Slashdot Mirror

First, the quote from today:

I did not actually break into any troll boxes, although I did imply that in a misguided attempts to use some of their trolling rhetorical devices against them.

And now, the quote from yesteryear:

Incidently, Sdem is also incompetent at securing his computer. That is a glaring deficiency for someone who spends most of his time annoying and harrassing others. Thus, our investigation was able to progress well beyond simply viewing his public Internet posts. We were monitoring his system in real time, and are providing dozens of (somewhat) interesting screen shots below. We were also going to post some of his files, passwords, and full keystroke logs, but that would be gratuitously mean. After all, he is only a high school kid, so maybe he will mend his ways. Sdem: if you are reading this, change your passwords before we change our mind :).

So, not only did Mr. Fyodor illegally access the victim's PC (18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)), but he also unlawfully intercepted and disclosed the contents of communications on that machine (18 U.S.C. 2511(1)(b), (1)(c), et al) and threatened to make further disclosures to injure the victim's property and/or reputation (18 U.S.C. 875(d)).

In other words, if word of your exploits makes it up to the Justice Department, you are going to be fucked. We know full well that the Bush administration likes to make examples, especially of slimy Russian hackers. What reason do you have to believe you won't be next in line?

First, the quote from today:

I did not actually break into any troll boxes, although I did imply that in a misguided attempts to use some of their trolling rhetorical devices against them.

And now, the quote from yesteryear:

Incidently, Sdem is also incompetent at securing his computer. That is a glaring deficiency for someone who spends most of his time annoying and harrassing others. Thus, our investigation was able to progress well beyond simply viewing his public Internet posts. We were monitoring his system in real time, and are providing dozens of (somewhat) interesting screen shots below. We were also going to post some of his files, passwords, and full keystroke logs, but that would be gratuitously mean. After all, he is only a high school kid, so maybe he will mend his ways. Sdem: if you are reading this, change your passwords before we change our mind :).

So, not only did Mr. Fyodor illegally access the victim's PC (18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)), but he also unlawfully intercepted and disclosed the contents of communications on that machine (18 U.S.C. 2511(1)(b), (1)(c), et al) and threatened to make further disclosures to injure the victim's property and/or reputation (18 U.S.C. 875(d)).

In other words, if word of your exploits makes it up to the Justice Department, you are going to be fucked. We know full well that the Bush administration likes to make examples, especially of slimy Russian hackers. What reason do you have to believe you won't be next in line?

First, the quote from today:

I did not actually break into any troll boxes, although I did imply that in a misguided attempts to use some of their trolling rhetorical devices against them.

And now, the quote from yesteryear:

Incidently, Sdem is also incompetent at securing his computer. That is a glaring deficiency for someone who spends most of his time annoying and harrassing others. Thus, our investigation was able to progress well beyond simply viewing his public Internet posts. We were monitoring his system in real time, and are providing dozens of (somewhat) interesting screen shots below. We were also going to post some of his files, passwords, and full keystroke logs, but that would be gratuitously mean. After all, he is only a high school kid, so maybe he will mend his ways. Sdem: if you are reading this, change your passwords before we change our mind :).

So, not only did Mr. Fyodor illegally access the victim's PC (18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)), but he also unlawfully intercepted and disclosed the contents of communications on that machine (18 U.S.C. 2511(1)(b), (1)(c), et al) and threatened to make further disclosures to injure the victim's property and/or reputation (18 U.S.C. 875(d)).

In other words, if word of your exploits makes it up to the Justice Department, you are going to be fucked. We know full well that the Bush administration likes to make examples, especially of slimy Russian hackers. What reason do you have to believe you won't be next in line?

But again this is a little different from downloading audio recordings. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I challenge anyone to find a court case that has been successful against an individual holding copies of music for non-commercial personal use. The AHRA makes such copying immune to allegations of copyright infringement (IMO of course). And notwithstanding nitpicks about the precise definition of "analog" and "digital", the intent of Congress when they passed the law was clear as I point out here.

It is a crime.

To take from novel copyright infringment page:

Congress has distilled the crime of felony copyright infringement to four essential elements: (1) a copyright exists; (2) it was infringed by the defendant, specifically by reproduction or distribution of the copyrighted work; (3) the defendant acted "willfully"; and (4) the defendant infringed at least 10 copies of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $2,500 within a 180-day period. See 17 U.S.C. 506(a)(2); 18 U.S.C. 2319(a), (c)(1).

Otherwise it's a tort, not a crime.

You just don't get it (no offense intended personally). Copyright violation has been criminalized in a big way, with a small web of recent laws, (NET, DMCA, etc.). The next step for RIAA can just be to turn over long, long lists to US law enforcement and to tell them to prosecute these people right now for misdemeanors and felonies. Then it will be your and my tax dollars spent arresting, trying, and imprisoning these people. It used to be in practice these kind of violations required a civil suit, but no more since the No Electronic Theft Act http://www.cybercrime.gov/netsum.htm where the downloader is presumed to have made financial gain by copying for their own enjoyment. So, this criminal prosecution will be another form of corporate welfare. By your logic, there shouldn't be anyone in prison for non-violent drug offenses but instead the US has about one million such people in prison right now -- a figure which has slowly increased over the last couple of decades, with the US now having more people in prison per capita (6X - 10X more per capita) than any other industrialized country in the world. http://www.lionheart.org/prison_proj/corrections.h tml http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-23-00.html http://www.impactpress.com/articles/febmar01/priso nind020301.html (Personally I think this is wrong and ruining our state budgets and hurting people needlessly who should be treated and given jobs and education, but that is another story -- including how many big companies make money out of building prisons, running them, and cheap prison labor.) This RIAA prosecution will likely get really bad before it gets better. Who in the 1960s would have predicted a million drug users behind bars (mostly for marijuana, which is arguably less harmful than legal alcohol or cigarettes to society)? Answer me this -- why should RIAA stop short of a million people in jail for this? Bad press? Do you think they really care about this? Are people really going to stop listening to music from commercial artists if it gets really nasty? The US with the war on Iraq has already shown how a bit of flag waving can lead this country closer to political disaster destroying decades of international agreement building, not to mention spending hundreds of billions a year of borrowed funds to kill people and poison Iraqi streets with Depleted Uranium. When RIAA says anyone who copies or even defends copiers is also a criminal and supporting terrorists, and GW agrees, what are we going to do then? One can hope cooler heads prevail, but RIAA is gambling they will not. What does RIAA have to lose by trying? Anybody looking at the recent Iraq war can see how easily the media can mislead the US citizenry -- and who is going to have more sympathy in the mass media -- RIAA or "copyright violators"? RIAA and others have effectively purchased laws that aid them in maintaining their monopolies. It would be foolish business-wise for them to not try to profit from that investment (as immoral as I think that process may be). I can hope for the best, but very dark days ahead would not surprise me. And after all, a million college kids in prison for swapping MP3s will both decrease unemployment (prisoners aren't looking for jobs) and also increase prison building contracts and prison payrolls -- thus being a big boost for the economy and reelection campaigns in the short term (Even as long term consequences destroy our society). This issue (among many others) marks a turning point in our society -- for good or bad. Frankly, I don't know how it will come out. The recent Grokster ruling at least makes me a bit more hopeful than last week. But, just remember, that killing natives, enslaving blacks, gassing Jews, Gypsies, etc. for profit was all legal when it happened, even if it was immoral.

Do you remember Operation Buccaneer?
18 month sting to crack down on a small time warez community. Where was the political/consumer backlash on that? There was none. Now it's a precedent for future 33-month jail sentences.

I agree that the RIAA won't be sending out 20,000 arrests at once. They're going nice and slow as you pointed out. But I bet they will be taking a few to prison for further scare tactics. Maybe they'll be starting with the 2 verizon customers.

By the way, if you live in Colorado, and are a Verizon customer, and you are STILL trading mp3's online, now that's some conjones!

Disclaimer: IANAL
But you don't have to use the DMCA if you don't want to.

Title 17, Chapter 5 of Federal law provided for civil and criminal remedies for copyright infringment before the DMCA

For the most part, if you read the DMCA (PDF), mostly all it does is add section 512 to the existing laws.

Take a peek at this federal website website. This one is even better: website.

Trade secrets used to be frowned upon by the law. Patents were legally preferable, so that when the patent expired, the knowledge went into the public domain. A trade secret could be lost easily; any publication by anybody erased trade secret status. All trade secret law really did was to put some teeth into confidentiality requirements for employees. It didn't affect outsiders.

All that has changed in the last decade. Between the Economic Espionage Act, the DMCA, and several court rulings, trade secrets now look more like property rights.

Lets look at some of them:

John Sankus:

11/15/02 #17 For the reasons stated in open court, ORDER as to John Sankus Jr. granting [14-1] motion by USA as to John Sankus, Jr. for Reduction of Sentence under the provisions of Rule 35(B). ORDERED that the term of imprisonment imposed in the Judgment and Commitment Order of May 17, 2002, be and is reduced to a total sentence of 18 months. (Signed by Judge Leonie M. Brinkema ) Copies Mailed: 11/15/02 (rtra) [Entry date 11/18/02]

Chris Tresco:

10/28/02 #19 ORDER as to Christopher Tresco GRANTING the [16-1] motion by USA for Reduction of Sentence under the Provisions of Rule as to Christopher Tresco (1); REDUCING Deft's sentence to 13 mos., consisting of 6 mos. in jail and remaining 7 mos. to be served in community confinement, with work release permitted, as directed by the B.O.P. and the P.O. Further ORDERED that previously ordered 11/1/02 surrender date is VACATED and Deft is permitted to surrender voluntarily to B.O.P. once he has been designated. All other sentence terms and conditions remain in effect. Further ORDERED that as an add'l. cond. of supervised release, Deft may not use the Internet for any non-work related purpose without the express, prior permission of the P.O. (Signed by Judge T. S. Ellis III) Mailed: Yes (tbul) [Entry date 10/30/02]

Rich Berry:

10/18/02 #11 ORDER as to Richard Allen Berry granting [9-1] motion by USA to Reduce Sentence as to Richard Allen Berry (1) and the Dft's sentence is reduced from the 33 mos. heretofore imposed to 12 mos. to be served on home confinement with work release. ( Signed by Judge Claude M. Hilton ) Copies Mailed: yes (psid) [Entry date 10/21/02]

Barry Erickson:

11/25/02 #15 ORDER as to Barry Erickson granting [13-1] motion by USA as to Barry Erickson for Reduction of Sentence under the provisions of Rule 35(B) and the Dft's sentence is reduced from the 33 mos. heretofore imposed to 15 mos. ( Signed by Judge Claude M. Hilton ) Copies Mailed: yes (psid) [Entry date 11/26/02]

Dave Grimes:

11/15/02 #11 ORDER as to David Grimes granting [9-1] motion by USA for Reduction of Sentence Under the Provisions of Rule 35(B) and Dft's sentence is reduced from 37 mos. hertofore imposed to 16 mos. ( Signed by Judge Claude M. Hilton ) Copies Mailed: yes (psid) [Entry date 11/19/02]

Stacey Nawara:

10/25/02 #18 ORDER as to Stacey Nawara GRANTING the [16-1] motion by USA for Reduction of Sentence under the Provisions of Rule 35(B) as to Stacey Nawara (1). Deft's sentence is REDUCED to 9 mos., to be served in jail either on consecutive days or on the weekends, and the remaining 8 mos. to be served in community confinement, with work release permitted, as directed by the B.O.P and the P.O., and with voluntary surrender. Further ORDERED that an additional special condition of supervised release is added: Deft may not use the Internet for any non-work related purpose without the express prior permission of the P.O. ( Signed by Judge T. S. Ellis III ) Copies Mailed: Yes (tbul) [Entry date 10/28/02]

Nathan Hunt:

11/1/02 #13 ORDER as to Nathan Hunt granting [11-1] motion by USA to Reduce Sentence as to Nathan Hunt (1). ORDERED that the 33 Months term of imprisonment imposed in the Judgment and Commitment Order of June 21, 2002, be and is reduced to a total sentence of 24 months. ( Signed by Judge Leonie M. Brinkema ) Copies Mailed: 11.01.02 (rtra) [Entry date 11/04/02]

It was. Until the "No Electronic Theft Act" appeared, which altered the definition of "commercial" to cover file trading as well. So, if you're running Kazaa, WinMX or whatever except with an empty or disabled share at all times, that's (2) and (3) from the parent post covered. As for (1), are you going to claim you accidentally installed that file trading software? If not, NETA would seem to put you into the "felony" bracket as soon as you've traded a couple of dozen albums - or one copy of Win XP, it seems!

Run a P2P app deliberately, trade $1k worth (at retail prices) of material, and it's a misdemeanour (1 year, $100k fine). 10 or more copies, retailing for $2.5k, and it's a felony (3 years, $250k fine). Ouch!

Unfortunately the Department of Justice's cybercrime outfit is busy busting the real criminals and putting a stop to warez and bong sites. Once they get done with those, I'm sure they will move on to those sites callously putting Britney Spears' virginal head on pr0n star bodies and other such travesties of justice. I'd be happy if they would just update their website which I suspect may have been put together as a junior high school computer class project.

Are all US government sites so badly done? After seeing the isonews DOJ page that looked like it was done by a colourblind 8 year old with minimal HTML clue, I looked at a few other .gov sites and found that pretty much all of them were up to similar standards, especially the joke that is cybercrime.gov.

Not only do they look bad, they're written badly, with practically zero concession to accessibility; whatever happened to Section 508?

Methinks the DoJ should be investigated on suspicion of child labour ;)

The only people an organization that uses GPL software has to distribute the source to are people they distribute binaries to. This obligation ripples through the system.

Yes, that's true. But when you distribute the binaries and source to someone, you also have to give her the GPL. And you must provide the source under the GPL.

Which means you gave her the right to re-distribute it to whomever she wants. Including total strangers and competing organizations.

If you, as a superior in the organization, forbid her from distributing it outside, then you have violated the GPL- because distribution under GPL requires grant of permission to re-distribute. If, because of security classification, you cannot give someone permission to redistribute a GPLed program, then you cannot give her the GPLed program, without violating the copyright of the original author. And that would be illegal.

So if a group wants to modify GPL code for internal use, that's their right. But they shouldn't do this if they'd be hurt by their modifications becoming public, because they have no legal way to prevent it.

The press release is right here.

They probably just made an A record change to the DNS.
This buys them time to go seize the server physically, or copy all the user records off if it's a virtual colo.

If leaving the IP alone for a while prompts some clueless users to continue to log in or attempt to order more stuff, it's a smart move.

... watch this 21MB video where Mr. Ashcroft tells you himelf!

You can read more info about the plea bargain and case at: http://www.cybercrime.gov/rocciPlea.htm
-OctaneZ

It's sad. John Ashcroft is the first person I've ever had spawn the words "Fascist Fuck" spontaneously in my head when seeing his image on sites like this. Normally I am a pretty level-headed guy. I think if you measured my autonomic responses, I would register more of a reaction to Ashcroft for than Saddam.

Between things like this and the Patriot Act parts I and the soon to be released part II, this administration has been the most un-American in office since the anti-communist folks in the 50's.

I fully believe that unless the modchip affects someone -elses- hardware, modifying hardware I own should be legal, especially if my use is to do something like run Linux ... if I then do something illegal like piracy or service theft with the modchip, punish that action, not the ownership of the modchip ... it should be no more illegal than having IP connectivity (which also enables software piracy if you want to take it to one possible logical conclusion).

And before some idiot tries to subpoena my IP address to come search my house, my PS2 is not modified and I long ago (4-5 years) killed my software piracy habit in favor of free software. Just because I'm abiding by the law doesn't mean I agree with the way our current government tries to enforce the law and pass new (unconstitional in some cases) ones.

It's definitely real

And on a similar note, several sites were shutdown and taken over by the government without a conviction of the parties involved.

You state that nobody has been prosecuted under the NET Act signed by Bill Clinton. This is not true. Please see the following URL:

http://www.cybercrime.gov/ipcases.htm

If you search for that phrase in there you will see just a few of the cases that have been prosecuted under that act.

There have been trials too... linking to the same site, but the intellectual property law cases instead shows you some of these. IP cases

See Pirates With Attitude for one instance in which I was personally involved.

Of course copyright violations can not be stopped (barring some sort of really nuclear DRM), but the rights holders don't have to be puritanical. They do need to do a reasonable amount of policing to protect the value of their property.

Another doc I stumbled across on copyright and the internet was written by the DOJ IP division.

I've never seen Farscape. :(

It starts soon on the SciFi channel, the last (for now) 11 episodes. You can also rent seasons 1&2. A word of caution, it takes a little while to come up to speed; the show is not newbie friendly. You know, like gin. :)

A. Section 1832: Theft of Trade Secrets for Economic or Commercial Advantage

Under section 1832, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the defendant stole, or without the owner's authorization obtained, sent, destroyed, or conveyed information; (2) the defendant knew or believed that the information was a trade secret; (3) the information was in fact a trade secret; (4) the defendant intended to convert the trade secret to the economic benefit of somebody other than the owner; (5) the defendant knew or intended that the owner of the trade secret would be injured; and (6) the trade secret was related to, or was included in, a product that was produced or placed in interstate or foreign commerce. It is also illegal to attempt to steal a trade secret, or to receive, purchase, destroy, or possess a trade secret which the defendant knew was stolen. 18 U.S.C. 1832(a)(2) - (4).

A couple of interesting starting points: US Department of Justice's Search and Seizure Guide and The International Journal of Digital Evidence. These aren't direct answers to your question of course but they give a feel for how the field is developing.

It's not theft because there's no missing property.

Missing property is not required, as with theft of services. Theft is used even by lawyers to describe criminal copyright infringement. (re the "The No Electronic Theft (NET) Act") Ultimately it matters little; both are equally wrongful.

If you can find somewhere legally authoritatively that it is explained how copyright infringement and theft are mutually exclusive, I'm all ears. I'd hate to think I wasted by law school tuition.

I thing he is VERY involved...

In other news, the Bush Administration, along with Att.General Ashcroft, today released a new budget for the DoJ. "These monies will help protect our fellow Americans against the terrible crimes of copyright .... uhhhh ... infringement." said Bush. Ashcroft later states "The FBI staff are hard at work making sure that every single piece of "warez" is accounted for" detailing plans in massive amounts of storage at the DoJ headquaters for all of the floppies/evidence/archives.

His alias is BigRar.
See: http://www.cybercrime.gov/ob/Dchart.htm.

The reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies of 1 or more copyrighted works which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more constitutes a felony, with a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. The reproduction or distribution of 1 or more copies of 1 or more copyrighted works which have a total retail value of more than $1,000 constitutes a misdemeanor, with a one-year maximum sentence and a fine of up to $100,000.

The XVID developers should file a complaint with the U.S. FBI.

When you make a copyright violation, you are forfeiting someone copyright grant and that is a civil offense. Nobody except the grant receiver may prossecute you.

Sorry, but that's not accurate as of 1992. You snooze, you lose. Copyright violation is and can be a federal felony offense. That is, a criminal offense.

http://www.cybercrime.gov/CFAleghist.htm

FEDERAL PROSECUTION OF
VIOLATIONS OF INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS
(COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS AND TRADE SECRETS)
VI. APPENDICES

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY - COPYRIGHT FELONY ACT

H.R. Rep. No. 997, 102ND Cong., 2ND Sess. 1992, 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3569,
P.L. 102-561, CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT
DATES OF CONSIDERATION AND PASSAGE
Senate: June 4, October 8, 1992
House: October 3, 1992
Senate Report (Judiciary Committee) No. 102-268,
Apr. 7, 1992 (To accompany S. 893)
House Report (Judiciary Committee) No. 102-997,
Oct. 3, 1992 (To accompany S. 893)
HOUSE REPORT NO. 102-997
October 3, 1992
[To accompany S. 893]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the Act (S. 893) to amend title 18, United States Code, to impose criminal sanctions for violation of software copyright, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the Act as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

SECTION 1. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Section 2319(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

"(b) Any person who commits an offense under subsection (a) of this section-

"(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a retail value of more than $2,500;

"(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and

"(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.".

For what it is worth, here is the Federal Crime Code for Searching and Seizing Computers
and Obtaining Electronic Evidence
in Criminal Investigations.

There is also official and unofficial section on the redlined changes in the updated Patriot Act.

For what it is worth, here is the Federal Crime Code for Searching and Seizing Computers
and Obtaining Electronic Evidence
in Criminal Investigations.

There is also official and unofficial section on the redlined changes in the updated Patriot Act.

For what it is worth, here is the Federal Crime Code for Searching and Seizing Computers
and Obtaining Electronic Evidence
in Criminal Investigations.

There is also official and unofficial section on the redlined changes in the updated Patriot Act.

However, in an interesting twist of ethics and morals, there are registered secrets ((trade secrets ) that are essentially the same thing as patents without the benefit to the general public (the military is not so restricted), except you can get sued something ugly for going public and trying to patent or use someone else's *secret* process no matter how original you though you were. Trying to prove you didn't get it from the owners of the *secret* technology is not very easy.

Considering how *new discovery* dependant Computer Science and its derived engineering disciplines are at this time, the ethical nature of I.P. and patenting are still under debate. Just look at the whole Open Source initiative: it almost tries to return the original meaning of copyright (protection of attribution) to the current twisted definition (protection of money). In both cases, the majority is hurt by the expansion of rights to the individual (i.e. corporation) whereas the individual only gets a small conjectured advantage (majority of patents are never actually implemented, just registered and defended (yet another source of income not derived from meaningful work)). Not a surprise for a system whose major originating proponent created such patents as the patent covering his *long arm* - a device that consists of a long pole with a grasping device at the end to help get books off tall shelves (even though such devices had been used for centuries by his contemporary farmers for occasional chores.)

"The fact that it works is immaterial,"

L. Ogborn.

I wanted to confirm this story. I found this url: http ://www.cybercrime.gov/fastlane.htm</a>.

So, which one were you:
Steve Deal, 36, aka "Doobie" and "Dewbie," of Trenton, N.J., formerly of Charlotte;
Bjorn Schneider, 20, aka "airwalker," "a|walker," and "aw," of Falmouth, Mass.;
Shane McIntyre, 22, aka "Crypto," of Boynton Beach, Fla.;
Tae Yuan Wang, 19, aka 'Terry Wang" and "Prometh," of Bellevue, Wash.;
Kevin Vaughan, 19, aka "DaBoo," a college student in Raleigh, N.C.;
Ryan Breding, 26, aka "river," of Oklahoma City;
James Milne, 19, aka "lordchaos" and "lc," of Shawnee, Kan.;
Glendon Martin, 25, aka "TeRRiFiC," of Garland, Tex.; and
Tony Walker, 31, aka "SyS," of San Diego, Calif.

But I am an FCC engineer. FCC engineers are required to know the relevant laws. From time to time, these questions pop up for international companies wanting to do business in the states and europe. The CISSP also requires knowledge of the legal aspects of sysadmin or security personel who may receive electronic communications not intended for them.

The relevant parts of US Federal Law are contained under the Code of Federal Regulations, also known as the U.S. Code, part 47 covers telecoms and the FCC and part 18 is criminal laws and punishments

18 USC 119 bars the disclosure of any electronic communications to which you are not a party

18 USC 2702 defines the criminal act of disclosing intercepted communications

47 USC 605 (the Communications Act of 1934) also bans the disclosure or use of third-party communications.

There are similar laws here in Europe, but I can't find any of those bookmarks. If anyone is interested, google yourself.

the AC

Have your local police look at http://www.cybercrime.gov/searchmanual.htm before proceding.

• Q. What does the ReplayTV Service provide?
  A. The ReplayTV Service is the heart of ReplayTV. It provides the nightly Channel Guide updates to your ReplayTV unit. This ensures you've always got the latest TV shows to record. Part of the nightly update is ReplayZones-categories of the best shows from some of the biggest names in television. The Zones change every day, so you always have access to the best new programming. The ReplayTV Service is your personal television organizer. ReplayTV will record: your favorite daily or weekly shows shows based on a theme you choose shows you find using a keyword search shows from the ReplayZones categories you pick In addition, when new features are available, the ReplayTV Service delivers them directly to the ReplayTV unit over the telephone line.
• Q. How much is the ReplayTV Service?
  A. The basic ReplayTV Service is free. That's right, no monthly fees to pay. That should free up some cash for your favorite snacks-which, by the way, you can now grab whenever you want. Just hit pause. And have fun.

Note that nothing in the "features" indicates that they will ever download advertising, or delete an existing feature.

So if they go beyond that, they've "exceeded their authorized access", as the term is used at 18 USC 1030, the "anti-hacking" statute:

(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any one-year period;

Viewed in terms of federal computer crime law, Replay's actions look like this:

1. Replay misrepresented their intent in requesting access to the user's computer.
2. Having thus fradulently induced the user to provide said access, they then abused the limited access their users provided them to break into the user's computer and install a program.
3. Said program gained revenue for Replay, thus obtaining something of value.

That looks like a federal crime. The FBI's local office should be contacted.

There are also criminal penalties. From the DOJ cybercrime web site:

• There are four essential elements to a charge of felony copyright infringement. In order to obtain a felony conviction under 17 U.S.C. 506(a) and 18 U.S.C. 2319, the government must demonstrate that:
• 1. A copyright exists, see infra Section III.B.1 at page 48;
• 2. It was infringed by the defendant by reproduction or distribution of the copyrighted work, see infra Section III.B.2 at page 50;
• 3. The defendant acted willfully, see infra Section III.B.3 at page 14; and
• 4. The defendant infringed at least 10 copies of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $2,500 within a 180-day period. See infra Section III.B.4 at page 58.

  See 17 U.S.C. 506(a)(2); 18 U.S.C. 2319(a), (c)(1). The maximum punishment for this crime is 3 years imprisonment and $250,000. See infra Section III.D at page 71.

  Another element, if proven, enhances the maximum penalty: That the defendant acted "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." If it is proven, the statutory maximum prison sentence can rise to 5 years. See 17 U.S.C. 506(a)(1); 18 U.S.C. 2319(a), (b)(1). See also infra Section III.B.5 at page 60 (discussing commercial purposes element). Moreover, a commercial motivation case will usually have better jury appeal than a case without commercial motivation. Indeed, if commercial motivation is not alleged, defendants may be more inclined to raise the affirmative defense of fair use, codified at 17 U.S.C. 107, since fair use defenses are more plausible when defendants do not profit financially by their acts of infringement. For a discussion of "fair use," see infra Section III.C.3 at page 71.

So talk to the local U.S. Attorney's Office.

The current DOJ Policy on Encryption says that what they want is third party escrow of private keys. Now I'm not vouching for that system at all, but just keep that in mind. The idea, of course, is that the "big" companies will put escrow in their products, and then only the escrow'ed products will be approved for export.

But so long as there is freeware PGP...

According to this story the F.B.I. recently arrested some script kiddies under suspicion, not evidence, but suspicion, that they were going to create denials of service attacks. These script kiddiots in turn turned over some other Israeli script kiddiots in an effort perhaps to save their own ass.

So ponder this question a bit and toss it into a conspiracy theory if you want; The F.B.I. who can track down the persons responsible for bombing the U.S.S. Cole can't keep track of script kiddies?

I think the bigger picture should be clear that certain agencies know damn well who these kids are and allow them do wreck havoc until damages of hundreds perhaps millions of dollars occur and then they use them as script kiddiot snitches in hopes of catching more morons to make themselves look good.

If you take a few minutes to view the cases at Cybercrime you can notice that most arrests occur monthly and the damage done on these crimes are at a very high price with the perps often getting little to no time as is seen in Coolio's case in which he's getting sentenced for misdemeanors while commiting felonies at an adult age. There is a lot more going on behind the scenes than most people realize or maybe care to know.

As for minors securing a network I don't see how exactly the intend on allowing this to fully materialize when half of these rootards don't even understand the meanings of IS-IS, IPSec, ISAKMP, CA, let alone fully understand upper crust protocols.

Theres a lot more thats happening thats not being mentioned here.

removing the dot in dot.com