Slashdot Mirror
Russian Student Arrested For Revealing DirecTV Secrets
An anonymous reader writes "The Associated Press is reporting the arrest of Igor Serebryany, 19, of Los Angeles for industrial espionage under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. Serebryany is accused of providing details of DirecTVs 'P4' card technology to a number of websites."
It prohibits anyone from disclosing trade secrets for economic benefit, and carries penalties in this case up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Although investigators acknowledge that Serebryany apparently didn't profit from the disclosures, the law bars giving away secrets for anyone else's economic benefit.
For those of you with no knowledge of american culture.. "Fry him" often just means "send him up the creek". Calm down kids.
-- People who hate Windows use Linux. People who love UNIX use BSD.
"What would have happened if Henry Ford had not come up with standardized parts"
Well, nothing really, because he didn't. Sam Colt did.
Nope, Eli Whitney invented interchangeable parts. There's a very famous story of him demonstrating the concept to president Adams and the secretary of war, who awarded him a contract for 10,000 muskets in 1798.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It's good of you to be helpful by explaining that "fry him", in this case, does not mean "kill him". However, note that you have replaced one weird American idiom with another ("send him up the creek").
To anyone still confused: in this case, it's likely that the original poster simply meant that the justice system should show the alleged stealer of secrets no mercy--that they should prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law. It's doubtful that the original poster meant that they should electrocute the alleged thief.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
Since [h]e wasn't a lawyer, but rather was in the employ of a lawyer, is it possible for him to violate attorney-client privilege (I honestly don't know)?
The correct answer is "it depends on which state we are talking about." Basic agency/principal law would say that the action of the lawyer's employee would reflect on the lawyer himself/herself, and the disclosure is a clear violation of the canons of virtually every state of the Union. The devil is in the details of the Codes of Conduct of the State Bar Association.
One thing is virtually certain: that lawyer is going to have a very bad start to 2003.
IANAL -- I am not a lawyer