CALEA

Josh Luthman josh at imaginenetworksllc.com
Sun May 29 20:04:10 UTC 2016


How many requests per 1k or 10k customers?  Is primarily residential a safe
assumption?


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Mike Joseph <mj at 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 at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:00:54 -0400, Brian Mengel <bmengel at 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
> > >
> >
> >
>


More information about the NANOG mailing list