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.
I'm all for this.
This case should not be confused with an independent person doing a "clean room" reverse engineering of the technology. This person was in a position of trust and violated that trust by stealing something that didn't belong to him.
It's irrelevant that he did not profit from this. The cost to DirecTV is the same whether he used the information himself or passed it on to someone else who did.
Why is this in YRO again? What rights online does this concern?
How can I blash Bush or Ashcroft for a bad law passed during Clinton's time as president?
.0001 percent of the population who are so smart that they don't have to worry about being fired. Sadly they've never had the chance to learn about compassion, or being human.
No no, back up. In Clinton's days these laws were a lot like marijuana statutes. They were very rarely enforced, and when they were it ammounted to a slap on the wrist.
Now that George W. Orwell and friends are in charge, these laws have been convoluted into a completely different picture. Now any kind of intellectual curiousity is treated like a "bad taillight" in which a cop can harrass you for being what you are. Intellectuals, the middle-class, and computer professionals are the last demographic republicans want to hear from.
The internet is a threat to any regime whose existence depends on the falsification of information. The funny thing is, so many Slashdotters here claim to be republican. They're either scared shitless over losing thier jobs, so they say "hiel hitler!" I don't need healthcare, I like working 70 hrs a week, I like living with my parents. Or they are the
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
I find it interesting that nearly every is coming out against this guy. While I whole heartedly agree that what he did was wrong, and that he should be punished, there seems to be a bit of a double standard.
Read any article on the RIAA cracking down on P2P services and you will get a much more mixed set of opinions.
Is this really that different from downloading music for which you have not paid? True, he 'stole' trade secrets, while MP3 are a product. However, either way, the issue is with the loss of income from the company.
Just something to consider...
(on a side note, I include myself in the 'double standard' group)