On May 12, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> I wonder does IANA frequently receive legal papers demanding the
>> name and street address of the customer at 127.0.0.1 ? :)
>
> I know people, well at least one, that have sent spam complaints to IANA
> claiming junk mail originated
> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Thu May 12 11:04:15
> 2011
> Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 19:33:21 -0500
> Subject: Re: 23,000 IP addresses
> From: Jimmy Hess
> To: Michael Holstein
> Cc: NANOG list
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Michael Hols
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Michael Holstein
wrote:
> I have the netflow records to prove this is NOT the case. All
> MediaSentry (et.al.) do is scrape the tracker. We have also received a
> number of takedown notices that have numbers transposed, involve parts
Seems really prone to failure.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 5/11/11 8:26 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:16 AM, William Allen Simpson
>> wrote:
>>
Courts like precedent. I choose Facebook's precedent. Seems reasonable to
me.
>>> That's also roughly in line
On 5/11/11 8:26 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:16 AM, William Allen Simpson
> 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 tha
On 5/11/11 11:19 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On May 10, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
On 5/10/11 9:07 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
A good reason why every ISP should have a published civil subpoena
compliance fee.
23,000 * $150 each
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:16 AM, William Allen Simpson
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
On May 10, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>> On 5/10/11 9:07 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> A good reason why every ISP should have a published civil subpoena
>> compliance fee.
>> 23,000 * $150 each should only cost them $3.45M to ge
On 5/10/11 10:35 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
Facebook charges $150.00 (not a great link but
http://lawyerist.com/subpoena-facebook-information/
Sorry, that's old and incorrect.
Finding that on facebook's site is difficult. Other sites have Facebook
charging $250 to $500 for civil subpoena fe
> ("it's one in a billion to crack it! beyond a
> reasonable doubt! we dont have anyone anywhere in our IT who could possibly
> crack it!")
A billion iterations takes what fraction of a second using a high-end
multi-card gamer rig and CUDA? (or for the cheap/lazy, a S3/Tesla instance).
Even for
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Michael Holstein
wrote:
>
>>> I wonder how things go if you challenge them in court. This is surely a
>>> topic for another list, but it seems to me it'd be fairly difficult to
>>> prove unless they downloaded part of the movie from your IP and verified
>>> that w
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 09:56:56AM +0800, Ong Beng Hui said:
> while, I am not a lawyer, so what after they know who is using that
> broadband connection for that IP. So, they have identified the 80yr old,
> what next ? and what if i have a free-for-all wireless router in my
> house which an
>> I wonder how things go if you challenge them in court. This is surely a
>> topic for another list, but it seems to me it'd be fairly difficult to
>> prove unless they downloaded part of the movie from your IP and verified
>> that what they got really was a part of the movie.
I have the netfl
In article <5f713bd4b694ac42a8bb61aa6001a...@mail.dessus.com>, Keith
Medcalf writes
Article 5 - Categories of data to be retained
1. Member States shall ensure that the following categories of data are
retained under this Directive:
(a) data necessary to trace and identify the source of a commun
Luis Marta wrote on 2011-05-10:
> In the EU you have Directive 2006/24/EC: http://eur-
> lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:105:0054:0063:EN:PDF
> Article 6 - Periods of retention
> Member States shall ensure that the categories of data specified in Article
> 5 are retained for
On 5/10/11 8:30 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
On 5/10/11 9:07 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
A good reason why every ISP should have a published civil subpoena
compliance fee.
23,000 * $150 each should only cost them $3.45M to get the information.
See
On May 10, 2011, at 9:53 16PM, Michael Painter wrote:
> Deepak Jain wrote:
>> For examples, see the RIAA's attempts and more recently the criminal
>> investigations of child porn downloads from unsecured access
>> points. From what I understand (or wildly guess) is that ISPs with remote
>> diag
Hi，
I am not an US citizen and I don't live in US. But I am interested to
know how the case progress, because we have similar such cases in my
country. :P
But seriously, are they after the end-user or making the ISP responsible
for their end-user ?
while, I am not a lawyer, so what after t
Deepak Jain wrote:
For examples, see the RIAA's attempts and more recently the criminal investigations of child porn downloads from
unsecured access
points. From what I understand (or wildly guess) is that ISPs with remote diagnostic capabilities are being asked if
their
provided access point is
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> On 5/10/11 9:07 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> A good reason why every ISP should have a published civil subpoena
> compliance fee.
> 23,000 * $150 each should only cost them $3.45M to get the information.
> Seems like that would take the pro
--As of May 10, 2011 9:37:55 AM -0400, Jon Lewis is alleged to have said:
I wonder how things go if you challenge them in court. This is surely a
topic for another list, but it seems to me it'd be fairly difficult to
prove unless they downloaded part of the movie from your IP and verified
that
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>>
>>
> If I've found the right case, it was 05-1404, and published as 451 F.3d 226
> (2006);
> see http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/451/226/627290/
> I have no idea if it's still good law.
According to EDUCAUSE the
On May 10, 2011, at 3:51 32PM, Michael Holstein wrote:
>
>> In the US, I believe that CALEA requires you to have those records for 7
>> years.
>>
>
> No, it doesn't (records *of the requests* are required, but no
> obligation to create subscriber records exists).
>
> Even if it did .. academ
> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 15:51:32 -0400
> From: Michael Holstein
>
>
> > In the US, I believe that CALEA requires you to have those records for 7
> > years.
> >
>
> No, it doesn't (records *of the requests* are required, but no
> obligation to create subscriber records exists).
>
> Even if
Hello,
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> In the US, I believe that CALEA requires you to have those records for 7
> years.
>
FWIW, in Argentina there is a requirement to hold all records for a full ten
years. A sweet bite for the storage folks here...
regards,
cl.
> In the US, I believe that CALEA requires you to have those records for 7
> years.
>
No, it doesn't (records *of the requests* are required, but no
obligation to create subscriber records exists).
Even if it did .. academic institutions are exempt (to CALEA) as private
networks.*
There are
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
In the US, I believe that CALEA requires you to have those records for
7 years.
Some universities have taken the position that they do not meet the
criteria for being "communications service providers" under CALEA, and
therefore not subject to the inte
> From: Owen DeLong
> Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 12:02:33 -0700
>
> On May 10, 2011, at 11:49 AM, Michael Holstein wrote:
>
> >
> >> In the EU you have Directive 2006/24/EC:
> >>
> >
> > But I'm not, and neither are most of the ISPs in the linked document.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Michael Holst
On May 10, 2011, at 3:02 33PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On May 10, 2011, at 11:49 AM, Michael Holstein wrote:
>
>>
>>> In the EU you have Directive 2006/24/EC:
>>>
>>
>> But I'm not, and neither are most of the ISPs in the linked document.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Michael Holstein
>> Information
On May 10, 2011, at 11:49 AM, Michael Holstein wrote:
>
>> In the EU you have Directive 2006/24/EC:
>>
>
> But I'm not, and neither are most of the ISPs in the linked document.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Holstein
> Information Security Administrator
> Cleveland State University
In the US, I b
On May 10, 2011, at 2:10 10PM, Wil Schultz wrote:
> On May 10, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 10, 2011, at 9:07 11AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>>
>>
>> Has anyone converted that file to some useful format like ASCII? You know
>> -- something greppable?
>>
>
> I've
On May 10, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
> On May 10, 2011, at 9:07 11AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
>
> Has anyone converted that file to some useful format like ASCII? You know
> -- something greppable?
>
I've converted it to ascii, but I don't have a place to host it.
I can
On May 10, 2011, at 9:07 11AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> A Federal Judge has decided to let the "U.S. Copyright Group" subpoena ISPs
> over 23,000 alleged downloads of some
> Sylvester Stallone movie I have never heard of; subpoenas are expected to go
> out this week.
>
> I thought that there
> A Federal Judge has decided to let the "U.S. Copyright Group" subpoena
> ISPs over 23,000 alleged downloads of some
> Sylvester Stallone movie I have never heard of; subpoenas are expected
> to go out this week.
>
> I thought that there might be some interest in the list of these
> addresses :
>
In article , Roland Perry writes
>Attempts a bit like this have come unstuck in the UK. Search for
>"Davenport Lyons" and "ACS Law"
And this ruling (and fine) have appeared from the UK's privacy regulator
today (note especially that the fine would have been ~$300k if the
company was still trading
On May 10, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
> In article , chip
> writes
>
>> Interesting, especially after this:
>>
>> http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-a-person-bittorrent-case-judge-says-110503/
>
> It depends whether you are suing the subscriber or the downloader (maybe both
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:37 AM, William Pitcock
wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 10:22:03 -0400
> Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> At least baytsp got theirs? (money I mean)
>>
>
> Do you have any links to evidence of this? I would love to just be
> able to automatically throw BayTSP mails in the garb
> http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/05/expendibleipaddresses.pdf
>
The dates in the timestamps are back in February. We deleted those logs
"..in the regular course of business.."
a LONG TIME AGO.
If you didn't do that, you really ought to ask yourself why.
Regards,
Michael
On Tue, 10 May 2011 10:22:03 -0400
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Scott Brim
> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 09:42, Leigh Porter
> > wrote:
> >> So are they basing this on you downloading it or on making it
> >> available for others?
> >
> > Without knowing t
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 09:42, Leigh Porter
> wrote:
>> So are they basing this on you downloading it or on making it available for
>> others?
>
> Without knowing the details, I wouldn't assume any such level of
> competence or integrity. It
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 09:42, Leigh Porter
wrote:
> So are they basing this on you downloading it or on making it available for
> others?
Without knowing the details, I wouldn't assume any such level of
competence or integrity. It could just be a broad witch hunt.
> Apologies for the top post
In article , chip
writes
Interesting, especially after this:
http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-a-person-bittorrent-case-judge-says-110503/
It depends whether you are suing the subscriber or the downloader (maybe
both can be liable in some cases). Also whether the subscriber was
runni
So are they basing this on you downloading it or on making it available for
others?
Apologies for the top post...
--
Leigh Porter
On 10 May 2011, at 14:40, "Jon Lewis" wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
>> A Federal Judge has decided to let the "U.S. Copyright Group" s
bakl...@amtrak.com
-Original Message-
From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jle...@lewis.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 9:38 AM
To: Marshall Eubanks
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: 23,000 IP addresses
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> A Federal Judge has decided to let the "U.S. Copyright Gr
On 5/10/11 9:07 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
A Federal Judge has decided to let the "U.S. Copyright Group" subpoena ISPs
over 23,000 alleged downloads of some
Sylvester Stallone movie I have never heard of; subpoenas are expected to go
out this week.
I thought that there might be some interest
>A Federal Judge has decided to let the "U.S. Copyright Group" subpoena
>ISPs over 23,000 alleged downloads of some Sylvester Stallone movie I have
>never heard of [. . .]
>I thought that there might be some interest in the list of these addresses :
>http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2
On Tue, 10 May 2011 09:07:11 -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
A Federal Judge has decided to let the "U.S. Copyright Group"
subpoena ISPs over 23,000 alleged downloads of some
Sylvester Stallone movie I have never heard of;
Good for you : it was one of the worst films I've ever seen. And I've
se
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
A Federal Judge has decided to let the "U.S. Copyright Group" subpoena ISPs
over 23,000 alleged downloads of some
Sylvester Stallone movie I have never heard of; subpoenas are expected to go
out this week.
I thought that there might be some interes
Interesting, especially after this:
http://torrentfreak.com/ip-address-not-a-person-bittorrent-case-judge-says-110503/
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Marshall Eubanks
wrote:
> A Federal Judge has decided to let the "U.S. Copyright Group" subpoena ISPs
> over 23,000 alleged downloads of som
49 matches
Mail list logo
