Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

1996 Economic Espionage Act and DirectTV

Posted by michael on from the red-handed dept.

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.

2 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. At last, someone does something naughty by panurge · · Score: 4, Informative
    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!"

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  2. He shouldn't go to jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.