wrote:
CALEA isn't a type of request, it's a law that enabled par function access for LEO's e.g. "the ladder" pin register, trap+trace, DTMF translation, three-way/off hook ops and the call content (not necessarily in that order).
You can see the non national security activity here:
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 5:37 AM, Mike Joseph <mj@doze.net> wrote:
I can say via firsthand knowledge that CALEA requests are definitely happening and are not even that rare, proportional to a reasonably sized subscriber-base. It would be unlawful for me to comment specifically on any actual CALEA requests, however. But if you have general questions about my observations, feel free to reach out directly.
-MJ
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Brian Mengel <bmengel@gmail.com> wrote:
My comments were strictly limited to my understanding of CALEA as it applied to ISPs, not telcos. A request for a lawful intercept can entail mirroring a real time stream of all data sent to/from a customer's Internet connection (cable modem/DSL/dedicated Ethernet) to a LEA. AFAIK this requires mediation before being sent to the LEA and it is the mediation server itself that initiates the intercept when so configured by the ISP. Perhaps some LEAs have undertaken the mediation function so as to facilitate these intercepts where the neither the ISP nor a third party can do so. If that were the case then very little would be needed on the part of the ISP in order to comply with a request for lawful intercept. I can say with certainty that these types of requests are being made of broadband ISPs though I agree that they are very rare.
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:00:54 -0400, Brian Mengel <bmengel@gmail.com> wrote:
AFAIK being able to do a lawful intercept on a specific, named,
individual's service has been a requirement for providers since 2007.
It's been required for longer than that. The telco I worked for over a decade ago didn't build the infrastructure until the FCC said they were going to stop funding upgrades. That really got 'em movin'. (suddenly "data services" people -- i.e. ME -- weren't redheaded stepchildren.)
have never heard of a provider, big or small, being called out for being
unable to provide this service when requested.
Where existing infrastructure is not already in place (read: T1/BRI/etc.), the telco can take up to 60 days to get that setup. I know more than one telco that used that grace period to actually setup CALEA in the first place.
did not perform intercepts routinely.
The historic published figures (i've not looked in years) suggest CALEA requests are statistically rare. The NC based telco I worked for had never received an order in the then ~40yr life of the company.
The mediation server needed to "mediate" between your customer aggregation
box and the LEA is not inexpensive.
And also is not the telco's problem. Mediation is done by the LEA or 3rd party under contract to any number of agencies. For example, a telco tap order would mirror the control and voice traffic of a POTS line (T1/PRI channel, etc.) into a BRI or specific T1 channel. (dialup was later added, but wasn't required in my era, so we didn't support it.) We used to test that by tapping a tech's phone. Not having any mediation software, all I could do is "yeap, it's sending data" and listen to the voice channels on a t-berd.
--Ricky