[140392] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 23,000 IP addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Bogstad)
Tue May 10 16:42:29 2011
In-Reply-To: <796EDCBC-D377-4EF2-9852-608910E37687@cs.columbia.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 16:41:43 -0400
From: Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com>
To: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
> If I've found the right case, it was 05-1404, and published as 451 F.3d 226 (2006);
> see http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/451/226/627290/
> I have no idea if it's still good law.
According to EDUCAUSE the appellate decision was complex:
http://www.educause.edu/Policy+Analysis+%26+Advocacy/PressReleases/CALEACourtDecisionMixedforHigh/17136
This status page indicates that 'most' campus networks would be exempt:
http://www.educause.edu/Resources/Browse/CALEA/30781
Definitely a case of 'talk to your lawyers' to be sure.
Bill Bogstad
bogstad@pobox.com
