On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
On 5/11/11 8:26 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:16 AM, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com> wrote:
Courts like precedent. I choose Facebook's precedent. Seems reasonable to me.
That's also roughly in line with Nextel and others for CALEA.
Hrm, I had thought that CALEA specifically removed the ability of the Provider to charge for the 'service'? Though there is always the case where the Provider can say: "Yes, this doesn't fall into the CALEA relevant requests, we can do this for you though it will cost time/materials to do, here's our schedule..."
or that's the stance a previous employer was taking... (at the direction of their lawyer-catzen)
A civil subpeona is not a calea request. This thread has done a fair bit of intermingling of the two things to the detriment of it's utility.
yes, sorry... I got confused by william's interjection of calea...
While I'm sure facebook is served with plenty of valid search warrants, I'm reasonably unsure that they meet the definition of telecommunications carrier.
there's some discussion in the light of recent hearings, here:
http://paranoia.dubfire.net/2011/02/deconstructing-calea-hearing.html
there's been a push (or was a while ago) to change the calea requirements such that 'service provider' was the application service provider as well. AOL IM, Facebook, Google-Search... etc. with calea-like exfil of relevant data in 'near realtime' and 'at no cost to LEA'. -chris