Our attorney has said that when our order came in for
"inbound/outbound
emails with headers for email-address@your-domain.///"
It means just that. Nothing more, nothing less. They can not be vague
or
open ended, they must be precise to what they are looking for.
Right. I meant the wording of the CALEA law itself was vague (or more
properly, "technology agnostic"), not a subpoena for specific info.
That is an interesting and very useful quote above, and I've wanted to
see just that sort of thing. We've only ever received subpoenas asking
for the identity of a subscriber on a given (dialup) ip address.
Does anyone else have actual subpoenas from which you can share exactly
what data has been requested?
CALEA makes the feed standard between for law enforcement. That's a
good
thing in the long run.
The ATIS T1.IAS standard we're working on doesn't account for a
subpoena such as what you quoted above, but only identifying the traffic
of a subject and delivering either identifying information or full
content. With safe harbor, when OpenCALEA reaches full support of the
ATIS standard, it sounds like you can rightfully claim full calea
compliance, and still not be able to fulfill the orders of such a
subpoena.
Does a subpoena identify a specific law under which it is authorized
(ie. CALEA vs. something else)? If so, I'd expect if it said it was a
CALEA authorized subpoena, and you had safe harbor from T1.IAS, you are
protected from the up to $10k/day fines and can explain that the
standard doesn't support that? I suspect we would simply see subpoenas
change to something the standard does support (eg. all port 25, 110 and
143 traffic to/from user X) and/or the FCC declare the standard
insufficient and to be updated.
--
Jesse Norell - jesse@kci.net
Kentec Communications, Inc.
