Slashdot Mirror
Uncap Your Modem, Get Visit From the FBI
FlightSimGuy writes "The Blade wrote this article about how seven men were arrested by FBI agents with guns drawn and indicted by a local grand jury for allegedly "reconfiguring computer systems to access excessive amounts of bandwidth". Apparently the provider, Buckeye Cable Systems, wanted to make an example out of the men. According to the company's attourney, "Cyber crime is potentially very damaging to society. We are taking a firm position on that type of criminal activity. We hope these cases will have a deterrent value...""
We hope these cases will have a deterrent value...
Sure will, it will deter people from becoming your customers.
So tell me, how does the allegation that Mr. Runner stole coffee and creamer have ANYTHING to do with stealing bandwidth?
Can someone please explain to me how this is damaging to society? I guess maybe if they were downloading boyband mp3s... but other than that..
And people are asking why the FBI didn't know about the pending terrorist attacks last year...
I don't mean the over zealous FBI.
I mean what "stealing" is a crime and is not. I like how everyone likes to only follow the laws they think they should. If you uncap your modem and get 2 Gigabits and I only get 28 Kilobits then you are STEALING from me. When you take extra bandwidth it comes from somewhere.
This arrest goes beyond any other "computer crime" arrest I have ever seen. If I lived in Toledo (and thank the gods I don't), I would make it my personal quest to do everything in my power to embarrass this company by protests or other methods for what they've done. To borrow a commonly used phrase from the clown running for Governor in Florida, this is shameful.
that the FBI is spending resources on important crimes like this while snipers wander the country and practically have to turn themselves in to be caught.
A lawyer for one of the defendants said, ""They paid for the service. There is a question if the additional software counts as a crime."
If this guy thinks bandwidth==software then it's already over.
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
What this really does is set a bad example for everyone. Just because something which is illegal and involves a computer, doesn't make it "cybercrime".
I wonder if these guys also send the FBI out every time they find out someone has free HBO.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
Why could they even get additional bandwidth by changing their modem? If the provider wants to impose a limit, that should be done in their own hardware in their own end of the connection. If the system had been designed with this in mind, there wouldn't have been a case.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Why is the FBI moving in on this thing? I always thought them goons won't get away from their coffee makers unless there is a monetary damage of one million dollars involved in the crime?
Why is the article posting the FULL names including street adresses of the fugitives (and that is what they are at this point, i guess)? This would be highly illegal in most of the rest of the world (it for sure is here in .de)
What makes people think that they can get away with an uncapped modem? I mean, by uncapping you show a certain sense and understanding of network and IT technology principles. Don't they realize that the cable modem MAC address is unique like a fingerprint? Don't they know that those MAC adresses are registered to their names with the provider? Can't they imagine that a simple script running at the providers location will easily identify them and document their crime basically within a minute after uncapping?
+++ath0
This is rediculous. FBI knocks down your door because your cable provider is too stupid to properly keep its customers from sucking up all the bandwidth?
...fucking morons
What happens when the system is DOCSIS compliant, and the modem you are using is YOURS. Then what? Arrest you because you made an aftermarket modification to your own property?
This is a fucking joke. The solution isn't to arrest the people that uncap their modems. The solution is to install a packet shaper to manage bandwidth usage from a location inaccessible to your customers. Once again, cable companies prove that they are not capable of being competent ISPs.
What I'd like to see is a federal law passed that requires cable companies to share their lines with local competitors, much like the phone companies. I think we'd see a lot less of this crap once we had cable modem providers that did not have a CATV service on the side, or any CATV mentality.
It depends really. The vast majority of "broadband" subscriptions merely mention high speed uploads and downloads, and if you're looking at the unlimited price plans, the fact that it's "unlimited". They conveniently omit tiny details, like bandwidth caps.
True, most consumers of broadband don't use it all, allowing service providers to oversell bandwidth, but most of the time, you don't get what you paid for.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Be kind. There are too many mean people out there already.
Here's a question: I just read my Cablevision AUP for the cable modem service I've bought from them since 1996. Now, I OWN my cable modems (I have four) that I bought from the Wiz to replace the LanCity (after that, Terayon) modems I rented from Cablevision.
Nowhere in this agreement does it say " you may not modify your hardware to squeeze more bandwidth out of us." The ads constantly promise "up to 100 times a 56k modem" but nowhere in the agreement does it prevent "optimization of your own gear to increase throughput efficiency" or any such language.
In fact, I don't see anything about uncapping or hardware modification at all.
There ARE stringent rules about reselling the service, running any kind of server, and warnings that routers and home LANs are NOT supported, but nothing saying "altering your own hardware to increase bandwith" is proscribed.
There are rules about "tampering wih the Optimum Online Service" but it would be a far stretch to say that includes optimizing your own equipment.
And even if this was the interpretation, where is the statement that this violates anything but an AUP, which would be at most a civil infraction.
How does this become a Federal crime?
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
Bandwith is not "air" like so many people believe. It takes work and money to build and maintain the infrastructure that allows communication to take place.
Just because telcos and ISPs are "faceless corporations" doesn't mean nobody is getting screwed when theft takes place.
No sig
Exactly. There was no need for the cloak and dagger takedown here. The ISP simply should have shut down their account and called them up saying, "Hey, you're stealing service and we're suspending the account, you still owe us for this month's service as well. Pay up."
I wholeheartedly disagree with the whole "making an example" stance that courts (and in this case a company) do. It's a perversion of justice. Under the same circumstances, one guy gets a sentence twice as harsh as the next guy, just because some cowboy judge "wants to set an example"?? The law should see everyone as equal and handle every case based on the law, not public perception.
"Yeah kid, we know you only jaywalked, but there's a lot of scofflaws like you out there, and dammit, we're gonna make an example outta you! 20 YEARS!"
Well, every packet you "steal" has to go through their servers. So it's like stealing from a store those behind-the-counter items that the clerk is handing you.
"Hey fbi agent! This guy comes everyday, asks for cigarettes, and leaves without paying! He robbed me 150 times like that!"
There's theft and there's armed robbery. What gets me is not that they were prosicuted (it was, I guess, breach of contract), but that the were greeted at the door by armed FBI agents with guns drawn. What these guys did may have been illegal (we'll have to wait for them to be tried to know for sure), and may have been wrong, but it in no way should have led the FBI to belive they were likely to assault them, which was a precurser to law enforcement drawing their guns, so so I thought.
Why didn't they just come in, cuff them, and take them away?
Narrative
Please tell me that there is more to this case, please tell me that the FBI didn't arrest these guys for stealing bandiwdth.
Many questions are unaddressed in the article which would help out. For example, had the cable company given prior notice to these guys, tell them to cut it out? Did the cable company have ANY way of controlling bandwidth on their end? Were these guys downloading information about how to build a bomb? Were they reselling the bandwidth?
I can only see a case if the cable company had given prior notice & had no way to shut off the bandiwdth, or if these guys were reselling it. Of course, the cable company can always shut off service, so what's the big-whoop? If they were actually reselling it, then yeah, arrest 'em. Otherwise, let them go after them in civil court, NOT criminal court.
Assume they weren't reselling the service. Then, the fact that this is a criminal case is a strong argument that there is not equal justice; this business clearly received special treatment if charges were filed in a case so minor as this.
I think the ISP reaction is too harsh. For sure, they basically have been stealing from them (bandwidth, or service or whatever). But having the FBI boot down doors for a crime like this exceeds the boundaries of common sense. Don't they have any rape crimes to investigate.
And yes, uncapping is/can usually be done by software. It is however no trivial task (sometimes requiring to mess with MD5 checksums, reconfiguring your machine to look like the ISPs FTP server and stuff like that).
What bugs me is that this could have been solved from the desk of the ISPs staff. Most cable modems allow for remote reboot, which means that the modem would reset and retrieve its config file (where the limits are set) from the ISP FTP server. So, just have them reboot the modems by script as soon as they detect anomalies. No problem, cheap script I guess. In case these uncap's were hardcoded (i.e. by unsoldering firmware or reflashing hardware parts of a *rented* modem) things get a little worse... It'll be a heavier charge than just theft of service/bandwidth then. Don't know the verbatim for that, but fiddling with hardware you've been told to keep your fingers out of which does not even belong to you...uh-oh.
+++ath0
Would you mind explaining how stealing bandwidth isn't as bad as stealing from a store? If enough people "stole" bandwidth it could have wider consuqences that stealing from a store. Think about it, if thousands of computers on DSL/cable connections all maxed out their connections then alot of computers would be overloaded, and it would almost be like a DoS attack. I'm not saying it is going to happen, it would be much harder to accomplish than a DoS attack, but it *could* happen.
It is serious when someone steals bandwidth from an ISP, thus hurting other customers. However, it is nothing the FBI should be involved in; its a matter for the state authorities.
Also, you have to remember, this is not like stealing in the conventional sense. In this case, the defendants modified their own computer software to uncap bandwidth. It seems to me that you should be able to alter you're own property in any way you want to. If the ISP doesn't like that, they should include clauses in the contract which say they can terminate you're account for doing so, and can fine you extra for the extra bandwidth you used.
However, I can see how this can be contrieved as stealing; you're modifying your own computer to be used as a tool to steal bandwidth from an ISP (and from other customers) which you haven't paid for and don't have a right to by the agreement with you're ISP. You may have the right to alter your computer in any way you want, but that doesn't mean you have the right to use those modifications for any means you want; i.e., I can add Nitroboosters to my Boxter, but that doesn't mean I can cruise down the highway at 250mph.
I'm fine with these people being prosecuted. What they did is, in fact, theft; not only from their ISP, but also from other customers. Other customers experience obscene slowdowns to dialup speed because a few selfish customers want to download at 10MB/s. But the FBI should not be involved, and certainly these crimes don't call for armed raids. The FBI should be focusing on serious criminals, like terrorists, serial killers, serial rapists, organized child-molesters, organized crime, and large-scale frauds (refer to Enron, Global Crossings).
This brings up an interesting note on ISPs. Why do broadband companies cap bandwidth at all? Why not just divide up the available bandwidth evenly among all the requesting users. Lets say that there's a 100 users and that the ISP can offer 100MB/s of bandwidth total. If they all request bandwidth at the same time, they should each get 1MB/s of bandwidth. If, later on, only 50 of them are requesting bandwidth, each should get 2MB/s of bandwidth. If only one is requesting bandwidth, (s)he should get 100MB/s of bandwidth. They could also integrate prioritized bandwidth, where you get preference in accordance to how much extra you pay; i.e., if you pay 2x the average, you get 2x the bandwidth at any given moment. Another useful thing to do would be to minimize net wait-times. If person A is downloading a file of 1MB and person B is downloading a file of 2MB, then it makes sense to let person A do his download first, then let person B do his download. This way, the net wait time is 2(1MB / 100MB/s) + 2MB / 100MB/s = 0.04s; instead of 2(2MB / 100MB/s) + 1MB / 100MB/s = 0.05s.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
There must be more to this story than meets the eye. How is it the cable company's decision how serious the crime is? Does that mean I can call the FBI and have them kick the door in with guns drawn if someone steals my car stereo? Or keeps prank calling me?
"Sounds to me like the FBI should go after the cable company for using up valuable resources for this kind of crap.
A cable company making an example out of customers, or fighting terrorism and REAL crime... Wonder which the FBI's resources would be better spent at..."
Exactly! This is a job for CIVIL courts and local jurisdictions, not the FBI and the Feds.
IANAL, but this seems to me to be a violation of a CONTRACT, not a criminal act!
But remember, corporations are "people" too, indeed, apparently more important than any mere flesh and blood person.
I mean, if the cable goes out, and they don't fix it within a few days, can I have the FBI raid the cable company for breaching their end of the contract?
Of course not.
Corporatism != Free Market
Perhaps if he changed it to say, "Stealing extra bandwidth is much less than stealing from a store." That would be more like (but not exactly like) being on the phone all day every day or leaving everything on in your home and finding a way to not pay extra for it. I would say that's lesser than stealing a pair of shoes from Wal-Mart.
I recall from a long time ago, a case where phone companies were sued because if you wanted a 2nd phone, you had to go through them and pay extra. They wouldn't allow you to goto your local department store and buy a splitter for a buck and install it yourself. They eventually lost, and because of that, now you can have as many phones in your house as your want. Once the wire comes into your house, what you do with it is your business.
Similarly, for a long time cable companies would not let you split their signal and have multiple TVs without paying them to do it. Now that has become a major selling point for them against digital satelites. Today when your cable company comes out for whatever reason, they'll happily split your signal for free, replace your low quality splitters with their high quality ones, and leave all your TVs connected no questions asked.
I think this situation SHOULD fall under the same rule. You pay for the cable to come into your house, If you own your cable modem, you should be able to do anything you want to it. If they REALLY want to cap you, they'll have to do it on their end, because you cannot tell me what I can and cannot do with my property. If your renting the modem, then it's a different situation.
However, there was absolutly no reason for a gun drawn storm on these individual's homes. I do tons of illegal things via my cable modem, like downloading mp3z and violating the DMCA on a daily basis. I guess the only way to ensure my safety is to get rid of my cable modem and give my money to a small, privatly owned ISP.
I pay extra for the fastest connection I can get. If you illegally uncap your modem you are stealing pipe that I paid for. Hell I will go so far as to turn in anyone I find doing this also, I pay for mine you pay for yours. Face it people bandwidth is a limited resource and it very expensive.
Got Code?
civil perhaps, but the "criminal" is probably in a different state than the "victim," which would make it a crime committed across state lines, and therefore a federal matter, and therefore under the jurisdiction of the FBI.
Also, they'll probably argue that it's theft or wire fraud and therefore a felony.
The problem comes when everyone does it, Granted, if one person steals "extra" bandwith no one notices, but if it becomes known how to do, and known that the "faceless" isp's can't/won't do anything about it, then someone will post it on /. and everyone will do it. Now where are we? suddenly 1/4 of the people using the service are getting a lot more bandwidth than they should, and... I think you can follow it from there.
Pros: * 200+ KBps downloads (needing to be reconfigured every 35 minutes)
That's funny. I use Optimum Online Cable, and for $50/month, I routinely get download speeds of 100+ KB/sec. I could see where uncapping could be fun if you ended up with 10MB/sec transfer rates, but 200K? And having to reset it every half-hour? Feh. Even if it was totally legal it wouldn't be worth it. What a waste of FBI recources and taxpayer money.
c-hack.com |
But this isn't just "modifying your own property." For one thing, there's a good chance that they're renting/leasing the modem, a lot of cable providers do that. But more important, they've modified the modem to abridge a service agreement. It's like if the gas company determined that they could provide a certain amount of gas to an area based on their infrastructure there. And to keep people from starving gas customers further down the line, they put a choke on each customer's gas line to keep the amount of gas use down to a level the infrastructure can handle. Say that somebody said "fuck the man, I'll take as much gas as I want!" and took the choke out of their gas line. Sure, it's their property, but they're screwing other people and violating the agreement they had with the gas company.
I'm sure that they used Feds instead of locals because it was a violation of some federal law, not for some jackbooted nazi thug "repress the proles" sort of thing.
And the "few small emails" thing is a load of bull. It's not like they were limited to a few kbps or something.
High speed internet isn't exactly "monopolistic" in metropolitan areas like Toledo, either. If you read the forums attached to the Blade's article, you'll see one person from the area who didn't even consider Buckeye cable, implying that not only is there a second choice, there's at least a third because the person had a choice to make even after DQing Buckeye.
Matt
I mean, if this is costing the cable company more money to pay for more bandwidth to an upstream provider, why not just charge the guy like 4x what It cost them? It saves all sorts of legal fees and would make them more money.
No matter how you slice it these bozo's broke their user agreement, illegally modified regulated communications hardware, stole service, and attempted to defraud the other users on the system. Play fair, or don't play.
Under no circumstances is it ever ILLEGAL to break an agreement. If you decide one day to stop paying your credit card, do you think the bank is going to sequester a grand jury to indict you for... breaking you agreement to pay your minimum monthly balance?
What if you decide one day to stop paying the lease payments for your apartment? Will you go to jail then? Or your car?
This is fundamentally the difference between civil cases and criminal cases. We have civil courts in place to deal with matters of contract dispute.
Think about it. Contracts are ALWAYS ambiguous. These guys can argue so many ways around whatever contract to which they agreed its not even funny. And remember, this isn't a REAL contract we are talking about here. Do you think those people signed anything or did anything to show they acknowledged any contractual obligation on their behalf to do ANYTHING for the ISP? Have you ever signed anything for an ISP?
I would have no problems with the ISP suing the folks here to recover the difference between what they were capped at and what they used. But to suggest SOCIETY should pay $30,000 a year to incarcarate someone for costing an ISP $100 more in a month... Its insane, absolutely insane.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Adelphia doesn't advertise speeds anymore, probably for this reason. Also, even "slow" cable modem speeds are much, much faster than any dialup, and plenty fast for most users. Most servers and websites can't deliver more than a certain amount anyway. So even throttled back, most users would be perfectly happy with the service they're getting. So why make claims the company has trouble delivering?
I was getting around 12-1300 kb/s last spring. Because of some DHCP server issues in my region, Adelphia has throttled this back to about half that. I can't say it's affected me at all. A couple of times, I've managed to pull down Linux ISOs at 7-800, and on *one* occasion, around 1M. But that was only once. Most of the time, the sites I connect to can only deliver 50-150, with a few streaming video sites doing better than that.
So, the 6-800 I'm getting now is just fine, and I'm sure it is for most other users too. And if mosr users would be happy with the speeds they're getting, why shoot yourself in the foot by bringing it up?
What is broken in the US is the fact that we only get 20-35% turnout of eligable voters. Maybe if people actually voted in the US we'd know the will of the voters a little better.
$G
PS. To all you slashdotters: VOTE DAMN IT! Don't just whine that your candidate lost after you didn't go to the polls. Don't lament that RIAA/MPAA/SPA/Microsoft/GREEN MEN FROM MARS is/are taking over the universe because they own the congress when you didn't bother to vote against their shill FROM YOUR DISTRICT!
-- $G
1) Get caught up in the legal system, 1/5 to 2/5th's of your life will go down the drain and you'll come out losing faith in all of society and humanity.
2) Be made an example of by the authorities testing out there new piece of legislation. This could be more harmful to you than the first.
I thought about uncapping my modem, only because $80AUS a month for a 3G limit is criminal, but they classify that as stealing, and if it's one thing the authorities know jack shit about it's technology, so they'll enforce the law tougher than anywhere else and make examples out of ppl left right and center. It amazes me that hackers can get equal or lengthier sentences than rapists or murderers.
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
Bandwidth is intangible. Show mw a bushel basket full of it.
Bandwidth is little different from electricity in its intangibility, yet you can go to jail for stealing that too. For that matter, so is telephone connect time. It is a service, which is metered so the customer can be charged appropriately. Services do not have to be tangible, else everything from Miss Cleo to the shrink you should be seeing now wouldn't be in business.
Bandwidth is vapor.
If that's so, tell me what happens when your ISP disconnects your vapor service.