Slashdot Mirror
EFF Lands a Blow On DirecTV
An anonymous reader writes to alert us to a court win for the EFF in two cases in which DirecTV employed heavy-handed legal tactics to suppress security and computer science research into satellite and smart card technology. Here's the ruling (PDF) from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. From the announcement: "The cases, DirecTV v. Huynh and DirecTV v. Oliver, involved a provision of federal law prohibiting the 'assembly' or 'modification' of equipment designed to intercept satellite signals. DirecTV maintained that the provision should cover anyone who works with equipment designed for interception of their signals, regardless of their motivation or whether any interception occurs. But in a hearing earlier this year, EFF argued that the provision should apply only to entities that facilitate illegal interception by other people and not to those who simply tinker or use the equipment, such as researchers and others working to further scientific knowledge of the devices at issue."
Frist Post! omg! lol! cupitup!
pay per view channels.... That is scientific tinkering too.
Just kidding. I want a cablecard mythtv box. Now.
I thought this sort of tinkering was already barred. With that in mind, this is likely to be at most a Pyrrhic victory; remember, the 9th Circuit is traditionally the most overturned circuit in cases that end up being heard by the S. Ct....
Typical distorted nonsense from KDawson. DirectTV has issues, but in reality waht's going on here *is not* "computer science research", it's attempting to crack DirectTV's encryption scheme. Why would someone want to do that? It's not to benifit society in significant ways, it's to get free sat TV. Let's be honest, people.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Scientific knowledge? Of someone else's copyrighted device? What's so mysterious about these devices that they can't just ask DirecTV about them? Oh right, because they are trying to hack them. Today's 'amateur hacker' is tomorrow's 'I cracked DTV, come get your cards!' guy.
There are no valid and legal uses for this information they are hacking the boxes to obtain. Does that not mean that they fall under the 'illegal' category automatically?
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Then do it, and don't publish the details. Who is gonna know? Unless conscience gets in the way, I think there is more to the story than you are letting on...
while it is illegal to own a fully automatic fire arm it is not illegal to buy a conversion kit.
Because that's what this case was about - anyone who bought a smart card reader/writer anywhere in the country was threatened or taken to court by DirectTV.
DirecTV didn't go that far, from the EFF's web site:
involved a provision of federal law prohibiting the "assembly" or "modification" of equipment designed to intercept satellite signals. DirecTV maintained that the provision should cover anyone who works with equipment designed for interception of their signals, regardless of their motivation or whether any interception occurs.
So, it's like the way that most peer to peer lawsuits are filed for people "making available" the "illegal" material, but typically not the downloader for getting the offending items. It's the distribution that is the offense.
So, does this mean I will no longer see the ads for cable (and satellite) descrambler sin the back of my pop sci mags? Or is it scientific research for them that they are providing to other aspiring scientists?
I think there is more to the story than you are letting on...
There is. DTV went around suing smart card sellers for lists of people who bought devices that were capable of writing to DTV compatible smartcards, and then went around threatening those people whether they were unscrambling DTV shows or just getting a security system for their small company on the cheap.
The DMCA will stop the parent from sharing what he has learned about satellite (not necessarily DirecTV) encryption. It will also stop a colleague from sharing what he's learned. This is analogous to Einstein not being able to get help with non-Euclidean geometry. It stops research!
I've often thought a good defense against the DMCA would be the US constitution itself. You know, that part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If I cannot satisfy my curiosity because the DMCA blocks my natural need to share my discoveries, then it is unconstitutional.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
This isn't true. You can legally own fully automatic firearms after you have purchased a $200 tax stamp from the BATF. They do sell this stamp, upon proper application. Some states may have laws which restrict this freedom.
Be careful with this one: it isn't generally true. The BATF has held that certain parts of a machine gun are a machine gun. Exactly what parts of a particular machine gun constitute a machine gun varies from time to time; it's decided by the whim of the BATF. It seems to boil down to ``If they want to get you, your machine gun parts are the bad parts.''
The problem here is that even though it is legal to own or manufacture machine guns, manufacture is only legal after you have bought the special manufacturers tax stamp. The BATF has refused to sell these since 1986, if I remember correctly. So, possessing certain machine gun parts (including some ``conversion kits'') is a felony. Possessing a full auto sear for an M16, and an AR15, is a felony, while possessing only the sear or only the AR15 is not, if I remember correctly (and I might be wrong on some or all of that). Possessing a full auto sear for an FAL is not a problem, but possessing an FAL receiver cut to accept that sear definitely is a felony with or without the sear, and so on.
In general, if you could put your parts together to make a machine gun, you are a felon unless you can somehow purchase that magic tax stamp.
These taxes were enacted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. There was a time when this was a free country.
See what I've been reading.
I don't know where you're from, but in plenty of states in the US, you're allowed to own nearly any fully automatic firearm that's made.
involved a provision of federal law prohibiting the "assembly" or "modification" of equipment designed to intercept satellite signals. DirecTV maintained that the provision should cover anyone who works with equipment designed for interception of their signals, regardless of their motivation or whether any interception occurs.
That's what the law says and how DirectTV interpreted it. You are parroting DirectTV's now shown to be false argument. The company began its crusade by raiding smart card device distributors to obtain their customer lists, then sent over 170,000 demand letters to customers and eventually filed more than 24,000 federal lawsuits against them. Because DirecTV made little effort to distinguish legal uses of smart card technology from illegal ones, EFF and the Cyberlaw Clinic received hundreds of calls and emails from panicked device purchasers. See? They claimed anyone using a smart card for any reason what trying to hack them.
This, too, was from the EFF's web site: http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_11.php
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Can network traffic over satellite be sniffed now or is it still a federal offense?
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
That's the Declaration of Independence.
-- nolesrule
This is exactly what they did to drugs by the way. You could only get a permit to prescribe pot if you proved you had some. If you had some without the permit, you possesed it illegally, and you'd be arrested when you tried to apply.
Currently US Military IDs that are white common acess cards are smart cards, and use smart card readers. Another legitimate use is for DoD employees to check their email at home.
If you actually read the ruling, it has absolutely nothing to do with allowing, or not allowing, legitimate research into decryption technologies. The case concerned DirectTV's attempts to find the defendants liable under sections of the statute meant to cover distributors of piracy devices, in addition to the parts of the statute meant to cover individual possession and use of piracy devices.
There is no argument mentioned that the defendants were not liable under the parts of the law covering individual use of piracy devices.
The article by the EFF is also wrong/misleading. Yes, they have been fighting "DirectTV's heavy-handed legal tactics", but in this case, it just prevented them from using a bigger hammer against folks already found to have violated the law. (Did they actually do so? Who knows. They did not respond or appear for the original complaint, so default judgement was entered against them.)
SirWired
I seem to recall a case where just having a reasonably well equipped machine shop was enough for the BATF to consider that the guy was in the business of manufacturing machine guns. Presumably there was some other evidence of that, if no actual machine gun parts in the shop at the time.
Mind, considering the sensitivity of a nominally semi-automatic rifle like the FN-C1A1 (old Canadian standard 7.62mm NATO rifle), even a match stick could be considered a "conversion kit" (you just need to jam it into the right place). I've even seen an FN fail to full-auto (so full that releasing the trigger didn't stop it, it kept firing until the mag was empty). That was exciting. Fortunately the soldier had the presence of mind to keep it pointed downrange.
-- Alastair
That's the Declaration of Independence.
Yeah. GP would have been better off complaining about infringement of his freedom of speech, eg if he wants to talk about it with somebody. First Amendment.
-- Alastair
US lawmakers who prevent research on this (or in fact pretty much any other area) are basically shifting over development of this (and any other area) to other countries. In case of satellite technologies, which is essential in current and future military, they are actually weakening the ability of the US to stay on the leading edge.
Are US lawmakers the worst enemy of the state?
True. And one might add that Judge Siler's dissent points out that two other Circuits have ruled differently even on the point that the EFF won. So not only is this ruling valid only in the 9th Circuit but there is a good chance that other Circuits will hold differently and that the issue may reach the Supreme Court and be decided differently.
I guess that makes it simply a justification for using the second amendment then.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Don't forget that possession of a shoe string, or any other string for that matter, and a semi-automatic rifle could be considered intent to manufacture. http://www.jpfo.org/shoestring.jpg
For some people.
...DirecTV, et al who used smart cards for their subscription service had wished they had spent a little more to have a unique physical card interface designed for their own use rather than rely upon one that is off of the shelf? While recognizing that this would increase production costs and really wouldn't be much of a deterrent against someone willing to build up their own physical interface (or part one out of an old receiver), it could have made for a better means of deterring the casual bootlegger or more conclusive proof of illegitimate activity (i.e. "why is your smart card reader torn apart on your bench and connected to a socket torn out of an old receiver?"). Mind you that a physical repackaging wouldn't be the magic bullet.
I suppose someone could've done a cost-benefit analysis, but I doubt it.
Anti-gun:
"guns kill people, eliminate the guns, eliminate gun violence"
Pro-gun:
"guns don't kill people, people kill people"
DirectTV:
"smart card readers hack DirectTV signals"
EFFT:
"smart car readers don't hack DirectTV signals, people do"
Back in the day with the old DTV cards were fully hacking the way they did this was by selling special card reader/writers. They had no other use but to specifically glitch a DTV card they wouldn't write other cards. They did this by applying voltages to points on the card that would cause the card to glitch and break out of it's continuous loop that prevented it from being loaded with new software. Then you could load the hack and watch all the channels. DTV was working with law enforcement to raid the sellers of these devices in the US but you could still get them from Canada. After a couple years of this they retired those cards and did a really good job locking down the replacements.
F....T....A
Get with the times people, plastic is for dinosaurs (get it? =) )
That law was thrown out and ruled unconstitutional I do believe (early 70's?)
That pissed of Nixon, and he got the current drug laws pushed through...where they 'schedule' them. I think this was around the time just before LSD became illegal? You can google it for exact dates.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I was expecting hookers or cocaine but the article had neither. Damn misleading titles.
Those words never appear in the Constitution. I believe you're thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which holds little or no legal standing.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
.
And got better customer service and a lower bill in the bargan.
.
When a company does something silly, stupid, AND against my interests, I stop doing business with them.
That's also why I've never bought a single ticket to a Sony movie, a Sony DVD, or Sony brand for 15 years now. I can't avoid Sony chips every time, but when I can, I do. One 3,500 unit lap top deployment was switched from one vender to another vendor simply because the first used Sony chips, but the second did't. Also saved about USD45 per unit, with comperable performance and features. The first had 4 1.0USB ports, the second had 2 2.0 USB ports. We only needed one.
A no brainer, AND I didn't feed the Sony Patent troll.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
First, there's no privacy at stake. Your ownership of a Machine Gun is just as public as your tax return.
The Firearm Owners Protection Act signed into law in May '86 prohibited the further building of machine guns (more than one round discharged with a single pull of the trigger) from that point forward. Machine guns were first defined in federal law in the 1934 National Fireams Act. The "fun stuff" (machine guns, short rifles, short shotguns, silencers, destructive devices, and AOWs) are commonly grouped together and referred to as "NFA weapons".
The '86 ban has had the effect of freezing the supply of machine guns available to J. Random Gunowner, shifting prices increasingly upward. An M-16 that went for $3,500 in '98 now fetches upwards of $14,000. That very same weapon, if sold to military or law enforcement goes for about $700.
And, it's not a "license" that you need, unless you want to be a dealer.
What you're thinking about is the tax stamp (remember the Stamp Act? same thing) that is issued to you when you pay a one-time tax on the transfer of the weapon. So, you want to buy an M-16 or MP-5 or MG-42? You'll owe the Fun Police (ATF) a $200 one-time tax on the transfer. Once you've paid that tax and the feds have processed your paperwork, you own the machinegun...assuming all else is legal (ie, you can own it, your state doesn't outlaw machine guns, etc).
The most commonly used term is a "class III license". While "class III" is correct, it refers to the type of SOT (special occupational taxpayer) tax status your FFL (federally licensed firearms dealer) holds.
A regular store front FFL is a Type 01 FFL. If he wants to deal in machine guns, or silencers or short shotguns or any of the other NFA weapons, he will need a Class III SOT which allows him to deal in NFA weapons tax free. We in the trade refer to these tuys an 01/III.
Somebody that wants to make their own NFA toys will need an 07 FFL and a Class II SOT.
All this coming from somebody who owns NFA items and used to work in the industry.
Having been threatened by Direct TV myself, for this very same thing (buying a card reader/writer) I went to a lawyer the day after I got the threatening letter and had him draft a letter threatening counter-suit for harassment. I never heard from them again. I think that the people that are getting nailed are the ones talking to Direct TV. DON'T. Don't ever talk to Direct TV. I just canceled my Direct TV service and switched to dish. (yes, I was a paying customer) When asked why I was canceling I said "Because you are trying to extort $20,000 from me" and the CSR just said "Oh... well that's a good reason!"