Slashdot Mirror
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.
And let's be clear -- this WAS an act of corporate espionage. He knowingly stole trade secrets from his work and posted them online. Put him in jail, and any hippies who think what he did was right, you can go join him.
So what he didn't profit or use the service, he still illegally obtained trade secrets and distributed them to those who would try and profit, or at least enabled those who are trying to steal service. Now he's caught and is being punished. The lesson learned here: Actions lead to Consequences.
He is no more innocent than someone who gets a bunch of people's cc#'s and makes them public. Just because he personally didn't financially benefit is totally beyond the point. Just because he did it against a "large faceless/heartless corp" and many "common folk just trying to exercise their god given right to watch ESPN" benefitted doesn't make it any more right.
A group of ppl. trying to justify their moral/religious convictions as laws, will always create problems, be they democrtats/republicans or any-one for that matter.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
Impacts?
Giving away a hack to a TV box: Lost revenues for a satellite company.
Giving away high tech secrets: Future possibility of incoming with a payload carried by our own technology.
Which is really a worse outcome?
If they were passed with no intention of being enforced, what was the point?
What is worse saying "I'll pretend to believe this and do nothing about it" or "I'll follow the laws that are on the books regardless."?
As far as the rest, I hate to break it to you but the Federal Government was not supposed to guarantee anything close to free healthcare and mandated work weeks and wages. The US was not founded with the idea that "everyone is free because we will give everyone everything they need" it was founded with the idea that if you leave people alone they will pull themselves up by the bootstraps and make their own lives better.
HTTP Status 418
The problem isn't that he's getting prosecuted for theft. If he were I'm all for that, he probably stole those CDR's, wasted hours of his employers time, etc. But he's being prosecuted for profiting from the copying, when he clearly did not. He wasn't paid for releasing the information, he probably even lost money on the whole thing. I personally think there should be some legal punishment for what he did, he certainly betrayed a trust and we should discourage this type of damage. There may be a legal punishment for all I know. But, he has been prosecuted for something everyone knows he didn't do, that worries me greatly.
I think you screwed up that quote. It is: 'A government of the people, by the people', not 'A government of the social-worker bureaucrats, for the benefit of the social-worker bureaucrats so they can meddle in people's affairs with theories they learned when they should have been courses with actual value in college.'
The point: The Nanny State needs to wither away. Cutting off it's money supply is a start. The number of times feeble attempts to turn 'Tax Cuts' into a bad thing in 'intellectual' circles is staggering.
You see, that is the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals. Instead of whining about how many refrigerators a rich guy has, why don't you take some responsibility and try to better your situation? Everybody has plenty of opportunity for wealth- it just takes effort. Poor people are not poor because some rich person stepped all over them. In fact, thats the attitude that keeps them poor.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
I fully expected to read the article and find out that the kid had just cleverly reverse-engineered stuff as a hobby, making him a poor persecuted martyr. I really did.
But, that perception was WRONG. This kid had access to sensitive trade secrets. I see absolutely nothing defensible that he did. I would love if someone would explain to me how it should be perfectly OK to steal trade secrets and publish them. I suggest starting with the always persuasive "patents, copyrights, and secrets want to be FREE" argument.
So I'm waiting for the "misuse" argument. To me, the fact that they only went after a kid who really is a thief gives them credibility.
Honestly, I would love to hear from someone who actually read the article and feels otherwise.
This has nothing to do with violating freedom or any other right we supposedly have under the constitution.
he used his position within DirecTV to gain access to secret, confidential information, and leaked it to someone. What that someone did, or whether or not he benfitted is immaterial. He violated NDA from DirecTV, and violated that law.
Just like if someone posted a source code module from Windows 2003, the secret recipie of Mickey D's Secret Sauce, or anything else confidential.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
One of the guys was using a circular saw and it caught an edge, which whipped the saw down and nearly cut this guy's thumb off. He was taken to the hospital, and treated. He's now been working 3 years, and all of his money goes toward food, rent...and paying his hospital debt.
OK, your father hired a contractor who obviously didn't have the right insurance cover. The contractor screwed up, causing expensive damage not covered by his insurance, and is now having to pay for fixing the damage. Seems fair.
Still think this is a civilized country?
Yes: this guy is paying for his own mistake, instead of the government forcing others to cover for him. My one criticism here is that they really should have been required to carry appropriate insurance, but that's very difficult to enforce - why didn't your father check that, by the way?
Supposing, instead of a thumb, that saw had cut a water main, ruining the house. Would you expect other people to foot the bill for fixing that, too?
(Also, I'd point out nothing bad came of that, despite his stupidity: he was treated (despite not having insurance or the money to pay for it) - now he's working to make up for it. Nothing wrong with that.