nanog mailing list archives
Re: 23,000 IP addresses
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 19:30:17 -0500
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.
+1. But don't the fees actually have to be reasonable? 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. They can point to all the competitors charging $40 per IP. This would be very interesting with IPv6 though, and customers assigned /56s. "You want all the records for every IP in this /56, really?" -- -JH
Current thread:
- Re: 23,000 IP addresses, (continued)
- Re: 23,000 IP addresses Christopher Morrow (May 10)
- Re: 23,000 IP addresses Daniel Staal (May 10)
- Re: 23,000 IP addresses Michael Holstein (May 11)
- Re: 23,000 IP addresses Christopher Morrow (May 11)
- Re: 23,000 IP addresses Jimmy Hess (May 11)
- Re: 23,000 IP addresses Robert Bonomi (May 12)
- Re: 23,000 IP addresses David Conrad (May 12)
- Re: 23,000 IP addresses Jimmy Hess (May 10)
- Re: 23,000 IP addresses Mark Radabaugh (May 10)
- Re: 23,000 IP addresses William Allen Simpson (May 11)
- Re: 23,000 IP addresses Christopher Morrow (May 11)
- Re: 23,000 IP addresses Joel Jaeggli (May 11)
- Re: 23,000 IP addresses Christopher Morrow (May 11)
- Message not available
- Fwd: 23,000 IP addresses Luis Marta (May 10)
- Re: Fwd: 23,000 IP addresses Michael Holstein (May 10)