[140442] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 23,000 IP addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Wed May 11 11:19:25 2011
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=jUPG+uAA37rV-nShdGOFRiR1QwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 11:19:06 -0400
To: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Radabaugh <mark@amplex.net>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On May 10, 2011, at 8:30 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh <mark@amplex.net> =
wrote:
>> On 5/10/11 9:07 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> A good reason why every ISP should have a published civil subpoena
>> compliance fee.
>> 23,000 * $150 each should only cost them $3.45M to get the =
information.
>> Seems like that would take the profit out pretty quickly.
>=20
> +1.
> But don't the fees actually have to be reasonable?
>=20
> If you say your fee is $150 per IP address, I think they might bring
> it to the judge
> and claim the ISP is attempting to avoid subpoena compliance by =
charging an
> unreasonable fee.
>=20
> They can point to all the competitors charging $40 per IP.
>=20
I am not a lawyer, and you would be a fool to use NANOG for legal =
advice, but if I were to charge something for this, I would want
to be able to justify the charge in front of a judge, regardless of what =
anyone else charges. In other words, something like "we find it =
typically takes $ 100 to get the backups out of storage, 15 minutes @ $X =
per minute for a tech to find the right backup disk and 10 minutes at $Y =
per minute for a network engineer to review the dump."=20
Regards
Marshall=20
> This would be very interesting with IPv6 though, and customers =
assigned /56s.
>=20
> "You want all the records for every IP in this /56, really?"
>=20
>=20
> --
> -JH
>=20
>=20
