On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Joel Jaeggli <joe...@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.simp...@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
