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."

17 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. cracker? by martas · · Score: 5, Funny

    what a racist article...

  2. 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 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
  3. 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.

  4. 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)
  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. 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 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.
    2. 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.

  7. 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
  8. 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.
  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. 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 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.

    2. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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!