Slashdot Mirror


Three Arrested For Conspiring To Violate the DMCA

jtcm writes "Three men have been charged with conspiring to violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act after federal investigators found that they allegedly offered a cracker more than $250,000 to assist with breaking Dish Network's satellite TV encryption scheme: '[Jung] Kwak had two co-conspirators secure the services of a cracker and allegedly reimbursed the unidentified person about $8,500 to buy a specialized and expensive microscope used for reverse engineering smart cards. He also allegedly offered the cracker more than $250,000 if he successfully secured a Nagra card's EPROM (eraseable programmable read-only memory), the guts of the chip that is needed to reverse-engineer Dish Network's encryption.' Kwak owns a company known as Viewtech, which imports and sells Viewsat satellite receiver boxes. Dish Network's latest encryption scheme, dubbed Nagra 3, has not yet been cracked by satellite TV pirates."

335 comments

  1. Three arrested for conspiring to steal cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    More apt headline.

    1. Re:Three arrested for conspiring to steal cable by Flea+of+Pain · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wait wait wait...can someone please explain how the first post to the article was modded redundant? That just doesn't make sense to me...

      --
      Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
    2. Re:Three arrested for conspiring to steal cable by lorenlal · · Score: 1

      Must be because he was actually stealing satellite?

      BTW - Agree. WTF Mods?

    3. Re:Three arrested for conspiring to steal cable by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, I don't see anything in the article summary saying that at all. They were simply attempting to reverse-engineer a way to receive and decrypt DishTV's signals, and presumably to sell equipment to do this to other people.

      So first, no one is "stealing" anything, as stealing means to deprive someone of something by theft. People watching DishTV aren't stealing anything, though they are violating the DMCA law.

      And second, there's no proof these men were going to watch unpaid-for programming themselves; they were going to sell the means of doing so to other people.

      So your BS headline is much like saying radar detector companies are conspiring to exceed speed limits. It really doesn't make much sense.

    4. Re:Three arrested for conspiring to steal cable by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wait wait wait...can someone please explain how the first post to the article was modded redundant? That just doesn't make sense to me...

      Redundant means "information was already there", not "post has already been made".

      I'm not saying I agree with the moderation, I'm just answering your question as to how a first post can be 'redundant'.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    5. Re:Three arrested for conspiring to steal cable by wagnerrp · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you want to steal satellite, you find a way to completely decrypt all channels being broadcast. If you simply want to access channels you have already paid for, you do something like the R5000 guys do that taps the unencrypted stream coming out of the CAM.

    6. Re:Three arrested for conspiring to steal cable by elmarkitse · · Score: 3, Funny

      A poor, white, rural American FINALLY gets a job in this terrible economy, and we lock him up. A word of warning to all your crackers out there, give up hope now.

    7. Re:Three arrested for conspiring to steal cable by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you want to steal satellite, you'll have to build a spaceship first.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    8. Re:Three arrested for conspiring to steal cable by Empyrials · · Score: 1

      If you want to steal satellite, you find a way to completely decrypt all channels being broadcast. If you simply want to access channels you have already paid for, you do something like the R5000 guys do that taps the unencrypted stream coming out of the CAM.

      i just wish they'd crack Nag3 already, basic cable TV is such a bore

  2. I agree with the feds on this one by seekret · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Serves them right, while I'm against the DMCA trying to profit off of someone else's work is not right. They deserve what they get.

    1. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by vertinox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Serves them right, while I'm against the DMCA trying to profit off of someone else's work is not right. They deserve what they get

      Sounds like entrapment to me.

      (I posted this link because it sounds like the Feds did to the cracker the same thing they did to Mr. DeLorean)

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    2. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by nomadic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Where's the entrapment?

    3. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by ZX3+Junglist · · Score: 1

      Entrapment is only valid if the accused did something they wouldn't have done otherwise. I don't see a jury imagining these guys wouldn't have used other means to accomplish their goal.

    4. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by vertinox · · Score: 0

      It was the federal agent the offered the money and the means to break the encryption.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    5. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      I completely support his efforts to reverse engineer the satellite system, and publish his findings. If he goes to jail it better be for piracy. I don't agree that he necessarily deserves what he'll get, he probably deserves a fraction of what he could get.

    6. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      I agree with nomadic. There is no mention at all in the article what the Feds did to catch these people. A guy (Jung Kwak) who sells cheap satellite receiver boxes offered a cracker $250,000 and Kwak got busted for it.

    7. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by vertinox · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh my bad... Kwak was the one offering the money and not the other way around.

      Apparently my dyslexia is bad right now.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    8. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by vertinox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My bad. I read the summary backwards. It sounded like the FBI offered Kwak the money.

      But I got modded up so I guess other people read it wrong too.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    9. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Breaking encryption should never be a crime.

      The satellite companies ahve a very weak business model. It involves sending information into everyoens house. If consumers find another way to view the data in their house, then tough tits for the satellite company.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Err, no. The Federal Agents found that the 3 had offered the money. It's a poorly written summary.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    11. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Animaether · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If consumers find another way to view the data in their house, then tough tits for the satellite company.

      If businesses then go and market that way in the form of hacked decoder boxes... still 'tough tits' for the satellite company? In your legal frame of mind, I mean; it's obviously 'tough tits' for them in practice anyway and they have to introduce the next generation of encoding (or a different key.. whatever).

    12. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And if I find a way to get into your car that you parked on a public street and drive it away, tough tits for you.

      Or would that be a crime?

      Yeah. I thought so.

    13. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by iamhigh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So by your thinking, it's "tough tits" for the cable company if I steal cable from my neighbor? If I find a way to hack cellular communication and use it for free calling? If I hack into a company that uses wifi?

      --
      No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
    14. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >And if I find a way to get into your car that you parked on a public street and drive it away, tough tits for you.

      What if I find a way to make use of the constant stream of cars that you put in my living room?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    15. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No, stop abusing broadcast for what they don't mean to broadcast, and free the bandwidth for actual broadcasts.

    16. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by blhack · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Uhhmm...Your analogy isn't really "analogous" to the situation.

      If you came and parked your car in my front yard, am I at fault if I figure out how to drive it, and do so? Dish network is pumping signal into everybody's house, it isn't as if these people are breaking into their building or something.

      I agree that they should be punished, what they were attempting to do was wrong, I just don't think that your analogy holds together.

      --
      NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
    17. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stealing cable is worse than satellite as when you hook onto that cable you are using their power, and if enough people did it they would have to buy more amplifiers and electricity to power them.

    18. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Only worse on the margins. In principle it's the same thing. If you provided your own amplifier, would it be ok?

    19. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Tanktalus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bad analogy. If I take his car that he parked on a public street, he is out a car. If I decode the signal broadcast into my house and view it, the satellite provider still has just as much signal as before, and their paying customers are not out anything. (I could argue that because I could then join in on water-cooler discussions on our favourite TV shows that it increases the value of the product they're marketing, but that's an extremely weak argument which I won't actually make.)

      If you send out floppies with your software to everyone in a neighbourhood, and I reformat my floppy and use it for other purposes, that's tough tits for you. If you send out fliers that I subsequently rip up and make paper mache from, that's tough tits for you. If you broadcast something into my home uninvited, and I find a way to make use of that broadcast, that's tough tits for you.

      There has to be a working business model here somewhere. I just don't think the current one is the right one. After all, it's far more trivial for the user to buy the official equipment than to build it themselves. And that's been true for many things: radios, TVs, computers, CB radios, HAM radios (I think - never looked into these). Still is true. Those who want to do it themselves? Cost of doing business, my friend. Compete with them like a grown capitalist.

    20. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So by your thinking, it's "tough tits" for the cable company if I steal cable from my neighbor? If I find a way to hack cellular communication and use it for free calling? If I hack into a company that uses wifi?

      I basically agree with you, however... I think the GP is trying to make the argument that the satellite company is spamming his private property with their signals (without his permission).

      Here is my question to you: if satellite signal is not encrypted, should the broadcasting company be allowed to come after you if you pull down the signals from the air? You don't have a subscription, and you don't have a license to view the content. I think it would fall under the same morally-ambiguous area as unsecured wireless access points. I think that the circumvention is the only notable issue in this case.

    21. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Tikkun · · Score: 1

      How is decrypting information broadcast to everyone similar to taking a car away from someone else?

    22. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Animaether · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you're trying to say there, as it's completely unrelated to the question asked - but just to point something out...

      I don't think they are broadcasting, they're narrowcasting - as far as terminology in radio/tv-world goes*. Note that in various nations there are in fact legal definitions to separate the two, or at least to define the former. Not sure about the U.S., however.

      If you're trying to say "stop abusing a frequency / bandwidth slot for narrowcasting and free it for broadcasts"... well, sure. Except that you'd have to adjust legislation rather than tell (or beg) the companies what to do; they're not doing anything illegal, they pay what they need to pay for the right to use the frequency / bandwidth.. they're certainly free to use it for either broadcasting or narrowcasting, and free to use encryption on that or not. That's not abuse, that's simply 'use'.

      * In network communication terms, it might be broadcasting (one-to-many without intermediate routing) regardless of intended audience.

    23. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If businesses then go and market that way in the form of hacked decoder boxes... still 'tough tits' for the satellite company?

      Yeah, unless the sat companies can figure out how to quit irradiated me with their signals, 'tough tits' to them for me using something they forced in against my will. I'd consider it reimbursement for my increased risk of cancer from sat signals. Thou I don't watch any TV, so I wouldn't do this anyway.

    24. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely, dickhead. Tough tits for the company, but from a moral point of view you can of course do whatever you want with electromagnetic waves and whatever else happens to float into your home. (for example, you are allowed to breath the oxygen that comes from outside)

    25. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by nomadic · · Score: 2, Informative

      The summary was ambiguous, I had to read the actual article to tell what happened.

    26. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      What if Dish Network made their money from advertisers instead of subscribers and then gave the signal away? Then any company could produce hardware to convert the signal and render it (including Dish Network). i go to Radio Shack or Best Buy and pick up a box made by whoever. This allows more companies to make money and compete.

      Or Dish Network could sell licenses to companies that give them the ability to decode that signal. The license would change the keys every so often, so it could be a subscription. That would be much like we have now, except that i'd be paying Radio Shack instead of the owners of the satellites.

      When i was a kid my family enjoyed the Sky network on the cheap by buying cards that decoded the signal.

      ++

      So when does a thought experiment/research into something that would be illegal to do become a crime?

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    27. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by ahoehn · · Score: 3, Informative

      If businesses then go and market that way in the form of hacked decoder boxes... still 'tough tits' for the satellite company? In your legal frame of mind, I mean; it's obviously 'tough tits' for them in practice anyway and they have to introduce the next generation of encoding (or a different key.. whatever).

      It took me a while to understand how the whole business works, but that's basically the way things work now.

      Essentially the way you buy a 3rd party satellite receiver out of the box, it can only receive unencrypted satellite streams. But the decoder box manufacturers pay groups of coders to surreptitiously create and release software which allows the box to decrypt encrypted streams. For the last couple years, DirecTV has been on the as of yet uncracked N3, while Dish and Bellvue (Canada's main provider, with a signal that you can get throughout the US) have been on the cracked N2. A few months ago Bellvue switched to N3, and a week or so ago Dish completed its switch to N3.

      In the meantime, a couple companies have implemented something they're calling Internet Key Sharing for their receivers - a system that shares decryption information from a paid subscription with that company's unauthorized receivers. I'm not sure of the technical details, but apparently this doesn't work as well as a true crack - and of course requires an internet connection to receive the frequently chancing keys.

      Viewsat, who Kwak represents, doesn't currently have an Internet Key Sharing program, so, unless they can get someone to crack N3 - nobody's going to be buying their receivers.

      --
      Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
    28. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah let me steal from your house too! Tough tits lol

    29. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Pandrake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Breaking encryption should never be a crime.

      Agreed.

      The satellite companies ahve a very weak business model. It involves sending information into everyoens house.

      Then what could be a stronger business model that delivers information (television signal, both satellite and non-satellite) into homes in a manner that is cheaper than competitors which doesn't involve encryption so that people cannot receive their service for free and offer their service to consumers as a competitor just as (or only a little more than) free?

      If consumers find another way to view the data in their house, then tough tits for the satellite company.

      I'm think'n the chip inside the receiver needs to be covered in epoxy, like the Nintendo game cubes used to to. You're not breaking the law trying to decrypt the chip, but you are breaking the chip - which simply prevents people from stealing the service and making it extremely difficult to decrypt the signal by any other means (which is the whole point of selling the receiver with encryption in the first place). What's your idea? Other than to let all delivery of TV signals slip into an unsustainable business model of "free for all" ideology, of course.

    30. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Hatta · · Score: 4, Informative

      What's your idea? Other than to let all delivery of TV signals slip into an unsustainable business model of "free for all" ideology, of course.

      The right to do math is much more important than the privilege of watching TV. If preserving that right means the death of satellite TV, oh well.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    31. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That would be true, if they were an idiot. Fortunately I don't think the grandparent poster is an idiot.

      Hacking into a wifi signal goes beyond decrypting a data stream. You are at that point sending data with the intention of having a remote computer (for the access point is indeed a little computer) and having it do work for you. You are now making use of someone else's property without their permission. Worse, if they're using even a lame 64-bit WEP, they have clearly indicated that you are not welcome to us it, a sort of digital "No Trespassing" sign, so you can't claim it was accidental.

      Cell phones are similar, although with an interesting twist: you're not going to be able to make a phone call without some phone's identity. And whoever paid for that phone's identity is going to get hit with the charges for your calls. In essence, you're engaging in fraud against someone else, making charges in their name. We don't need special phone crime laws to deal with this, basic fraud (specifically identity "theft") covers it fine.

      Now, this does suggest that you're free to quietly snoop on other people's wifi and cell phones. One can take an ethical stand that puts the onus of securing one's wireless communications on the transmitter and receiver, not the government and third parties. Or put another way, one might say, "Feel free to snoop on my wifi. I use a secure VPN."

      Splicing into the cable companies lines is a different case. If the cable doesn't enter your property, you've engaged in trespass and tampering with someone else's property. But we'll be generous and assume the cable crosses your property; it's common enough. While the land is yours, the physical cable itself is not. In much the same way that if I park in my local grocery store's lot, they have no right to siphon some gas out of my tank, you have no right to cut or otherwise modify their cable.

      Now, if you were to engage in some cleverness to read the signal off the cable without harming the cable, I think you'd see some support from those arguing the "tough tits" case.

      (In all of these cases I'm ignoring what is actually legal, since I believe the point is to argue what is ethical, and thus what the law should be, not what it is today.)

    32. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      That is a wrong analogy.

      Satellite signals are beamed all over the country, they are not the same as cars, more like data.

      Imagine if you had your Wireless network set up, and your next door neighbor uses a Wireless cracking program to crack your WPA key, and then uses it to surf for porn and other stuff, that your Internet account gets accused of doing. Would you get upset at your neighbor for hacking your Wireless network, or just let him/her get all of the free Internet and you foot the bill and the responsibility?

      In the same way you pay for a DirecTV or Dishnetwork decryption key via your smart card to unlock your satellite signals in order to view your programming. Do you want a neighbor to break into your house, copy your decryption key and then use it for all of the free Pay Per Views that get charged to your account and not his/her account because they stole your key?

      Companies and People like those mentioned in this article are the reason why I keep getting new smartcards for my satellite programming every once in a while. It means someone or some company broke their encryption and now they have to offer new cards with a different encryption/decryption codes on them. I pay for my programming, I do not get it for free.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    33. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bad analogy.

      Here's a better one:
      If you own a drive in theater, and I live nearby with a direct line of site of the theater, and someone sells me a radio that I use to receive the audio from the movie, and I sit on my porch every night and enjoy a different movie, all for free.... Is this a crime?

      Effectively, they are blanketing the country with their signal, and someone else is providing me a tool that allows me to watch and hear this signal. It's not my fault that the drive-in, in this example, doesn't shield their picture or opt to hard wire their speakers so that I cannot watch the movie, and even if they did do these measures, it would not be illegal for me to strategically place mirrors in my yard and use a directional mic to pick up sound from someone's car in order to continue to watch the movie.

      So, really, the only issue at stake is the DMCA itself (the breaking of the encryption), and I, for one, do not agree with the premise behind this law.

      If you want your content to be unwatchable by others, secure it properly. If others figure out a way to watch it anyways, that's your problem, not the laws (or at least I wish it were this way!).

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
    34. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Snarf+You · · Score: 2, Funny

      So when does a thought experiment/research into something that would be illegal to do become a crime?

      When it involves children.

    35. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Pandrake · · Score: 1

      Must suck for people who streets don't have cable or who aren't close enough to over-the-air broadcast for things like EBS, news, and other things they want to pay for just so you can precede their right to buy a service with your right to do math that destroys the service provider's ability to sell to them. But I guess preserving the right to allow piracy with the excuse of "just doing math" is paramount. FOR FUCKS SAKE how the hell can you twist this around into a rights issue? I want to buy a service, and delivering the content which advertising pays are costs that are in addition to delivering the service. You call that a privilege, fine, but it's just as much a privilege as paying for delivery of boxes of goods instead of driving to the manufacture to get them into my house. You're saying DishTV doesn't have the right to deliver content because you have the right to monkey with their equipment?!?!?

    36. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my bad...

      grammar?

    37. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      So by your thinking, it's "tough tits" for the cable company if I steal cable from my neighbor? If I find a way to hack cellular communication and use it for free calling? If I hack into a company that uses wifi?

      Every single example you've mentioned means taking something from somebody else.

      You all know better, cut it out.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    38. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Hatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Must suck for people who streets don't have cable or who aren't close enough to over-the-air broadcast

      That's unfortunate, but living in remote areas is a choice that comes with a lot of benefits of its own. If they really need TV, they can move somewhere where they can get OTA broadcasts. I am not willing to give up my right to do math to enable their lifestyle choice.

      things they want to pay for just so you can precede their right to buy a service

      Buying a service is hardly a right. Companies go in and out of business all the time, services are offered and dropped all the time. The privilege of buying a service depends on a sustainable business model, and it's important that that business model not infringe on anyone's rights. Math on the other hand is fundamental and universal. It's the most important tool we have for understanding the universe. I don't see how you can't consider this a right.

      I should point out that no one is suggesting any sort of force or coercion stopping people from paying for any service they want. All I ask is that I be left alone if I should wish to receive EM radiation passing through my house and process it. These companies however are quite aggressively using force against others. If you care about freedom, it seems obvious that you should choose the path of least coercion.

      You call that a privilege, fine, but it's just as much a privilege as paying for delivery of boxes of goods instead of driving to the manufacture to get them into my house.

      Yes, I agree. If UPS couldn't make a profit without infringing on people's rights we wouldn't have that luxury. Fortunately, that's not the case.

      You're saying DishTV doesn't have the right to deliver content because you have the right to monkey with their equipment?!?!?

      Oh, not at all. DishTV of course has a right to deliver content. And I have no right to monkey with their equipment. I do however have a right to monkey with my own equipment, and perform math on any signals I receive.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    39. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      welcome to slashdot, home of the fallacious argument!

    40. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by plnix0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wait a minute here. You just gave a pretty good argument for why anyone is justified in decoding satellite signals. Then you go and say something completely inconsistent, "I agree that they should be punished, what they were attempting to do was wrong". If you know that a person decrypting a satellite signal is not at fault because the signal is in his house, on what basis do you call that action "wrong"? These are two mutually exclusive positions.

    41. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by plnix0 · · Score: 1

      GP is correct in pointing out a distinction and in fact the two cases are different in principle, not merely on the margins. Nothing whatsoever is taken from the company's property in the case of the satellite signals, while hooking up to their cable involving directly manipulating their property and taking something (electricity) out of it.

    42. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by cyberfunkr · · Score: 1

      So if I find a way to put a y-split on the gas tank at the local Chevron so I can get fuel into my car for free, then I should be allowed? I mean, they are sending fuel into anyone's car that uses the pumps. It's a weak business model that depends on the fact that people don't circumvent the security of concrete and metal.

    43. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by katamerry_damatree · · Score: 3, Funny

      It also depends on the scope of the benefit and harm, respectively. If I decrypt the Pornographic Bodybuilding Channel that's already streaming into my living room, it's tough tits for both me and the satellite company. But if I publish the key on the internet, then tough tits for everyone!

    44. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      trying to profit off of someone else's work is not right.

      You've confused me. Isn't that the very definition of capitalism?

    45. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      So when does a thought experiment/research into something that would be illegal to do become a crime?

      When you ask someone to break the law for you, especially if you offer them money to do it.

    46. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Eil · · Score: 1

      I believe that it's ethically wrong to decrypt a satellite data stream for the purpose of watching TV content that you didn't pay for. However, a person's right to research technology should always trump that. Everyone should have the right to receive, analyze, decrypt, and otherwise make use of any signal that makes use of public spectrum and makes its way onto the property that they own or the space that they legally inhabit. If the satellite (and other wireless content) providers don't want people to break their encryption, then they need to use encryption that can't be broken by amateurs. As the law currently stands, they could run their data stream through rot13 (or something almost as trivial) and still bring the DMCA down on everyone from satellite "pirates," to hobbyists, to people who forgot to renew their subscription.

    47. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      Heh. So it seems....

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    48. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Wandering+Idiot · · Score: 1

      That is a wrong analogy.

      Satellite signals are beamed all over the country, they are not the same as cars, more like data.

      Imagine if you had your Wireless network set up, and your next door neighbor uses a Wireless cracking program to crack your WPA key, and then uses it to surf for porn and other stuff, that your Internet account gets accused of doing. Would you get upset at your neighbor for hacking your Wireless network, or just let him/her get all of the free Internet and you foot the bill and the responsibility?


      This is also a bad analogy. If your neighbor is just passively decrypting the signals your router is already broadcasting due to your own browsing, you could make the argument that it's on you to use a stronger version of the encryption if you're going to be beaming electromagnetic waves into his house and don't want them deciphered. But once he actively hacks into your router and uses it to browse himself, he's actually depriving you of something. His activity counts toward your bandwidth cap, decreases the available bandwidth if you're using it at the same time, puts an extra load on your equipment, and depending on the model may cause the router to configure itself to connect better to his PC, potentially degrading the signal quality to your own devices. Plus, as you said, he might do something illegal using your connection. In character if not scope, it would be like hacking into one of Dish Network's satellites and changing its orbit so you get a better signal. Which isn't what's under discussion.

    49. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      If consumers find another way to view the data in their house, then tough tits for the satellite company.

      Lets put this another way. Your neighbor has a wireless network, and is broadcasting all sorts of information to the neighborhood. Would it be alright for you to break the encryption key, and then use any data you may receive for your own personal use? You're not disrupting anything on their network, you're just capturing data freely transmitted. What about someone using a wireless ISP or satellite internet?

      Even if you never intend to use anything acquired against the person, you are still accessing information intended for someone other than you, indicated by the use of encryption.

      How about another one, perhaps a bit more appropriate to the topic. Your neighbor has Netflix. Every day before your neighbor comes home, you go to his house, rifle through his mail for new DVDs, rip them, and place them back in the mail box. It's not hurting your neighbor one bit. Netflix gets their copies back, so it's not stealing from them.

    50. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by magarity · · Score: 1

      Apparently my dsyelixa is bad right now.

      There, fixed that for ya...

    51. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmmm..... you analogy kind of works, except it's less that Chevron is sending fuel to anyone's car that uses the pumps, and more that Chevron has installed pipes to everyone's driveway and is dumping gasoline all over it, and you get arrested for holding a bucket under it. Don't get me wrong. Viewing satellite programming without paying for it is wrong, ( notice I didn't say stealing because it isn't ) but these guys haven't done that. they can find a way to decrypt satellite signals. they can sell that way to decrypt satellite signals. but as soon as they or anyone else use that method ( or any other ) to watch satellite TV, then they're in the wrong. it's like lock picks. is owning lock picks illegal? no. but as soon as you try to pick a lock that isn't yours, without their permission, then you will be hit by the law, as well you should. the problem here is that it's far easier to bribe the relevant parties to ban lock picks ( theoretical or otherwise ) then to watch the effectively infinite number of locks they dumped on every square inch of the earth for being picked.

    52. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >If you broadcast something into my home uninvited, and I find a way to make use of that broadcast, that's tough tits for you.

      This goes two ways. Are equally willing to let anyone listen to your broadcasts. By this same logic the police don't need a warrant to listen in on your cell phone, wireless home phone, internet traffic, etc. Be careful what you preach, it can easily be used against you.

    53. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      grammar?

      nothx maybe later

    54. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Fatal67 · · Score: 1

      So you wouldn't mind that your neighbor broke your encryption and is recording all of your cell phone calls? Or if the police did it. It should never be a crime. Never ever. Ever.

      And I'm sure you weren't one of the ones complaining about ISP's using DPI to identify the contents of the encrypted packets you are sending in to their network and then turning that information over to the RIAA / FBI etc.

      I'm surprised to see such an open minded person on /. Usually they are all about taking a specfic situation and twisting it to their own needs, then taking the completely opposite stance when it doesn;t help them.

      I tip my hat to you.

    55. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      If you came and parked your car in my front yard, am I at fault if I figure out how to drive it, and do so?

      Of course you are. You're still stealing their car! They were probably violating your property rights by parking it there (i.e. trespass) and you could and, depending on the circumstances, should have them charged with it and towed; but one person's breaking of one law doesn't give you carte blanche to do what you like with them or their property.

      To put it even in more stupid terms so it's clear why it'd be illegal: "If you came and parked your car in my front yard, am I at fault if I rig a bomb to it so it explodes when you come to pick it up?"

      Like it or not, broadcasters have the right to broadcast their cancer-causing radiation into your home and protect it from being viewed by you unless you pay them money for the privilege. Don't like it? Then try to get the law changed... but good luck with that. Even if it was illegal, their breaking the law wouldn't give you the right to do so.

      Declaring you have a legal right to listen in to any cell phone conversation that happens to be transmitted across your property is just as absurd.

    56. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Mashiara · · Score: 1

      There is no need to outlaw breaking the encryption to make snooping illegal, AFAIK it's invasion of privacy even in the US to use a telescope or binoculars to spy on your neighbour. OTOH it's more than a bit stupid using weak crypto for private data: I treat my wireless network as untrusted and it's firewalled accordingly even though it has encryption to keep bandwidth leeches out.

      Netflix example is breaking and entering with copyright infringiment, it should have nothing to do with DMCA but breaking the DVD "encryption" of course has...

    57. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Pandrake · · Score: 1

      You say buying (or selling) a service is hardly a right, but then say you are not suggesting an sort of force or coercion stopping people from paying for any service they want. Which is it? How is encrypting a signal not a sustainable business model just because of an abstract right to "do math" translating into a right to "steal service" by reverse engineering their service and hardware? The article is about people who want to steal the service, not people who want to decrypt the signals sent into their home for academic reasons. Encrypting their service so that only paying customers can decrypt the signal with their receiver does not infringe upon your right to build your own dish, receiver, and all the math you want to do and no one is going to sue you or throw you in jail. It is your right to do what you want with what's in your home. But that doesn't extend into reselling the service or receivers or hooking up your buddies with free service. The ideal of "my rights" ends when it infringes on the rights of others, who do have the right to live where they want, buy what they want, sell what they want, and protect their interests against people who want to infringe upon them.

    58. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by ohtani · · Score: 1

      But it's NOT the same. The radio signal from the drive in theater is through public airwaves and UNENCRYPTED. The DISH Network signal IS encrypted. You're asking them to secure it. They did! They made an attempt to secure it. These are people trying to circumvent this and putting numerous amounts of effort into it.

      It's not as if the encryption method requires you to XOR each byte with "123" or something lame. What if YOU had encrypted files and I broke that encryption and viewed them. Wouldn't you feel violated?

      --
      Pancakes. Oh I blew it.
    59. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they want me to stop receiving the signal just stop sending it into my house. Until then I'm going to do what ever the fuck I want with my listen only device in my own home.

    60. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 1

      It *is* the same. Broadcasting via radio is a form of encryption. It just happens to be easy to decrypt, and I can buy a decryption device from anyone anywhere. Encryption is simply any form of encoding. We just use a fancy word for encoding when we mean encoding so that no one else can decode except those that we want to be able to decode.

      The real point I have is that there is nothing wrong with me buying the device that decodes, and using it. There is, however, something illegal about the guys who build the boxes that decode and then sell them for profit. (But this illegality is something I strongly disagree with)

      Now, I think that the real problem lies with the DMCA.

      Let's go back to my analogy. If the theater puts up a brick wall, for example, as their protection to disallow me from viewing their movie, but I find a chink in that brick wall, aim a telescope at the chink in the wall, or put a large tower on my house that allows me to point a contraption at their screen over the top of their wall that projects that image onto my tv, is that a crime? See, the principle is the same, but the issue is only complexity. The more complex my workaround to the theater's measures to ensure that I don't freeload what they are presenting in open air, the more illegal the workaround appears to be to the average person. There is no difference between the "encryption" of putting the audio into hard wired speakers, or "encrypting" the video by putting up a brick wall as compared to encrypting the satellite data. The principle of it is the same. If they put it into the air that is physically present on my property, it's their job to secure it if they don't want me viewing/hearing it. The satellite data is broadcast onto my property, the video and audio is "broadcast" onto my property as light and faint sound waves. In both cases, I may have to do some fancy work to make it viewable, but the point remains that both instances, the video and audio was present on my property in some form or anthoer, and I simply manipulated the data presented to me until I could use it.

      If I have a wireless network, it is my job to secure it. If I put no encryption on my network, it is my fault. If I stupidly use WEP, or even WPA instead of WPA2, knowing that it can be cracked, it is my fault. I am responsible for securing my data to a level that ensures it is safe. What ever happened to personal responsibility?

      Any laws that attempt to regulate my protection of my own data by disallowing someone to attempt to crack the encryption method leave me less secure. What if they had arrested every person that attempted to crack WEP? We still might be using WEP, and anyone who was quiet about knowing how to access it would have access to my data.

      The satellite company started off with the equivalency of WEP. It was cracked. They improved. It was cracked again, they improved again. They now have an encryption that no one seems able to break, just as WPA2 does not seem reasonably possible to break in a manner that is of any value once broken in. To arrest those who would attempt to crack it just leaves us with bad encryption technology, rather than spurring innovation. The DMCA is flawed. We need the ability to try and break these encryption methods so that the next encryption is better.

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
    61. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually DirectTV has a completely separate smart card encryption system, made by NDS. The current (uncracked) version of their smart card is known as a P5 card.
      This was the successor to a card known as the HU card, which was widely cracked, pirated, etc. They upgraded to the P5 roughly in 2005. After this all of the "Free TVers" switched
      to dish network, who had N2 smart cards, made by Nagravision.

      According to local pirate satellite legend, the P5 card added something everyone called an ASIC (application specific integrated curcuit). This apparently made the P5 uncrackable. Further, NDS had a patent on this ASIC design so Nagravasion could not copy it.

      But who knows what that actually means. The P5 card was not susceptible to current / voltage "glitching" (the main method for breaking into these cards) while the N2 was. Additionally the P5 had a PLL, so you could not under/over clock the chips processor. Most smart cards are externally clocked, so you can speed it up and slow it down as you please. To hack into the card you speed it up (or slow it down) and simultaneously underpower (or overpower) the card. This causes it to skip an instruction. A well placed glitch will skip an important jump (say a jne) and your off to the races.

      So the crackers just went after the lowest hanging fruit. ...Err, thats what my friend told me anyway.

    62. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no bad analogy, here's a worse one.

      You park your smokin' hot woman on my front porch wearing a chastity belt and a smile.....

      Ummmm wait what was I saying???

    63. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Patriotism is bigotry.

      how's that?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    64. Re:I agree with the feds on this one by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      If you own a drive in theater, and I live nearby with a direct line of site of the theater, and someone sells me a radio that I use to receive the audio from the movie, and I sit on my porch every night and enjoy a different movie, all for free.... Is this a crime?

      How about this: you're my business's neighbor. I want you as my ally, not my adversary, so when I want to do an expansion you come down to the zoning board and testify.

      As the owner, I realize most of my customers are going to drive in, buy tickets, and even more importantly, soda and corn dogs. So the guy who sits out on the side of the road on top of a 12' ladder setup in the bed of his pickup with binoculars and a parabolic mic aren't even on my radar.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  3. Proprietary algorithms by BigHungryJoe · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Is there a reason that Dish Network can't use an open algorithm and some open, established encryption 'scheme'? Wouldn't that actually be more secure? And cheaper to develop?

    1. Re:Proprietary algorithms by Idiot+with+a+gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Depends on the algorithm involved. Often one way algorithms rely on certain actions being computably inconvenient, not impossible. ElGamel and RSA basically break down to the idea that it's easier to multiply really big primes, than it is to factor the resulting really big composite. But in an embedded situation like a dish network box, they might not have the computational power to outrun a hacker with a desktop, so a bit of obscurity helps in slowing down any attacks. There's a strong chance that it'll be hacked at some point, as witnessed by the fact that they're on Nagra 3, not Nagra 1, but the hope is to hold off any attacks as possible, and make attacks prohibitively expensive.

    2. Re:Proprietary algorithms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Still, "breaking the encryption" would mean reverse-engineering the access card to extract a decryption key.

    3. Re:Proprietary algorithms by BigHungryJoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I get it, so it's about how they secure the key, not really about the algorithm used.

    4. Re:Proprietary algorithms by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A satellite broadcaster has, for the most part, a one-way stream. If the encryption was completely open, all you would need to do to pirate the signal is to share a valid key with as many people as you'd like.

      Paying customers need to be able to decrypt the stream, but they are not trustworthy credential holders.

    5. Re:Proprietary algorithms by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It could be that the proprietary algorithm makes things weaker(certainly wouldn't be the first time); but it is also possible that the algorithm wasn't the issue. Any DRM system, no matter the algorithm, consists of giving the device the key(so that actual subscribers can play whatever the material is) while ordering the hardware to keep the key away from them. This is true whether the key is to some crap proprietary algorithm, or the finest in vetted standards. If you attack the hardware cleverly enough, you can get the key from a given piece of hardware. (whether or not a single key is of much use is another question, and does come back to the quality of the design)

    6. Re:Proprietary algorithms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. Key distribution and security is the primary issue in this setup, not the algorithm.

    7. Re:Proprietary algorithms by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Open encryption does not equal shared key.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Proprietary algorithms by BobMcD · · Score: 1, Troll

      How on earth was this a Troll?

    9. Re:Proprietary algorithms by swillden · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the key storage chip can be made just as difficult to reverse-engineer as a custom encryption chip.

      The chip they're trying to reverse engineer *IS* the key storage chip.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:Proprietary algorithms by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Shared key doesn't have anything to do with this. It doesn't matter if the encryption is symmetric, or asymmetric. I have no idea which they use.

      The fact of the matter is that a key which needs to remain secret for the security of the data needs to be provided to the customer in order to decrypt the data. However the customer cannot be trusted to maintain the secrecy of the key. Since the key isn't secret, how the key works is obfuscated.

    11. Re:Proprietary algorithms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If the encryption was completely open, all you would need to do to pirate the signal is to share a valid key with as many people as you'd like."

      There is no need to crack the algorithm/card to do that and it can be done right now. What you describe is called "card sharing", al you need is a genuine smartcard, a subscription on it, a smartcard programmer and a software CAM.
      It can be used for good (it lets me legally use my smartcard to view satellite tv using linux/vdr) or bad (it enables me to view foreign tv channels for which I can't legally obtain a smartcard (some of them using Nagra3)).

    12. Re:Proprietary algorithms by rnelsonee · · Score: 1

      Well, simply cloning the card isn't necessarily enough - cards can be married to receivers, so a composite key (receiver EEPROM + card) can mitigate card-sharing hacks.

    13. Re:Proprietary algorithms by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Even the trolls get to be moderators, sometimes.

    14. Re:Proprietary algorithms by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      When these encryption schemes are broken, it is rarely due to an underlying flaw in the encryption algorithm. It is almost always due to poorly secured local secrets or implementation details in the key management system.

      Remember, the box sitting in your living room can decrypt the satellite signal. All you have to do is reverse engineer it and duplicate its functionality. If physical security is bad enough, you may not even have to understand it, just dump the eeprom contents and run the program on another device or emulator.

    15. Re:Proprietary algorithms by ekhben · · Score: 1

      Yes, there's a reason.

      Usually, encryption is used to secure a message being sent from one party, let's call them the sender, to another party, who we'll call the recipient. The sender fully intends for the recipient to decrypt the message and read it, and ensures the recipient has the tools to do so (eg, a shared secret, or the private key corresponding to the public key used to encrypt the message). This protects the message from the prying eyes of any third party, which we'll call the spy. As long as the spy doesn't have the secret, and the algorithm is secure, they can't read the message.

      The trouble is, in the satellite model (and in all DRM models) the spy and the recipient are the same entity. The sender simultaneously wants the recipient/spy to be able to decrypt the message, so they can watch the shows, but not to be able to decrypt the message, so they can exert control over how and when the recipient/spy watches the shows.

      This means the spy has the secret. It takes some time and effort to discover the secret, since it's locked up inside silicon, but discovered it will be. It doesn't matter whether the algorithm is secure or not, because the secret can be used in conjunction with the unbroken algorithm to decrypt the signal. However, using an open algorithm makes life easier for the spy, since the algorithm is already understood and therefore the secret is a little easier to find.

      All that said, it's most likely that N3 is founded on well known algorithms. There's not really much reason to avoid using a CFB/OFB stream cipher via AES or similar, so long as the shared key for that stream is regularly cycled and transmitted using a multiple decryption key asymmetric cipher. All the work typically would go into the understanding of key management and ensuring the multiple key method used isn't vulnerable to simple attack (ie, an n-1 method only requires two devices to be broken to have a complete set of keys).

    16. Re:Proprietary algorithms by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      You say that, and although in many cases it is true, is not the case here. Nagra 3 has been around a few years and no-one has broken it yet. Witness the fact that someone was offering a quarter million dollars to someone to work on it, and one of the first steps was buying a $10,000 scanning microscope to examine the chip.

    17. Re:Proprietary algorithms by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Obviously nobody knows the exact algorithm used, but it wouldn't be hard to make a fairly airtight system. Here is an example.

      Video is encrypted using a session key. A different session key is used for every channel, and the session key changes fairly often (at least daily) - so getting your hands on a session key is only of limited usefulness.

      Each smartcard has a unique decryption key stored inside - it might be conventional or it might be public key based - doesn't really matter. The smartcard is engineered to be extremely difficult to hack, and the key never leaves the smartcard. Yes, this is security by obscurity, but it is a very high level of obscurity.

      A satellite channel is used to broadcast a data stream. If you have paid for a channel, then that stream will include the session key for that channel encrypted using your smartcard's ID. If you aren't supposed to get a channel they just don't provide your smartcard with the key. Whenever the receiver spots its smartcard ID in the stream it provides the encrypted session key packet to the smartcard, and the smartcard returns the session key. The receiver then caches the keys it has seen until they expire.

      When you try to display a channel the receiver checks its session key cache, and if it doesn't have a key then it tells you that you don't get the channel.

      In order to defeat the system you need to extract the key from the smartcard. That is extremely difficult and expensive to do. Then, if you do get it, you can clone that single card a million times, but as soon as the broadcaster gets a hold of one of your cards they can just revoke it, and then all the clones of that card stop working. They can also trace the key back to the originating card (may or may not be useful to track down the leak).

      The problem is that it takes a lot of work to clone a card, and the cable company only needs to buy one card on the black market to make the work useless. The only way to defeat the system is to find a way to easily defeat a particular model of smartcard so that it is cheap to make new clones (of course, your customers might not appreciate having to replace their cards every other month). Then you can sell the cloning equipment to individual consumers and they can clone single cards so that the cable company can't figure out which ones are clones (since the clones themselves don't go on the market). If a model of card gets too easy to clone then they come out with a new card model.

  4. Wait by FredFredrickson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not a lawyer, so this confuses me. This isn't a civil case? it's a criminal case?

    Why aren't downloaders put in jail then?

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    1. Re:Wait by martas · · Score: 0, Troll

      just you wait, in a few years it'll be upgraded to being a threat to national security, and they'll have to reopen gitmo.

    2. Re:Wait by ari_j · · Score: 2, Informative

      US copyright law provides for both civil remedies, such as a copyright holder suing infringers, and criminal remedies, where the government can fine or imprison an infringer. I don't remember in my lifetime watching a video tape that didn't include the FBI copyright warning about this, so it's definitely not a new thing. Whether right or wrong to do so, it has long been the case that federal law can lock you up for copyright infringement.

    3. Re:Wait by TheCodeFoundry · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Since when is Gitmo closed? Post-election and post-promises, President Obama has decided that the "hair on fire" issues at Gitmo aren't that bad and has decided to leave it open....exactly what President Bush and Senator McCain were both arguing for. Interesting that Obama supporters aren't up in arms over this, since they were the ones who gnashed their teeth that it was a human rights fiasco down there.

    4. Re:Wait by oneTheory · · Score: 1

      They have cable now, so it's fine.

      Probably satellite based, from Dish Network no less, thus keeping this thread on topic!

    5. Re:Wait by tsm_sf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This statute is used to prosecute conspiracy to commit a federal crime

      I know this has been used to put serious criminals away, and is probably a great tool in preventing crime, but prosecuting for conspiracy is still a nasty idea. I think that if I had to describe the boundary between acceptable government behavior and police state, it would be right after this.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    6. Re:Wait by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Becasue downloading isn't a crime, distribution is, and for good reason.

      If the company that you got your DVD player from turned out to have broken some contract law, do you want them coming after you?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Wait by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Well, I disagree. I believe to prosecute for conspiracy the members of said conspiracy much actually put at least some part of their plan into motion. So you can plot all you want, so long as you never actually perform "step 1."

    8. Re:Wait by KylePflug · · Score: 1

      The requirements for a successful "conspiracy" conviction are pretty demanding. Go browse your local law library and read the chapter on "inchoate" crimes. It should give you an idea of (a) the necessity for such a system and (b) how relatively reasonable the rules actually are.

    9. Re:Wait by seekret · · Score: 1

      Downloading something off the Internet is different than reverse engineering a device for the purpose of selling it for profit without the copyright holder's permission. A lawyer should explain the technicalities of the two because I don't know the details enough to try and explain.

    10. Re:Wait by Flea+of+Pain · · Score: 1

      So if they let you get to step 2 (also known as ???) then they can jail you to prevent the profit??!!?? But the meme!!!!

      --
      Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
    11. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, of course, the ability to beat up anyone at any time for any reason is also a great tool in preventing crime.

      Does the reason you draw the line right _after_ instead of before this perchance involve a desire to deny that you live in a police state?

  5. Alrighty then by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So am I supposed to be outraged just because the DMCA was involved?

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    1. Re:Alrighty then by funkatron · · Score: 1

      Sure, why not?

      --
      "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
    2. Re:Alrighty then by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      You are supposed to be outraged because this is the government propping up bad security tactics to help a greedy corporation. Reverse engineering was once legal, so long as you were not violating anyone's patent; security through obscurity is a massive fail when millions of people have access to the system, unless you make it illegal to reverse engineer. So what did our government do? They declared, "you can reverse engineer, but you cannot let anyone know what you discovered, because it might be used to break the system, since the security of the system depends on more than the security of the keys).

      Basically, the DMCA is meant to create a legal override to the classic problem of an secure device in an insecure environment. You cannot put the entire security system into the hands of someone who wants to break the security, and expect them not to break the security; the DMCA is meant to allow you to throw people in jail for exploiting this basic facet of security engineering. It is US tax dollars being spent to prop up a flawed business strategy.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:Alrighty then by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      That's a reasonable argument, what's your solution then?

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    4. Re:Alrighty then by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      The solution is not to have satellite TV -- it is an inherently flawed business model. True, it is great for people in remote areas where cable TV is difficult to subscribe to, but that in and of itself does not justify satellite TV, and it certainly does not justify the government propping up an inherently flawed business plan. People in remote areas should just deal with broadcast TV -- digital broadcasts can fill the gap left by satellite TV, and broadcast TV is much cheaper to implement.

      Of course, that would mean losing a multi-million dollar business (albeit one that was artificially propped up from its inception), and it would mean that people in remote areas would have to go back to accepting that the nature of being in a remote area is decreased access to the forms of entertainment that are available in less remote regions.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  6. cracker? by martas · · Score: 5, Funny

    what a racist article...

    1. Re:cracker? by oldhack · · Score: 1

      No, man, you misunderstood. He meant, you know, hacker cracker, not cracker cracker.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    2. Re:cracker? by martas · · Score: 1

      yeah, i got that, it was just a joke... although i have to admit, for a split second i actually thought it meant cracker cracker.

    3. Re:cracker? by oldhack · · Score: 1

      on the other hand, maybe it meant cracker hacker, not cracker cracker.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    4. Re:cracker? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, you obviously only made that mistake because you are not a wise latina.

    5. Re:cracker? by martas · · Score: 1

      as opposed to brother hacker? or would it be hacker brother? you know what, i'm not smart enough for this shit...

    6. Re:cracker? by martas · · Score: 1

      wait, what?

    7. Re:cracker? by Flea+of+Pain · · Score: 1

      Why be a cracker hacker, or a cracker cracker, when it could have been a soda cracker. Let's see them prosecute that!

      --
      Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
    8. Re:cracker? by oldhack · · Score: 1

      He's talking about latina crackers. Lucky bums.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    9. Re:cracker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh?

    10. Re:cracker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *WHOOSH*

    11. Re:cracker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nothing, they're talking about 3 nigras, too! To top it off, they can't even spell it right!

    12. Re:cracker? by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      Absolutely spot on analysis. The term "cracker" has kept my people down for far too long. I prefer the term European American.

  7. CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by DarrenBaker · · Score: 4, Funny

    I mean, really... That's like awarding a Nobel Prize for *Attempted* Chemistry!

    1. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by martas · · Score: 2, Funny

      nope, it's like awarding a nobel prize for intending to attempt chemistry.

    2. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by DarrenBaker · · Score: 1

      Touché.

    3. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by DarrenBaker · · Score: 1

      Uh... that is... Touché.

    4. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by megamerican · · Score: 1

      It just proves that the government is the ultimate conspiracy theorist.

      Just for fun: Find how many instances of 'cocaine' and 'conspiracy' show up in Bill Clinton's pardon list.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    5. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conspiracy IS a violation of the law.

    6. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I like the copyrighted version better.

    7. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by Gravedigger3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When I was arrested as a juvenile and got charged with 2 moderately serious charges, I had 2 counts of conspiracy, which were also felonies, added for "thinking" about doing it before I actually did it.

      Apparently in our justice system unless you just spontaneously do a crime with no premeditation whatsoever you are gonna get slapped with a charge for thinking about it on top of the charge itself. To this day I don't understand it.

      --
      All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be. -PF
    8. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like awarding money to somebody's grant proposal so they can actually get the Nobel prize winning thing done.

      Seriously, a conspiracy requires an overt act, the summary alone covers several.

    9. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was funnier the first time you messed up, since the copyright symbol was there :P

    10. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by megamerican · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It is there because it is much easier to convict someone on charges of conspiracy to commit a crime than actually committing a crime. It is also much easier to convict people you purposefully set up.

      In a truly free society it wouldn't make any sense but it makes perfect sense in today's world.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    11. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I think the prize for attempted Chemistry is called the Darwin Award~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by KylePflug · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, that's like awarding a sentence for "attempted" murder.

      Or should we always wait until irreversible damage is done before we prosecute criminals? You'll find that every legal jurisdiction in the world has some concept of conspiracy culpability.

    13. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by KylePflug · · Score: 1

      It's a matter of prosecutorial efficiency. They want to get you with the charge, but they know that if they can't, they might at least get you with conspiracy because you tried (or took some concrete step towards trying).

      Rather than losing the first charge and then trying to get you on conspiracy, they just throw the whole book at you and see what the jury is willing to give them.

    14. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      No, that's for attempted physics, as in, "Hey, check this out!", the kind of thing they put those 'Trained Professionals. Don't try this at home!' warnings on.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    15. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      It is also much easier to convict people you purposefully set up.

      No, actually, it's a hell of a lot harder because you have to hide the fact that you set them up. Otherwise they use the "entrapment" defense, and walk free.

      In a truly free society it wouldn't make any sense but it makes perfect sense in today's world.

      Nonsense. First of all, it's not just "in today's world" - charges for conspiring or attempting to commit a crime have been with us for a long, long time. Secondly, it makes perfect sense to stop crimes before they occur. If you plan to kill your wife and I call the cops so they can stop you, should they just let you walk free because you haven't actually killed her yet?

      Sure, we need some protection to stop these types of laws from being abused, but to argue that they shouldn't exist in the first place is just silly.

    16. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by parlancex · · Score: 1

      Or should we always wait until irreversible damage is done before we prosecute criminals? You'll find that every legal jurisdiction in the world has some concept of conspiracy culpability.

      Absolutely not! That's why we should lock up everyone who has ever made an idle threat in anger, anyone who has ever had a perverse sexual fantasy, and anyone who has ever written complaints to their local political representatives. That would be a good start, but we'd only REALLY be safe once we had the technology to lock up people who were considering making an idle threat in anger, having a perverse sexual fantasy, or writing a complaint to their local political representative. Tapping everyone's phone lines and internet connections is a good start but what we really need is a way to read the brain waves of these dangerous and volatile perverted terrorists we call citizens en masse to really expedite the process.

    17. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      Apparently in our justice system unless you just spontaneously do a crime with no premeditation whatsoever you are gonna get slapped with a charge for thinking about it on top of the charge itself. To this day I don't understand it.

      Then I was told wrong all the time growing up to "think before you speak/act."

      I was a ruse all along to make us bigger criminals.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    18. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by DarrenBaker · · Score: 1

      Amen, brother.

    19. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "attempted murder" means that you tried to shoot someone but missed due to bad luck or bad skills.

      "conspiracy to violate the DMCA" means that you're charging people when it's still possible they would have changed their mind before actually violating the DMCA.

    20. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference between conspiracy and attempt is that attempt involves action, while not requiring that "we always wait until irreversable damage is done before we prosecute criminals" as you put it, without creating pure thought crimes.

      I believe the freedom of thought would be worth the safety cost of eliminating "conspiracy" as a separate crime, and it's a hypothesis that could be tested incrementally simply by adopting higher and higher standards of the definition of "conspiracy" as a crime.

    21. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      or we could even drink a toast to it with your sig, a german drinking song "Ein Prosit" (a toast)

      Ein Prosit, Ein Prosit, der Gemutlichkeit
      Ein Prosit, Ein Prosit, der Gemutlichkeit
      Eins, zwei, drei g'suffa!
      Zicke, zacke, zicke, zacke, hoi, hoi, hoi,
      Zicke, zacke, zicke, zacke, hoi, hoi, hoi,
      Prosit!

      --
      a toast a toast, the public mood
      one two three chug!
      bitch bang bitch bang hey hey hey
      bitch bang bitch bang hey hey hey
      toast!

    22. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by dkf · · Score: 1

      When I was arrested as a juvenile and got charged with 2 moderately serious charges, I had 2 counts of conspiracy, which were also felonies, added for "thinking" about doing it before I actually did it.

      You must've done more than just "thinking" about it. For one thing, "conspiracy" requires that there's more than one person involved. If you're just planning things out in your head and not telling anyone about it, then you're not conspiring and you're not committing a crime and that's how it should be. After all, there are other legitimate reasons for planning a crime in your head (e.g., writing a crime novel, working out how to take preventative action, etc).

      As I said, you must've done substantively more than "just thinking about it", and the prosecutor must've either persuaded you to plead guilty or a judge/jury to think you are guilty (don't know how juvenile courts work in your jurisdiction). No idea what though; I'm not a lawyer (and I'm especially not a criminal lawyer).

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    23. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    24. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am pretty sure that the conspiracy counts only apply if you are colluding with others about the crime to be committed. Conspiring by oneself isn't a crime.

      eg.
      I can think about robbing the local bank all I want, but once I ask someone to help me do it, I have conspired to commit the crime.

    25. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why not Al gore got one for attempting to pass off global warming as real science

    26. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by DarrenBaker · · Score: 1

      Why'd you have to bring that up? My dentist just commended my for ceasing the teeth-gnashing over that. Dammit!

    27. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Wow. They got you so far, that to this day, you try to understand it, just to accept their (totally fucked up, sick, perverse, and just plain wrong) reality? :(

      Seems that juvenile was really "working". But no to make you a "good citizen" (whatever that means), but to make you play along with their rules.

      Maybe if you start thinking more often, that you are right. Period. And that your reality is stronger, because you got a better system of values. Then you can protect yourself from the psychological effects of things like that.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    28. Re:CONSPIRACY to violate a law? by Geminii · · Score: 1

      Government punishes you for thinking. Film at 11.

  8. Sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure this sort of behavior makes the DMCA seem a lot more legitimate in the eyes of the public (not to mention lawmakers.)

  9. I'm thinking... by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...that (a) this is a good thing (commercial operation) but that (b) the DMCA wasn't necessary at all. Aren't there theft of service laws already on the books for receiving private/pay TV services without paying for them? And, since this isn't actually a DMCA violation case, but rather a conspiracy to violate the DMCA, wouldn't it be just as much a conspiracy to illegally receive service?

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:I'm thinking... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Aren't there theft of service laws already on the books for receiving private/pay TV services without paying for them?

      I imagine theft of service would only allow them to go after the end users, whereas this allows them to go after the ones developing the product.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:I'm thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conspiracy to commit theft of service could be used to go after people selling or distributing the product.

      But there's a world of difference between someone selling/distributing a product that enables theft of service and someone building a product that enables theft of service, let alone investigating what it would take to build a product that enables theft of service.

      This case may not be a good example of this since it's likely that the company in question was planning to distribute a box that either directly made theft of service possible or was intended to be updated with code from hacker communities that would enable that functionality.

      But the precedent set by cases like this is what worries people on Slashdot. There's a lot of us here that like to tinker with things. There's intellectual stimulation to be gained from the process of trying to crack something like this. And most of the time it never goes beyond that process, either because of failure when you realize the problem is beyond you or because you really had no interest in going beyond solving the problem. This is why people here are afraid of the DMCA since it allows you to become culpable for a crime before you actually commit it. If someone were attempting to crack Nagra3 as a hobby, why should it become criminal until such time as they either actively use to view programming they haven't paid for or distribute it to others so they can do so? There's always going to be a line between what's legal and what isn't...why is the process of developing something on the illegal side of that line when the actual crime has not yet been committed and likely will never be committed?

      We don't presuppose that someone going to a shooting range is practicing to kill someone. It's not even illegal for you to intend to kill someone if you never act on that intent by either attempting the crime or involving others in a possible attempt. So why should we presuppose that someone attempting to break encryption is intending to do something illicit with the successful result of that action?

  10. Oblig, by cvd6262 · · Score: 3, Funny

    <Sideshow_Bob>Conspiring to violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act... Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for conspiracy chemistry?</Sideshow_Bob>

    --

    I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.

  11. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jews

    No, they were crackers, aka racist white people.

  12. Sounds like my friend by oahazmatt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I had a friend who claimed that he had found a way to pirate DirecTV's service. He only stopped doing so when he realized there was still nothing worth watching. Eventually he opened his own business. He named the company after a component that was essential to the process. I remember when I helped out we'd get about one call a week from people trying to ask not in so-many words if we could help them with their "DirecTV stuff". (It was my first call on it that caused me to mention it to my friend, who then told me what the company name actually meant.)

    He pirated the service for about two years. Funny thing was, about a year after he stopped he got hit with a lawsuit. He transferred as much stuff as he could out of his own name and braced for the inevitable. He only got away because he had a friend who knew some influential people. Incidentally, my friend his now his friend's personal no-cost 24/7 concierge tech support.

    Anyway, he'd get these calls from people and he'd try to deny that he knew what to do. If someone pressed the issue (usually it was his friends or old co-workers telling others who could help) he tried to do the "scared straight" thing. Funny thing is, some of them would get mad at him for not helping. So many people are willing to throw away financial security just so they don't have to pay for the NFL Channel.

    --
    Those who believe the Internet is private,
    find their privates are on the Internet.
    1. Re:Sounds like my friend by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      He only got away because he had a friend who knew some influential people.

      So not only does he run a business based on stealing a service, he's also willing to use personal connections to get special treatment from the legal system.

      If we're ever at the same party, please don't introduce us.

    2. Re:Sounds like my friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be pissed if I had to pay for it too, but that's for entirely different reasons.

    3. Re:Sounds like my friend by oahazmatt · · Score: 1

      So not only does he run a business based on stealing a service, he's also willing to use personal connections to get special treatment from the legal system.

      I do not know where you got that first part at all. No, he did not run a business based on stealing a service. He only named the service after one of the components because he liked the name. It was not implied at all that he assisted others. In fact, my story specifically states the opposite.

      As for your second point, if you were in his position, I highly doubt you would be so willing to stick to the ethical high ground and lose everything you have in exchange for a greater sense of self worth.

      --
      Those who believe the Internet is private,
      find their privates are on the Internet.
    4. Re:Sounds like my friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      you will never be an executive...

    5. Re:Sounds like my friend by JStegmaier · · Score: 1

      Reading comprehension not your thing? He named a different business after a component "essential to the process" of pirating DirecTV's services. His business was not pirating DirecTV's services, people just assumed it was.

    6. Re:Sounds like my friend by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I do not know where you got that first part at all. No, he did not run a business based on stealing a service. He only named the service after one of the components because he liked the name. It was not implied at all that he assisted others. In fact, my story specifically states the opposite.

      I was too careless in my skimming of the post. My apologies.

      As for your second point, if you were in his position, I highly doubt you would be so willing to stick to the ethical high ground and lose everything you have in exchange for a greater sense of self worth.

      You seem to have a lot to learn about exercising character, and about civic virtue. Come back when you've grown up a little; and I don't just mean when you're older.

    7. Re:Sounds like my friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In the old days it was easy to get free DirectTV with a simple little card reader/writer. A few years of completely free service, PPV, etc, wasn't so bad. Of course they changed encryption techniques, new smart cards and the game got harder. Now what few shows I care to watch are either streamed or on usenet so not that big of a loss.

    8. Re:Sounds like my friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may already have voted for him...

    9. Re:Sounds like my friend by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Reading comprehension not your thing? He named a different business after a component "essential to the process" of pirating DirecTV's services. His business was not pirating DirecTV's services, people just assumed it was.

      Right. Inexcusable brain-fart on my part. Sorry for the confusion.

    10. Re:Sounds like my friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to have a lot to learn about exercising character, and about civic virtue. Come back when you've grown up a little; and I don't just mean when you're older.

      That has got to be one of the most smug, useless replies I've ever read. You're lying to yourself if you think that 'civic virtue' is going to factor prominently in your reaction to a lawsuit against you. Or, if that's not the case, then you're an idiot for possessing so little self-interest as to completely abandon your life to whoever decides they want to ruin it. Your post oozes both arrogance and an astounding capacity for self-delusion. Come back when you've experienced the real world.

    11. Re:Sounds like my friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      You seem to have a lot to learn about exercising character, and about civic virtue. Come back when you've grown up a little; and I don't just mean when you're older.

      I agree with the other anonymous coward. Come back when you learn that corporations and lawsuits aren't about right and wrong, but about $$, pure and simple.

      If you really think Mega-Corp suing you is about "character" and "civic virtue", you're the one that needs to grow up. This is so one of the most naive statements I've seen this year. Even if you chose to believe this, the OP gave you incredibly sparse details. Making a judgment on the thinnest of slivers of information is more than stupid.

    12. Re:Sounds like my friend by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I think what he meant is not that the corporations are justified, but that its healthier to maintain and adhere to a personal sense of right and wrong, regardless of rewards or lack thereof.

      Correct. Thanks for saying it more politely than I did.

  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. Good by whisper_jeff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm (very) rarely a fan of the DMCA but, in my opinion, this is a good example of why it was set up - to stop commercial abuse of IP. These guys were knowingly circumventing copyright protection methods in an effort to make a profit. These exact situations are what needs to be stopped, not the teenager posting a mashup on youtube...

    1. Re:Good by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would argue that making personal receivers shouldn't be a crime, nor should breaking encryption. Making it a crime to prop up a bad business model isn't a good reason.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Good by Bigby · · Score: 1

      How can you treat the two differently? Whether it is a company or a person, both entities are looking to violate or actually violating something. If you can't treat individuals special or you introduce a loophole for companies to farm out their violations to individuals...actually quite similar to this instance.

      Also, what does cracking the encryption have to do with copyright? Cracking it doesn't mean you watched/streamed any channels. Also, to what TV channels does Dish actually own a copyright? How can they enforce someone else's copyright?

    3. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just surprised he couldn't kwak it himself.

    4. Re:Good by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      How can they enforce someone else's copyright?

      Ask the RIAA or MPAA, I am sure they have a legal way to enforce copyrights that don't even belong to their members.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    5. Re:Good by Bigby · · Score: 1

      The member organizations of the RIAA and MPAA literally owns or owns the rights to the copyright for the material.

      Dish "leases" the right to distribute channels and never has and never will own the content (except their own channels, like Comcast Sports).

  15. Did not cross Menominee River with a drink can by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    At least they didn't walk across the Menominee River Bridge with an empty soft drink can and try to get 10 cents from the State of Michigan for it at Angeli's. According to the sign, that can get you 5 at the Big House in Pontiac.

    1. Re:Did not cross Menominee River with a drink can by 7213 · · Score: 1

      "that can get you 5 at the Big House in Pontiac." ?!?... You mean Jackson maybe? The only 'big house' in Pontiac is the city & Oakland county jails... (or am I missing something here?).... p.s. steer clear of the UPers... they bight.

  16. It was the Villiage People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's fun to violate the DMCA
    It's fun to violate the DMCA

  17. I have mixed feelings about this. by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I consider the DMCA to be one of the most unjust and cruel laws the USA has. I sympathize with the people doing this to the following limited extent: If you are a subscriber to a service, you should be able to use any compatible QAM enabled equipment you wish.

    This is a little different because people who violate the DMCA like this usually are doing so to secure their fair use rights. These people just wanted to outright steal the service. So thats bad. However, two things.

    Why are police involved in this sort of thing? Well, really, although in theory, violating the DMCA is a civil action, but around 2003, the government decided that all copyright infringement was criminal. Because the Intellectual property 'scam' is all that the US has against the Chinese, the US has decided to criminalize copyright infringement to create laws to fight the Chinese with.

    The DMCA needs to be repealed, but I don't see that happening unless there are large demonstrations. People are generally too stupid to care. (I really would like to see anti-DMCA slogans with people marching by the millions.)

    1. Re:I have mixed feelings about this. by jpmorgan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Insightful? Sorry, copyright infringement was made criminal more than 30 years ago. In the 70s, at least. Which if you check your history, was when China was undergoing the Cultural Revolution, persecuting the intellectuals and idolizing the peasant lifestyle.

      So yeah, I don't think it was China that inspired criminalizing copyright infringement.

      I don't know why it posted the previous comment anonymously. Here it is again, under my name...

    2. Re:I have mixed feelings about this. by shermo · · Score: 1

      Ah ha! Now we know who anonymous coward is.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
  18. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Although it was eliminated by dubious judicial means shortly after becoming law, the DMCA allows for reverse-engineering for the purposes of interoperability. The entire market for these devices is based on non-interoperability. Because if the CAM became truly portable and emulated fully in software, it's a tiny step to a digital video recorder that is completely under user control receiving HDTV. Which is actually the main selling point here. They took our VCRs away, and now we're attacking people who want to get them back the only way possible; At this point it doesn't matter whether his intent was to sell descrambler boxes or not, or anyone's, because that's the only way you're getting that functionality. An irony, really, that you could be paying the same fees as someone with an "approved" box, accessing the same content, and yet wind up in jail because your equipment wasn't up to the provider's specifications... Namely, that you wanted to "time shift" the content.

    Damn criminals, flaunting their freedoms in front of us... They get what they deserve, eh?

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 1

      You can still get "Tunerless" VCRs and DVD Burners. They take Component and Composite inputs and will record whatever they see onto DVD. But they really aren't able to control the box any.

    2. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by girlintraining · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can still get "Tunerless" VCRs and DVD Burners. They take Component and Composite inputs and will record whatever they see onto DVD. But they really aren't able to control the box any.

      Component and composite outputs on the back of every descrambler out there will spit it out in standard definition. You can't record HD signals out of them -- many won't even downgrade the signal, it'll just be dead. Getting high definition on any of those requires an HDMI hookup, which is encrypted, and therefore "tunerless" VCRs and DVD burners can't be used. Even getting signals OTA (not scrambled) doesn't do you much good because the tuners are usually integrated into the television. I haven't tuners being sold separately with HD outputs that can be sent to any COTS recording equipment. This is intentional, purposeful, and frankly conspiratorial on the part of the manufacturers.

      Piracy is the only way the market for HD video recordings will survive.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      You can still get "Tunerless" VCRs and DVD Burners. They take Component and Composite inputs and will record whatever they see onto DVD. But they really aren't able to control the box any.

      And they will obey macrovision - which all the satellite/set-top boxes output on their component/s-video/composite outputs. Thus requiring one to buy a macrovision stripper aka a copy-control circumvention device - pretty much exactly the same type of thing that these guys were hiring someone else to build for them.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by ezelkow1 · · Score: 1

      look at just about any high def satellite receiver, they all have component outputs that you can record to your burner with. You can even get one of those boxes that has ota input on it and record both sat and ota over the component output. Its only cable that really limits you with their crappy boxes

    5. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is not for interoperability. The goal of this operation was to create smart cards that allowed people to view channels they did not pay for and to allow people who do not have an account to view the channels. The goal was to facilitate theft of service, not interoperability.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    6. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by ezelkow1 · · Score: 1

      No they dont, they only do it if it is required by their content providers which none of them do at this point. Macrovision support is generally required to be available at the disposal of a content provider but none use it. The only sort of protection currently mandated by any provider is by HBO and Cinemax who both mandate CGMSA. CGMSA is not widely accepted by alot of recorders, there are 2 standards and luckily the content providers happened to be stupid and chose the one that most recording devices in the USA do not abide by, there are some exceptions though and some do listen to both so you should check before purchasing. Macrovision only works on 480i/p signals anyway, so on a component output in HD it doesnt matter. Cgmsa just runs over a specific vbi line in the signal, so that can be easily ignored if need be.

    7. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      That's not true in all cases - I get high def out of my components just fine, and for one of my TVs, it has less artifacts than the HDMI does (likely because of a bad connector on the TV).

      It really depends on how locked down your boxes are. The ones our cable company provides are Scientific Atlanta(ic?). They really are atrocious in all other ways, but at least they spit out high def on component!

    8. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Component and composite outputs on the back of every descrambler out there will spit it out in standard definition. You can't record HD signals out of them -- many won't even downgrade the signal, it'll just be dead. Getting high definition on any of those requires an HDMI hookup, which is encrypted, and therefore "tunerless" VCRs and DVD burners can't be used. Even getting signals OTA (not scrambled) doesn't do you much good because the tuners are usually integrated into the television. I haven't tuners being sold separately with HD outputs that can be sent to any COTS recording equipment. This is intentional, purposeful, and frankly conspiratorial on the part of the manufacturers.

      Piracy is the only way the market for HD video recordings will survive.

      Funny thing is, you can record high-def quite easily, you just need to purchase two legal products.

      First, you buy a Hauppage HD-PVR, about the only consumer-level high-def recording box that handles up to 1080i via component inputs. Hey look, Myth supports it!

      Now, for pesky HDMI... you buy a HD Fury 2, which takes HDMI (including HDCP!) and converts it to either RGB or Component outputs, and while it handles 1080p, the HD-PVR only has 1080i.

      Now you have a high-def PVR solution, MythTV compatible.

      Alternate methods is if your cablebox supports Firewire, and can output the high-def content over it (I've seen 'em where the SD content is output over Firewire, but the HD content isn't), but most satellite boxes don't have this, unfortunately.

    9. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      May not work for satellite, but it works fine for cable. Component video outputs HD.

    10. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      and how do you KNOW this ? telepathy ? did the guy STATE HIS REASONS ??
      or are you just pulling "facts" out of your ass ?

    11. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And if I shot at you and missed your face by a couple inches, could I claim I was aiming at a bird behind you and get away with it?

    12. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      > The goal was to facilitate theft of service, not interoperability.

      Sad thing is, "theft of service" is required to make a device that interoperates with their network.

      Mind you, I'm not trying to say that the law allows this, because I'm pretty sure it doesn't. Just that breaking technical protection measures is usually necessary to actually interoperate with DRM-encumbered services.

    13. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The HD Fury 2 is probably illegal; just no one has gotten around to it yet.

      If you (I mean you, not just the MPAA) hold the copyright on any video (such as what you recorded with your camcorder this morning) and have not authorized every possible user of a HD Fury 2 to circumvent the technological measure that limits access to your copyrighted work, then the HD Fury 2 manufacturer has violated DMCA. The law is clearly on your side, and now it's just a question of whether or not you can afford to sic the lawyers on them.

      The good (bad? perverted?) news is that every HDCP television is also a DMCA violation, the same way. If you didn't authorize people to watch your home movie, Sony needs to recall every HDCP-compatible TV they ever sold.

      Someone should bring that case to court.

    14. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Macrovision only works on 480i/p signals

      Show me a vcr that can accept anything more than that on its component inputs - not even the d-vhs decks will do that.

      No they dont, they only do it if it is required by their content providers which none of them do at this point.

      Lots of anecdotal evidence floating around the net says otherwise. Maybe its not 100% deployed but lots of people have been bit in the ass by it so far.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    15. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      The goal was to facilitate theft of service, not interoperability.

      Yes, but that's not what they were charged with, Mr. Ends Justify Means. According to TFA, they were arrested for conspiracy to violate DMCA, not conspiracy to steal service. DMCA prohibits circumventing technological measures the limit access regardless of the purpose. That is why 2600 lost in MPAA-vs-2600. Kaplan was very clear and explicit that he didn't give a flying fuck why someone would descramble a DVD. And he blew off the interoperability defense; he didn't say it didn't apply to the situation; it just wasn't a defense.

      Stealing service is irrelevant. Descrambling is what counts, whether you're stealing service or just trying to be compatible.

      It's an outrageous law. So it caught some bad guys. Big Fucking Deal. There are a lot more good guys than bad guys, and I commit "conspiracy to violate DMCA" every time I say to my girlfriend, "Let's watch a DVD."

      The MPAA needs to buy a repeal of this law pretty damn quick. If I break one law by buying a DVD and playing it (violate DMCA but not copyright), but break a different law (infringe copyright, but not DMCA) by playing a pirated unencrypted download, then it just comes down to which punishment is a worse risk. Right now, MPAA is getting their money. But if FBI is arresting people and charging them with something (DMCA violation, rather than theft of service) that I also routinely do, then I might as well spend less money (pirate instead of buy) and risk less FBI confrontation (violate copyright instead of violating DMCA).

      Not that this really changes things. We're going HD soon, and I can't play a purchased Bluray even if I'm willing to violate DMCA. So once we buy that HD TV, I don't have to worry about conspiracy to violate DMCA anymore. My conspiracy will be to do that other thing.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    16. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Allegedly

    17. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that the DMCA doesn't distinguish between the two.

    18. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      First, you buy a Hauppage HD-PVR, about the only consumer-level high-def recording box that handles up to 1080i via component inputs. Hey look, Myth supports it!

      It costs $249 and only does component input (analog).

      Now, for pesky HDMI... you buy a HD Fury 2, which takes HDMI (including HDCP!) and converts it to either RGB or Component outputs

      And here again, analog outputs. And it'll set you back $300.

      Now you have a high-def PVR solution, MythTV compatible.

      PVR not included in the $549 cost of getting the signal into something useful. Aww crap, did I forget S&H and taxes? Umm... add a few more bucks.

      Alternate methods is if your cablebox supports Firewire, and can output the high-def content over it (I've seen 'em where the SD content is output over Firewire, but the HD content isn't), but most satellite boxes don't have this, unfortunately.

      Alternatively, you could plug a hacked PC card into the unit, and then have it stream everything out, without weird encryption and lock-downed hardware, onto a firewire cable attached to an old laptop with a fat external drive. Which would be cheaper, and have fewer components, and the quality would be 1:1 exact.

      Never mind that none of this was necessary in 1985 when it was "Connect VCR to cable. Go."

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    19. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by majid_aldo · · Score: 1

      why should i pay extra and complicate things and convert digital signal->(HDfury/HDpvr)->analogue->(computer)->digital?! ..when could just record directly off the air or cable?!

      --
      --- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme, ..etc.
    20. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by dkf · · Score: 1

      and how do you KNOW this ? telepathy ? did the guy STATE HIS REASONS ??
      or are you just pulling "facts" out of your ass ?

      This is one of the main reasons for having courts: to determine the intentions of the accused.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    21. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by Threni · · Score: 1

      In Switzerland, you can kill yourself legally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignitas_%28euthanasia_group%29). It's not required to commit murder to help someone end their life. Sometimes it really is black and white.

    22. Re:Whiskey Tango Foxtrot... by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      They are still criminalizing research. I agree with you, but I don't agree with the law. Stealing is the crime.

  19. Re:yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cracker is a racist term for white people, nigger.

  20. What FBI Warning? by acklenx · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't remember in my lifetime watching a video tape that didn't include the FBI copyright warning about this

    Clearly you got your video tapes out of the trunk of a car on a different corner than my parents did.

    --
    Never let a mediocre career stand in the way of a good time
    1. Re:What FBI Warning? by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Yeah, "Grumpo" said he added the FBI warnings to his wares to make the bootlegged tapes seem more authentic. I think he may have used the wrong crayon to write the warning, though.

  21. oh thank God... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

    At first I read Viagra card instead of Nagra card.

    I don't even want to consider a future where our DVRs come with ED pills...but hey, maybe you fo, and who am I to judge? ;-P

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
    1. Re:oh thank God... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

      maybe you fo,

      Good God! That's Mr T's music!

      obviously I meant "maybe you do"..

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
  22. Group keying and revocation... by nweaver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These days, the model is very much based on some really funky group keying and key revocation, which allows the sattelite provider to revoke individual keys because each receiver has a unique key rather than a group sharing a common key.

    Among other things, this makes piracy MUCH harder, because the sattelite providers can buy pirated receivers, take them to the lab, find out the key used, and revoke it, disabling that entire batch of pirated receivers without affecting normal customers.

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:Group keying and revocation... by jamstar7 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Among other things, this makes piracy MUCH harder, because the sattelite providers can buy pirated receivers, take them to the lab, find out the key used, and revoke it, disabling that entire batch of pirated receivers without affecting normal customers.

      Ah, but isn't said reverse engineering a violation of the DMCA itself? The pirate recievers are electronic gadgets, built by proprietary companies. If the law doesn't cut both ways, it's a bad law and needs to go.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    2. Re:Group keying and revocation... by FencingLion · · Score: 1

      So the hackers will need to out-DRM the DRMers.

      --
      Just keep swimming.
    3. Re:Group keying and revocation... by corychristison · · Score: 1

      These days, the model is very much based on some really funky group keying and key revocation, which allows the sattelite provider to revoke individual keys because each receiver has a unique key rather than a group sharing a common key.

      Among other things, this makes piracy MUCH harder, because the sattelite providers can buy pirated receivers, take them to the lab, find out the key used, and revoke it, disabling that entire batch of pirated receivers without affecting normal customers.

      I'm no expert in this subject. But:

      If every box has a unique key and the process of pirating a box is essentially cloning the box and it's specific unique key... The satellite company should be smart enough to log what each key is doing.
      If one key is booting up 1,000/day... you think they'd be able to detect that in some kind of log file (or a hash table/high performance monster of a database) of what every box in North America is doing.
      If they do this, they can flag and restrict that key.

      No reverse engineering and a lot of time saved.

      Again, I'm no expert in this area.

    4. Re:Group keying and revocation... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      So how does a one-way satellite connection report back that it's booting up?

    5. Re:Group keying and revocation... by nxtw · · Score: 1

      Direct broadcast satellite television services are not two-way. In the USA, receivers with legitimate subscriptions only communicate with the provider via telephone or the Internet. You don't even need to have the receiver connected to a phone line to use the service, at least for DirecTV.

    6. Re:Group keying and revocation... by Filgy · · Score: 1

      Among other things, this makes piracy MUCH harder, because the sattelite providers can buy pirated receivers, take them to the lab, find out the key used, and revoke it, disabling that entire batch of pirated receivers without affecting normal customers.

      Actually, it's still pretty easy from what I've seen. As mentioned in another comment, when you buy the 3rd party receiver it cannot decrypt any providers signal that is scrambled out of the box. The receiver does, however, have a SD card slot on it where you can load new software onto it. The updates have the key required to decrypt the signal.

      Then DISH network would revoke the key every month or so (when using the cracked encryption) that the receiver now used. A new update would then be available soon after to again decrypt the signal.

      And no, I have never pirated satellite. A friend of mines relative decided to do it but did not have the cable ran from their old DISH satellite to their living room anymore. Of course when they said they'd pay me to run them a new one I didn't ask too many questions. :)

      --

      -- filgy
    7. Re:Group keying and revocation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is satellite, not ethernet. It is one way only. They have no way of knowing if only a single box is doing the decrypting, or many many boxes.

      The easiest way to "steal" dish or directtv, which will always work, is this:

      1. Get dish network
      2. Call them up and order 10 boxes and cards. Tell them you have a huge house or tons of tvs, or whatever.
      3. Give these 10 boxes out to friends and family, and charge each of them some small monthly fee, that when totalled pays for the service. They all get dish for $20 a month, you get it for free.

      Easy. You just gotta trust the folks you give the boxes out to.

    8. Re:Group keying and revocation... by SparkleMotion88 · · Score: 1

      Ah, but isn't said reverse engineering a violation of the DMCA itself?

      I doubt it. The DMCA doesn't make "reverse engineering" illegal. It more narrowly spells out what is illegal:

      • Circumventing a technical protection measure that controls access to content.
      • Distributing software that allows users to circumvent a technical protection measure that controls access to or distribution of content

      Note I'm paraphrasing the above from memory -- so it's probably not 100% accurate, but hopefully it conveys the level of detail in the DMCA.

      Clearly the law doesn't cut both ways -- it cuts in favor of content producers/distributors. All in all, I agree that the law (or this part of it at least) needs to go.

    9. Re:Group keying and revocation... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Best of all, get the person who pays for the service to live in some place in the middle of nowhere - then you can avoid sports blackouts.

      However, for the purpose of local channels they still need to be in the general vicinity - the satellites do use directional broadcasts and the local stations for LA aren't going to work in NYC.

  23. Excuse my rude question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..but what the fuck does "co-conspirators" mean? I'm generally not a grammar sensitive person, but this is a bit redundant, isn't it?

    1. Re:Excuse my rude question.. by taucross · · Score: 1

      A co-conspirator is almost as redundant as a co-ward.

      --
      "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
  24. Re:offered a cracker more than $250,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent +i, Funny-Offtopic-Troll.

  25. Crime depends on who you are... by gillbates · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm thinking that if a security researcher had done the same thing, he would not be in jail. Nor would a large corporation.

    But a set top box importer does it, and suddenly it's a federal crime.

    The most troublesome part about this is that engineers routinely reverse engineer the work of others for the sake of creating compatible products - an exemption the DMCA explicitly allows. Perhaps the company wanted to offer a cheaper STB to Dish, and undercut the competition. Or perhaps they planned to sell directly to the black market, engaging in fraud. The act of reverse engineering a component tells us nothing about the company's intentions.

    I mention this because this very thing was done to Lexmark printers a few years ago. Instead of getting arrested, the manufacturer of competing cartridges was sued under the DMCA; the case went all the way to the SCOTUS, and Lexmark lost. It would appear this would set precedent regarding the legality of reverse engineering for the sake of creating interoperable products, but strangely, the FBI seems not to follow precedent. I find it odd that an activity which was legal and sanctioned by the DMCA - and even supported by the Supreme Court, is now interpreted as being illegal according to the very same law.

    If anything, this shows the illegality of an action depends more upon who you are than what you do. Best not to offend our corporate overlords, lest they have the FBI arrest you.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:Crime depends on who you are... by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      A) A large corporation would be charged with the same thing.
      B) The goal of a security researcher is research. The goal of the people involved in this scheme was to clone desktop boxes and security access cards for profit.

      C) The Lexmark case has almost nothing in common with this case. The Lexmark case was about people reverse engineering to compete with an end product. This case is about people reverse engineering to allow access to someone else's end product and information, possibly without paying for the end-product and information.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:Crime depends on who you are... by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      If a security researcher owned a satellite receiver box company then probably you're right. There's a good chance he was trying to support his business illegally based on the evidence in the article. In this case, he's not just making an interoperable product. He's trying to piggyback for free on Dish Network's hard work. DN put a satellite into space, and maintain it, and gather programming, and beam up to the satellite. It would not be considered simple interoperability if this guy sold a box that could decode the signal.

      I'm sure you could argue that point if you wanted - that if they didn't want people to access it they should find a medium that can't be intercepted, but that's what the encryption is for - to block interception.

    3. Re:Crime depends on who you are... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm thinking that if a security researcher had done the same thing, he would not be in jail. Nor would a large corporation.

      But a set top box importer does it, and suddenly it's a federal crime.

      Welcome to the police state. This definition, right here, is perfect example of MOST of the laws currently on the books.

      We have so many laws on the books, that it is probably virtually impossible to go through a day without violating some law, some where. I call it the IBMing of the Legal System.

      This refers to the old story about how IBM was once sued by a competitor for patent violation, and IBM responded with a whole bunch of counter lawsuits for their own patent violations.

      Remember Scooter Libby? Got thown in jail for Vallery Plame? Except he didn't. He got thrown in jail for "lying". Remember William Clinton? He lied too and didn't.

      It all depends on who your friends are, and whether or not they throw you under the bus.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Crime depends on who you are... by mea37 · · Score: 1

      "Perhaps the company wanted to offer a cheaper STB to Dish, and undercut the competition."

      I'm curious what all of these posters saying "we don't know what his intent was" think the legitimate business model might have been.

      So I've made and am going to sell a new STB. Someone's going to buy it. If I'm not helping that person break the law, then he or she is apparently a subscriber to Dish service.

      Of course, if they're a subscriber to Dish service, they have exactly as many STB's already in their posession as their subscription allows them to use. Dish supplies the hardware as part of the contracted arrangement. From the end-user perspective, a 3rd party can't compete on price (because the price of the Dish-supplied STB is already built in to the subscription).

      It soudns like you think they would sell through Dish. Well, if they're cooperating with Dish then they don't really need to break the encryption.

      The only thing that seems to leave is, maybe they want to compete with the standard STB on features. Well, I'll just say that if I were on the jury it would take some substantial evidence to move that off the "fantasy scenrio that doesn't rise to the level of reasonable doubt" list.

    5. Re:Crime depends on who you are... by gillbates · · Score: 1

      Doesn't it occur to you that Dish has their DVRs manufactured by someone else, and that these guys might have wanted to be that someone?

      Look - Dish encryption has been broken repeatedly throughout the last decade. Which means that someone who can explain the flaws and failures of the last designs, and offer something provably more secure would have an offering very compelling to Dish. Doing so requires demonstrating the ease with which their existing system can be broken.

      --
      The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    6. Re:Crime depends on who you are... by Tiberius_Fel · · Score: 1

      Remember Scooter Libby? Got thown in jail for Vallery Plame? Except he didn't. He got thrown in jail for "lying".

      Erm, you're half right. He didn't get thrown in jail at all. George W. Bush commuted his sentence. Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/02/libby.sentence/index.html

      --
      Join the Empire! http://www.empirereborn.net/
    7. Re:Crime depends on who you are... by mea37 · · Score: 1

      "Doesn't it occur to you that Dish has their DVRs manufactured by someone else, and that these guys might have wanted to be that someone?"

      Yes, it did occur to me. I specifically addressed that possibility in the post to which you replied. Since you chose to respond without reading, I suppose you think I should address it again?

      "someone who can explain the flaws and failures of the last designs, and offer something provably more secure would have an offering very compelling to Dish. Doing so requires demonstrating the ease with which their existing system can be broken."

      Hogwash.

      1) Hiring experts and buying them expensive equipment doesn't demonstrate "ease".

      2) What this guy was trying to do (key extraction) is a known vulnerability. If he had a way to "fix" it, he would only have needed to say so to become quite wealthy. There would be no "need to demonstrate" anything but the efficacy of his fix.

      3) If you believe there's even a chance this guy was about to demonstrate a way to prevent someone with money to throw at the problem from performing a key extraction attack, I have a bridge to sell you.

  26. Why don't the North Koreans and Iranians do this? by swb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know they are generally poor countries and the military advantage of nukes must seem appealing, but they could create WAY, WAY more nuisance for Americans if they would devote those resources to basically Pirate Bay-ing everything copy protected. It'd be hilarious if within hours of a new you-can't-copy-it scheme came out if pirated versions were available along with free tools and FAQs for making your own copies or subversion devices.

    IIRC, this idea was also (better?) expressed in some science fiction novel I can't remember -- although it was China that basically ruined IP protections.

  27. I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The sole purpose of the DMCA Act and its friends was to protect certain particular corporate interests. While you may say that copyright infringers "deserve what they get", the fact is that there are perfeclty legal uses for a device that unscrambles encrypted signals... like time-shifting, for example. Why should you be forced to buy or lease a "DirecTV-approved" DVR, for example, when they would be cheaper on a competitive market?

    When you have competitive markets, you see lower costs, and improved technology. Sure, it leads to companies having their encryption broken, and being forced to re-invent the wheel... which they should be doing anyway. In the long run, it drives improvements in the market and technology.

    The DMCA is detrimental to the economy. The DMCA works to stifle innovation, in AMERICAN markets and for AMERICAN products.

    Protectionist policies, like this one, are seldom a good idea. The free market always did better.

    I am not blaming enforcement for enforcing the law, but it's a bad law. A very bad law.

    1. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Satellite TV makes the market more competitive, and, at least in some cases e.g. extremely rural areas, it is an improvement in both market and technology.

      Direct TV is also cheaper than most cable services.

      This is actually an area where IP law has done better than the so-called free market, where cable companies exist as a natural monopoly.

    2. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by seekret · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are missing my point. I am against them trying to make a profit off of someone else's services. If they were just cracking the encryption for fair use acts (what most of us here consider fair use I mean) then I wouldn't care. But these guys were doing this in order to sell it to people who just didn't want to pay for the television service. If they didn't want to pay for the television service they should just get an internet connection and use the LEGALLY available free streaming sites such as Hulu or Joost etc... I am in full agreement that the DMCA is a violation of individual rights, but I think these guys need to be punished for whatever legal term is used to describe the selling of someone else's services without their permission.

    3. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Protectionist policies, like this one, are seldom a good idea. The free market always did better.

      Ummm... 1929? Market failure in farmland ownership/food growth, massive bank failures due to poor loans?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I do not agree.

      That is to say, of course I agree that satellite makes good competition for cable, especially in the rural areas. What I don't agree on is whether the DMCA is or was necessary to keep the satellite companies around.

      Back in the day, not so long ago, when it was not very difficult to bypass the scrambling of a satellite signal, only a small fraction of customers were actually doing so. There were even articles in mainstream electronics magazines on how to unscramble satellite... yet the number of people doing it remained at a tiny percentage. Yet even that small percentage made the satellite companies furious.

      Yet they continued to grow and be very profitable. Unscrambling did not stop them or even slow them down. Dishes and receivers continued to get cheaper. And satellite programming slowly but steadily continued to get more expensive (just like cable).

      I am not convinced that unscramblers harmed the satellite companies in any significant way. Now, they did have to do research... I remember for example when the Videocypher systems were replaced with Videocypher IIs. The satellite companies were trying to beat those darned hackers. And for the most part they kept ahead of the game. The number of people cracking the system were kept small, the satellite companies still continued to profit and grow, and satellite programs still slowly but steadily continued to get more expensive...

      Personally, I believe that the reverse-engineers kept the industry on its toes, and HELPED, rather than hindered, its progress.

      What has the DMCA done for the consumer? It is just as illegal to unscramble a cable signal as it is to unscramble a satellite signal. Now you are forced to buy equipment that is all "compatible" with a particular version of the satellite company's hardware (your DVR, for instance). You have to pay their prices for it. You do NOT have a choice. Today you can't for example, just get one kind of DVR and use it with either cable or satellite... you need a different one for each. You can't use one kind of unscrambler (adapter box) with either cable or satellite... you should be able to use a satellite receiver, and a separate decoder for both. But no. Duplication of hardware, and replication of similar technologies, all the way around.

      How is this efficient? How has that kept prices down? Hint: it hasn't.

      So now we have had some perfectly legal and very educational hobbies (building descrambler projects for fun) turned into crimes... and our prices are NOT lower, our products are NOT cheaper, our products do NOT interoperate...

      The free market did it better.

    5. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Hulu doesn't work here, and Joost has squat for content.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    6. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Why should you be forced to buy or lease a "DirecTV-approved" DVR, for example, when they would be cheaper on a competitive market?

      You aren't forced to. You can record the output of the existing DirecTV box (you are now probably going to make the same argument for that -- and I would agree -- the FCC CableCard mandate SHOULD cover satellites, they had an exemption that has never been removed) with a Tivo or other external DVR. Yes, it's more of a pain than a DVR that includes the decryption (so it has multiple tuners for example).. But people have been using Tivos with cable boxes(*) and satellite boxes for a decade.

      (*) Series 3 & TivoHD can take CableCards, so they act as the cable box in that case for encrypted channels.

    7. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by farmerj · · Score: 1

      A lot of European satellite providers use conditional access modules (CAM) along with smart cards to decode encrypted satellite television.

      All the European satellite providers use DVB as the transmission system. DVB specifies a Common Interface. The CAM module sits in the CI and contains a card reader. With the correct smart card the CAM decodes the encrypted signal and sends it back to the receiver to be displayed.

      Usually a particular type of CAM is needed for each encryption system. So if a CAM module is available, you place it in the CI slot of any receiver with supports the CI standard (EN 50221-1997), insert your smart card and watch TV. In this way you can pick the receiver that you wish (as long as it supports the CI slot), get your CAM and smart card and bob's your uncle.

      There are some satellite providers that do not sell separate CAM modules. In this case the CAM is built directly into the receiver and you have to use the providers hardware. Sky in Ireland and the UK are an example of this, though it is possible to legally view their services using the third party Dragon CAM.

      --
      Independence? That's middle-class blasphemy. We are all dependent on one another, every soul of us on earth. G.B Shaw
    8. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Now you are forced to buy equipment that is all "compatible" with a particular version of the satellite company's hardware (your DVR, for instance). You have to pay their prices for it. You do NOT have a choice.

      Actually, there is a choice: don't sign up for satellite or cable TV. I'm perfectly happy with my rabbit-ears antenna for the few times I bother to watch TV. The rest of the time, there's Netflix, and non-TV-related activities.

    9. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 4, Informative

      The free market had nothing to do with 1929. You're ignoring the massive government intervention in multiple areas of the market which built and extended an unsustainable boom period leading (inevitably) to the crash, not to mention the continuation of those same policies after the crash, on a grander scale, which ultimately made the correction as long and difficult as it was.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    10. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      During the heyday of stealing DirectTV service DTV estimated there were close to 100,000 people doing so. That's not a trivial number, particularly when at the time they had around 2 million subscribers, which totals out to 5% of the subscriber base which was stealing the signal. And those numbers don't even include the grey market in Canada where people were stealing the service because they couldn't legally subscribe to it. Now I don't know that I can say they didn't exaggerate the number, but I doubt you can prove they did either. It's not fair use to access satellite signals and regardless of what you might believe to be fair you don't own the radio spectrum on your property, the government does and the FCC has been given control over who uses it by your elected representatives. This is no different than you not owning the mineral rights on your property.

      It's all pretty irrelevant anyway as the DMCA is simply one aspect of this. It's always been illegal to access satellite signals without permission, encryption or not, and has been illegal since BUD's (Big Ugly Dishs) when satellite broadcast took off in the early 80's and encryption didn't even exist outside the millitary. In the early days of satellite broadcast the FCC used to drive around looking for BUD's and then would check with the satellite companies to see if you had a subscription and if you didn't you ended up getting sent a $500 fine and told that if you didn't subscribe to service or dismantle your BUD they would be back to seize all your equipment and hit you with a fine that was 10 times larger.

      For all your high and mighty talk about the benefits society has had from the free and open sharing of information what is happening in this case is nothing more than some criminal trying to crack a lock so some criminal enterprise can make money selling someone else's product. It's unethical, it's wrong and fortunately it's illegal. I wouldn't be surprised if this business in question is actually connected to the mafia, as selling other peoples products has been a hallmark of their business strategies since they crawled out of the criminal underground.

    11. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm....you mean; overspeculation, overproduction, tariff wars, unequal distribution of income, economic disorder.

      The DMCA doesn't stop any of these from reoccurring.

      He doesn't mean a free market as in an unregulated/pure laissez-faire market, he means a free market as in a competitive(i.e. Free for all to produce/sell), regulated market.

      Protectionist policies are bad in terms of "protecting" large corporation/trust profits, not in terms of the protection of regulation needed for a healthy, stable economy.

    12. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by brkello · · Score: 1

      Yes, free market has no flaws whatsoever. Let's do away with all regulation in the banking industry and...oh wait.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    13. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by izomiac · · Score: 1

      There were even articles in mainstream electronics magazines on how to unscramble satellite... yet the number of people doing it remained at a tiny percentage. Yet even that small percentage made the satellite companies furious.

      I'm seriously starting to wonder if that's the reason for the popularity of DRM. Apparently, cracking this system is worth $250,000, but how much was/is spent to develop and maintain it? If Dish Network stands to gain far greater profits in an increased subscriber base (beyond what could be returned from investing the money elsewhere) then maintaining this DRM makes sense. If it doesn't then it seems like the share holders should be getting upset.

    14. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      The DMCA is detrimental to the economy. The DMCA works to stifle innovation, in AMERICAN markets and for AMERICAN products.

      Protectionist policies, like this one, are seldom a good idea. The free market always did better.

      What? That has nothing to do with the issue in question.

      A free market cannot operate without legal protection from fraud and theft.

      These guys were trying to hack themselves some free TV and make a business stealing from DirectTV. That's the opposite of a free market... it's technically a black market, a market based on stolen goods and properties, and one that is (almost) never better for society than an open free market.

    15. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by tepples · · Score: 1

      the fact is that there are perfeclty legal uses for a device that unscrambles encrypted signals... like time-shifting, for example. Why should you be forced to buy or lease a "DirecTV-approved" DVR, for example, when they would be cheaper on a competitive market?

      Why does one have to have a DirecTV DVR when one can just divert the basic DirecTV decoder's TV output signal into a generic DVR? Use the legit decoder to decrypt and decompress the signal; use the generic DVR to record it. Courts haven't ruled that fair use includes freedom from generation loss.

    16. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by torkus · · Score: 1

      Sounds oddly like 2008 for some reason.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    17. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by tepples · · Score: 1

      Today you can't for example, just get one kind of DVR and use it with either cable or satellite... you need a different one for each.

      Why not? Run a cable from the yellow, white, and red jacks on your cable or satellite receiver to the yellow, white, and red jacks on a generic DVR, and there's no way DirecTV can stop you.

    18. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by torkus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You clearly have no idea how heavily regulated the banking/finance sector is. The problem is more like the unregulated tidbits swimming among the sea of regulation. Of COURSE those tidbits will get the focus of greedy market manipulators.

      The finance sector, if it was actually unregulated, should not be lawless either. Introducing general laws around open disclosure, honest accounting, direct responsibility, etc. would go much further towards fixing out financial system. Unfortunately that means companies would have to be more honest and THAT means less profit. Less profit means shareholders suffer - not the 'i have 50k or 250k invested' people but the 'my 3 portfolios total 350million or we manage 20billion in portfolios' who have direct lines to politicians, lawmakers, judges and so on. It's not tin-hat conspiracy, it's people using the means available to protect their own and not caring who else it hurts.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    19. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The free market did it better.

      when has this EVER not been the case?

    20. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by seekret · · Score: 1

      Hulu doesn't work here, and Joost has squat for content.

      Cases like yours are where I support piracy, if they aren't offering you a viable legal solution then downloading the content is fine in my opinion. This still doesn't excuse the fact that the guys in the article were trying to make a profit off of Dish networks content and services, that type of use is not Fair Use. (I like the weird content Joost has, but I agree a lot of it is crap)

    21. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not confused at all. You just didn't understand what I was saying.

    22. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      That's not what I meant. If you go with ANY of those other options: satellite 1, satellite 2, cable 1, or cable 2 (insert appropriate names as you see fit), NONE of their equipment interoperates. If you switch from one cable company to another, or cable to satellite, or the other way around... you need completely different (and needlessly expensive) equipment for each one. And that is not how competitive markets are supposed to work.

    23. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I did not say the number was trivial, I said it was small. First off, why do you accept THEIR estimate?

      Second: if Canadians couldn't legally subscribe to it, they don't count, because there could never have been a sale anyway. The satellite companies were out, for all practical purposes, NOTHING. "Fairness" does not enter into the equation. Rights and market do. (I did not set it up that way, but you CAN'T have it both ways.)

      "This is no different than you not owning the mineral rights on your property."

      My contention is that yes it is different, because mineral rights do not pass through the bodies of your family at the whims of others. Further, unlike mineral rights, you are given no opportunity to negotiate for those rights on your property; it is all or nothing. It is government coeercion. So whether you agree with my other analogy or not, they are not the same.

      "It's all pretty irrelevant anyway ..."

      It is NOT irrelevant, and the reason is that different technologies are now being suppressed. You can't even legally RESEARCH a form of encryption today if some corporation is using it in their products or service. Oh... the difference is very, very large indeed. And it cripples our ability to engage in valuable research, when other countries can do so without restriction. Can you say: "Let's just fuck America in exchange for corporate profits"?? Sure. I knew you could.

      The problem is that you see some person "stealing" a satellite signal, and that's all you see. You are blind to the much bigger picture.

    24. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      That DVR will not operate with the the directory and scheduling services of your cable or satellite system. Sure... you can use it like the earliest VCRs, and program it to start and stop at certain times, then leave your cable tuner set to that channel the whole time... but you are talking about going back to standards of usability from 30 years ago.

    25. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by tepples · · Score: 1

      then leave your cable tuner set to that channel the whole time

      Even an RCA VCR from 1996 could control what channel the cable box showed.

      but you are talking about going back to standards of usability from 30 years ago.

      The opinion of the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft stated that the opportunity for fair use protects copyright from First Amendment challenges. But this constitutional requirement of fair use does not appear to extend to requiring usability.

    26. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by Mashiara · · Score: 1

      And control the satellite descrambler how (yes there are ways but they just suck in more way than one) ? How to get program info out of the box in case some broadcast time changes ?

      Also the analog signal quality you get out is likely to be way below broadcast.

    27. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Right, but you still have a choice: don't sign up for any of these companies. This isn't like, say, not having a car (in most of the USA), not having a telephone, or not having an internet connection, where going without will seriously affect your social life, your employment, etc. TV is a pure luxury, and there's already plenty of HDTV programming available for free OTA in all metro areas.

      Besides, if you really miss some popular TV show, you can either buy it on DVD when it comes out, or better yet download it from BitTorrent.

    28. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by KevinIsOwn · · Score: 1

      Probably because the descriptions of what caused the Great Depression are constantly changed to better fit current crises. Note that while the GP post is a pretty egregious example, the same is true of descriptions coming from Democrats and Republicans.

      I don't have time to do a whole rebuttal, simply because the causes of the great depression come from numerous sources, government and free market. Suggesting that only one is completely responsible is a ridiculous re-writing of history.

      But to at least provide one quick counter example to the GP: Anyone remember why the FDIC was founded? Bank runs. They happen when the government doesn't intervene in the banking system. Without the FDIC, we would have had bank runs again this time and things would have been a whole lot worse.

    29. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by tepples · · Score: 1

      What in my other comment did you misunderstand?

    30. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to claim that none of the non-government market participants contributed to 1929. However, the unprecedented influence of the Federal Reserve in the financial sector, together with various other official acts of government, are frequently overlooked. Somehow people have gotten the impression that we had a nearly-free market prior to 1929, and that the government intervened only after things got bad. This simply isn't the case; market intervention started well before 1929, was a major contributor to the crash, and furthermore was one of the primary differences between the Great Depression and the economic aftermath of similar market crashes which proceeded it. For a much more thorough analysis of the events surrounding the crash of 1929 and the Depression itself see America's Great Depression by Morray Rothbard.

      But to at least provide one quick counter example to the GP: Anyone remember why the FDIC was founded? Bank runs. They happen when the government doesn't intervene in the banking system.

      On the contrary, bank runs happen--are inevitable, really--when banks fail to maintain sufficient reserves to meet their on-demand obligations. Banks have always sought to get away with minimal reserves for their own profit, but the Federal Reserve took significant steps to encourage this irresponsible behavior starting well before 1929 as part of its goal to inflate the money supply.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    31. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Ummm... 1929? Market failure in farmland ownership/food growth, massive bank failures due to poor loans?

      Please compare the Federal Reserve's actions with regard to the money supply before, during, and at the end of the Great Depression. Contrast with the 1921 Depression.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    32. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by khayman80 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know how to reach you except via a Slashdot comment.

      I just wrote a brief article on climate change that quotes some of your insightful and helpful comments to me in the past.

      I'm scared that this article will be filled up with rude people insulting me, or (MUCH worse) acolytes blindly believing in whatever I say. So if you see any mistakes in my reasoning or have any questions, please leave a comment at the form at the VERY bottom of the page. I'd like for the first couple of people who do that to be polite and capable of disagreeing agreeably. That's why I sent it to you first.

    33. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Please compare the Federal Reserve's actions with regard to the money supply before, during, and at the end of the Great Depression. Contrast with the 1921 Depression.

      Well, if you make a point, I'll be happy to respond to it. I'm not about to write an arbitrary paper just because someone on slashdot asked me to.

      Besides, the gold standard meant that their attempts to change the money supply were less powerful then the Fed's attempts today.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    34. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      ou're ignoring the massive government intervention in multiple areas of the market which built and extended an unsustainable boom period leading (inevitably) to the crash,

      Leading up to the crash there were a few causes. However, there was a lassie-faire attitude of the government. They even let oil companies drill into Navy reserves, trusting those companies to meet the need whenever the Navy needed the oil.

      Now, the huge amount of saved cash from WWI led to the stock market going up, and unpreceedented loans backed by stocks were used to purchase new stocks.

      Like the other person who replied to you said, the analogs to 2008 are many.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    35. Re:I disagree with the Feds on this one, 100% by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Well, if you make a point, I'll be happy to respond to it. I'm not about to write an arbitrary paper just because someone on slashdot asked me to.

      Did I imply writing a paper? Sorry to sound like a College professor - merely food for thought for your own edification.

      Besides, the gold standard meant that their attempts to change the money supply were less powerful then the Fed's attempts today.

      Certainly, but we were on a gold standard in both 1921 and 1929 but monetary policy was very different in the two depressions. The most recent example we have of the effects of the Fed pumping the money supply post-gold is the 1970's, which resulted in stagflation.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  28. N3 partially cracked by r6_jason · · Score: 1

    Dish Network's latest encryption scheme, dubbed Nagra 3, has not yet been cracked by satellite TV pirates." Not true, N3 is partially cracked.

    1. Re:N3 partially cracked by MateIn4 · · Score: 1

      What does that mean?

      It's like saying "she's partial virgin!"

    2. Re:N3 partially cracked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep only used in the ass

    3. Re:N3 partially cracked by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      What does that mean?

      It's like saying "she's partial virgin!"

      Partially cracked is directly analagous to being a partial virgin. You can have quite a bit of fun, but the really good stuff is just out of bounds.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:N3 partially cracked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you figure? IKS? That's not really a hack of the card...

    5. Re:N3 partially cracked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The algorithm is known, which means its partially cracked. The problem is in writing to the cards. In order to crack the service, you need to know the decryption algorithm in detail, and also need to be able to write code to the card. The encryption doesn't ever actually get cracked, just the code doing the decryption gets modified to work with invalid keys.

      So you need to know where in the code stream to jump out of, decrypt, then jump back to the code. You need to do it in such a way that a checksum of the code itself is also spoofed.

      The problem is that the receiver can write to the card as well, using encrypted instructions. It updates the card to wipe out such hacks. So it needs to be reprogrammed. With the N2 dish cards and receivers, you could mod the hardware to remove the ability to write to the cards via a short on the board. So your code changes worked fine, until the card needed to be reprogrammed due to stream changes. The interval of this was far less though, so you'd only have to reprogram your card every couple months or so, instead of every few days.

      The main issue here is making hardware that can write to the memory addresses of the cards where the decryption is taking place. This requires precise knowledge of the internals of the card, to know clock cycles and to find bugs that allow you to write to certain areas of the card.

      Or so I'm tole.

  29. probably depends on intent ..... by taniwha · · Score: 1

    The guy imports satellite boxes - if his goal was to reverse engineer the cards so that his boxes could work on Dish with a legally obtained card then the DCMA safe harbor for "interoperability" kicks in and he's legally OK. On the other hand if he's trying to obtain satellite service without paying Dish for the service they should throw the book at him.

    Think of it from the O/S world - should people be allowed to reverse engineer the cards to allow MythTV to work with a paid for Dish card?

    1. Re:probably depends on intent ..... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Think of it from the O/S world - should people be allowed to reverse engineer the cards to allow MythTV to work with a paid for Dish card?

      I think so, yes. It'd be fair use until I started offering that content for download to people who haven't paid for the service. Despite what the providers would have you believe, time shifting is fair use.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. If you didn't vote libertarian YOU ASKED FOR THIS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who voted Republicrat or Democan, shut up and go sit on the sidelines.
    You have demonstraded you want an intrusive, activist government owned by the government backed corporations. As a result you have no room to complain now. You ASKED FOR THIS.

    -Bob Robertson

  32. FTA by Ponga · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are rumors out there that Nagra3 has already been hacked, though not confirmed to my knowledge. Back in the Nagra2 days, N2 had been hacked for years and it was a boon for pirates. Dish recently switched all it's channels to Nagra3 and pretty much overnight, all the pirates TV's went blank. Currently, the only 'solution' that exists for the pirates is via card sharing schemes where an actual subscriber(s) shares their card keys via an Internet Key Sharing (IKS) service. Though not technically a hack, IKS allows for the same capability. And so the cat and mouse continues.... Don't ask me how I know all this.

    1. Re:FTA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know all this?

    2. Re:FTA by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Don't ask me how I know all this.

      Knock, Knock, Neo.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  33. Re:Why don't the North Koreans and Iranians do thi by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Then we really would bomb them...

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  34. Props to Smitty! by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    JCTM,

    Thanks for using the correct word of cracker instead of hacker.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    1. Re:Props to Smitty! by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      seconded, because I'm less a day old and don't know how to give you a +1 whatever is apropriate.

      --
      404: sig not found.
  35. Compaq wouldn't exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To make the first PC clones, Compaq publicly hired 30 systems engineers to reverse engineer the IBM BIOS chip... so what was that, high treason compared to this?

  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. Whole case -smells- like a frame-up by Simonetta · · Score: 1

    I've only read the Slashdot header. I don't read American legalizees.
    But I get the feeling that things are all 'just not right' here.
    Why would anyone pay a 'cracker' $250,000 to read an EPROM? If someone had this kind of money, then they would be part of a serious criminal organization. If so, then they wouldn't be fooling around with a 'cracker'. They would have their own people to do this or they would bring the EPROM to someone in China or Malaysia to reverse-engineer it. $250K buys a lot more than a 'cracker' outside of the OCED countries.
        This case sounds like a 'agent provacateur' type of deal. It 'smells' like that case in Miami where three drunken crackheads were arrested as the cadre of a major terrorist cell when in reality it was just a government undercover schmuck buying everyone endless 40 oz bottles and talking non-stop about 'offing da pig'. Typical late 1960s horseshit. Great for headlines and 40oz sales, but totally meaningless for anyone's realistic concept of national security.
        The poster above is right. Who gives a hoot about the mediocre entertainment that's on network or cable television? Anything that is actually good in this medium is going to be in the torrents within days. And not a lot of good programming actually comes out of this medium.
        I'll stick with the traditional legal concept of assuming innocent before proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in 'smelly' DMCA cases like this. ennee, meenee, mainee, moe DCMA justice in this crock.

  38. Not wrong, but sloppy with "copyright" word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This case isn't about copyright infringement. It's DMCA. Nobody alleges any of Dish's (or anyone else's) copyrights were infringed. They allege there was conspiracy to circumvent technological measures that limit access.

    Unauthorized decryption is a DMCA violation, not a copyright violation.

    Copyright is very old law, and yes, people have seen the warning that violating it, can get the FBI on you. DMCA is a strange new law that no non-geek has heard of, only distantly related to copyright. FBI involvement in DMCA is about as surprising as FBI involvement in a patent violation.

    1. Re:Not wrong, but sloppy with "copyright" word by ari_j · · Score: 3, Funny

      The point is that criminal enforcement of a copyright law is not a new thing. The DMCA is, by the way, so unrelated to copyright law that only 25% of its letters stand for the word "copyright."

  39. safe harbor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The DMCA is detrimental to the economy. The DMCA works to stifle innovation, in AMERICAN markets and for AMERICAN products.

    The DMCA had the notion of 'safe harbor':

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor#Legal_definition

    Without it every web provider, mailing list, Usenet provider, and web forum would be liable for the statements that their users made.

  40. Why DMCA? by arkenian · · Score: 1

    I am confused. This looks like basic Corporate Espionage, not DMCA. This isn't about somebody trying to unscramble the signal, in my opinion. Reverse engineering somebody else's hardware/software based on knowledge of the original source (this isn't Pheonix BIOS here), for which reasonable protections have been provided, is and should remain a gross violation of various laws. Isn't there anything better than DMCA (which is a bad law) to charge the guy with? Setting aside how I feel about the whole unscrambling issue, I don't think this is about that, per se. This is purely about corporate bottom lines and corporate espionage. Anyone who engages in that deserves whatever they get.

  41. I wonder if the cracker by hairyfeet · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the cracker got his door kicked in and was staring down the barrel of an M16, because I was unlucky enough to be in a place that got raided for hot sat boxes and that seemed to be their SOP. At the time the little shop I worked at would often buy, sell, and swap with the little shop the next town over, as it was certainly easier to pop over there if we needed a funky speed RAM stick or ran out of spare CD burners (DVD burners were still high at the time).

    So anyway my boss had talked to the boss over there a few days before and set it up for me to pick up some gear, you know, hard drives, CD burners, basic crap. So i'm sitting there bullshitting with the young kid that was working the counter that day while he packed up the stuff when BOOM! the front door explodes, shattering glass everywhere(I guess the FBI decided to John Wayne the door instead...well pulling the handle) and the next thing we know there is a dozen guys dressed like SWAT with M16s pointed at us. I said "Dudes, I don't know who you are looking for, but my boss just sent me here to buy some RAM sticks and this poor kid here just started like yesterday. If you promise not to shoot me I'll show you my bosses card. Fell free to call and verify as he is waiting on me to deliver these drives and RAM sticks he paid for."

    Well after bullshitting with the FBI for awhile (once the SWAT looking feds were out of there the regular feds were actually quite friendly) it turned out the owner of the place had him a nice little multi-state business selling hot decoder boxes and bogus MSFT software. He showed me one of the boxes in the back and I swear you couldn't tell the difference between it and a real copy of Office XP, it was that damned good. of course I didn't tell them but they totally fucked up by trying to coordinate with local law enforcement, which was more crooked than a snake. Somebody had tipped him off that weekend and when they got to his place it was like nobody ever lived there. The funniest part was the moron local PD had taken a bunch of their fancy new computers to have them "upgraded" with the latest Office and XP on the cheap, and he fricking sold the boxes before he left! They never did get their computers back from what I heard and last I heard they still ain't caught the guy. He just disappears whenever they get too close.

    But I can tell you from that day that the feds don't fuck around when it comes to pro pirate rings. They had enough fricking fully decked out armor plated feds you would have thought they were planning Waco II, instead of just grabbing a fat redneck selling hot boxes and fake software. If they pulled that with the cracker guy I can tell you it is NOT a fun experience! I am just glad I was there or that poor 16 year old probably would have panicked and got himself shot, as it was he was so spooked all he could do was stand there and shake. I used to play biker bars behind chicken wire so it wasn't like it was the first time I had stared at the wrong end of a gun, and I could tell by the outfits that it was FBI or ATF, which meant they weren't after me. But those feds really go hardcore when it comes to pro pirate rings, if my experience is anything to go by.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    1. Re:I wonder if the cracker by Geminii · · Score: 1
      Be kinda funny if the cracker had a security door. FBI runs up to the door, hits it with a battering ram... nothin'.

      I'm waiting for someone to make enough money off unscrambling signals to be able to buy political influence and have the relevant law changed.

  42. Possible (lack of) impact on XBMC by tdelaney · · Score: 1

    BrokenCodes, who claims he's been working on Windows GPU acceleration for XBMC, has claimed that he's one of the three people.

    http://www.xbmc.org/forum/showpost.php?p=369624&postcount=210

    There have been a lot of doubt as to whether BrokenCodes actually does have GPU acceleration on Windows working for XBMC (no code has been shown yet), although he's been talking the right talk in my limited DirectX/DxVA experience.

    I think we can assume he's either telling the truth on both counts, or lying on both counts. If he's lying, status quo. If he's telling the truth, there's a small (IMO) chance of him releasing what he's done so far, but probably status quo.

  43. Attempted Crime by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    This sounds like an attempted crime. How can you conspire to break the DMCA if you don't actually succeed. That's like planning a bank robbery that never happens. Is this for real?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  44. Really? by AnAdventurer · · Score: 1

    $250,000 goes a long way to actually paying for sat TV service. There must be a better and less expensive way to conspire to violate the DMCA? Is the N3 hack market so lucrative? Can't you do better elsewhere with that kind of money, like launching your own legitimate sat. TV service?

    --
    6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
    1. Re:Really? by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      launching you own legitimate sat. TV service requires launching your own legitimate sat. $1/4 million is totally not going to cover that.

      --
      404: sig not found.
  45. No free lunch by westlake · · Score: 1

    Breaking encryption should never be a crime.

    This argument is bogus.

    Actions which advance a criminal conspiracy don't have to be criminal in themselves.

    Never have been.

    You aren't being prosecuted for cracking an algorithm.

    You are being prosecuted because you broke into protected systems and files - for your own amusement and profit.

    The satellite companies have a very weak business model

    I have come to two firm conclusions:

    That the geek believes that his technical skills are a universal "Get Out Of Jail Free" card.

    That the geek's definition of a failed business model is any model which expects him to cough up some cash every thirty days or so.

    If consumers find another way to view the data in their house, then tough tits for the satellite company.

    Its also tough tits for the subscriber whose service goes belly up because the geek thinks he is entitled to everything that isn't nailed down. Tough tits for the geek whose viewing options have shrunk to the Snuggies commercials on channel 47 and the tractor pull on 35.

    1. Re:No free lunch by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

      Profiting by copying the box's design and selling other boxes that unscramble the signal is immoral and perhaps illegal, BUT just because the end result is illegal doesn't mean the steps to it should also be illegal.

      They sell you the box. They can't expect you to never look in the box. It would be terribly naive and dumb of them to expect you to not look in the box. Some people will open the box, some people will fiddle with what's inside the box, and some people will do unmentionable things to the box. What they do with the box after it is theirs isn't theft, it isn't breaking into anyone's property, it isn't stealing anything. Nobody broke into anyone's property.

      Just like owning a gun isn't illegal, even though you can use the gun to shoot someone. Driving a car isn't illegal even though you can drive into a crowd of people. Drinking beer isn't illegal even though you can stab someone with the beer bottle. Having knowledge of electronics isn't illegal even though you can use that knowledge to make bomb timers. Knowing how a particular encryption system works isn't illegal even though such knowledge could be used to make devices that unscrambles paid content. DMCA tries to make that last one illegal... why don't we have laws against the other instances of prerequisites for doing illegal things? Last time I checked, human life was worth more than some paid content, nobody died from getting free TV. Have we degraded so low that we must break our civil liberties to protect paid content?

    2. Re:No free lunch by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      Have we degraded so low that we must break our civil liberties to protect paid content?

      The answer to this question, as you well know, is a resounding "Yes!"

      The solution is messy. What we need is a number of people actively and visibly breaking the DMCA as acts of civil disobedience in ways that the public will identify with and support. With EFF/ACLU/SPLC(? etc.) backing, such a case might be brought to the Supreme Court and the law might be struck down. Even if it is not, a truly sympathetic case can get the public behind a support to get the law repealed through the House and Senate.

      I don't know which of these is more likely to succeed, but they are the only ways that I know of to fix this problem.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
  46. Implications for the numerical system by Tetsujin · · Score: 2, Funny

    The implications of this arrest on the numerical system as it applies to mathematics, physics, and other scientific and engineering disciplines cannot be overstated - especially in light of the recent arrest of seven, for the murder and subsequent cannibalization of nine...

    For instance, even prior to this arrest, the speed of light (as measured in meters per second) couldn't be represented comfortably in decimal, but it could be rounded up with relatively little precision loss... That is now not possible... The gravitational constant was already problematic due to the arrest of seven - now with the arrest of three, the use of cubic meters is no longer viable, so the gravitational constant is at best represented as 6.66 (rounding down, here) * 10^-8 L / (kg * s^2).

    Prior to the arrest of three, pi could still be represented to six digits (in decimal) - but now decimal representations of pi, pi/2, and pi/4 are all compromised... The natural exponent (e), of course, has suffered greatly from the loss of seven - and other numbers such as the Elementary Electric Charge (in Coulombs) and Avogadro's Constant have had to be changed to unconventional representations in scientific notation...

    All of this has really made mathematics of any sort a real problem. The scientific community is trying to address this by advocating the use of different numerical bases and a new system of units: but adoption has been slow and difficult. So far, a clear solution has not yet emerged.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  47. Conspiracy isn't a thought crime by westlake · · Score: 1

    When I was arrested as a juvenile and got charged with 2 moderately serious charges, I had 2 counts of conspiracy, which were also felonies, added for "thinking" about doing it before I actually did it.

    You did more than just think about it.

    There was evidence introduced to show that you planned - you organized - you acted in ways that helped push the thing forward.

    There is no such thing as a "moderately" serious felony charge.

  48. "theft" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not for interoperability. The goal of this operation was to create smart cards that allowed people to view channels they did not pay for and to allow people who do not have an account to view the channels. The goal was to facilitate theft of service, not interoperability.

    Unauthorized access to service. Theft implies loss of use to others, which is certainly not the case in broadcast signals.

  49. Theft of service? Really? by bky1701 · · Score: 1

    I would hardly call using the signals they are beaming into my house theft of service because I had to break their encryption. What's next, getting sued because you understood some people talking in pig-latin on the radio?

    1. Re:Theft of service? Really? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      You broke the encryption to get the service without paying for it, therefore it is theft of service.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:Theft of service? Really? by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      You sent your service into my home without my permission, therefore you'll get over it.

      Really, this is like writing my pin number on a sign in my front yard as an MD5 hash, and then getting pissed off when someone cracks it and my bank account gets drained.

  50. Not Cracked? hmmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is very simuliar to previous roms, parts of codespace are checksummed, uses 768 bit encryptions vs 512, has a glitch detector better than previous roms, but not impossible.

  51. Except by Snaller · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "If you broadcast something into my home uninvited, and I find a way to make use of that broadcast, that's tough tits for you."

    No - by living where you do you accept the law - if you don't you can get out of the country, or they'll throw the book at you - and then its tough tits for you in jail.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:Except by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      No - by living where you do you accept the law - if you don't you can get out of the country, or they'll throw the book at you - and then its tough tits for you in jail.

      That paradigm fell apart about 60 years ago. All land is claimed by governments, there's no more opt-out.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  52. Obscurity tactics always fail by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 0

    Security through obscurity always fails, even on embedded systems. If satellite TV companies want to use crypto, they should start buying hardware crypto modules, not resorting to legal threats against people who crack their poor security tactics. Perhaps the boxes will be more expensive, but these guys are going around claiming that they are losing a lot of money to satellite TV cracking, so a decent security system should pay for itself (which speaks to why these companies should not be believed -- and begs the question of why our government is helping them).

    Also, not to nitpick, but ElGamal is based on the discrete logarithm problem, not the factoring problem.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Obscurity tactics always fail by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Uh, they do use hardware crypto modules. That's what the guy was being paid to crack.

      The whole point is that the decryption is carried out by the smartcard - or at least the session key is generated by it (which is good enough - a session key is only going to be good for decrypting a small portion of the video stream).

  53. Change of view by icepick72 · · Score: 1

    Instead they should have held a "Contest" to "test" the security with a prize of $250,000 if it's broken.

  54. Radio Broadcasting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    KGO 810AM is broadcasting for the target audience of SFO CA, yet on a clear evening after sunset, (and before sunrise), I, (located in Pullman WA), can very easily pick up with nothing more then a walkman. Is this illegal? No. Should it be? According to some of the logic presented here, yes. After all, I'm recieving a audible signal for free, and I'm not in the target audience. A non-targeted person of a non-targeted audience is an "unauthorised" user. Therefore, if you ever listen to a radio station out of a 100 mile radius, you are a DMCA violator because you had to use "special equipment" to decode the AM signal when you did not have prior authorization to do so.

  55. Cracker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't they just say Anglo-American?

  56. Re:Why don't the North Koreans and Iranians do thi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you try to get access to .ir websites lately?
    If you have difficulties it's because we are all downloading.

    You can join too: http://copy.ir

  57. Or change the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Duh.

    Or what do you think should have been done during the prohibition? All those drinkers leave the US and the US becomes bankrupt.

    Shithead.

  58. This is fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These guys are trying to commit fraud.

    They are attempting to profit off of a system created and developed by Dish. It cost dish billions of dollars to create their network. Notice that NO WHERE did Dish ever say they could not make their own satellite network and leave it open or use whatever encryption they wanted. If I paid somebody to crack the wireless in your home so I could copy your files is that illegal? You didn't actually lose any files and I never entered your place. Its still illegal though. This is conspiracy to commit fraud, they aren't doing this for the public benefit, they would take it and then use it for their own profit.

  59. easier to just hack in to the up link center by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    easier to just hack in to the up link center

  60. cable can't beat direct tv $5 /m rent for any box by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    cable can't beat direct tv $5 /m rent for any box with box 1 free and where I live it is much better deal then comcast Chicago land that is bad rip off next to other comcast areas that have speed and sci-fi is lower levels.

    with comcast you pay just about the same for as the direct tv HD DVR pack to get sell with comcast then you have add the sports pack (that has a few non sports channels in it) to get the same that you get on direct tv then you need to add boxes AT $6 per sd box, $7 - $8 per HD box and $15-$20 per HD DVR. Comcast only gives 1 sd box for free.

  61. Re:Why don't the North Koreans and Iranians do thi by Cigarra · · Score: 1

    Could it be because maybe, just maybe, and in spite of everything MSM tells you, Iran and North Korea have better things to do than annoy USA?

    --
    I don't have a sig.
  62. Re:Why don't the North Koreans and Iranians do thi by CityZen · · Score: 1

    Satellites that broadcast to the US don't also broadcast to the other side of the planet, so they'd have little incentive to work on hacking those signals. (Not to mention issues regarding western porn.)

    Also, China is dependent on foreign trade, and those darn foreigners keep bringing those IP issues back to the trade table.

    And even if they pirated everything piratable, that's still only a small dent in western economies.

  63. It should be weak here by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Since none of us are going to do that in the next twelve hours, could you apply what you know on the matter to the case at hand?

    From the little I've read here, it looks like the actions taken were indistinguishable from what a grant-based academic security researcher might do. Further actions may have been much different, but I'm not at all convinced this guy would have been successful, the odds are far from certain, trending towards 'highly unlikely'. Sure, their intent was to negatively affect the profits of a large corporation, but intent isn't enough to prosecute, AIUT.

    For instance, it's a high crime to try to harm the chief executive, but if I hired a bunch of self-described psychics to sit around a bong and concentrate on harming George W. Bush, could I be prosecuted for conspiracy to kill the president? Even if I bought them some patchouli?

    Regardless, I would like to buy a *legal* Nagra3 decoder for my MythTV box. The Dish Family plan is a good value but analog is just silly.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  64. Re:Why don't the North Koreans and Iranians do thi by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Now the question would be: How does this put food on their tables? And bombs off of them?

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.