Slashdot Mirror


Feds Bust Cable Modem Hacker

Several readers noted the indictment of hardware hacker Ryan Harris, known as DerEngel. Harris wrote the 2006 book Hacking the Cable Modem, explaining how to get upgraded speed or even free Internet service by bypassing the firmware locks on Motorola Surfboard modems. He has run a profitable business at tcniso.net since 2003, selling unlocked cable modems. (The site is now offline.) Harris has been charged with conspiracy, aiding and abetting computer intrusion, and wire fraud. Wired quotes Harris's reaction: "I read the indictment — it's complete bull****. I'll tell you right now I'm not going to plead guilty."

55 of 658 comments (clear)

  1. What!? by sam0737 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I didn't RTFA. If I read the summary right, ya may be he can be charged with DMCA, Copyright violation or those stuff .But "conspiracy, aiding and abetting computer intrusion, and wire fraud"? WTF is that!

    It's like charging gunmaker with murder.

    1. Re:What!? by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is slightly different; if the hacks allowed you to get free internet or video access off the cable (for instance) you're defrauding the cable provider by getting their service for free.

    2. Re:What!? by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's called "padding the charges to try to force a plea deal", and it's one of the reasons our justice system is so fucked up.

      Thousands of people plead guilty to shit they didn't do each year, because they're offered the "reasonable" alternative - accept a jail sentence of X amount, OR get 5x the time and financially ruined and never be able to work again because they had the "temerity" to protest their innocence.

      Welcome to America. "Justice" means jack shit here.

    3. Re:What!? by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The act of defrauding the cable provider is illegal but the instructions for the hack that may or may not allow this type of fraud apparently has legal uses as well. Tools are neither good nor evil, the manner in which you use them is what determines the ethics of using those tools. A shovel can help plant a garden and it can also be used for murder, that doesn't mean the shovel is evil, just the use of the shovel for evil purposes.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    4. Re:What!? by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but if you provide the tools while actively enabling and encouraging people, then you are aiding and abetting, which is what he was charged with.

    5. Re:What!? by ImYourVirus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's like saying a gun store selling bullets is aiding and abetting, give me a break. Next dvd burners will be aiding and abetting...

      --
      Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
    6. Re:What!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      One should keep their mouth shut until they have an attorney. In addition, don't steal.

    7. Re:What!? by WilliamX · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "getting innocent people convicted"

      The guy was not innocent.

      He was guilty, just that the charge was overstated for the offense.

      Keep things in perspective.

    8. Re:What!? by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Selling bullets is not aiding and abetting. Selling bullets with a handy guide on murdering your neighbor thrown in is.

      Quite simple really.

    9. Re:What!? by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Instructions on how to use (or modify) a tool are instructions on how to use or modify a tool. Nothing more.

      "Illegal" (e.g. not-street-legal) modifications to a car? Done for racing, confined to racing tracks, A-OK. Same thing taken to the street? Not ok. How about utilities that can help you repair your own X-box if it has a dead hard drive? Also plausibly able to "softmod" it, but repairing your own things is a legit use. Should it be illegal?

      Criminalizing the dissemination of information is ridiculous no matter what.

    10. Re:What!? by Xaositecte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you sold bullets and a gun to a person you believed was going to use them to kill someone, then yes, you could be charged with a crime.

      Since there are so many legitimate uses for guns, and the gun lobby is so powerful, and it's nearly impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you thought whoever you were selling a gun to was going to use it for non-illegal means, it's very unlikely for this to happen.

    11. Re:What!? by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He was innocent of what he was accused of. Being charged with a crime that the police and prosecutors know you did not commit is being charged with a crime that you are innocent of. Being guilty of a different or lessor crime does not change this. Police and prosecutors that charge people with crimes they know they did not commit are commiting crimes themselves.

    12. Re:What!? by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Depending on the jurisdiction and if that person did murder someone or not, you may actually be guilty of Negligent Homicide.

    13. Re:What!? by chaboud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Criminalizing the dissemination of information is ridiculous no matter what.

      BINGO! As soon as you peel back the line on this one, you open up a grey area of ridiculous criminalization. The modem itself, modified, is like a VCR, a gun, a car, or a goat. Sure, there are illegal things that you can do with all of them, and some of them are really best used for illegal purposes (hint... not the goat). Still, that shouldn't make the provision of these things illegal. It's information or a tool. It's intent agnostic.

      Now, the instruction can indeed constitute participation in a crime, but telling someone to go do something is way different than telling someone how to go do something.

      Example:

      Hey, Joey, go kill that guy.

      or

      Hey, Joey, if you shoot someone in the face, they will probably die.

    14. Re:What!? by WilliamX · · Score: 3, Insightful
      No, technically he WAS guilty of the stated crime, he entered the premises with the intent to commit larceny.

      It's not that they charge crimes that were not committed, its that the overcharge the level of the offense.

      Huge difference.

      Knowing filing charges they know the individual did no commit would lead to sanctions and disbarment.

    15. Re:What!? by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He was innocent of what he was accused of. Being charged with a crime that the police and prosecutors know you did not commit is being charged with a crime that you are innocent of.

      No, if he did in reality go there with the intention of stealing the $20 CD, in that state it would in fact be "Felony Commercial Burglary (Burglary being defined in California Penal Code as entering a premises with the intent to commit larceny)". The police simply dropped it to a smaller petty theft (at the same time making it stick without a costly court case) as it was indeed a $20 CD.

      I am probably in a minority here, but I think the police acted in the right way, the person got what they should have gotten. The punishment for petty theft for committing petty theft.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    16. Re:What!? by pete6677 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Neither of these stories had any examples of people who were truly innocent but forced to plead guilty. Prisons are full of people who say they are innocent, yet the vast majority of them are in fact guilty. I'm not saying no innocent person has ever been coerced into pleading to something they didn't do, but there was no evidence of it in your examples. Many inmates who pled guilty claimed to have done so despite being innocent, but hardly ever is that the case. Criminals lie quite often, especially about being innocent.

    17. Re:What!? by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the bullets were designed to defeat police body armor.. the intended purpose of the bullets would be clear.

      The intended purpose of any weapon is clear: it's to increase the wielder's ability to apply deadly force. A round that can get through police body armor can also go through body armor worn by a well-prepared armed robber.

      There's a reason why we didn't give the government a monopoly on deadly force in this country.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    18. Re:What!? by narcberry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree with the spirit of what you say, but I'm blown back by what you actually said.

      It's bad for civilians to prepare themselves to kill cops.
      If cops prepare to kill civilians, well, that's ok.

      --
      Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
    19. Re:What!? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But if he'd been charged with petty theft the case would have probably been dropped - the courts and DA are too busy with other matters. Thus he'd have gotten away with it. And he probably knew that before he stole it.

      Effectively they split the difference, getting the right result.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    20. Re:What!? by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Apparently you've never seen AP or teflon(illgeal in 90% of places) coated rounds. They go through both body armor that the boom chuckalucka guys wear, and regular kevlar vests. Kevlar is good stuff, it'll stop a lot. Cop killer bullets aren't a myth, criminals have used those two, and for awhile the talons were very popular until they were outlawed as well.

      Up here in Canadaland, there's been a couple of incidents of cops being shot at by criminals(aka drug smugglers with nothing to lose) with homemade teflon coated rounds.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    21. Re:What!? by evanbd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He was innocent of what he was accused of. Being charged with a crime that the police and prosecutors know you did not commit is being charged with a crime that you are innocent of.

      No, if he did in reality go there with the intention of stealing the $20 CD, in that state it would in fact be "Felony Commercial Burglary (Burglary being defined in California Penal Code as entering a premises with the intent to commit larceny)". The police simply dropped it to a smaller petty theft (at the same time making it stick without a costly court case) as it was indeed a $20 CD. I am probably in a minority here, but I think the police acted in the right way, the person got what they should have gotten. The punishment for petty theft for committing petty theft.

      In the abstract I agree with you: petty theft should get the petty theft punishment. The problem, though, is that a smarter person with a good lawyer (aka money) wouldn't say any of those incriminating things, and would probably get a plea bargain on the petty theft charge. I can't see how it's a good thing that knowledge and money matter that much when the crime and the evidence are the same. Taking advantage of the unprepared and the poor to stick them with harsher sentences is not justice.

  2. That sucks, sort of. by the_humeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After reading the article (yeah, I'm new here), he was selling modems and it appears he wasn't moderating the forums properly. People were discussing how to steal other people's connections on their forums.

  3. It's NOT like arresting gun sellers! by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gun sellers have powerful lobbyists on their payroll guaranteeing that the government will not interfere with their profits.

    1. Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers! by BeansBaxter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to mention the second amendment. Its kind of part of the bill of rights.

    2. Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers! by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was about to retort saying it's like arresting marijuana dealers.

      But then after a bit of thinking.. I realized... they too have powerful lobbyists on their payroll guaranteeing the government will not interfere with their profits.

      In this case, lobbying to keep it illegal. (Making it legal interferes with their profits, since it reduces the price, and makes it easier for new competitors to emerge)

    3. Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers! by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to mention the second amendment. Its kind of part of the bill of rights.

      If you look at the role of guns in the formation of the US as a democracy, you might see that computers are the modern-day equivalent.

      --
      Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    4. Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers! by gmhowell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've got a feeling that computers are more along the lines of the numerous printing presses out there.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    5. Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's this sort of blinkered, ignorant thinking that got us the whole "Twitter can save Iran!" thing. How did the whole "turning your web page green in sympathy" thing work out? Who prevailed in the end, people with computers or people with firearms? Modern-day equivalent, my ass.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  4. Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime by mister_playboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who cares? The powers our government have assumed for themselves in the name of "fighting the War on Terrorism" won't be given up even if they catch "Terrorist #1" Osama.

    Osama is more useful to power-hungry US politicians when he is free to roam than dead or captured.

    --
    Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  5. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA by CHRONOSS2008 · · Score: 0, Insightful

    i buy it its mine if your going to put me in jail remember thats 40-60K a year to incarcerate and i guarantee you ill do this again and again.
    AND i'll teach every damn criminal i can while in there MUHAHAHAHAHA
    might just teach em more too
    might as well everyone join the gangs after all WERE ALL CRIMINALS NOW

    imagine if this shit were applied to cars trucks and lets say i dunno
    harley davidsons OMG REVOLUTION

  6. Re:Welcome to the DMCA by MobileC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What has the DMCA got to do with this case?

    --

    Fran
    :):):)
    1st 1st Poster of the new Millennium!

  7. Re:This is not a crime by CSMatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As it is, when we have thieves in suits on Wall Street bleeding us dry like giant money-sucking leaches, contractors in war zones raping their employees and getting our soldiers killed, terrorists trying to infiltrate our borders and THIS is what federal prosecutors are doing with their time? Some joker modifying cable modems. You gotta be f'ing kidding me.

    What makes you think that the government is only targeting these cases and completely ignoring the others you mentioned?

  8. Re:This is not a crime by mikeken · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I never really understand the argument where there are more important things for such and such to be doing. There what tens of thousands of federal prosecutors in this country? More workers than work if you ask me... hmm... sounds like an economical fact.

  9. Re:This is not a crime by WilliamX · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Modifying equipment to get a higher level of service than was paid for is, in fact, stealing. Morally and legally.

    And the argument that just because (fill in the blank) is going on and is much more serious, we shouldn't prosecuted lesser crimes...well, that's not exactly logical or desirable either.

    Take the shoplifter I mentioned earlier, just because we have bank robberies going on, does that mean police shouldn't arrest shoplifters? If it was my music store, I'd sure as hell be angry and raising hell at City Hall if the local police said that to me.

    Now, do I think they should trick them into incriminating themselves for more serious charges just to pad felony arrest numbers?

    Absolutely not.

  10. Re:This is not a crime by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This IS a crime. It's defrauding the cable company by telling the CMTS to let you online when it shouldn't. I'm surprised it took this long to find him, TBH.

    I can compromise an ATM machine with a crowbar, does that make ATMs open targets? No.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  11. Not criminal? Prove it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I looked over the article, and now I'm curious. The Slashdot crowd usually sides with the techie on incidents like this, but is it really justified here? The popular analogy here is that it's akin to charging gun manufacturers with murder. Guns have legitimate uses, such as hunting, or protection. What legitimate use does a modem hacked/modified to access an ISP's services without permission have? A better analogy here would be a gun manufacturer who sells a gun, a kit to turn the gun into an automatic weapon, and detailed instructions on how to get past the security of a specific bank. You can argue that the gun wasn't sold with the intent to facilitate a robbery, but you can't do it with a straight face.

    Of course, I'm open-minded, so someone prove me wrong - tell me what legitimate uses these modified modems have. (Caveat: the use Harris suggested in the article won't fly, unless you can give some very good reasons as to why an ISP wouldn't simply use their own diagnostic gear.)

  12. Re:This is not a crime by WilliamX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Completely irrelevant examples. The car was capable of it, and you are not stealing anything by modifying it. This is so obviously not on point, it is almost silly. Utility example is the same. As long as you are paying for what you use, there is no stealing of water resulting from you doing your own work. You really need to stay on point.

  13. Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime by J_Omega · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Emmanuel Goldstein would agree

  14. It's assholes like you giving bad advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    that make American prisons hell holes that would shame a 3rd world country.

    I wouldn't be surprised if following your advice is a quick way to get killed, and deserve it too. You don't know who has friends when you walk in, do you? Or who is badder than they look.

  15. Re:This is not a crime by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Modifying equipment to get a higher level of service than was paid for is, in fact, stealing. Morally and legally.

    Uh, no. Modifying equipment is not stealing, especially when its your own damn property.
    Using that equipment to steal is stealing.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  16. Re:Paperwork infraction by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, make slum lords live in their buildings, make the banksters who did the fraudulent mortgages...

    Make Make Make Make MAKE!!!

          All arguments for a nanny state. Consider the following:

          "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have" - Thomas Jefferson

          "Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it." - Henry David Thoreau

          Be careful what you wish for, or they will be coming for YOU soon. The problem is people wanting the government to MAKE other people do things. The solution is having people with sound ethics and principles, so that no one has to MAKE anyone do anything. This is called parenting, or raising your children properly. However it's a dying art, and we're left with half of the population of spoiled brats screaming for a government that will MAKE the other half of the population who are also spoiled brats do "x". What you will end up with in reality is a huge government that will MAKE everyone broke and oppressed, until the next revolution. History is full of these cycles, and people never learn. The collapse of a country is always preceded by a moral collapse.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  17. Re:Welcome to the DMCA by DerekLyons · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Nothing other than it's one of Slashdot's favorite boogiemen and thus a good way to get excellent karma.

  18. Re:This is not a crime by JStegmaier · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More accurately:

    Car analogy.
    You go to the gas station. You go inside and pay for $20 in gas. You go back to the pump, and modify it to give you $40 in gas instead.

    Utility analogy.
    The water company installs a meter at your house, to keep track of the water you use and charge you for it. You modify the meter to only report half of what you use.

    Really, if you're going to use bad analogies, at least try to make them remotely accurate.

  19. Re:I wish I saw this earlier by narcberry · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does this mean aftermarket alterations to my vehicle should be illegal too?

    --
    Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
  20. Re:I wish I saw this earlier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    He says that the telcos bought some of his hacked modems to use as test/diagnostic equipment. If he has invoices and receipts, then he may have a legit defense.

    As a lawyer I'd be interested in hearing what kind of defence that might raise. You never know, I might be able to use it sometime. ;)

    Why would they (service personnel) want hacked modems?

    That question is not relevant to the idictment against Ryan. You wouldn't be able to ask it.

  21. Re:Paperwork infraction by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you're saying I should be free to enact the punishment of my own choosing instead? No need for the "rule of law" at that point, right? I'll just make it up as I go along.

    I think most people would object to that sort of free-for-all.

    Society bands together to protect itself, not just from those outside, but from those inside who choose to harm its' members. So, contrary to your assertion, we should punish people who don't have half-decent ethical restraints . We SHOULD make them suffer the consequences of their actions, so that, if their own ethical compass remains defective, at least the threat of punishment might be a deterent to recidivism.

    So yes, if you don't pick up your dog shit, your front lawn SHOULD be turned into a public doggie comfort station, and you SHOULD have to pick up a MASSIVE AMOUNT of dog shit, so that maybe net time, you'll get your shit together and won't let your dog shit on other people's lawns.

  22. Re:I wish I saw this earlier by Raptoer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they happen to tear the road up more than others, then yes, they would be illegal.
    For a more accurate analogy however, if your alterations somehow caused you to stop paying taxes for the roads, then yes, that would too be illegal.

    Simply put, he sold something that sole purpose was to break the law, then yes, that (should) be illegal.

  23. Re:Paperwork infraction by Adaeniel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Rapist? We have some mine fields we need mapped out.

    Your punishment is a bit too harsh. It's way too easy to become a "rapist"/convicted sex offender in this country; even if you never raped anyone.

  24. Re:I wish I saw this earlier by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Simple - he's then in a position to prove his claim that he's a legitimate supplier of legitimate goods, as acknowledged by experts in the industry purchasing and using his equipment.

    Example:

    Your client is arrested and charged with being in the possession of tools to facilitate crime, specifically a pry bar, which is used by burglars, and a body dent puller, which is used by car thieves to pop car locks. Also, a mask with filters, so he's also suspected of terrorism.

    Your client then produces multiple invoices showing that he owns and runs a legitimate automotive garage, and those are just common tools of the trade - and the mask is OSHA-mandated safety equipment for anyone using a paint booth.

    Heck, in Texas it's illegal to walk around with a pair of wire cutters in your back pocket - "might be used for cattle rustling." So what are they going to do - arrest electricians on house calls? They're in violation of the law, but the application of the law doesn't make sense in that context. Electricians need wire cutters.

    In this case, though, he also posted a notice asking for a MAC address for a specific network. The operator of a network buying test equipment would already have these. That's an indication he's guilty, at the very least, in one specific case. He'll be smart to squawk loudly as a tactic to get a plea bargain, and that's what he's doing.

  25. Re:This is not a crime by xtracto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thank you.

    Please mod this guy up.

    However, is the equipment provided to you by Comcast *your* property?, if it is (or if you bought a "premoded" one then there is no problem.

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  26. The ignornance, it burns by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok for one, the FBI is not the agency that would be going after Osama. The FBI is the federal government's primary police force. As a police force, they are concerned with domestic matters. They deal with things inside the US. They do not chase people in other countries, they don't have any jurisdiction there. To the extent they operate at all in foreign countries, it is as legal attaches and such to give advice and support to local law enforcement.

    Second, while this may be an alien concept to single-minded geeks, people and most especially organizations/agencies can and do work on more than one thing at one. Just because a group is working on X does not mean they cannot also be working on Y. You want this, particularly in the case of law enforcement. I mean my local police force has unsolved murders, a couple quite old. However I do not want them devoting 100% of their assets to that. I am glad they also spend time looking at current burglaries, assaults, and even simple things like directing traffic when a traffic light breaks. Just because there's an open murder case doesn't mean I want them ignoring all their other duties.

    Finally, it may amaze you to learn this, but there are plenty of places hostile to America that someone might hide. When the people there don't like the US, and when it is completely and totally outside of the US's jurisdiction, it makes it real hard to do anything there. It isn't as though Bin Laden (if he's even still alive, guy may well have died of kidney failure) is sitting in a house in New York. He's hiding in a Muslim area in a country that doesn't much care for the US, and probably who's central government doesn't have good control of things. Can't just walk over there with an arrest warrant.

    1. Re:The ignornance, it burns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      After reading some of the other replies, I think we needed some rational thought.

  27. Re:I wish I saw this earlier by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If anyone starts looking for these, keep in mind that there are two types of license-plate obscuring devices: those that are illegal, and those that don't work.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  28. Re:What's this have to do with my rights online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Offering "rewards" for a verified MAC address in a given region suggests he knew exactly what it was going to be used for, and he was making money off of it. That certainly nails him for aiding and abetting. Even if some of the other charges are bogus, he's hardly an innocent victim.