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.
And people are asking why the FBI didn't know about the pending terrorist attacks last year...
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.
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."
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!"
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
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
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?
Funny, cable modem license agreements never specify a number for the amount of bandwidth you can have.
In fact, if you listen to their marketing guys, you've got "Unlimited Internet Access". So uncapping your modem just brings you closer to getting the service that was advertised!
Also, ~50% of cable companies allow you to buy your own modem, rather than renting. So you're not damaging their hardware.
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