Slashdot Mirror


Satellite Hackers Charged Under DMCA

RexHavoc writes "'Invoking the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a federal grand jury has indicted six people on charges of developing software and hardware designed to hack into paid TV satellite transmissions.' My guess is that for those who haven't already plead guilty, they will have a tough time proving that they had good intentions, unlike Dmitry Sklyarov's e-books case."

13 of 378 comments (clear)

  1. In other draconian news... by DCowern · · Score: 2, Informative

    An ELEVEN (yes, 11) year old boy was charged with a felony "hacking" charge today for accessing his teacher's computer during lunch and changing grades on a couple of his assignments. Theres's an article over at CNN. May as well get 'em while they're young...

  2. Re:Pretty Sad by Sparr0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    You have broken the DMCA. It makes it illegal to make or distribute methods or equipment for circumventing anything designed to control access to a copyrighted work, which is exactly what the satellite reciever box/system does.

  3. Not the ONLY thing DirecTV is using DMCA on by essell · · Score: 5, Informative

    For *some time now*, DirecTV has been actively pursuing the legal bullying of end users who have done nothing more than purchase *any* smartcard related equipment, regardless of actual use of proof of illegal use.

    DirecTV has been engaged in a sort of legalized extortion scheme against people who have purchased smartcard equipment from raided dealers in the USA, undoubtably as part of a plea bargain with such dealers. Yes, these dealers marketed their products towards DSS, but standard ISO smartcard equipment? Come on. The interesting thing about buying products from these dealers was that smartcard programmers, emulators, etc from them was MUCH cheaper than buying from a non-DSS oriented business. To put things in perspective, the average asking price to settle out-of-court with DirecTV is to the tune of $3,000 to $4,000.. again, for the mere purchase/possesion of smartcard equipment.

    If you are interested in these cases as well as other satellite related legal issues, please visit http://www.legal-rights.org. There is a wealth of information here.

    --
    i swear my userid used to be lower.
  4. Slim? by tommck · · Score: 4, Informative
    if you are on the internet, then id say your chances of being out of range of any kind of cable provider are slim to none.

    I have internet access (dialup from home). Some people only have it at work. I do not have cable access. I must use Satellite TV to get anything. I don't understand why you think that Internet access and cable access always go together. Everyone with a phone can have internet access....

    T

    --
    ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
  5. The FBI Affadavit for the mpik arrest by b.foster · · Score: 5, Informative
    can be found here.

    Note that these were not small time players. This guy had $133,000 in DSS related monies flying through his Paypal account. (Also note that Paypal sent the FBI a transaction log, same day service, with no warrant. A sobering reminder that eBay/Paypal does not care about your privacy.)

  6. Re:Pretty Sad by DaveOke · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, they did. As I beleive, they developed a program called ExtremeHU. This program was developed to unloop and program DirectTVs HU cards. You can read about their accomplishments that landed them in jail at decodernews.com

  7. Rights... by hackwrench · · Score: 2, Informative

    You have the right to act on radio waves passing through your body as you have jurisdiction over your own body. This page applies here, too.

  8. Re:SOME information wants to be free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    Doubtful. What would the charge be? Intent to commit theft?

    No, theft. You've made a copy of information that is the property of the company (without authorization), and then given those copies to third parties, who may or may not have received money for them.

    Sheesh, is this the sort of thinking that leads Slashdotters to think they can do whatever they want with a satellite box and claim they weren't stealing satellite service, when that's the only thing one can DO with a hacked satellite box?

  9. Your flat out lying by diablobynight · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's not how transmission law works. especially if you live in the UK or US. That signal being transmitted is on a licensed band, and therefor has the legal right to cross into your property without you tampering with it. Just like cellular transmissions and police bands. If you were to start coding your own cell phone and using different frequencies in your house, you would be just as liable and would go to jail. If you have a problem, bitch to your government control agency for licensing a band that goes through your house, or if your in the states call the FCC and bitch. Or just stop being stupid. If I drop my wallet in your yard. It's still mine, and if you take it, it's still stealing.

    --
    Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
  10. Okay, then by Old+Uncle+Bill · · Score: 0, Informative

    So this is the country we live in. Above all else, it should scare the crap out of us that a US district attorney was not smart enough to figure this one out:

    The satellite TV industry and the Motion Picture Association of America lose millions of dollars from piracy, he noted.

    How the f*** does the MPAA and the satellite industry "lose" money? Is it falling out of their pockets? Are these pirates stealing it from the bank? This suggests two things, that the interception of these signals costs them money. What, do they have to boost their signals more because more people are receiving them? WTF? So we are assuming that all of these people illegally intercepting these signals would be paying a monthly fee for their service if they were not hacking? Please, I don't think so. I don't hack directv, but the people I know who do wouldn't give them a dime. Ever. So how are they "losing" money again?

    --
    Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
  11. Re:That's nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    you don't like that, they'll remove the meter and the power line, and you can live without electricity


    Not likely.

    What they will do is tell the meter to no longer deliver power to you. Removing the meter and power line is likely to be: A) too expensive, B) illegal (since in most locales in the US a building without power is not qualified as liveable - turning it off is one thing, removing the ability to deliver is another).


    Actually, they do remove the meter. They don't, however, remove the line. Ever wonder why there's a little, plastic one-time-use lock on that box? It's because electric meters are removable, and if that lock wasn't there, you could just swap an old meter in place of the one they read, swapping it back out when the meter reader comes around.

    Now most meters are equipped with power line modems that report back to the mother ship once a month. Swapping a meter is likely to raise some eyebrows(and litigation) in this day and age.
  12. Re:Excuse me, by SurfTheWorld · · Score: 2, Informative
    I understand that there are airplanes that are flying over your personal airspace without your consent. Quick, get out those anti-aircraft guns and start firing.


    You only own the airspace up to 200 feet or something similarly low. Since aircraft typically fly at 30,000+ they are well out of range of your property.

    Likewise, I think you only own 5 feet or so of your Earth. A friend of mine was in some form of construction and told me that the reason why all pipes, wires, conduit, sewage, etc is at least N feet deep is not only to avoid the dangers associated with winter and frozen pipes, but also because homeowners own land N - 1 feet below their house.

    --
    Do it for da shorties
  13. Re:What the hell was I thinking yesterday by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Informative

    You are confusing "Probable Cause" with "Clear and Present Danger".

    Unless you are a peace officer, you don't need to establish probable cause in the sense that you described it. If you can persuade a judge/grand jury/cop that there was a clear and present danger to your life and limb, then you stand a good chance of not having to stand trial for assault, but it is not a guarantee!

    Unless you were in a position to make an arrest or issue a warrant, "Probable Cause" is irrelevant. You, as a private citizen, don't need ANY cause to be suspicious. On the other hand, police are supposed to have a specific reason for any suspicion they raise against an individual. Trying to light a bomb, or holding a gun to someone's head are dramatic examples, but decent.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.