3 ms·

I've just sped through the court docs so may be recalling incorrectly but the judge says that as far as he's aware no-one has previously been paid to build some

by desas 13y ago

I've just sped through the court docs so may be recalling incorrectly but the judge says that as far as he's aware no-one has previously been paid to build something to enable pen/test devices

rdl 13y ago
Almost all providers want to comply with almost all orders, because 1) they generally like being friends with the law and 2) criminals using their service are bad customers, too. So it probably hasn't been an issue in a lot of cases.
jessaustin 13y ago
I think the judge is lying. Every telco in the USA has been paid for providing LEOs with call detail records, which are completely equivalent to the output of such a device. I'm sure the bigger telcos like VZN and ATT have been paid development costs as well, which speaks to either ignorance or deceit on the judge's part.
- desas 13y ago
  I don't know how the US court system works, but if companies have opposed the orders and have subsequently been paid costs then these court orders are usually "sealed" so the judge wouldn't know of them. Some companies probably just rolled over and agreed costs directly with the agencies involved.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    Historically, pen/trap is much less controversial than the "Room 641A" crap, so even if the legal department examines every request (which isn't true for every telco), nobody fights any of them. This was actually the source of the unfortunate "if the phone company knows who you call it isn't personal information" theory. Each telco treats this as just another line of business, and they send invoices to law enforcement agencies. "Modern" switches are smart enough to track called and calling numbers without the installation of actual old-fashioned "devices", so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the price of this service has decreased. However, this is such common knowledge in telcos that I'd be shocked to find it isn't common knowledge in courthouses. So, the judge is either ignorant or dishonest.

by desas 13y ago

I've just sped through the court docs so may be recalling incorrectly but the judge says that as far as he's aware no-one has previously been paid to build something to enable pen/test devices

rdl 13y ago

Almost all providers want to comply with almost all orders, because 1) they generally like being friends with the law and 2) criminals using their service are bad customers, too. So it probably hasn't been an issue in a lot of cases.

jessaustin 13y ago

I think the judge is lying. Every telco in the USA has been paid for providing LEOs with call detail records, which are completely equivalent to the output of such a device. I'm sure the bigger telcos like VZN and ATT have been paid development costs as well, which speaks to either ignorance or deceit on the judge's part.

desas 13y ago
I don't know how the US court system works, but if companies have opposed the orders and have subsequently been paid costs then these court orders are usually "sealed" so the judge wouldn't know of them. Some companies probably just rolled over and agreed costs directly with the agencies involved.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  Historically, pen/trap is much less controversial than the "Room 641A" crap, so even if the legal department examines every request (which isn't true for every telco), nobody fights any of them. This was actually the source of the unfortunate "if the phone company knows who you call it isn't personal information" theory. Each telco treats this as just another line of business, and they send invoices to law enforcement agencies. "Modern" switches are smart enough to track called and calling numbers without the installation of actual old-fashioned "devices", so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the price of this service has decreased. However, this is such common knowledge in telcos that I'd be shocked to find it isn't common knowledge in courthouses. So, the judge is either ignorant or dishonest.