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."
Welcome to the DMCA, the same nonsense that blocks you from selling mod chips. Did you really expect to "circumvent" the locks that cable companies put in place and nothing was going to happen?
This is why we've been complaining about the DMCA since '98, and why Alan Cox won't set foot in this country. Heck, I'm suprised it's legal to hook up our own equipment to the cable networks at all. Did you get that PC from comcast? No?
I put on my robe and wizard hat..
I did RTFA. His biggest misstep that brought attention to his actions was running a company that sold uncapped and hardware modded modems. He sold a couple to undercover feds. That was a Bad Idea. Selling hacked equipment that is designed to overcome preset bandwidth limits or provide unauthorized (free) service by cloning mac addresses of other authorized modems seems like "aiding and abetting". Running uncapped modems on Comcast's network would also seem like wire fraud (fraudulent activity involving electronic equipemnt) to me.
Comcast owns their network and sells you access based on bandwidth. More bandwidth costs more. If you find a way to circumvent their bandwidth limits, you are breaking your agreement with them (as well as violating the DMCA). Modding your own cable modem and running it on your own cable network is ok. Running it on someone elses is not.
Hacking to gain knowledge/enlightenment is one thing. Using that knowledge to steal service is uncool.
What intrigues me is the fact that cable co's are trusting END USER EQUIPMENT to enforce limits that should be imposed at their own network ingress.
Besides, what if someone creates a DOCSIS compliant device of their own and hooks it up to the cable network? Considering how eager companies are to pounce for it, you're almost certain to run afoul of a few patents in the process, but you're clear in copyright, and hence immune to the DMCA as well, since the only copyright involved would be your own.
Knowingly and willfully taking more bandwidth than you've paid for is fraud and should be treated as such. Everything else is bullshit.
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.
Why would they (service personnel) want hacked modems? Maybe to be able to alter the MAC on the test machine at will to clone a client's modesm's MAC address so they can determine that the clients' modems' MAC address is routable from the customer's location, and that maybe the clients' modem is defective after all ...
I've always been struck by the system of justice in the US where, if you plead guilty, you "save the state the cost of a trial".
In most countries where the law is based on English Common Law (Canada, UK, Australia, etc) there is always a trial, to establish the facts of the case, to establish the exact culpability of the accused, to determine the extenuating circumstances. There is always a pre-sentence report, often a psychological assessment, etc. There is no procedural difference between a case where the defendant pleads guilty and where he pleads not guilty, and the defendant can change his plea at almost any stage of the trial. Occasionally, a judge will refuse to accept a Guilty plea from the defendant, insisting he wait until the evidence has been presented.
There are no misdemeanor options to fall back on; everything is the equivalent of a felony (precisely, they are all Criminal convictions, which the US considers equivalent to Felony convictions when assessing the seriousness of a record for a potential visitor, immigrant, etc). A conviction of the charge of theft of a single CD is a Criminal Code conviction; there are no other options.
The only times when you can plead guilty and avoid a trial is when the charge truly is a misdemeanor; eg traffic court.
This eliminates the incentive to create a system of law as exists in the US, with one or more applicable charges that carry huge penalties, along with a cascade of ever lesser charges and classes of charges, with corresponding lesser maximum penalties, which are then used (as you point out) to elicit guilty pleas.
It also insures that you have an opportunity to defend yourself without onerous implications should you not prevail, for whatever reason.
The truly innocent are placed in a very difficult position under the standard practices of US law (and standard procedures of prosecutors to elicit convictions).
What if I'm hunting deer that happen to have body armour on?
That "armored deer" is known as wild pig. Its hide is so rigid that not every bullet can go through it. Hunters have to be very careful while hunting those pigs, and large calibers (or slugs in case of shotguns) are typically required. Wild pigs are a very dangerous game.
Because they can fearmonger alongside claiming these powers.
Do you hear fearmongering about Saddam anymore? Nope, because he's dead. Saddam's execution was used for a short term goal... the elections which took place just days after his death.
The OP asked why they haven't caught Osama, and I'm just asserting that perhaps it is not in the government's interest to do so.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
Yes, I'm pretty sure that knowing that someone is going to murder someone and not doing something about it is in itself a crime. Realistically though, you wouldn't know, but I think if someone walks into a gun shop and says they're going to buy a gun so they can shoot some body, then you cannot sell them the weapon even if they appear to be just joking.
1. You specified common law. Most of Canada is common law, and my post disproves that what you said applies to "common law" generically.
2. Why not look at the plea bargain in the Roman Polanski affair if you want something that doesn't pass the smell test?
BTW, the maximum sentence for sexual assault when tried as a misdemeanor in Canada is $2,000 + 6 months. The minimum is an absolute discharge. Aggravated sexual assault, on the other hand, can get you life.
To put this in context, we just gave a life sentence to a genocidal nutbar from another country who thought that Canada would be a safe place for him.
It's also illegal to tint your car windows too darkly as someone could have a gun and the police wouldn't be able to see it. I've seen people get fines for their windows, I've never seen a tinting shop get in trouble.
And that's a great example of why you should never talk to the cops. EVER.
It's not their job to be fair. It's their job to get you to say something incriminating. Functionally, it's the cops' job to "aid and abet" the prosecutors' office in getting innocent people convicted.
Anyone who says different, is a clueless idealistic moron. You have the 5th amendment right to keep your mouth shut for a reason: NEVER say anything to the cops.
Just last week, I had my trial before a judge for a very borderline DWI where I had blown a .08. To describe the background, after being arrested and being brought to the station, over one year ago, the officers asked if I would agree to answer questions. I told them I would not do so without an attorney present. They asked two more times, and made it sound as if I was about to get in huge trouble if I had the audacity to invoke my rights. I denied to answer questions each of those times. What is interesting is that the fact I was alert enough to both understand my rights, and to practice them, was the final straw and indicator to the judge that I was not both physically and mentally impaired. I was found not guilty.
Reply to That ||
link to said guy with said biodiesel and said jailable offense?
I doubt making your own biodiesel and using it is the offence. The offence is not paying a tax you are legally required to pay. In the UK you can run your car on biodiesel if you like, but that doesn't let you avoid paying tax - you have to pay the tax directly rather than it implicitly being included in the fuel price. Think of it as the difference between being employed or self employed - if you are employed then you pay your income tax by PAYE; if you are self employed you don't do PAYE, but this doesn't magically get you out of paying tax, you still have to pay it to the inland revenue at the end of the year.
http://blog.nexusuk.org