1996 Economic Espionage Act and DirectTV

Pharmboy writes "The Register reports a 19 year old will plead guilty to the 1996 Economic Espionage Act for giving away DirectTV secrets, even though they admit he did not pirate the service or profit from the theft." See our original story on this case.

Comments

At last, someone does something naughty

[panurge]

If the Register account is correct, this really was deliberate theft of intellectual property. He knew what he was doing. He betrayed the trust of his uncle. He was either stupid, or a complete anal aperture. He actually stole material that some of the sites he sent it to seemed to have found too hot to handle.

Perhaps he should get some kind of special award from the industry. Like the RIAA Platinum IP Theft Award. "See- we're not paranoid! There really are criminals out there! We need all the protection we can get!"

He shouldn't go to jail

[Anonymous Coward]

This was a law that was designed to prevent foreign companies from conducting espionage on American companies. Courts are supposed to (and generally do) take into account the intent of a law when they are overseeing a case. Stopping copyright infringement was not the intent of this law.

This was a case of *civil* law. Criminal law shouldn't be involved. He violated his employer's trust, which is a civil matter.

Do you know why they didn't pursue it in civil court? I would imagine that it is because they weren't damaged by his actions. (Because their system was good enough that people couldn't break it even with the information that he leaked.) They would therefore be unable to land a serious verdict, so they went the criminal way. And the US government went along with it, as it does.

Re:hmmmm...

[pangloss]

Everybody has plenty of opportunity for wealth- it just takes effort.

there's a great, short read written by barbara ehrenreich called nickel and dimed . she's a reporter who wrote about her experience of going "undercover" for months as a member of the working poor.

i think a lot of people hold the view you stated above. and it certainly has some truth to it. but ehrenreich presents strong empirical evidence to the contrary and as matter of intellectual honesty, it's worth checking it out to see if you can keep your beliefs intact, need to modify them, or even reject them after reading it.

Re:hmmmm...

[slaker]

The overwhelming majority of monies coming in to the federal government is "already spent" by the time it's received. We will continue to spend for 90%+ of federal programs at the same or a greater level annually.
In short, costs are fixed or rising, unless legislative heads start spinning and major programs get major funding cuts.

If the economy manages a reasonable growth rate, there's no harm in these slight increases in funding. If government can spent more more efficiently, that's no problem. If we grow our base of taxable revenues, that's not a problem. But when we increase our spending and at the same time DECREASE our revenues, well, I guess they don't get to math with negative numbers 'till 8th grade whereever you live, Mr. AC.