Brian Mengel bmengel at
Tue May 10 21:00:54 UTC 2016

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

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Josh Reynolds <josh at> wrote:

> The first rule of prism is...
> *silence*
> :)
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Christopher Morrow
> <morrowc.lists at> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Josh Reynolds <josh at>
> 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?
> >

More information about the NANOG mailing list