Fw: [CALEA] CALEA for co-lo transit providers?

Here ya have it.  Read below, inline.

For those that are going to ISPCon, last I knew Mike was set to be one of 
the folks there to cover the CALEA session.

laters,
marlon

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael J. Erskine" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: [CALEA] CALEA for co-lo transit providers?


> Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Can anyone answer this question for John?
>>
>> John, the advice to hit up ask calea was spot on too.  They are good 
>> folks
>> over there.
>>
>> thanks,
>> marlon
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "John Todd" <[email protected]>
>> To: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:47 AM
>> Subject: CALEA for co-lo transit providers?
>>
>>
>>
>>> I'm sure someone knows this off the top of their heads, so I'll ask the
>>> non-lawyers here for some clue before I wade into the documentation...
>>>
>>> I know that CALEA applies to all "service providers" for broadband 
>>> access
>>> and VoIP application services here in the United States. However, does
>>> CALEA apply to co-location transit providers?(*)  In other words:
>>> facilities that have no end-users or end-user circuits in them, but only
>>> large arrays of application servers?   I'm asking about IP transit, and
>>> not about physical layer.  Equinix, as an example: with their Equinix
>>> Direct product (blended transit inside their facilities) are they 
>>> subject
>>> to CALEA?
>>>
> Yes, they are subject in exactly the same way as any ISP in the US is
> subject.  In as much as they are located in the US and provide a transit
> service they are subject to the same stipulations that  the WISP I work
> for (http://www.freeantennas.com/Kaballero-Mar-08.JPG) WISP is subject
> too.  You will observe that we have a CALEA requirement to collect VoIP
> even though we are not a VoIP provider.  If it crosses my network then I
> have a CALEA responsibility. If it happens that we are the only point
> where the data can be collected, we can expect to receive the subpoena.
>>> My gut instinct is "no" after doing some reading, but it's not entirely
>>> clear.  Opinions welcome, and referenced facts even more so.
>>>
>>>
>>> (*) Of course, one always must comply with a court order, but that is 
>>> not
>>> what I'm asking about - I'm talking about the "built-in" intercept
>>> functionality that many equipment vendors are now integrating into
>>> equipment, and pre-event access configuration that may be requested by
>>> LEAs.
>>>
> You are required to be able to collect such information as crosses your
> network, in particular, if it crosses your network and your network is
> the only place the data can be collected then you can expect the
> subpoena and you must be able to answer that subpoena.  The only class
> of carrier which is exempt is the "not for profit" provider.  That term
> has not yet been defined.  It may be that a restaurant with an open AP
> is a "for profit" provider because they expect to receive some
> compensation by providing the service.  These nuances are undefined
> because they have not been tested in court.
>
> -m-
>>> JT
>>> -- 
>>> Eat sushi frequently. - Avi
>>> [email protected] is the human contact address.
>>> [email protected] is the list posting address.
>>> See below URL for subscribe/unsubscribe and list options:
>>> http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CALEA mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/calea
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CALEA mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/calea 

-- 
Eat sushi frequently. - Avi
[email protected] is the human contact address.
[email protected] is the list posting address.
See below URL for subscribe/unsubscribe and list options:
http://inet-access.net/mailman/listinfo/list