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.

3 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Put him in jail by possible · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 doesn't require that the defendant benefit from the act of espionage, it refers to the benefit of "any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent". That's worded specifically to include foreign companies. It doesn't even matter what your intent was, if you knew (or should have known) that your act of espionage would benefit them, then you have violated this law.

    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.

  2. Theft is theft by SwissCheese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It is really ironic that this is happening when the parent company of DirecTV at the time was busy giving away secrets regarding American rocket technology to the Chinese.

    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?