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."

Comments

I wish I saw this earlier

[areusche]

This information is really useful. He should have known better to post that everything he is doing is for "education purposes only" sadly.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[DJRumpy]

That might have worked, if he wasn't actually selling the hacked modems.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[jspiro]

Or posted it to Geocities in Hollywood, where it wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[tomhudson]

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 ...

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[narcberry]

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

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[Anonymous Coward]

If they go against the emission guidelines for your state, yes, and at least in California 'mod shops' are the next group they're trying to get legislation to let them go after. Currently smog shops and test & repair are fair game, but shops that do alterations, not repairs can't be hit for generating emissions violations.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[Raptoer]

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.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[tomhudson]

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.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[MichaelSmith]

There is a clear plastic cover which you used to be able to buy for your car here in Victoria, Australia. The theory was that the plastic would reflect the flash from a speed or red light camera directly back into the camera and prevent it taking a good image of your registration plate.

Those registration plate covers are now illegal.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[NekSnappa]

That is the worst car analogy ever!

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[PopeRatzo]

As a lawyer...

As a famous NASCAR driver, and nobel laureate, I disagree.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[mitgib]

Electric cars do not pay road use taxes. At least in the US, road use taxes are included in the price of gas at the pump, most states also collect road use taxes at diesel pumps as well. I used to drive an over the road truck, and Arizona did not collect from trucks at the pump, rather you reported your mileage monthly/quarterly, and paid the road use tax within their state. I remember it was cheaper to fill up on the AZ/CA boarder, do your business within California, then fill up again after leaving California and just paying the tax on the fuel you would have purchased.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[Caldrak]

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.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Just to be clear, you do know that, in general, you shouldn't be using this information, right? Stealing service from a big company is still stealing.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[d3ac0n]

As a famous NASCAR driver, and nobel laureate,

Pfft! Big deal. I got a Nobel. From my Cracker Jack box. Nobel Prizes all around!

*sways drunkenly*

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[coryking]

If you lease the vehicle, odds are good it would be against the contract and they'd either sue you or charge you to repair the vehicle.

So in your case it may not be illegal, but it would most likely be a contract violation.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[amoeba1911]

If you can see the license plate with your eyes, the camera can see it just as well. The camera doesn't have any magic that would make stuff invisible that normally is visible. The "flash makes it invisible" is nonsense.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

No. Next please!

Hacked modems that steal internet service are not akin to aftermarket alterations to your vehicle.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[dnahelicase]

What if you are using this equipment to get the "unlimited" service you thought you were buying when you signed up for "unlimited" internet?

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[nomadic]

He should have known better to post that everything he is doing is for "education purposes only" sadly.

Judges, prosecutors, and even juries tend not to be that stupid. You can't avoid criminal liability by throwing an insincere boilerplate statement up on your website.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[sg_oneill]

fucking oath he'd be able to ask it. Remember its up to the feds to prove it was illegitimate, and that gives him considerable leeway to prove that legitimate uses existed. Since telcos where buying it, its a legitimate product, albeit with capacity for abuse. Case dismissed , embarassed feds with a lot of questions to answer.

Infact even if telcos where buying it for *illegitimate* reasons, it doesn't matter, as long as he believed it was legit and can prove legit reasons exist.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Then it's definitely stealing. You paid for their service, you get the service you paid for.

If you think they falsely advertised, take them to court. At least they will get a fair chance to present their side of the argument.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[duguk]

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.

It's usually legal to have a heavily tinted back window, since some vans don't even have a back window. At least in the UK there is a percentage allowed opacity for the front windows only.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[elloGov]

How's this different then buying a car, modding it and selling it?

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[donaggie03]

GP proved nothing except that he is a grammar Nazi. He didn't prove, one way or the other, whether he had the intelligence to contribute to the fuel tax conversation. The only way that would have been proven is if your sig were already known to be a true statement, which it isn't. This is in contrast to your posts, which actually do prove some things:
1) You cannot spell.
2) You refuse to acknowledge a spelling mistake, and humbly correct it.
3) You do not understand basic logic.
In fact, I would pose another argument to challenge yours. Refusing to learn from your grammatical and spelling mistakes, and instead unleashing your "grammar Nazi rhetoric" on those who try to correct you, is a sign you do not possess the intelligence to contribute to the conversation. That being said, have a great day!

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[mcgrew]

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.

There was a guy here in central Illinois last year that was making his own biodeisel out of used cooking oil he collected from local restaraunts. They didn't have to pay for disposal of the oil and he didn't have to buy fuel.

He got in trouble for not paying the state's motor vehicle tax, which is collected at the pump.

So your analogy is 100% correct; it's happened.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[hazem]

I think the idea is that the plastic is supposed to have a property that helps cause a reflected glare from the flash. While taking a picture, I've looked at things and been able to see them but when I take the shot, the glare from the reflected flash makes part of the photo "invisible".

I suspect the ones that are illegal have the potential to work.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[tmosley]

Right, so modifying a vehicle to run on electricity should be illegal.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[archangel9]

That brings out my inner Spelling Nazi.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[mitgib]

If it can cut down on some of the hate spewed on the Internet, sure.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[harl]

People who sell guns are guilty of murder?
People who sell cars are guilty of DUI?
People who make airplane engines are guilty of9/11?
Shouldn't we be locking up the parents of criminals since they made them?

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[archangel9]

link to said guy with said biodiesel and said jailable offense? I believe it, but I'd like to read about his "trouble", because if he operated a legit business creating biodiesel in his garage, that would create a whole new issue. He would have to "sell" the biodiesel to himself and report the taxes on the sale. If it's a hobby thing, he'd still be subject to EPA regulations. Not sure that the "tax evasion" is the heart of the matter.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[Muad'Dave]

It also happened to the biodiesel guy featured on "Dirty Jobs" - the taxman came knocking since he wasn't paying the road tax.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[mitgib]

Excellent point and I've updated my sig appropriately

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[FireFury03]

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.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[harl]

I think the idea is that the useless plastic turns into usable cash through the manipulation of people.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[mea37]

"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."

And the phrase in that context is where I expect it all comes crashing down.

See, the electrician doesn't get arrested, but the non-electrician doesn't get to say 'there are legitimate uses for this, so it's ok for me to have one too'. (Yeah, its an imperfect analogy, but don't blame me - it's your analogy, not mine.)

If legitimate uses make up the crux of his business, TFA did a poor job representing that fact. If he caters to legitimate users of these devices, then it's surprising that he's just now working on a list of what those legitimate uses might be. Sounds to me like he knowingly and deliberately profited from others' intent to break the law, whether or not he ever explicitly said "use this to steal bandwidth - here's how". That sure sounds like conspiracy to me.

But of course, that's just one man's opinion. I'm not on a jury here, and certainly haven't heard such evidence as will no doubt be shown in court. I'm just saying, based on how he's defending himself in these quotes, he sounds like he's trying to play dumb and stretch reasonable doubt.

Returning to his gun analogy - sure, arresting every gun-maker sounds dumb; but arresting every gun-maker who lets their web forum be used for discussion of armed robbery sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[mcgrew]

Unfortunately, the only place I saw it covered was the State Journal-register, and they purge stories after a set amount of time. I have journals with links to SJ-R 404s (like this one).

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[nomadic]

Remember its up to the feds to prove it was illegitimate, and that gives him considerable leeway to prove that legitimate uses existed. Since telcos where buying it, its a legitimate product, albeit with capacity for abuse. Case dismissed , embarassed feds with a lot of questions to answer.

It's up to the Feds to prove their case, but it's up to the judge or jury to decide how credible his defense is. Just because you can show that it is theoretically possible that you're not breaking the law, doesn't mean you won't (or even shouldn't) get convicted.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[archangel9]

so how do you prove that I'm not buying gas? For that matter, how do you prove that I am?

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Why would they (service personnel) want hacked modems?

It's legitimate for a company to buy (what they think are) illegally-produced and sold goods for the purpose of helping to prove that the goods are, indeed, what they think they are, and that they are for sale.

Companies doing "brand name protection", looking for knockoffs, do this all the time.

Don't know if this is the case here, but that's one possibility.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> I suspect the ones that are illegal have the potential to work.

You must not know government very well.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[Obfuscant]

Since telcos where buying it, its a legitimate product, ...

That claim is weak. If someone hacks a device I sell in order to use it to commit a crime, I very well may buy some of the hacked versions to determine what the hack is and how to prevent it in the future. That doesn't make the criminal use magically legal, it only means that I bought some of the hacked product.

I have no doubt that the telcos bought some of the hacked modems just to see how they were hacked and work to prevent it.

... as long as he believed it was legit and can prove legit reasons exist.

That argument will fail, too. People have legit reason for having a truckload of ammonium nitrate, and people have legit reasons for having a barrel of diesel fuel. If you are caught busy mixing the two in the back of a U-Haul, don't hold your breath waiting for the "legit reasons exist" defense to get you out of prison. It's what YOU are doing with them that counts, not what other people might use the two for.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[tomhudson]

You're not going to get much of an argument from me vis. the modem guy - he was clearly selling gear to help people steal service, judging by one of his forum posts.

However, it's not only electricians who should be able to carry around pliers in Texas. I've often kept a toolbox in my trunk, for those "just in case" emergencies, and the pliers in there are also illegal in Texas. Pretty stupid law - fortunately not often enforced.

It's like the contradictory highway code up here. When Walkmans became popular, they modified it so that headphones, etc. (any earpiece), were banned if you were driving a car. Then cell phones came out and you have to use either a speaker kit or a bluetooth earpiece - but the bluetooth earpiece is against the law under the language of the headphone ban. I won a bet with a cop over this - she didn't believe me until she pulled out her book, read the older law, and said :oops -you're right." The law still hasn't been fixed, and it probably never will be.

Or another contradictory pair of laws. Kids were hanging onto the rear bumper of buses during the winter and sliding along the street. City passed a bylaw making it illegal for anyone to hold onto any part of a vehicle in motion. So how the f*ck are you supposed to steer?

Same city passed a law prohibiting "massage" - and defined it as the "manipulation of a part of a human body by another person." Stupid politicians didn't realize they had just banned the hand-shake, doctors setting broken bones, dentistry, haircuts, giving babies a bath, and a whole lot of other common stuff.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[Khyber]

Who says it's stealing internet service?

Did you forget we (the taxpayers) let the government hand the telcos 200 billion (at least) of our tax dollars to upgrade our network infrastructure? They still haven't delivered on their promise and they're late on it as well - as far as I'm concerned they OWE us free internet until such time that they deliver their promised 45mbit symmetrical lines to our houses.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[tomhudson]

If the telcos were buying them with a PO number, etc., and the PO states that they're test equipment, it shows his intent was to sell them test equipment. People usually do the illegal stuff without purchase orders, invoices, etc. Or does the local crack dealer now give receipts for tax purposes? Or the mafia give invoices for the "insurance protection plan" you buy from them :-)

What will hang him, IMO, is his attempt to get valid MAC addresses for a network he didn't have access to (for another customer). People doing legit deployment of testing equipment would already have such a list of addresses. Only someone who wanted to clone a legit MAC address so they could steal service would need that. His case is weak, very weak. He'll probably cop a plea.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[Golddess]

Probably because a legitimate shop that does window tints will either a) do them to not exceed the limits specified by the law, or b) if the customer requests a tint darker than the law allows, the shop will make it clear to the customer that their vehicle will not be street-legal with such a tint.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[cayenne8]

"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."

I know your example is the UK, but, it is in response to something that sounds like it was similar in the US.

I don't know how this argument would hold up. Let's make a beer analogy.

I can legally make my own beer at home. I make it myself, I consume it myself, hell...I often have friends over to consume it with me (free).

Now, if I were to buy beer, I'd be paying taxes on it. However, I'm not paying taxes on my home brew...aside from some taxes on the ingredients (I could grow some of them if I wanted, like hops).

I'm not required to pay any tax on beer I make.

Now, if I were to make my own bio-diesel...or other type of fuel, why should I be force to pay tax on it? It is for personal consumption in my car like my beer is for my mouth. If I were to give it away....like my beer...etc.

What if I could generate enough of my own electricity to fun my own electric car...would they try to bust me for that too if I didn't pay some sort of tax.

Now, I dunno how things are different in the UK, but, in the US the only taxes for roads that I know of (in most states at least) are coming off of gasoline and diesel taxes bought at a commercial pump.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[mea37]

"However, it's not only electricians who should be able to carry around pliers in Texas"

I'm not making a value judgement about the law. I'm addressing the comparison GP made between that law (and its application) vs. the laws governing theft of cable service (and their appilcation).

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[HarmlessScenery]

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.

Actually, that's not 100% true. In the UK it's legal to produce up to 2500 litres of biodiesel tax free, for personal use. If you produce more than 2500 litres per annum you have to register for a licence and pay duty. http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/news/682/bulletin/

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[rhyder128k]

I hear that you can get them in order to encourage you to good things, these days. I need all the encouragement I can get, so I think I should be awarded one.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[clone53421]

Same city passed a law prohibiting "massage" - and defined it as the "manipulation of a part of a human body by another person."

Heh. Ironically, depending on how you define "manipulation", actual massages might not be included.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[sayno2quat]

Too bad Geocities is gone for good.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[pwfffff]

7) Someone smart enough to figure out that it's a troll may also be sinister enough to recognize an opportunity to counter-troll the poster by correcting his sig. Perhaps he takes pride in causing the undeserved self-satisfaction that the correction would give the original poster, or revels in the megalomania that comes with properly predicting and eliciting such self-satisfaction
8) This list would be really confusing if compiled together and displayed out of context
9) ???
10) Profit!!!

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[gfreeman]

Now, I dunno how things are different in the UK, but, in the US the only taxes for roads that I know of (in most states at least) are coming off of gasoline and diesel taxes bought at a commercial pump.

Your driving licences are free then? What about property taxes ... any part of those go towards transportation?

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[commodore64_love]

How about a lock-smithing analogy? Back in the 1970s my father learned to break-open locks and safes as part of a side business. After all from time-to-time people DO need lock-crackers if they lost their keys.

One could argue that learning to hack a modem or computer is merely a modern form of lock-smithing. However it seems current laws forbid electronic lock-cracking (unless of course you did it under Bush or Obama - then the General Attorney will protect you).

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[commodore64_love]

>>>the bluetooth earpiece is against the law under the language of the headphone ban. I won a bet with a cop over this - she didn't believe me until she pulled out her book, read the older law, and said :oops -you're right." The law still hasn't been fixed, and it probably never will be.
>>>

I consider this a good law. AAA and other organizations have shown that even hands-free cellphone usage reduces reaction time, such that you are a worse driver than an alcoholic. People shouldn't be using cellphones in cars except for emergencies.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[commodore64_love]

>>>As a famous NASCAR driver, and nobel laureate, I disagree.

Recent history shows that it's harder to become a NASCAR driver than a nobel prize winner. At least with the former you actually have to DO something and qualify to drive the car. In the latter you merely need to be a president of some country.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[commodore64_love]

In my opinion the Feds don't have to win anything.

The mere inconvenience (and possibly fear) of the trial is punishment enough. This is the modus operandi of the RIAA, to instill fear or inconvenience, not necessarily to win. Don't believe me? Try it sometime. Often merely saying, "If you don't comply, I will drag you into court," is enough to get people to see things your way.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[cayenne8]

"Your driving licences are free then? What about property taxes ... any part of those go towards transportation?"

Well...it varies from state to state.

In LA, I'm not sure actually...getting a drivers license is about $30 I think, and plates for my car are like $60 or so? I honestly don't remember what it was last time.

I think I only had to pay property tax while living in New Orleans proper, but, since Katrina, I've been living all around the area, just now back here again, so it may be a year or so before they actually catch up with me again and I have to register my car in NOLA. I've got like 3 more years before my plates expires, so, not worried about changing that any time soon.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[FireFury03]

so how do you prove that I'm not buying gas? For that matter, how do you prove that I am?

Since when did you need to be able to prove something in order to be required to pay tax on it? Proving how much income you have is pretty hard (you could be getting paid into offshore accounts, etc.) but you still have to pay income tax on it.

In any case, proving that your car is running on biodiesel is pretty trivial - the authorities just have to put the contents of the fuel tank through a mass spectrometer. If you're running on plain vegetable oil which hasn't been processed into biodiesel then you can even smell it from the exhaust.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[plague3106]

So... how exactly do they know how muhc you've produced? Do botched batches that end up down the drain count?

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[FireFury03]

I'm not required to pay any tax on beer I make.

Now, if I were to make my own bio-diesel...or other type of fuel, why should I be force to pay tax on it?

Your argument doesn't hold up - you are comparing two completely different laws and expecting them to work in the same way, which is just silly.

What if I could generate enough of my own electricity to fun my own electric car...would they try to bust me for that too if I didn't pay some sort of tax.

No, because electricity isn't covered by the same fuel tax laws, so it isn't taxed as vehicle fuel anyway - you don't pay vehicle fuel taxes on electricity, no matter whether you draw it from the grid or your own windmill. Electricity purchased from the grid is covered by the usual VAT rules (although VAT is charged at a reduced rate).

Now, I dunno how things are different in the UK, but, in the US the only taxes for roads that I know of (in most states at least) are coming off of gasoline and diesel taxes bought at a commercial pump.

In the UK, all taxes go into a central pot, so you can't say that a specific tax pays for the roads. However, there are several taxes associated with running a car, for example: Road Licence Fund (aka the tax disc), vehicle fuel tax (charged on all liquid and gas vehicle fuels at various rates - i.e. petrol, diesel, LPG, biodiesel), VAT (charged on electricity for your electric car, many of the components you need to buy to keep your car running, such as brake pads, oil, etc.).

All of these taxes are governed by different laws. For example, everyone who runs a vehicle on the public highway is required to have a tax disc (the cost depends on things like the vehicle's emissions). Everyone who runs their vehicle on the public highway needs to pay tax on any liquid or gas fuel it runs on (even if you make it yourself) - this tax is charged at a fixed pence-per-litre. VAT, on the other hand, is governed by usual VAT laws, which means that you don't have to pay VAT on anything supplied by businesses that aren't VAT registered, and it is a percentage of the product's price, so if you are producing your own electricity then you are not selling it and therefore don't need to pay VAT on it.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[FireFury03]

So... how exactly do they know how muhc you've produced? Do botched batches that end up down the drain count?

You seem to be making the faulty assumption that the government have to be able to prove you're doing something in order to tax it. They don't. There are many taxes that you pay on things that aren't easily provable. Sure, you can probably get away with evading tax on these things, but the kicker is that if someone does happen to prove you evaded taxes then you're looking at big fines and jail time. So you take your choice - if you feel like breaking the law then you might get away with it, but you shouldn't complain if you don't and end up in jail. Pretty much the same as most other laws, in fact.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[archangel9]

Since when did you need to be able to prove something in order to be required to pay tax on it?

You're not following me. You said that you have to pay tax one way or the other, correct? From what you say, it appears to be a choice.

How does the UK keep track of how the actual taxes are paid, either through the fuel or directly? If I am supposed to be paying through the fuel, who keeps track of the tax I have paid? Maybe I'm just driving less and using less fuel.

I'm not being deliberately obtuse; I'm just an American.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[houstonbofh]

>>>the bluetooth earpiece is against the law under the language of the headphone ban. I won a bet with a cop over this - she didn't believe me until she pulled out her book, read the older law, and said :oops -you're right." The law still hasn't been fixed, and it probably never will be. >>>

I consider this a good law. AAA and other organizations have shown that even hands-free cellphone usage reduces reaction time, such that you are a worse driver than an alcoholic. People shouldn't be using cellphones in cars except for emergencies.

What? Sorry... I couldn't hear you. I had to take out my hearing aid because of this stupid law, and now I can't find the damn thing... [/sarcasm]

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[plague3106]

Its hard to claim someone was evading taxes if they can't prove you've done something that actually is taxable.

You're basically claiming the government can claim you didn't pay your dog tax without proving that you even own a dog.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[nomadic]

Often merely saying, "If you don't comply, I will drag you into court," is enough to get people to see things your way.

Yeah I've used that at times. Not as useful as you think.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[FireFury03]

You said that you have to pay tax one way or the other, correct?

Yes.

From what you say, it appears to be a choice.

What is the choice?

How does the UK keep track of how the actual taxes are paid, either through the fuel or directly?

No one is going to keep track of whether or not you have filled up at the pump (and therefore paid tax at the point of sale). However, if you are found to have homebrew biodiesel in your tank and you didn't pay any tax directly, it's pretty much proof that you evaded the tax since that biodiesel didn't come from a pump so you didn't pay tax at the point of sale.

As with most taxes, the government is trusting people to obey the law, with pretty hefty fines or jail if you are found not to be. Most people who evade the tax won't be caught, but do you want to take the chance that you will?

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[geekoid]

What if someone sold a custom gun knowing it was going to be used to shoot the president?

Everything you list has a legit use, being used to commit a crime is the exception.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[FireFury03]

Its hard to claim someone was evading taxes if they can't prove you've done something that actually is taxable.

You're basically claiming the government can claim you didn't pay your dog tax without proving that you even own a dog.

How does the government ensure that you pay the right amount of income tax? They are trusting that you told the truth on your tax return. If you didn't tell the truth then it may be very difficult to prove this, but the penalties for getting caught are very high so it might not be worth the risk that they somehow manage to prove you evaded the tax.

How does the government ensure that you pay the right amount of duty and VAT on imports? Much or the time they are trusting you to declare what you are importing.

How does the TVLA ensure you pay for your TV licence if you own a TV? They send threatening letters to law abiding citizens and other nasty things like that but at the end of the day they can only trust that you declare that you have a TV and pay for a licence.

See - lots of taxes already exist where proving evasion is hard, this isn't really any different.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[torkus]

I'm fairly certain a judge can throw out a case irrespective of the jury's opinion. A judge just can't CONVICT against a jury's not-guilty finding.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[torkus]

Actually there are plate covers that work ... certain ones for certain situations and camera types.

Some are fabricated to enhance glare similar to the silvered reflective stripes on safety gear (take a picture biking safety jacket with and without flash, the difference is incredibly obvious) . A camera that uses a flash will over-expose and be unable to read the plate.

Another type is seemingly identical to the privacy guards on monitors. If you're too far off from directly in front of the plate (sides, or above) it blurs out your view. From straight on (i.e. behind the vehicle at road level) it appears to be nothing more than a clear plastic cover.

So the technology exists and DOES work...against certain cameras in certain situations. However afaik they're all illegal in NY (and probably most states)

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[harl]

This is the exact difference I'm trying to point out.

Your example is aiding and abetting. The article and my examples are not.

Sure the modems can be used to commit theft of services just as Shell gasoline can be used to commit DUI. However in your example the gun will be used in a crime.

Your example has prior planning and collusion to commit a crime. The two are working together. That makes it aiding and abetting.

Even telling people how to steal cable is not aiding and abetting. By that same logic if I say you can steal something by grabbing it off the shelf and walking out out the store with it I would be aiding and abetting all cases of shoplifting. That's simply nonsensical.

Helping them do it would be. That's an action.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[nomadic]

Yep, but once the prosecutor meets his or her burden, most judges are hesitant to overrule the jury.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Yeah it was definitely Dodgey. He auto know better...

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[poopdeville]

The government can prove that the car has been used substantially, and (I assume) for purported business purposes.

Every car has its mileage recorded for emissions testing...

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[mundanetechnomancer]

if you produce biofuel for your own use, you must pay a tax on the usage of the fuel on public roads of around $0.42 per gallon after the first 50 gallons IIRC. at least that's what it was when i looked into it a few years back. there are laws on the books about homemade fuel

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[shaitand]

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

Producing something that can be used to hack say a cable company network is not the same thing as hacking said companies network. There are legitimate uses for these modems and in this case the supposed victims themselves are using these very modems for those legitimate purposes.

How is that not relevant to the indictment?

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[Dun Malg]

Indeed, by the technical definition of "manipulate", so long as you massage without using your hands, you're in the clear...

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[Dun Malg]

I consider this a good law. AAA and other organizations have shown that even hands-free cellphone usage reduces reaction time

No, it's a bad law even if you believe any electronic noisemaker in your ear is distracting. The point is that even though the technical language of the anti-walkman law outlaws bluetooth headsets, the laws are enforced as if that were not the case. Good law should be clear in intent, and uniformly enforced.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[shaitand]

"Just because you can show that it is theoretically possible that you're not breaking the law, doesn't mean you won't (or even shouldn't) get convicted."

Actually it does mean you shouldn't be (if not won't be) convicted. The feds have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he commited a crime and this crime specifically. If there is a feasible scenerio, which the evidence does not eliminate, under which the defendant would not have been breaking the law then he is not guilty. Even if the defendant in reality did whatever it is. There is no greater crime than locking up the innocent therefore the possibility of the guilty committing further crime never justifies locking people up simply because they probably did it.

In this case, if establishing that there are legitimate uses for the product and even further that the supposed victims actually bought the products for these very purposes raises reasonable doubt.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[Dun Malg]

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.

Incorrect. I can build an electric car and never pay taxes for the roads again (they come from fuel taxes). Electric cars are not illegal.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[shaitand]

It only works when you are the big company with relatively infinite resources and the other guy is a defenseless individual with no resources at this disposal.

It doesn't work very well when you say it to the big evil corporation. Though it works somewhat better if its on your attorney's letterhead.

I worked tech support for awhile before they shipped it all off to India and at one point an attorney customer actually said, "That's against the law you know, I could sue you." I responded with, "I'm not permitted to discuss legal concerns Mr. X. If you would like to continue that line of discussion I would be happy to transfer you right over to Sony's multi-million dollar legal department." Oddly, he never said another word about lawsuits.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[shaitand]

In this case the prosecutor has the burden to prove that the defendant was selling a product with no purpose but to facilitate illegal activity. That isn't easy to due when the supposed victims of the crime purchased the equipment in question for legitimate activities.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[shaitand]

"That argument will fail, too. People have legit reason for having a truckload of ammonium nitrate, and people have legit reasons for having a barrel of diesel fuel. If you are caught busy mixing the two in the back of a U-Haul, don't hold your breath waiting for the "legit reasons exist" defense to get you out of prison. It's what YOU are doing with them that counts, not what other people might use the two for."

In your analogy he is selling truckloads of ammonium nitrate not mixing them in the back of a uhaul. His customers allegedly may have mixed up his ammonium nitrate in the back of a uhaul.

The modems themselves are perfectly legal. His customers allegedly have been using these modems in a manner which is illegal. The feds are claiming he was selling the modems to facilitate those illegal activities and that claim goes out the window if the modems have legitimate uses (such as network diagnostics).

"It's what YOU are doing with them that counts, not what other people might use the two for."

And that would be the crux of his defense. He isn't doing anything illegal, some people who bought his products may or may not have but he didn't sell them with the express purpose that people use them to do something illegal.

On the other side of the debate, he has published a book "For Educational Purposes Only" explaining how to modify the modems (which is legal) and use them do things which are not legal.

It isn't illegal to modify hardware I bought from you whether you want me to modify it or not.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[shaitand]

I think what will hang him having previously written and published a book on how to modify modems just like his and then use them for the illegal activity.

It is much more difficult to believe he wasn't selling them for the purpose of performing the illegal activity.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[shaitand]

"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."

In other words no. Making modifications after purchase is NOT illegal. Doing something illegal with your modified widget is illegal. In your analogy dodging taxes and not modifying the car is what is and should be illegal.

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

But if he sold something that could be used to break the law but has other functions as well then no that is not and should not be illegal.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[shaitand]

It is actually the angle of the camera that is supposed to make the difference with the stuff that actually works.

For instance, the first I heard of plates like this were copycat plates the in the UK. The paint on the plate works like the color changing ink on a dollar bill it is visible head on but at an angle it fades and at some angles is not visible at all.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[shaitand]

You are required to register with the feds and get a license to make biodiesel for personal use. Costs a couple hundred if I remember correctly. I do know that much.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[shaitand]

"No, because electricity isn't covered by the same fuel tax laws, so it isn't taxed as vehicle fuel anyway - you don't pay vehicle fuel taxes on electricity, no matter whether you draw it from the grid or your own windmill. Electricity purchased from the grid is covered by the usual VAT rules (although VAT is charged at a reduced rate)."

His comparison is fair for the US version. In both cases the taxes are on sales of the product. If you produce the product for your own use then you are not selling it therefore no tax should be due.

The point you want to dismiss is exactly what opponents of this philosophy would bring up. The tax is to repair the roads and he is using the roads and therefore should have to pay his share of the cost of the upkeep.

My counter to that argument would be that the argument is a good reason why a fuel sales tax is a poor way to make everyone pay their share of roadway upkeep costs. Not a reason to punish someone who didn't pay a sales tax because he didn't sell anything.

He is mistaken about one thing though. It is illegal to share his homebrew beer with others even on his property.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[shaitand]

What you propose is known as civil disobedience. Its what Rosa Parks did when she sat on the front of the bus in defiance of an unjust law. Its what Gandhi did to bring liberation as well.

If you use this form of protest you must accept that there are consequences.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[shaitand]

P.S. I have used this form of protest with some success. In grade school I refused to say the pledge of allegiance. Each day I would be sent to the office where I would "talked to" about this by the vice principal. Afterward I would get swats (which was legal then).

This went on for about two months before I was no longer required to say the pledge of allegiance.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[tomhudson]

I think what will hang him having previously written and published a book on how to modify modems just like his and then use them for the illegal activity.

It is much more difficult to believe he wasn't selling them for the purpose of performing the illegal activity.

That would do it, for sure.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[shaitand]

No we should be locking the politicians. They are the ones who make criminals.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[nomadic]

In this case the prosecutor has the burden to prove that the defendant was selling a product with no purpose but to facilitate illegal activity.

Nah, that's not necessary, I don't have to prove NO purpose but to break the law. But I am not a criminal lawyer so I won't go out on a limb and say what they have to prove, at least without seeing the indictment. But a drug dealer can't get out by proving that 1 of the 100 people he sold cocaine to was a researcher allowed by law to obtain and conduct experiments on the drug.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[nomadic]

Actually in this case it was a slightly smaller company, and I think I actually will have to sue them. And I will likely win. And you'd be surprised at legal fights, the best litigators I've ever met came from tiny firms, yet routinely beat huge companies.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[svnt]

Generally it isn't illegal to install tint, it is only illegal to operate a vehicle on public property with illegal tint installed.

As an aside, in Oregon it is only illegal to have windows tinted over 35% if your car could not be reasonably deemed an off-road vehicle, or if does not have off-road equipment. What that means in practice is that if you want to have limo tint on your personal vehicle, all you have to do is buy an SUV. Then you can hide even more people with guns in the backseat than in a conventional vehicle. Perhaps you could even add a winch or bull bar to your Porsche to accomplish the same effect.

I guess the moral of the story is laws are often bullshit.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[nomadic]

Actually it does mean you shouldn't be (if not won't be) convicted. The feds have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he commited a crime and this crime specifically.

What I said was just "theoretically possible"; as prosecutors tell juries every day, "beyond any reasonable doubt" does not mean "no doubt." If I come up with a implausible scenario, that doesn't always introduce "reasonable" doubt.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[Obfuscant]

...but he didn't sell them with the express purpose that people use them to do something illegal.

That's a matter of fact that the jury will decide. All I'm saying is that the argument "there are legal uses for" isn't very good.

It isn't illegal to modify hardware I bought from you whether you want me to modify it or not.

That's not the issue here. The issue is whether I modify hardware and then sell it to you. I can't buy a ham radio (legal), modify it for out of band (legal), and then sell it as a land mobile radio (illegal). And I can't commercially sell them as modified out of band, since they no longer meet their certification, which is required for commercial sales.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[shaitand]

"That's not the issue here. The issue is whether I modify hardware and then sell it to you. I can't buy a ham radio (legal), modify it for out of band (legal), and then sell it as a land mobile radio (illegal). And I can't commercially sell them as modified out of band, since they no longer meet their certification, which is required for commercial sales."

Irrelevant. He is not making an illegal modification to a product or selling a product that is illegal after modification. Your example depends on specific laws that apply to a specific example and have no relevance to the example at hand.

If his modification broke fcc compliance in some fashion maybe you would be onto something but the resulting modem is a perfectly functional and legal to sell and use modem.

This case rests on intent. If he intended the purchaser to use the product to break the law he is guilty. If he just didn't care he is not guilty. If he intended legal use then he is innocent.

Convincing a jury he didn't intend them to be used illegally after writing a book on making said modems and using them illegally is a tough sell though.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[shaitand]

"What I said was just "theoretically possible"; as prosecutors tell juries every day, "beyond any reasonable doubt" does not mean "no doubt." If I come up with a implausible scenario, that doesn't always introduce "reasonable" doubt."

Without doubt. Unfortunately, people are convicted despite plausible scenarios every day. That and judges lie to juries and tell them they must consider only the letter of the law and not the intent.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[shaitand]

"But a drug dealer can't get out by proving that 1 of the 100 people he sold cocaine to was a researcher allowed by law to obtain and conduct experiments on the drug."

Without federal controls and licensing, producing drugs is a crime. Selling them is a crime. And possessing them is a crime. Using them is actually not a crime.

Cable modems on the other hand are legal to produce and to sell (even in modified form) to anyone. What the prosecutor actually has to prove is the defendants intent since they are claiming he is an accomplice to the illegal activities that may or may not have been committed by his customers.

The only way (short of a confession) to prove he sold the modems with the intention they be used for illegal activity beyond a reasonable doubt is to demonstrate that there aren't legal uses for the product. Otherwise, he can claim that he believes in the goodness of people and assumed they would not use them for crimes.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[Saxerman]

Here's a link to the story in question: http://www.herald-review.com/news/local/article_5dae2327-a3cb-5bba-ac4c-14dac3b83327.html

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[archangel9]

just when I give the .gov some credit...
thanks for the link.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[plague3106]

How does the government ensure that you pay the right amount of income tax? They are trusting that you told the truth on your tax return. If you didn't tell the truth then it may be very difficult to prove this, but the penalties for getting caught are very high so it might not be worth the risk that they somehow manage to prove you evaded the tax.

Ya, um no. No one is trusting you to report your income to the government. Your employer reports it, and they will, because they also need to claim your income as a business expense. Most places outsource payroll anyway, and there's no way they'd be caught illegally not reporting your income.

How does the government ensure that you pay the right amount of duty and VAT on imports? Much or the time they are trusting you to declare what you are importing.

The fact that they can search you entering the country pretty much means they aren't trusting you..

How does the TVLA ensure you pay for your TV licence if you own a TV? They send threatening letters to law abiding citizens and other nasty things like that but at the end of the day they can only trust that you declare that you have a TV and pay for a licence.

We don't have a TV license here. But in Britain, I know that there are ways to drive around and determine from outside a home if there's a TV in there or not. They then check the license, and guess what happens if you're not on the list?

See - lots of taxes already exist where proving evasion is hard, this isn't really any different.

Yes, that's my point. Where there is no enforcement, you probably can get away with not reporting.

Your premise is that it operations on trust, but I think you can see from your own examples that's not how it works. Which was my question... how do they know how much beer you've made, since there seems to be no method of enforcement?

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[FireFury03]

Ya, um no. No one is trusting you to report your income to the government. Your employer reports it, and they will, because they also need to claim your income as a business expense.

Bzzt, try again. I have no employer - I'm self employed. Also, anyone who gets extra income from other sources (e.g. letting out a room in their house, etc.) has to report that income on a tax return.

The fact that they can search you entering the country pretty much means they aren't trusting you..

"Can" is not the same as "will". You can walk through the "nothing to declare" aisle at the airport and the chances are you won't get searched. Similarly, you can import goods with nominal values (under £17) written on the customs forms and the chances are they won't search the boxes and charge you VAT.

We don't have a TV license here. But in Britain, I know that there are ways to drive around and determine from outside a home if there's a TV in there or not.

TV detectors only work in specific cases. They detect the IF oscillator radiating through the antenna - this means that they wouldn't be able to detect my TV because I have no antenna (I use satellite). There is also a strong suggestion that the vast majority of TV detector vans actually don't have any TV detection kit in them and are just driven around to scare people (that said, I have *never* seen a TV detection van, so they clearly aren't that common).

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[adolf]

Gosh. I didn't know that MAC addresses were illegal goods.

Here's mine, FYI:

00-25-3c-2c-3e-f5

Do as you will with it.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[plague3106]

Bzzt, try again. I have no employer - I'm self employed. Also, anyone who gets extra income from other sources (e.g. letting out a room in their house, etc.) has to report that income on a tax return.

You don't get it do you? You may very well be able to get away not reporting. Of course, I have my own business too, and my largest client helpfully sends a form to the IRS reporting the money they've paid me. Presumably because they want to keep out of trouble by having the IRS look at the expensive they've paid to me. An exception does not invalidate the norm, BTW.

TV detectors only work in specific cases. They detect the IF oscillator radiating through the antenna - this means that they wouldn't be able to detect my TV because I have no antenna (I use satellite). There is also a strong suggestion that the vast majority of TV detector vans actually don't have any TV detection kit in them and are just driven around to scare people (that said, I have *never* seen a TV detection van, so they clearly aren't that common).

Presumably the van can see a satellite mounted on your property.. I don't live in Britian, but the fact that you never saw one doesn't mean they don't exist (they clearly do, as there was a BBC article descibing how they work), and the fact that they DON'T trust you enough to have some vans proves my point.

If they didn't even have the token force they do, the assumption they're making is that no one would pay the license fee. Which again is my point.. without a serious attempt at enforcement, almost nobody would pay a tax they don't have to.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[FireFury03]

You don't get it do you? You may very well be able to get away not reporting.

Isn't that *exactly* what I said? Income tax (amoungst others) is largely based on trust. If you misreport your income, you may well get away with it and it would be very difficult for the authorities to prove an offence, but the penalty if you do get caught is pretty high, so most people aren't going to take the risk.

Of course, I have my own business too, and my largest client helpfully sends a form to the IRS reporting the money they've paid me.

This is only true if you deal with businesses. If you contract to private individuals and they pay ion cash then this information will not be reported to the inland revenue by your customers and there is no way for the income to be proved if you misreported it.

Presumably the van can see a satellite mounted on your property..

Yes, the same way as they can also see antennas mounted on people's roofs. But the law says that you're not allowed to receive broadcast TV without a licence, not that you can't have an antenna. I imagine the vast majority of people without a TV also have an antenna or satellite dish since no one is going to bother removing the antenna from their property just because they don't currently have a TV. They would not be able to prosecute or get a search warrant based on this.

If they didn't even have the token force they do, the assumption they're making is that no one would pay the license fee.

You don't get it do you. If I didn't pay my licence fee, there is no way they could make me - they cannot prove whether or not I watch broadcast TV, thus the licence fee operates on trust.

without a serious attempt at enforcement, almost nobody would pay a tax they don't have to.

Except the majority of people do pay their TV licence, and don't lie on their tax return, even though in both cases the chances are that they would get away with it, which seems to disprove your point... Most people want to follow the law, which explains why most people pay for music instead of downloading it all, and don't do various other criminal acts for which they almost certainly won't get caught.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[plague3106]

Isn't that *exactly* what I said? Income tax (amoungst others) is largely based on trust. If you misreport your income, you may well get away with it and it would be very difficult for the authorities to prove an offence, but the penalty if you do get caught is pretty high, so most people aren't going to take the risk.

No, this isn't at ALL what you said. You pointed to a few edge cases where trust may be the only thing stopping you... but thats NOT THE NORM. In almost every other case, the IRS most certainly does NOT trust anyone. Please feel free to read the history of the income tax if you don't believe me.

This is only true if you deal with businesses. If you contract to private individuals and they pay ion cash then this information will not be reported to the inland revenue by your customers and there is no way for the income to be proved if you misreported it.

You sadly underestimate the amount of "under the table" transactions which go on every year. This exact thing happens all the time. The fact that it can happen though doesn't mean the whole paying taxes thing is built on trust; it means they can't catch you because they don't have constant monitoring. But that doesn't mean they TRUST you to pay your taxes, it means its impractical to catch everyone breaking the law.

Yes, the same way as they can also see antennas mounted on people's roofs. But the law says that you're not allowed to receive broadcast TV without a licence, not that you can't have an antenna. I imagine the vast majority of people without a TV also have an antenna or satellite dish since no one is going to bother removing the antenna from their property just because they don't currently have a TV. They would not be able to prosecute or get a search warrant based on this.

My dad has a large antenna installed within the attic of his house, its not visible at all. Besides, what's your point here? The fact that they have vans at all means they don't trust people to pay. I don't know UK law, but if the US had a TV license tax I'm sure a judge would issue a warrant based on the fact that there's a dish or antenna on the roof.

You don't get it do you. If I didn't pay my licence fee, there is no way they could make me - they cannot prove whether or not I watch broadcast TV, thus the licence fee operates on trust.

WTF? They have a fleet of vans to catch people that might be doing just what you're suggesting, and you say its based on trust? Enforcement and intimidation is not a system based on trust, that's the exact opposite of trust.

Except the majority of people do pay their TV licence, and don't lie on their tax return, even though in both cases the chances are that they would get away with it, which seems to disprove your point... Most people want to follow the law, which explains why most people pay for music instead of downloading it all, and don't do various other criminal acts for which they almost certainly won't get caught.

Most people pay because they expect to be caught. I don't claim to know about people lying on their taxes in the UK, but in the US being paid under the table is very common. Most people don't want to pay taxes, otherwise the selling point of tax prepares would not be getting the largest refund legally possible. Many may very well lie (do you know anyone that reports use taxes? I don't.), and those that don't aren't doing so out of sense of duty or "wanting" to follow the law, they do so because of fear of consequences. If you're using fear to compel someone to act, you can't possibly say you trust them.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[FireFury03]

I don't know UK law, but if the US had a TV license tax I'm sure a judge would issue a warrant based on the fact that there's a dish or antenna on the roof.

Then I'm pretty glad I don't live in the US - having an antenna or dish does not constitute probable cause since there is no legal expectation that you remove a disused antenna.

They have a fleet of vans to catch people that might be doing just what you're suggesting

No, they have a few vans, many of which probably don't have any actual equipment in them.

in the US being paid under the table is very common.

The original post can be summarised by "you can't tax something when you can't prove how much tax someone should be paying". My response can be summarised as basically "yes you can, there are many many examples of such taxes" and I cited income tax as an example. The fact that you have just stated that evading income tax is very common does nothing but re-enforce my original point.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[plague3106]

Then I'm pretty glad I don't live in the US - having an antenna or dish does not constitute probable cause since there is no legal expectation that you remove a disused antenna.

In the US you wouldn't have the nonsense of paying a tax just to watch TV to begin with. Also, the vans used to detect violaters would be illegal also. We had a case that said using EM to detect inside your home something which would otherwise be private is an illegal search.

No, they have a few vans, many of which probably don't have any actual equipment in them.

If that's your assertion, please provide something to back it up. I've only seen articles on the BBC discussing the vans, but nothing along your line of thinking.

The original post can be summarised by "you can't tax something when you can't prove how much tax someone should be paying". My response can be summarised as basically "yes you can, there are many many examples of such taxes" and I cited income tax as an example. The fact that you have just stated that evading income tax is very common does nothing but re-enforce my original point.

No, evasion doesn't prove your point.

How would you get me to pay tax on an income you can't even prove I received? Please explain how that proves your point, because that was my point... if you don't even know about my income, you can't force me to pay a tax on said income.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[FireFury03]

In the US you wouldn't have the nonsense of paying a tax just to watch TV to begin with.

Yeah, taxing stuff so that the whole population can get a much better service is evil. Thank goodness your healthcare isn't paid for by taxes either...

Also, the vans used to detect violaters would be illegal also. We had a case that said using EM to detect inside your home something which would otherwise be private is an illegal search.

If you are broadcasting EM radiation from your antenna then it quite clearly isn't private.

How would you get me to pay tax on an income you can't even prove I received?

This is _exactly_ what is already happening, by your own admission. An income tax is legally imposed on the population even though there is often no way to prove how much someone should be paying, and the law abiding people pay it whilst the rest evade it.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[Tuoqui]

Heck, in Texas it's illegal to walk around with a pair of wire cutters in your back pocket

No you carry them in your front pocket... but I agree the idea of criminalizing the tools themselves is stupid.

Re:I wish I saw this earlier

[tomhudson]

Heck, in Texas it's illegal to walk around with a pair of wire cutters in your back pocket

No you carry them in your front pocket... but I agree the idea of criminalizing the tools themselves is stupid.

I can see it now: Cop to suspect: "Are those wire cutters in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?" :-)

Re:fp

[ls671]

Be careful, you could be charged with "conspiracy, aiding and abetting computer intrusion, and wire fraud."

WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime!

[Vinegar Joe]

Now when are they going to get around to catching Osama?

What!?

[sam0737]

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.

Re:What!?

[XDirtypunkX]

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.

Re:What!?

[Moryath]

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.

Re:What!?

[wizardforce]

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.

Re:What!?

[XDirtypunkX]

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.

Re:What!?

[ImYourVirus]

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...

Re:What!?

[ImYourVirus]

Also news at 6 google.com arrested for providing means for doing anything illegal, from making bombs, to growing your own drugs...

Re:What!?

[wizardforce]

The question is: did he actually do that? It looks like the forums were most of the reason why he was charged the way he was.

Re:What!?

[NeumannCons]

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.

Re:What!?

[Moryath]

According to that logic, by selling a textbook on how to use a soldering iron, the book companies are "aiding and abetting" all sorts of things.

Please.

Re:What!?

[Kral_Blbec]

What legal uses of his hacks are there exactly?

Re:What!?

[wizardforce]

Selling bullets is one thing, selling bullets knowing that it'll end up being used to murder someone specific is quite another. The problem is that it may be difficult to prove the equivalent here. *disclaimer I'm only explaining what I think the GP's position is in regards to aiding and abetting*

Re:What!?

[WilliamX]

A shoplifter is told that the court will look positively on his cooperation after being arested, and then is asked did he intend to steal the item(s) when he entered the store, or did he decide to steal them once inside the store.

He admits he went there to steal the item.

Petting theft just turned into Felony Commercial Burglary (Burglary being defined in California Penal Code as entering a premises with the intent to commit larceny).

Will it get pled down? Now he HAS to plea it down and take whatever they offer to avoid a felony record.

Saw this exact scenario play out when a college student was busted stealing a $20 CD.

Re:What!?

[Moryath]

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.

Re:What!?

[tibman]

If the bullets were designed to defeat police body armor.. the intended purpose of the bullets would be clear. Unless they were purchased by the police, with the intention of using it against other armored citizens.

If he was selling normal cable modems there wouldn't be a problem. But by selling cable modems designed to defeat an ISP's security mechanism... he actively helped. Maybe if he only sold to tech support groups or something?

Re:What!?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:What!?

[shentino]

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.

Re:What!?

[wizardforce]

TFA only mentions one; as a diagnostic tool. On a related note, if the FBI did indeed find a post by DerEngel (the modder in question) mentioning the MAC addresses then I think that he would be in a lot of trouble in court.

Re:What!?

[sopssa]

Providing information for whoever makes the hardware for the ISP.

Other than that, theres no really legal uses on information how to fraud ISP's to get free internet connection.

Re:What!?

[bonhomme_de_neige]

Selling bullets is one thing, selling bullets knowing that it'll end up being used to murder someone specific is quite another.

So if I am a gun store owner, and I believe someone is going to murder someone, is it illegal for me to sell them bullets? If someone later (after the murder) can show that I knew about the murderer's intention and I sold the bullets anyway, can I be sent to prison?

Honest question - I genuinely want to know.

Re:What!?

[WilliamX]

"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.

Re:What!?

[shentino]

One possible usage:

Ignoring an ISP's attempts to abusively throttle you if they detect torrent traffic going on.

Re:What!?

[Dhalka226]

Wow, over-generalize to try to sound smarter much?

You seriously don't see any difference between instructions on how to use a tool and instructions on what you need to do to hack a cable modem and bypass speed restrictions? Really?

And you're acting snotty about it?! Wow, talk about being an idiot or a fool.

Re:What!?

[XDirtypunkX]

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

Quite simple really.

Re:What!?

[Moryath]

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.

Re:What!?

[Xaositecte]

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.

Re:What!?

[Moryath]

In your example, the guy was "guilty" - but not of the overblown charge they wanted.

In thousands of other cases, innocent people go to jail facing the "risk" of decades in prison when they can "plead down" to a few years that they shouldn't have to serve at all.

If the prosecutors offer a plea deal, in a just society, that's all the charges they would have to face, period. Not this "you can plead to this but if you don't we throw 100 more charges on top and one of them is sure to stick or else we just hold you in jail for 5 years holding separate state/federal/etc trials" bullcrap that they pull all the time.

Re:What!?

[Firehed]

You'd probably be charged with something (and reasonably so, in my opinion), though it may vary by jurisdiction. Aiding and abetting, being an accomplice, some sort of failure to inform the police, recklessness, probably plenty of other things. IANAL - but it would seem to fall along the lines of the bartender getting charged (or at least sued) in relation to a drunk driving death for not cutting the driver off or calling a cab for him.

Why, do you own a gun store? More importantly, am I the target?

Re:What!?

[Belial6]

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.

Re:What!?

[XDirtypunkX]

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

Re:What!?

[rhook]

This may come as a shocker but the body armor police use wont stop most rifle rounds. "Cop Killer" bullets are a myth.

Re:What!?

[Xaositecte]

sorry, I wanted to say either non-legal or illegal, and ended up combining them both to make utter nonsense of that statement^

Re:What!?

[gordguide]

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).

Re:What!?

[wizardforce]

I believe the standard is that if you should reasonably know that a crime will be committed then you would have a legal responsibility not to sell the materials in question. That is something that is to my knowledge fairly hard to prove in court. However, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not an authoritative source on the matter so it would be great for some actual lawyers on /. to comment on the matter.

Re:What!?

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy was not innocent.

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

Keep things in perspective.

According to that logic, everybody is guilty. Keep things in perspective.

Re:What!?

[No Eye Deer]

Isn't he supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty" under American laws?

Re:What!?

[Xiterion]

You certainly have a funny concept of not guilty of a felony then. It's an unfortunate side effect of our justice system where in order to keep freedoms you might want you have to defend the semi-bastards, such as the guy described by the GP. A $20 cd does not deserve a felony.

Re:What!?

[XDirtypunkX]

Enabling and encouraging the illegal act. Soldering iron textbooks don't say "here's how you would construct the timer for a bomb, why not blow up your local library". The guy in this case may well have sent someone an email, posted on a forum or even had it on his website something as simple as "This hack is a great way to avoid paying the telcos your hard earned cash!".

They also probably have some kind of evidence that he did this, otherwise they wouldn't charge him.

Re:What!?

[chaboud]

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.

Re:What!?

[WilliamX]

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.

Re:What!?

[WilliamX]

In the context of having done the act, he is guilty of it whether the system found him guilty or not. But in the example noted, the person said "innocent people CONVICTED" meaning having been found guilty. Either way, presumption of innocence isn't the point here.

Re:What!?

[dlgeek]

That's usually done at by routers at the IP level, not at the lower levels these things operate at.

Re:What!?

[WilliamX]

Thanks for agreeing with me.

While he was certainly GUILTY of the felony, it was a blatant overcharge of the level of the crime (provided he didn't have priors).

Just because he is guilty of it, doesn't mean the charge fit the crime. And being charged with something over the level of the crime doesn't make the person "innocent." They are still guilty, just they deserve a punishment that fits the crime better.

Re:What!?

[Fluffeh]

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.

Re:What!?

[__aasqbs9791]

Are prisons ever privately run in Commonwealth countries? We have such a high incentive here to keep people locked up and to increase "business opportunities" that it isn't too surprising to me that tactics like this get used here, but your post made me wonder if other countries handle who actually runs some prisons differently as well.

Re:What!?

[pete6677]

In a system like that, why would anyone ever plead guilty? There doesn't seem to be an advantage to the defendant to do so.

Re:What!?

[tftp]

So if I am a gun store owner, and I believe someone is going to murder someone, is it illegal for me to sell them bullets?

IANAL, but your belief alone requires you to do something to prevent the murder. Practically, you should call police and give them the facts. As I understand, it is illegal to know about the future crime and keep that knowledge to yourself.

In other words, if the customer says "Ten 9mm rounds, please, I need to accidentally kill my business partner" you certainly shouldn't sell him what he asks for, even if he is joking. Considering the venue, you may well be expected to do a citizen's arrest (many gun store clerks are armed.)

If someone later (after the murder) can show that I knew about the murderer's intention and I sold the bullets anyway, can I be sent to prison?

Most definitely, IMO, as an accomplice. There was a recent case (a week ago) when, IIRC, three street thugs conspired to kill someone; one obtained the gun, another fired it, and third disposed of the weapon. All three got prison terms.

Re:What!?

[WilliamX]

Go back, reread, and with some reading comprehension enabled =) The example you cite from my comment, the petty thief was charged with Felony Burglary, BECAUSE of his statement to police when questioned. Not petty theft.

Re:What!?

[Nicholas Evans]

What if I'm hunting deer that happen to have body armour on?

Re:What!?

[pete6677]

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.

Re:What!?

[tftp]

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.

Re:What!?

[NeumannCons]

From what I know of cable co's, they periodically check the settings on their modems (we know they can change them when you upgrade/downgrade service, it follows they can also check the current settings). I know that's how they used to catch uncappers in the past. Kind of a "trust but verify" approach.

You can attach a DOCSIS device of your own, but unless their equipment allows it onto their tubes (provisions it), you're not going to get any service. You could of course try to clone someone's MAC address, but then you've crossed over into illegal/stealing service territory. A cable company is not going to allow end user equipment onto their network that they have no control over since their whole ISP business model is based on charging for bandwidth.

Re:What!?

[phantomfive]

People say that, but I've had good luck by talking to the police. I've never been arrested for a felony, but with traffic incidences they can choose to let you go if you say the right things. If you're kind of a rude person it might not work for you, but whatever.

Re:What!?

[mcrbids]

Being guilty of a charge is not the same as being guilty of being guilty of the charge. Because when there are multiple charges for the same act, it's important to keep guilt separate from charges, which are not the same until proven guilty.

It's like a car - when you buy a car, there's the dealer price, the sale price, the Manufacturer's price, the actual sale price (if you buy it) and the commission. They are not the same, but they could be. And what SHOULD be is only relative to your OPINION on the subject. There is no absolute price, only relatives. Who usually don't care what kind of car you drive, anyway.

So when you are looking at charges, whether gas charges, car charges, or Master Charges, it's eh, wait... What are we talking about, again?

Re:What!?

[tomhudson]

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.

Nice try, but not really accurate. In cases of summary convictions, there are no pre-sentencing reports, no psych assessment, etc. Also, there is no right to trial by jury for summary offences.

Canada has plenty of these dual-mode or hybrid offences, where the person can be charged for the same crime either by summary procedure (less serious) or by indictment (more serious).

Here's the Federal Prosecution Service Handbook.

19.2 Crown Elections in Dual Procedure Offences

In dual procedure offences, Crown counsel has the discretion to proceed by summary conviction or indictment. This discretion allows Crown counsel the flexibility of taking the specific circumstances of a case into account to ensure that in each case the interests of justice, including the public's interest in the effective enforcement of the criminal law, are best served.

19.2.1 Statement of Policy

When deciding whether to proceed summarily or by indictment, Crown counsel shall examine the circumstances surrounding the offence and the background of the accused. The following factors are of particular importance:

• whether the facts alleged make the offence a serious one;
• whether the accused has a lengthy criminal record or a record of criminal convictions for similar types of offences;
• the sentence that will be recommended by Crown counsel in the event of a conviction;
• the effect that having to testify at both a preliminary inquiry and a trial may have on victims or witnesses (if procedure by indictment is chosen, this may lead to the preferral of a direct indictment; and
• whether it would not be in the public interest to have a trial by jury.

If the accused is charged with a number of offences arising out of the same transaction, Crown counsel should consider entering elections that avoid a multiplicity of litigation. Such a course may benefit the accused, by reducing his or her court appearances, as well as serving the interests of the administration of justice. This approach will be beneficial not only at the trial level, but also in the event of an appeal.

Where, based on the above criteria, Crown counsel would normally elect to proceed summarily but the limitation period for a summary proceeding has expired, Crown counsel should not elect to proceed by indictment unless:

• the accused contributed significantly to the delay;
• the investigative agency acted with due diligence but the investigation continued beyond the limitation period because of the complexity of the case;
• the particular circumstances of the offence did not come to light until shortly before or at some time after the limitation period expired, and the offence is serious;
• the accused has refused to give consent, pursuant to s. 786 of the Criminal Code, to have the matter proceed by summary conviction; or
• the public interest otherwise warrants prosecution

It's only in trials by indictment that the defendant has the right to choose either a trial by judge and jury, or judge alone, so there are definitely options for how to proceed, for both the prosecution and the defence, and there's just as much bargaining going on as in the US. Bargaining, for example, to being charged via summation rather than indictment, in return for a guilty plea, and a lesser range of penalties (summary convictions are like "punishment lite"). Same as plea bargaining anywhere else.

Re:What!?

[XDirtypunkX]

From the article: "Indeed, most of the charges in the six-count indictment announced Monday focus on the activities of others. Four wire fraud charges are based entirely on the fact that a juvenile computer hacker known as “Dshock” downloaded TCNiSO’s firmware and used it to steal broadband."

Re:What!?

[jcr]

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

Re:What!?

[chiguy]

Thanks for agreeing with me.

Just because he is guilty of it, doesn't mean the charge fit the crime. And being charged with something over the level of the crime doesn't make the person "innocent." They are still guilty, just they deserve a punishment that fits the crime better.

You almost made sense... You are either guilty or not-guilty *of the charges*.

Being charged with something "over the level of the crime" does not make them guilty. They are technically "not guilty" of the charges. They are guilty of something else and should be acquitted of the charges at hand.

So another way of saying it is:'They are still guilty, just they deserve a CHARGE that fits the crime better"

I get the feeling I'm being pedantic.

Re:What!?

[deimtee]

The major advantage of pleading guilty is when it comes to sentencing. Judges and magistrates tend to be more lenient if the accused stands up and says "I did it. I'm sorry. I wish I hadn't and I promise I'll never do it again".
It also speeds up the trial considerably, which reduces your legal fees.

Re:What!?

[Hangin10]

About that goat... you'd be surprised. I probably shouldn't mention Soviet Russia at
all. That would just make it far worse.

Re:What!?

[chiguy]

If the bullets were designed to defeat police body armor.. the intended purpose of the bullets would be clear. Unless they were purchased by the police, with the intention of using it against other armored citizens.

You put the counter-argument right in your response:

What if they were purchased by NON-police intending to use them against other armored citizens.

Not so clear now.

Re:What!?

[Mitreya]

Petting theft just turned into Felony Commercial Burglary

Your post is very insightful, but I can't get an image of someone either stealing a cat or petting a guard dog to get into the store... :) Or perhaps something involving trained weasels... the possibilities are endless.

Re:What!?

[shacky003]

You're almost correct - As a former Time Warner Cable NOC engineer, I have some experience in this area..

The headend systems that the cable modems are provisioned with check each modem periodically for their bin file name (provisioning file name) along with a crc on that file to ensure no one is tampering with the works.. There are easily ways around this with hacked firmware, etc, but the only people who would even attempt to circumvent the (still fairly simple) checks are the type of people reading this post :)

Each time CPE is powered up, or added to the network, if the MAC is said to be correct for that account, then the modem is sent the firmware file for that account's provisioned speed. Many of the hacks out there in the wild don't accept that re-download, and the hack then fails, as the MAC addy is cut off until it does accept the download after ranging is complete..

Re:What!?

[tomhudson]

In a system like that, why would anyone ever plead guilty? There doesn't seem to be an advantage to the defendant to do so.

The GP poster is wrong, as I explain here.

There's plenty of room for bargaining between the prosecution and the defense in common-law criminal courts. Happens all the time. Look at the plea bargain in the Karla Homolka case.

Re:What!?

[narcberry]

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.

Re:What!?

[narcberry]

Or if they are hiding behind policemen?

Re:What!?

[Bu11etmagnet]

Aha, so as long as I don't distribute the "This is the trigger, pull here" leaflet, I'm fine, right ?

Re:What!?

[XDirtypunkX]

He may well not have done anything of the sort. However, I imagine the cable companies would be very noisy about the issue being ignored if every avenue had not been pursued. Still, he's only been indicted and he could still come out of this easily without a conviction.

To get to the stage where you have an indictment a reasonable number of people have to be convinced that there is enough evidence and a sound enough legal argument for conviction to be possible (even if it's not the most likely outcome). The part where he posted a message on the forum himself of what looked like an illegal act is probably a key part of that evidence, because if you're talking about doing it yourself in public you're condoning the behavior.

The other defendants may well give testimony indicating there was some sort of private communication as well. The indictment PDF won't load for me, so I can't see if that's mentioned at all.

Re:What!?

[zippthorne]

It's only in trials by indictment that the defendant has the right to choose either a trial by judge and jury, or judge alone, so there are definitely options for how to proceed, for both the prosecution and the defence, and there's just as much bargaining going on as in the US. Bargaining, for example, to being charged via summation rather than indictment, in return for a guilty plea, and a lesser range of penalties (summary convictions are like "punishment lite"). Same as plea bargaining anywhere else.

And suits at common law where the amount in dispute exceeds twenty dollars.

Re:What!?

[XDirtypunkX]

I'm not sure about every country that uses English Common Law, but in Australia there is only a trial if the facts are being contested. If the defense does not want to contest the facts, then it is assumed that the facts are as the prosecution alleges.

Re:What!?

[lordofthechia]

What about selling a fine set of hunting knives along with a DVD box set of Dexter?

http://img269.imageshack.us/i/pbygd.png/

Re:What!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe guns and bullets are not the right metaphor. A better example would be the device used to switch traffic lights (from red to green or vice versa). You are not allowed to make them or sell them, though the actual device is not banned. The product can only be manufactured by some companies and is directly sold to police departments.

Re:What!?

[Roland Deschene]

I saw those vids. And they are informative, and every American should watch them.

The "NEVER say anything to the cops" thing is a little oversimplified, though. E.g.: If someone shoots my mom, you can be DAMNED sure I'm going to talk to them.

Re:What!?

[XDirtypunkX]

More the "This is the trigger, pull here to commit murder" leaflet.

Re:What!?

[milosoftware]

You're also clear in the patent area. As an individual, you cannot infringe on patents. You're allowed to go to the patent office and build whatever is described there. You're not allowed to distribute such device - then you are no longer an individual.

In software terms, you may compile and use LAME for encoding MP3s at home, but you're not allowed to distribute the compiled result.

Re:What!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Body armour also won't stop a head shot.

Come to think of it, that shouldn't be too much of a concern for most policemen...

Re:What!?

[tomhudson]

And suits at common law where the amount in dispute exceeds twenty dollars.

Not in Canada. Cases below a certain minimum (examples: $7,000 in Quebec, $10,000 - or $25,000 as of next January - in Ontario) are going to end up in small claims court. Small claims court is the only option for many such cases. Here's the relevant citation for Quebec, which shows that even the Code Civile treats it the same as common law in the rest of Canada:

The Small Claims Division

The Small Claims Division deals with all claims up to $7,000 made by natural persons, or by legal persons, partnerships or associations that have employed no more than five people in the twelve months prior to the claim. The types of claims heard may involve, for example, breach of contract or damage to another person's property.

Procedure in the Small Claims Division is simple and informal. The claimant cannot be represented by a lawyer, unless allowed because of the complexity of the case. The proceedings are conducted by the judge, who examines the witnesses and hears the parties. Judgments in the Small Claims Division are final and cannot be appealed.

It is important to note that this Division also hears various tax cases involving both income tax and other types of taxes. A taxpayer may file an appeal concerning a tax matter to this Division. Since this question is relatively complex, it is preferable to contact Revenu Québec for more information.

There are no civil jury trials in Quebec, and few in the rest of Canada. Thee is no Constitutional right for a trial by jury in civil cases in Canada.

Re:What!?

[gordguide]

I thank you for replying with a cut-and-paste summary of Canadian law. Please continue; I will look forward to your summaries of the UK law, and the Australian law, and the other "Commonwealth Countries" I wrote of in my post, along with your learned experiences as to what, exactly, one can expect by way of assessments and pre-sentence reports.

I've been to many a case where the Crown proceeded by Summary Conviction. Pre-sentence reports, psychiatric assessments, and the like are common. Only last week a person who is charged with a relatively minor offense, proceeding by Summary Conviction, was remanded for a Psychiatric Report, because he acted crazy in a public place; he tried to set himself on fire in an insurance office.

Your post may be interesting to some, and I thank you for it. Perhaps you might mention that the courts in Canada are under provincial jurisdiction, and practices and typical sentences vary from province to province, sometimes significantly.

But, I'm sure you've spent time in court in every province in the nation. Please tell me about traveling courts in the Yukon, where a single van or airplane often carries the judge, prosecutor, clerks, bailiff, and defense council for extended travel to remote areas. Someone such as yourself must surely wonder what they talk about. Or did you not know about that either?

" ... Same as plea bargaining anywhere else. ..."

Clearly not, but thanks for finally, in the last line, getting back on topic to my post.

You, sir, have no experience with accused in most situations in the US, obviously. Please tell me of the time someone in Canada was charged with a rape offense carrying a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison and ended up being sentenced, after a plea bargain based on a guilty plea, to misdemeanor sexual assault, a $750 fine, no record.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/20/nyregion/prosecutor-defends-plea-bargain-in-rape-case.html

Oh, and that was just the first Google hit.

Re:What!?

[Datamonstar]

Did you skip over the part where Tim Cole was offered probation for a guilty plea? Probation vs. a 25 year sentence fo a crime you didn't commit.

Re:What!?

[Datamonstar]

Yep. Don't talk to the police.

Re:What!?

[JimboFBX]

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.

Re:What!?

[Datamonstar]

One day you're going to get a ticket, try to fight it and the cop is going to show up with a handwritten transcript of everything you said to him. You will have to pay the ticket. If you hadn't of talked to them, you could go to court and fight back at the prosecutor's strategy and at least have a chance of not paying it. That's what I've done and been successful at.

Re:What!?

[rdnetto]

Knowingly and willfully taking more bandwidth than you've paid for is fraud and should be treated as such. Everything else is bullshit.

But what about if you were never a customer to begin with? Is there such a thing (in law) as theft of service?

Re:What!?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Not to my knowledge. If you know someone is planning a crime, then sure, you are obligated not to help them, but in the general case, you have no duty to report it. Here's some random internet discussion on the subject: link link. Nothing I could find mentions mere knowledge of planned felonies - all refs required concealment or aiding in commission of the crime.

Re:What!?

[Sabriel]

Australian here. We have a few corporate-run prisons, and even though they've been put on a much tighter leash than the corporate-owned prisons in the US - and that leash IMO is exactly because of seeing what happened in the US - many of us still see it as the thin end of the wedge. It's a bloody stupid idea.

Re:What!?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

No, they refer to teflon coated bullets and you can buy them, just not make them. Also, if you really want to penetrate body armor, use .338 Lapua from 500m (for bragging rights) or get a .22 and learn how to aim properly. The AP ammo banned seems to only handgun bullets fully composed of hard alloys and ones with a really heavy jacket.

Re:What!?

[Sabriel]

Now what was that joke again, about someone being completely accurate but still completely missing the point? :)

Re:What!?

[tomhudson]

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.

'Kill, rape and pillage': Rwandan gets life in jail'
Published On Fri Oct 30 2009

MONTREAL-In sentencing genocidal killer Désiré Munyaneza to the harshest penalty possible, Quebec Superior Court Justice André Denis quoted an ancient philosopher who insisted that even when everyone else is going one way, you can always go another.

"Many Rwandans of all ethnicities, as the proof showed, behaved courageously during the genocide, often paying the price with their lives," said Denis. "The accused, an educated and privileged man, chose to kill, rape and pillage, in the name of supremacy of his ethnic group."

Handing down a sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years, as Munyaneza stood unmoved, the judge added, "Each time a man affirms to belong to a superior race, a chosen people, humanity is in danger."

Munyaneza, known as "Scarface" to his victims, is the first person to be convicted under Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. The 42-year-old father of two will serve his sentence in Canada.

It's a case watched closely by legal observers because of the implications it could have for similar cases here and abroad and even, some say, for preventing such tragedies in the first place.

Denis found Munyaneza guilty last May of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity during the 1994 Rwandan genocide that saw the Hutu-led extermination of hundreds of thousands of people, primarily ethnic Tutsis.

A businessman in his home city of Butare, Rwanda, Munyaneza came from a well-known bourgeois family and had a master's degree in economics.

During the genocide he also acted as a leader among the brutal Interahamwe militia.

Denis found that Munyaneza, a failed refugee claimant to Canada who was arrested at his home in Toronto in 2005, used his access to vehicles to transport innocent Tutsi to their deaths. He looted Tutsi businesses. He murdered four Tutsi in a store, saying, "All Tutsi must die."

He called them "vermin."

He even used sticks to beat to death children who were tied up in sacks, the judge found.

The defence is appealing the verdict, but a hearing before the Quebec Court of Appeal isn't likely until next year and both sides agree the case will ultimately wind up before the Supreme Court of Canada.

"We've got what we believe to be a pretty strong appeal," defence lawyer Richard Perras said outside the courtroom.

The trial was extraordinary in that it took nearly two years and even travelled to Butare to hear witnesses.

The total cost reportedly reached $4 million.

Munyaneza's defence contended much of the evidence was faulty, witnesses were hazy on dates, and that many couldn't identify his prominent facial scar.

But Denis said he believed the prosecution's witnesses, noting Thursday that Munyaneza's witnesses often denied there was even a genocide.

"We know that to deny a genocide is to kill the victims a second time," Denis admonished.

Jayne Stoyles, executive director of the Ottawa-based Canadian Centre for International Justice, said in an interview that the sentence "se

Re:What!?

[Datamonstar]

There was a recent case (a week ago) when, IIRC, three street thugs conspired to kill someone; one obtained the gun, another fired it, and third disposed of the weapon. All three got prison terms.

It's nice to see that street thugs these days are keeping up on their Agatha Christie.

Re:What!?

[phantomfive]

You do it your way, I'll do it mine. I don't mind paying for a ticket if I really have to. It's only a couple hundred dollars.

Re:What!?

[Hognoxious]

If you knew[1] at the time then yes, in most jurisdictions you'd be at least an accessory.

[1] of course there's a lot of wiggle room there ... where do you draw the line between suspecting, believing and knowing?

Re:What!?

[Hognoxious]

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.

Re:What!?

[Technician]

Many tools are considered illegal unless you are a licensed professional with a valid reason to own them.

Expamples depending on your country or state incluede;
lockpicks - Locksmiths only
Wide range radio recievers/test sets/spectrum analyzers/scanners (considered wiretap equipment if they pick up analog cell phone or pager frequencies) - Telcom repair shop
Tasers - law enforcement
Radar detectors - law enforcement/military
Slim Jim (car lock tool) - Towing and auto service shops only. Other wise it's considered a burglary tool.

Re:What!?

[Sowelu]

Let's ask Wikipedia's article on "Accessory (legal term)": "To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape. A person who unknowingly houses a person who has just committed a crime, for instance, may not be charged with an accessory offense because they did not have knowledge of the crime." I'm very sure you'd also get tagged with something nasty if you didn't stop a kid from drowning when you were the only person around. Any action, or inaction, that results in a death is really very harshly penalized! Although, knowing about something simple like high-value white-collar crime and refusing to report it is also a criminal act. Maybe it's all felonies? IANAL by a long shot. Now, if you have reason to believe that reporting it, or not selling the bullets or whatever, would lead to your own personal harm...well, I'm sure you'll get to explain that to the judge.

Re:What!?

[wanax]

Very Well. But that's not the Polanski case. The director pleaded guilty on a really light plea deal after raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl. At the suggestion that he might actually have to go to prison for a few months, he fled, after pleading guilty. There is no doubt that in any country in Europe much less the US he would be in big trouble if he raped and sodomized a 13 year old today. But for some reason, perhaps a Bush hangover, much of the European media is trying to portray this as an old issue, a 'youthful' mistake made at 42, when he has never disputed the victim's testimony that he both raped her after she said she wanted to go home, but then decided to sodomize after worrying that he would get her pregnant.

Re:What!?

[L4t3r4lu5]

Nuke it from orbit?

Re:What!?

[Anonymous Coward]

You were right about a lot of things until you wrote this:

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

Now who is overstating things? Can you even cite a case where this actually happened?

Re:What!?

[Pikoro]

I will venture a guess and say his co-conspirators are the vice principal and the board of education. Probably the science and math teachers as well.

Re:What!?

[ATMD]

Noone should be coerced into pleading guilty. Imagine he was innocent, but unfortunate enough to have the evidence against him. Now he either confesses to a crime he didn't commit, or gets convicted of "felony commercial burglary", a crime much bigger than the one he didn't commit.

Re:What!?

[NekSnappa]

No it's like saying that a gun store selling armor piercing ammo to someone who doesn't have the appropriate license, or Talon bullets to every kid in the hood is illegal.
Those are both either heavily controlled of flat out illegal types of bullets. And if you sell them inappropriately to someone who commits a crime, then you are aiding and abetting.

I don't understand the mind set of some on this site, that says if you can do it, it should be legal.

Re:What!?

[Hognoxious]

So he'll have three meals a day and a nice warm room for the rest of his life. Luxury, when compared to his victims.

Re:What!?

[NekSnappa]

The indictment (.pdf) notes, however, that users openly sought and shared advice on uncapping and stealing cable on TCNiSO.net's public forums. And the FBI allegedly found a single damning message on the forum posted personally by "DerEngel" in 2007. "Does anyone have any verified MAC addresses and/or config files for Phoenix (Az)? If sensitive, just pm me. Rewards will follow :)"

This from the article makes it seem that not only did he know the potential illegal use of the devices he was selling. He was using the forums on his site to help others use them in that manner. And by saying "if sensitive, just pm me" says that he was aware that it was at least a questionable action.

As far as the wire fraud, and computer intrusion charges go. It looks as if the modified firmware he sells performs a buffer overflow on the cable companies servers to download config info to allow the users modem to run at higher speeds than the service they have paid for. The buffer overflow trick sure sounds like intrusion to me.

And using a cable system seems to match wire fraud. I don't know if it has to be a "common carrier" for the wire fraud thing to kick in though. If it does then that part should go away because the to cable companies are always trying to say that they aren't common carriers. That's BS but I think it has been somehow upheld by the feds in some form, FCC regs or something.

Re:What!?

[ShooterNeo]

Totally different scenario. Worst case scenario, if you try to charm a cop over a traffic violation, you end up paying the ticket anyway.

Given the vastly lower risks, it's alright to try to talk your way out of it.

However, if the conversation is even REMOTELY ABOUT a felony or serious crime, and you were not the one who called the cops, you should seriously watch what you say. If you even remotely believe that you could be considered a suspect (i.e. there is not a videotaped alibi or something protecting you) then maybe you shouldn't say anything at all without an attorney present.

Re:What!?

[Spazztastic]

Wild pigs are a very dangerous game.

Whatever you say, Locke.

Re:What!?

[Matje]

As I understand, it is illegal to know about the future crime and keep that knowledge to yourself.

That doesn't make sense. Assume you don't report the future crime. Then you're in violation at that moment, even before the crime has been committed. But how do you prove that in court before the crime has actually been committed? You can't since the criminal act itself has not yet occurred.

Now if the crime is actually committed, you can't be guilty of knowing about a future crime and not reporting it, since the crime itself is now past and no longer future.

Some disclaimers:
- if *planning* a crime is criminal, then you might be liable to report knowledge about that. but again the crime is not future then since the planning itself is (partially) past and that is the criminal act in question.
- if you're a foolproof fortuneteller, then I guess you could be convicted of knowledge about a future crime with the help of another foolproof fortuneteller. Off course it would be simpler to just have the witness foolproof fortuneteller inform the police beforehand but I digress.

Re:What!?

[th3rmite]

Mod parent up. The real problem is the fact that his buddy decided to enter a store and steal a CD.

Re:What!?

[characterZer0]

To be safe, you better not sell bullets to the government.

Re:What!?

[mpe]

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.

It can also be of benefit to both individual police officers and their police force/department to inflate charges in such a way. "Felony Commercial Burglary" sounds a lot more impressive than "Petty Theft from a supermarket". (Even if the charges are later dropped or the accused found not guilty in court.)

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.

At least not without consulting a lawyer first...

Re:What!?

[bkr1_2k]

Please show me where scanners, radio receivers, or spectrum analyzers are illegal. (I'm assuming you mean in the USA.)

I can go buy any of these things (several from my local Radio Shack) without any such concerns. I routinely purchase equipment like this and have never once been asked for any kind of license.

Radar detectors are also not illegal except in a couple States and they're quite readily attainable in any of those states where they aren't illegal.

Re:What!?

[maxume]

You are talking out both sides of your mouth, if he went to the store to steal the CD (which his admission sort of implies...), then it is pretty clear (from what you have stated) that he was guilty of the commercial theft. It might suck that the commercial theft law applies in a case involving $20, but that's different than him not being guilty under the existing law.

Re:What!?

[Mashiki]

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.

Re:What!?

[bkr1_2k]

When pleading guilty in the USA there is still a trial, just as you indicated. It's just much faster and cheaper on the taxpayer to prosecute the case because the defendant doesn't try to argue his case, he just says "yeah, you got me" and then is sentenced. Cases are faster and therefore you "save the cost of a trial". The wording is simply not accurate to what really happens.

Re:What!?

[mpe]

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".

The actual point of a trial, regardless of what certain political groups might claim, is to protect the accused.

In most countries where the law is based on English Common Law (Canada, UK, Australia, etc) there is always a trial

In the UK there is something called a "police caution" which is a guilty plea made to police and shows up as being a conviction.

Re:What!?

[volpe]

Besides, what if someone creates a DOCSIS compliant device of their own and hooks it up to the cable network?

What if I create a key of my own and hook it up to the lock on your front door?

Re:What!?

[Elky Elk]

Its fine, because only people who deserved it would die.

Re:What!?

[chadplusplus]

No, its like a gun store selling bullets and providing you instructions on how to kill your spouse and dispose of the body. Oh, and here's the gun shops email address and forum in case you have any questions during the commission of said murder.

Re:What!?

[evanbd]

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.

Re:What!?

[chadplusplus]

"Hey, I'm going to kill my wife. Do you got anything I can use?"
"Ok, here's some bullets, that will be $20.00"
Conspiracy begins with "Ok."
Aiding and abetting begins at "here's some bullets."

Compare with: Prosecutor: "Everyone in the community knew he was going to kill his wife and you sold him bullets."

Second fact pattern is a significantly higher burden on the state.

Re:What!?

[drinkypoo]

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.

If a user sends more packets to the head end than you want to take, you can drop them, but the packets are already sent. You can't prevent a customer with a hacked modem sending out more than their share. It's not like a classic phone modem where you have your own line to the head end, you have to share that piece of coax with maybe 10,000 other customers (it's not all that unusual to have that many people connecting to one line card, since cable companies are often grossly oversold) and you hope it has multiple uplinks.

Re:What!?

[conureman]

So by storing those boxes of Black Talons in my closet I was aiding and abetting the LAPD Officer who burglarized them while I was locked up in the back of his car?

Re:What!?

[IndustrialComplex]

So if I am a gun store owner, and I believe someone is going to murder someone, is it illegal for me to sell them bullets? If someone later (after the murder) can show that I knew about the murderer's intention and I sold the bullets anyway, can I be sent to prison?

Honest question - I genuinely want to know.

Here is an obvious example:

Some guy walks into a gun shop.

Guy: I want to purchase ammunition for my 357. I'm going to use it to kill my neighbor Bill.
Shopkeeper: Here you go, $20/box.
Guy: Thank You.
Shopkeeper: Have a good day.

Let's say that somehow that conversation was recorded and brought forward in the case of 'Guy who murdered Bill'. You would almost certainly face criminal charges.

And if you did know that someone was purchasing an item to kill another person, you SHOULD go to jail.

Re:What!?

[tresstatus]

i used to work loss prevention for wally world and what you are saying is total bullshit. maybe in the super-overlegislated state of california, but not in the rest of the country. in TN, it isn't a felony unless it is over $500. everything under that usually gets the sentence of 11 months 29 days probation PLUS court cost an retribution. most shoplifters that i stopped never even bothered to get a lawyer. the rules for the company i was at wouldn't allow you to stop someone if you weren't 100% sure they had stolen something. if you stopped someone and they didn't have what you thought they had, you got written up. 2 write-ups and you were gone.

Re:What!?

[kobaz]

You do it your way, I'll do it mine. I don't mind paying for a ticket if I really have to. It's only a couple hundred dollars.

So then you wouldn't mind donating a couple hundred dollars my way?

Most tickets are a tax. Plain and simple. Even the tickets that aren't a tax (like legitimate fines for building code violations, parking in front of a hydrant, etc) are unwelcome charges. I hate wasting money as much as the next person. Paying a ticket is a waste of money (you are giving an entity money, without getting any benefit), no matter what the context, even if you deserved it.

Re:What!?

[swillden]

Your basic premise is correct: I know of no states that have a general duty to report. There are exceptions in specific areas of the law, both state and federal, but violent crimes aren't among them, AFAIK.

However, your statement:

Now if the crime is actually committed, you can't be guilty of knowing about a future crime and not reporting it, since the crime itself is now past and no longer future.

makes no sense. If there were a duty to report, you could indeed be found guilty of knowing and failing to report.

Re:What!?

[hitnrunrambler]

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.

OR they're using end user equipment to cheaply set limits and they're using DMCA to shift enforcement off of their expense sheet and onto the tax paying public. Why create good security when the government is willing to do the hard work for you.

(I didn't rtfa so DMCA is a guess, but I think it's a safe one. Even if it's an example of corporate suckling of a different teet the strategy remains the same.)

Re:What!?

[tomhudson]

I'm just saying that the Polanski case is a good example of leniency in plea bargaining. It wasn't statutory rape (sex with someone too young to give legal consent), but "rape rape" (to borrow Whoopie's term). He probably portrayed it as statutory rape to those around him, hence their weird "defense" of Polanski. It was plea-bargained to no jail time ... at least the case you cited, they got jail time.

I'm just wondering how much of his reluctance to return is related to whether he paid her the $400,000 he agreed to pay in response to her civil suit years later. We know from court records that she had to go back to court at least once to try to get him to cough up the agreed-upon amount ...

Re:What!?

[hitnrunrambler]

lol what a noob.... I forgot to turn quote off

Re:What!?

[swillden]

Apparently you've never seen AP or teflon(illgeal in 90% of places) coated rounds.

Teflon has nothing to do with bullets' armor piercing capabilities or lack thereof. The reason some AP bullets are coated in Teflon is because they have very hard jackets and the Teflon reduces wear on the gun barrel.

Teflon coatings are not illegal under federal law; the federal anti-AP ammunition statutes focus on the jacket and core composition, not on coatings. There are a handful of states which ban the coatings.

for awhile the talons were very popular until they were outlawed as well.

The Winchester Black Talons are not and were not armor piercing. They were pretty normal jacketed hollowpoints, coated with Lubalox (not Teflon) which gave them the black color. Black Talons were voluntarily removed from the market by Winchester, but have never been banned in any jurisdiction. Winchester replaced them with the very similar Ranger SXT round, which doesn't include the Lubalox coating. Winchester does use the coating on some rifle rounds.

Re:What!?

[drinkypoo]

Softmodding has noninfringing use, you can use cromwell BIOS to boot Linux without having to run any hacked Microsoft code (i.e. the BIOS.) I've never understood why none of the hacked BIOS is distributed as a patch, which would be legal to distribute. Perhaps because Microsoft has never really gone after BIOS producers, understanding well the ill will that this would have generated within the community, making the Xbox 360 a non-starter. The 360 has much more secure hardware, and Xbox 360 hacking is much less prevalent.

Re:What!?

[Kidro]

Aren't gun store owners required to have background checks done on customers? I don't know if they're responsible for reporting anything that would effect said background checks, but it's something to consider.

Re:What!?

[davidshewitt]

if the customer says "Ten 9mm rounds, please

9mm rounds are usually sold in boxes of 50

Re:What!?

[drinkypoo]

Considering the venue, you may well be expected to do a citizen's arrest (many gun store clerks are armed.)

I sincerely doubt you could show any legal requirement, but a gun store owner who doesn't report such an utterance to their local PD will find themselves getting a daily ration of shit. It's never a good idea to piss off the police.

Most definitely, IMO, as an accomplice.

As it should be. It's certainly true, which is why we have such a strict licensing scheme for being permitted to sell guns and ammo. If it was just about money they'd just have tax stamps or something.

Re:What!?

[shentino]

...That actually sounds even scarier.

Throttling you is one thing but shoving a firmware update down your modem's throat is another.

Maybe cable modem firmware is a bit easier to reset than most but...what if the cable-co decided to, either by accident or on purpose, brick you with a bad update?

Re:What!?

[mayko]

I'm just saying that the Polanski case is a good example of leniency in plea bargaining. It wasn't statutory rape (sex with someone too young to give legal consent), but "rape rape" (to borrow Whoopie's term). He probably portrayed it as statutory rape to those around him, hence their weird "defense" of Polanski.

This is the part that really blows my mind. Someone that graduated from my high school just got charged with 3 felonies after trying to meet with a 15 year old supposedly to have sex. He is 19. (Btw, 16 is the age of consent here)

The 3 felonies are:
1. Conspiracy to commit a felony (statutory rape)
2. Using an electronic device to commit a crime (texting)
3. Communicating with someone to commit a crime (this one blew my mind that it is actually a separate felony charge).

So a 19 year old, who arguably was truly making a "youthful" mistake (and never actually had any sexual contact with this girl), will get strung up, while a disgusting rapist has a celebrity signed petition. This country makes me fucking sick.

Re:What!?

[discogravy]

remember that they're called "courts of law" not "courts of justice".

Re:What!?

[drinkypoo]

It's like charging gunmaker with murder.

Guns have substantial non-infringing use, e.g. self defense or hunting or even just as a hobby. A hacked cable modem has but one purpose. If you own the head end then you don't need a hacked modem, so it has basically zero non-infringing use, which makes the producer and seller of the product potentially an accessory to the crime.

It's pretty clear and straightforward that this guy committed a crime. It may have been justified; hacking your modem is probably the only way to get adequate service from some ISPs, albeit at the cost of your neighbors' service level. It's quite illegal however.

Re:What!?

[thickdiick]

That's complete baloney spewed by a brainwashed peon of the media. Ad hominem? Yes. But the fact remains that teflon doesn't have some special armor-penetrating properties. It just reduced barrel-wear. Shocker what facts can do to your head!

Re:What!?

[thickdiick]

In the USA, there's no special license for bullets, kid

Re:What!?

[Pingmaster]

Or even the mod chip market. It is legal to manufacture, distribute, sell and install the chips into your system. It's even legal to use the chips to play homebrew and pirated games. What is NOT legal though, is the pirating of the games themselves. This is why modchip distributors distance themselves as much from the pirate scene as possible, using terms such as 'backups' (which are legal under fair use) or 'homebrew' (again, legal, as long as no copyrighted material is used etc.) and so on. If a manufacturer were caught hosting pirated games, saying that if you buy their chip, you can play that game, then that would be illegal. The issue is not with the modifications made to the boxes, it's the fact that he created a link between his hardware and illegal activities.

Re:What!?

[sheph]

Of course you do have the option of not stealing CDs in which case you wouldn't have an occasion to talk to the cops.

Just sayin.

Re:What!?

[tomhudson]

WRT Polanski, fortunately, once the "celebrity crowd" became more aware of the facts, they mostly STFU, and some have gone out of their way to take the other side publicly. Schwarzenegger said Polanski shouldn't get special treatment.

And lets face it, having Woody Allen publicly on your side in a case involving sex with a minor has got to be a boat anchor. That's like having Michael Vic say you know how to handle dogs properly, or Tom Cruise saying he likes your spirituality, or Chris Brown saying someone knows how to handle a woman.

Re:What!?

[gauauu]

Most tickets are a tax. Plain and simple. Even the tickets that aren't a tax (like legitimate fines for building code violations, parking in front of a hydrant, etc) are unwelcome charges. I hate wasting money as much as the next person. Paying a ticket is a waste of money (you are giving an entity money, without getting any benefit), no matter what the context, even if you deserved it.

Whatever. Tickets are a punishment used as a negative incentive to keep people obeying traffic laws, which in turn makes it safer to drive. If you drive safely and within the confines of the law, you won't get a ticket. Waste of money? Maybe for the punished individual, but the benefit is not to you, it's to the rest of society, who will hopefully have safer roads as a result.

I wish they'd give out more tickets...there are still too many morons who think it's acceptable to drive 100 mph on the highway, endangering us all because they think that they are the exception to the rule and can safely handle their car at that speed, since they haven't gotten into a serious accident YET.

Re:What!?

[duguk]

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

Or if that person did murder someone from TV's "The Hills" or Paris Hilton, you may actually be guilty of Negligible Homicide.

Or if you murder someone in a pink girly dress, you may actually be guilty of Negligee Homicide.

Re:What!?

[Attila Dimedici]

A gun store that sold armor piercing bullets and advertised that the bullets would "penetrate the bullet proof vests worn by police officers and armored car guards" would likely be charged with aiding and abetting if someone used them to shoot a police officer or armored car guard. It is not just selling tools which can be used to break the law, it is advertising that the tools you sell can be used to break the law.

Re:What!?

[virg_mattes]

> Don't you know that's how justice is supposed to work? The police over-charge, your lawyers counter-offer, you haggle and you get a verdict.

Your failure is in this sentence. The police didn't overcharge in this case. The crime he confessed to was planning to enter the store and steal a CD, and that's Felony Commercial Burglary in California. They let him plead to a lesser offense that didn't directly mesh with his own confession on the basis that it's cheaper to plead him to that lesser offense than to go to trial and convict for FCB. They get expedience, and he gets a conviction for petty larceny when he committed and confessed to FCB.

If you have an argument that FCB shouldn't apply to a $20.00 CD, then your fight is with the California legislature, not with the police.

Virg

Re:What!?

[tmosley]

While effectively eliminating their right to defend themselves.

The punishment for shoplifting a $20 CD should be a day in jail AT MOST.

Re:What!?

[tmosley]

Actually, most people in prison acknowledge their guilt. Generally, if someone maintains their innocence for years and years even without hope for clemency, they are probably innocent.

Re:What!?

[Attila Dimedici]

According to the story originally told the guy was guilty of the charge, he plead guilty to the charge to avoid a trial on an even more serious charge (which he was also guilty of). If the story was about a guy who plead guilty to a minor offense to avoid a trial on a more serious charge neither of which the guy was guilty of, it would point out a flaw in the system. The only possible flaw in the story given is in the law (if you think the fact that he could have been convicted of the more serious crime for stealing a $20 CD is wrong).

Re:What!?

[archangel9]

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.

here's the catch:

Cops prepare to kill civilians because not all civilians are "good".
Civilians shouldn't prepare to kill cops because cops by definition aren't "bad".

Personally, any civilian holding a weapon that is pointed near/at me/mine is a threat, and I would fill them fill of holes if necessary, even without aiding and abetting.

Re:What!?

[Attila Dimedici]

One day you're going to get a ticket, try to fight it and the cop is going to show up with a handwritten transcript of everything you said to him. You will have to pay the ticket. If you hadn't of talked to them, you could go to court and fight back at the prosecutor's strategy and at least have a chance of not paying it. That's what I've done and been successful at.

If it was worth your time to fight a ticket, rather than take the plea offer they give if you show up in court to fight a traffic ticket, I hope you don't live and drive anywhere near me. I was at a hearing for a bunch of people who had all been caught in the same speed trap, the officers who wrote the tickets weren't there. The judge offered us all a plea deal with no points on our licenses and a reduction in the fine to about $50 total (including court costs). One guy decided to fight it because the officers who wrote the tickets weren't there. The judge told him "No problem, we'll schedule a new court date. You may go, we'll send you a letter telling you when to appear." So, the guy got to miss a second day of work to save $50, and he probably lost and had to pay the full fine.

Re:What!?

[archangel9]

yeah, but google just gives links, and isn't responsible for you actually...
hang on...does GIS for "grow my own weed"

brb, selling all my Google stock.

Re:What!?

[mdarksbane]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's similar to self-defense law. You have the ability to help someone else who is the victim of a crime, but you have no obligation to do so beyond your own morality. I fail to see how this would be any different a day before someone commits a crime than during the commission.

Re:What!?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Bad analogy. He has a product that he's selling (hacked modems) that can be used for only one conceivable purpose. There might be a case for saying "well, it was for education" -- but that's undermined when he's advertising them as getting around cable co restrictions...

Re:What!?

[harl]

Possessing dual use items is not a crime until you use it for an illegal use.

Owning a car let's you get drunk and drive it. Does that make the people who sell cars guilty of DUI? Accessory to DUI?

The cable industry bought some of the modem. Apparently they make good debug tools since you can do anything with them.

Re:What!?

[harl]

Analogy fail. All three in your example took part in the planning and execution. That's conspiracy, aiding, abetting, or what ever you want to call it.

With the above joke the store owner should kick the person out but a citizen's arrest is just silly.

Make a mental note of the next time someone around you says they're going to do something to some one. "I'm so angry I could punch them!" It's a fairly common occurrence. It's called venting your anger.

Re:What!?

[CompMD]

No, they are not a myth.

There are armor piercing pistol rounds available to civilians. The 7.62x25mm Tokarev round is capable of penetrating standard issue LE body armor and is even effective as a light anti-armor round against vehicles. It was originally a WW2 high-power pistol and submachinegun round.

9mm NATO rounds have a hotter charge and higher impact energy than standard 9mm Luger rounds, even though the bullet and case geometry are the same. Winchester makes them but only sells to law enforcement. The FBI uses these in their training MP5s. I do not know what the enhanced ballistic properties of 9mm NATO are though. I don't know about the anti-armor effectiveness of the 10mm Auto round the FBI uses either, but I do know that they are very high power, and that they seriously beat up the standard issue 10mm MP5s so badly that they try to avoid using them because HK doesn't make parts for them anymore.

Re:What!?

[Belial6]

Wrong. The original story has the guy having committed a minor crime, and confessing to a larger crime under threat from the police. The police then threaten to convict him of the larger crime which the original story did not say he committed.

Re:What!?

[harl]

Exactly.

The end result of this slippery slope is blaming auto workers for DUIs and airplane engine builders for 9/11.

Re:What!?

[carrier lost]

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.

What happens if I shoot someone with my modem?

Re:What!?

[harl]

This. Exactly. Thank you.

Once you're detained the cops have lost all power. They can't do anything more to you unless you let them. So shut the fuck up. At this point only the lawyers have any real power.

Even if you fancy yourself smart remember the cops do this for a living. They are trained at it. You are not. The smart thing to do is shut up.

Re:What!?

[harl]

So selling a car that can be used in DUI is aiding and abetting?

So selling an airplane makes your guilty of aiding and abetting crashing it into a skyscraper?

Re:What!?

[Anonymous Coward]

absolutely.... if comcast is charging a user 3$/mo to rent the DOCSIS equipment, then really its the user who should "own" its configuration since they're paying to use it... if its comcast's equipment, necissary for delivering service, then it should be included in the price of service. if its the users device needed to access comcasts service, then the user is free to configure it as they desire... I never understood how some enterprising lawyer hasn't started a class action over this...

Re:What!?

[phantomfive]

Don't know, I never got a ticket except when I was breaking the law. I'll bet you never have either. If you want to consider that a tax, well, I don't mind having a tax on people who break the law.

Re:What!?

[Attila Dimedici]

No, the original story has the guy caught committing a minor crime, upon interrogation, he confesses to a more serious crime. The prosecution then threatens him with prosecution for the more serious crime unless he pleads guilty to the lesser crime (which they had enough evidence to convict him of from the beginning). The only evidence they had against him for the more serious crime was his statement, but in that statement he admitted to taking the actions that made him guilty of the more serious crime.
In all probability, if he had not made the statement to the police they still would have been able to convict him of the lesser crime. The outcome of this case was the same except without the added cost of a trial.

Re:What!?

[modecx]

Yeah. For guns. Not for bullets. At least, not yet--California recently passed an initiative to require fingerprints for ammo purchases, which is supposed to happen in 2011.

However, as a dealer, if you have a reasonable belief that your customer may be a prohibited person (even if they pass the background check), is purchasing firearms for a prohibited person, or is going to use your wares in a crime, you are obligated not to sell.

Re:What!?

[Belial6]

A shoplifter is told that the court will look positively on his cooperation after being arested, and then is asked did he intend to steal the item(s) when he entered the store, or did he decide to steal them once inside the store. He admits he went there to steal the item.

The guy was threatened into a confession. What the cops did was no different than if three huge guys with greased back hair and pinky rings walk into your corner shop and tell you "Nice shop you have here. It would be a shame if something bad happened to it. *wink* *wink*" and then offered you protection services. The cops told him that if he professed innocence of the larger crime, that bad things would happen to him because of it. The police committed a crime.

Re:What!?

[nordah]

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.

Here are some examples, 51 of them to be exact:

In 51 of the 328 exonerations since 1989 – 15% – the defendants confessed to crimes they had not committed. In most of these cases it is apparent that the false confessions were coerced by the police.42

Samuel R. Gross, et al. Exonerations In The United States 1989 Through 2003 http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Prison-Exonerations-Gross19apr04.htm

Keep in mind these are only the false confessions that were caught between 1989 and 2003.

Re:What!?

[Khyber]

"Selling bullets is one thing, selling bullets knowing that it'll end up being used to murder someone specific is quite another."

What the fuck are you talking about? Like there's ANY OTHER PURPOSE for a bullet. It's purpose is to KILL, PENETRATE, AND DESTROY, PERIOD.

Re:What!?

[Khyber]

Even if you don't go to the scene of a crime, failure to report your knowledge of it happening is conspiracy to witness.

That's what I was busted for in Mississippi. Even though I could not witness the crime happening and I was not directly on the property, I still got a conspiracy to witness charge.

Re:What!?

[Khyber]

Anybody going after wild pig is most likely smart enough to use a cross bow or compound bow instead of a gun. Quieter, much better penetration.

Re:What!?

[cayenne8]

"but it would seem to fall along the lines of the bartender getting charged (or at least sued) in relation to a drunk driving death for not cutting the driver off or calling a cab for him."

This varies from state to state.

I don't think I've lived in any state where the bartender/bar can be held liable for a drunk leaving there and doing damage. I know I was a bartender in TN years back...and while I'd heard of such things in other states, it did not affect us.

In fact, an underage kid somehow got drunk in our bar, not sure who served him, but, even after he left and had a wreck (only property damage, no death/personal injury) the parents tried suing our place, but, there was no grounds for it.

I think the laws you are talking about may be more in the NE or the west of the US, but, I don't know of states in the south where bartenders must cut you off.

Re:What!?

[joeyspqr]

modify this a little ...

"If they can [come up with a barely plausible scenario] that you [gave away/sold] [a burner/a modem/access to website/cool hardware hack/a torrent/whatever] to a person you [have no idea whether they might] use [to violate copyright/exercise fair use] then yes, you [should] be charged with a crime.
[Who cares if] there are so many legitimate uses for [a burner/a modem/access to website/cool hardware hack/a torrent/whatever], the [media] lobby is so powerful, [it doesn't matter that it's] nearly impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you thought whoever you were selling a [a burner/a modem/access to website/cool hardware hack/a torrent/whatever] to was going to use it for non-illegal means, [access to a burner/a modem/access to website/cool hardware hack/a torrent/whatever must be prevented at all costs]."

just sayin'

Re:What!?

[Attila Dimedici]

A shoplifter is told that the court will look positively on his cooperation after being arested, and then is asked did he intend to steal the item(s) when he entered the store, or did he decide to steal them once inside the store. He admits he went there to steal the item.

The guy was threatened into a confession. What the cops did was no different than if three huge guys with greased back hair and pinky rings walk into your corner shop and tell you "Nice shop you have here. It would be a shame if something bad happened to it. *wink* *wink*" and then offered you protection services. The cops told him that if he professed innocence of the larger crime, that bad things would happen to him because of it. The police committed a crime.

I'm sorry, I don't see any threat. "The court will look positively on your cooperation" is not the same as "the court will look negatively on your lack of cooperation." The latter would be a threat for greater penalties for being uncooperative (no greater penalties were ever considered, they had him dead to rights on the base shoplifting charge), the former is the suggestion that one can get a reduced sentence for cooperating (which may or may not have actually happened in this case).

Re:What!?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

were you questioned by the cops? Everything I've seen requires you to actively conceal evidence of a crime. It's also possible that what you did wasn't illegal and they convicted you anyway.

Re:What!?

[BigSes]

There was a recent case (a week ago) when, IIRC, three street thugs conspired to kill someone; one obtained the gun, another fired it, and third disposed of the weapon. All three got prison terms.

Sounds like a "How many gang memebers does it take to commit a murder?" joke.

Re:What!?

[obijan]

A CD, with on it at least a dozen SONGS? Who, according to the RIAA are worth tens of thousands each? I am amazed that they did not shoot on sight.

Re:What!?

[sjames]

Minor correction. It *CERTAINLY IS* their job to be fair. However, in practice, they *WON'T*. The same applies to prosecutors. Your advice to use the 5th stands.

Re:What!?

[Belial6]

That is a mighty poor attempt at rationalization. When you tell someone they will spend X time locked up if they do what you want, or they will spend X+Y time locked up if they don't, there is a threat of Y jail time it they don't do what you want. You don't seriously think that the guy copped to a greater crime because he just wanted to help out do you? No, he copped to the greater crime because the police convinced him that if he said he did the greater crime (irrelevant of whether he actually committed the greater crime or not) he would not be locked up for Y time. The poor victim just didn't realize that the cops couldn't be trusted. That they had no problem committing a crime against him, and that large portions of the population would endorse their criminal behaviour.

Re:What!?

[kobaz]

Don't know, I never got a ticket except when I was breaking the law.

I have. More than once.

2am on a Friday night. So of course cops are roaming looking for drunks. Which they should be. I'm coasting the speed limit on my way home and get pulled over by a cop driving in the opposite direction.

I get a ticket for supposedly doing 65 in a 40. Yeah right. I show up to court and the cop didn't show, so it was dismissed, thankfully.

I also got one of those red light tickets in the mail, with a picture showing clearly that my car was not in the intersection. That was an easy one to fight.

If you exist for long enough, you'll get a ticket for something you didn't do.

I was in a car with a coworker. We were driving to NH through VT to a customer site. We're minding our own business when a cop shows up with his lights on behind us. Ticket for 65 in a 35.... huh... what? It's been highway ever since we pulled through the last town 5 miles ago.

4 months later the ticket is dismissed with a code that designates the cop was out of his jurisdiction. Obviously the cop thought we were easy pray for being out of state.

Re:What!?

[GabriellaKat]

Obligatory comment time: "You wouldn't steal a car? etc etc etc." No, I wouldn't steal a CD/DVD.... but this makes me damn sure to download it instead.

Re:What!?

[Attila Dimedici]

But they didn't tell him he would X time locked up if he did what they wanted. They told him he would do X time locked up if he didn't "cooperate", but if he did "cooperate" he might do less than X time. WE don't know if he did X time or not the original post doesn't tell us what penalty he got for pleading guilty.
I think your problem is that you have not spent enough time researching the sorts of things that police authorities do in truly bad systems.

Re:What!?

[TheWGP]

It's the only way to be sure!

Re:What!?

[Belial6]

Are you seriously arguing that X+Y=Z does not solve for Y exactly the same as X-Z=Y??? This is basic math. My 5 year old can do this kind of math.

Are you also seriously arguing that because their are worse police than ours, that it is ok for our police to commit crimes against our citizens? Wow. Just... Wow.

Re:What!?

[StikyPad]

And therein lies the rub: a smarter person wouldn't steal a $20 CD. The stupid shall be punished.

Re:What!?

[Attila Dimedici]

I am arguing that while your math is correct, this wasn't a math problem and most people don't think in math when they interact with other people.
The police in this case did not commit a crime. If you think they did, please list the law that they violated.
Actually, let's put this in a different context. Suppose a teacher tells a student that right now they have earned a C grade, but if they do X they may get a B grade. Is that teacher threatening the student?

Re:What!?

[Uberbah]

You whatever. Most traffic tickets are a sin tax, just like on alcohol or cigarettes. Otherwise, speed limits would be set at the 85th percentile. Otherwise, red light cameras would be set at dangerous intersections, not busy intersections with short yellow light times. Otherwise, the "loss of revenue" wouldn't be the first thing municipalities complain about when they are forced to lower fines.

Re:What!?

[Xaositecte]

try harder.

Re:What!?

[StikyPad]

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.

They don't really trust the equipment, in that most providers monitor for traffic in excess of the subscribed tier. Unless your ISP is an utterly clueless regional provider, you will most likely get caught if you uncap your modem, and you will most likely lose your service as a result.

The real problem is spoofing your neighbor's MAC address, where you get free service until he gets disconnected for violating the TOS, and it's a major flaw in DOCSIS 2.0 and below. It has, however, been largely resolved in DOCSIS 3.0 by encrypting communications between the subscriber (modem) and the headend (CMTS). Resolved, at least, unless and until a vulnerability is found.

Unfortunately, DOCSIS 3.0 hasn't yet been deployed in all (most?) areas, and in even those areas where it exists, the CMTS may be configured for backward compatibility with earlier standards.

Re:What!?

[Moryath]

Bullshit.

It is the prosecutors' job to get convictions. It is the police's job, in this setting, to gather evidence against you. As far as they are concerned, you are guilty, and their purpose of interrogation is to get you to say something incriminating, or at least something that they can twist to sound incriminating later. As time has gone on, their tools have become very much tilted. The police will lie to you, they will berate you. They will pull underhanded tricks galore. They will turn off the tape recorder and video camera and keep trying to talk to you "off the record" (there's no fucking thing) while they "wait for your lawyer to arrive" trying to get you to say something anyways and circumvent your rights. They will keep you in jail all weekend before even calling for your lawyer and have the guard walk by every so often asking "want to waive your lawyer and just get this over with so you can go home?" in hopes that you'll cave in.

Meanwhile, the prosecutor has everything in his arsenal. In a truly just system, you'd be charged and THEN offered the chance to plead guilty for a reduced sentence. You'd know what the charges are, period. In our system, they offer you to "plead to a lower charge", or else they hit you with 20+ charges and all they need is to make one kinda-sorta stick with a tilted jury. People quite often plead down, not because they are guilty, but because they calculate that it's worth the injustice of pleading guilty when they're innocent just to avoid the intensive risk involved in the padded, tilted trial where the judge and prosecutor and cops are all weekend drinking buddies.

Re:What!?

[StikyPad]

Right. The irony of hollowpoints is that they are a safer bullet, in that they're unlikely to pass through the target and cause collateral damage. Yes, they do massive trauma to the target, but you shouldn't be shooting someone you don't intend to kill, so it's a moot point. Expanding projectiles are the opposite of what you want for deep penetration of any sort, including armor.

Re:What!?

[Belial6]

No. People just think. "The cop says I will spend my birthday in jail if I say I lie and say planned the crime, and I will spend my birthday AND Christmas in jail if I tell the truth and don't say I planned the crime." So, yes, it was a math problem, and yes they are doing math.

While I cannot quote the penal code involved, it is a pretty safe bet that conspiring to file a false police report is illegal. That is what the police in this story did. They threatened a man with imprisonment if he did not fabricate a story about him committing a crime.

In your teacher example... YES! The teacher is threatening the student. That is what a threat is. It is when you tell someone that if they don't do what you are telling them, that you will take action that will cause something bad to happen to them.

Re:What!?

[Attila Dimedici]

I feel sorry for you, because when people tell you that something bad is going to happen to you that you could avoid by taking a certain action, you believe that they are threatening you.
Where I see people offering advice that might mitigate the negative consequences someone is facing, you see a threat. What a sad world you live in.

Re:What!?

[jvkjvk]

So, no one goes target shooting then? Hmm. Perhaps you are mistaken.

Regards.

Re:What!?

[Belial6]

Yes, ignorance is bliss.

For the rest of us, we understand that the difference between a threat and advice is that advice is when someone explains what you can do to avoid bad things that they do not control, and a threat is when someone explains what you can do to avoid having them actually do the bad thing to you.

When someone breaks into your home and tells your wife that if she screws him without fighting, he won't murder her children in the next room, that is a threat not 'advice', even though he is offering her information

that might mitigate the negative consequences someone is facing

Re:What!?

[shacky003]

It does occasionally happen.. I guess in my tired stuporr last night I didn't explain properly..
While we called it firmware when we dealt with it, the provisioning file is more of a lock
file requested at each boot of the modem - each time you power cycle the modem, that file
isn't saved, and needs to be downloaded immediately after ranging is complete (when your
send/receive lights finish coming up, signaling the power was properly set to
send/receive, and the basic data link to the head-end was set up.) - I remember back in the
day before the docsis ver.1 spec was created (when Motorola Surfboard was actually and SA
brand..(2100/4100 series) when you could plug into the console port on the back of the modem,
and change your speed whenever you like through telnet.. ahh those were the days.. (This
was in one of the first cable hsd areas, northern VA, ~1995

Re:What!?

[geekoid]

Ignoring the fact t that the cable is running information to your house. They don't want people getting cable without paying, then they should turn it off at the junction, no with some device in my home.

Re:What!?

[geekoid]

Yes, and Yes. Both for conspiracy.

Re:What!?

[geekoid]

"A shoplifter is told that the court will look positively on his cooperation after being arested, and then is asked did he intend to steal the item(s) when he entered the store, or did he decide to steal them once inside the store. "
the only response is:

I want a lawyer.

And I don't care if all they ask is if you want cream in your coffee.

Re:What!?

[gordguide]

" ... BTW, the maximum sentence for sexual assault [rapereliefshelter.bc.ca] when tried as a misdemeanor in Canada is $2,000 + 6 months. ..."

There is no misdemeanor sexual assault charge in Canada. You are referring to a Criminal Code (in the US, Felony) procedure by Summary Conviction. I could go on, but I'm done. You don't know what you're talking about, and you aren't on topic.

Re:What!?

[Chelloveck]

What if I'm shooting womp rats and I "accidentally" destroy the government's latest technological terror?

Re:What!?

[WilliamX]

A loss prevention worker has no say in what the charges filed are. The fact is that the overcharging of minor crimes like that happens every day, and NOT only in California. That definition of burglary exists in every one of 10 other states I checked. The amount stolen is not relevant except for the charge of theft. Burglary typically has no modifiers for amount stolen, and doesn't even have to involve a theft of any kind. The case I mentioned is an actual one. And I could follow it up with many more. A 18 year old girl, lifted a bottle of liquor from a liquor store, was asked the same question (the police are trained in this), and faced the same charge of burglary. Felony theft may start at $500 in value, felony burglary starts at Zero, it requires only your intent when you entered the premises, even if no theft occurred.

Re:What!?

[WilliamX]

Again, go back, reread with comprehension enabled. Commercial theft was not the charge. The charge was Commercial Burglary, which is vastly different and can carry a State Prison sentence of 16 months, 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years. The crime he committed was shoplifting, and with no priors should have remained that. With priors, it would then be felony theft with priors. There was no reason to charge him with felony burglary, even if he met the legal definition of it, because the burglary law was not crafted to cover that type of crime. It's a case of law being too loosely worded, and not narrowly defined enough, and thus allowing the system to abuse its application.

Re:What!?

[maxume]

Theft vs burglary is sloppiness on my part, not a reading comprehension problem (saying that to everyone makes you look like a real swell guy by the way).

Anyway, my whole point was that the problem is in the law, and that it should be fixed; I would probably vote against a prosecutor who regularly pulled such shenanigans, and I don't think he should have been charged under the commercial burglary law, but none of those things change the (apparent) fact that he (and his apparently crappy lawyer) were sufficiently afraid of the charges to bend over and plead to the shoplifting (so apparently they felt he was guilty under the law as written).

Re:What!?

[Tynin]

Confirmed, they can be a mean and tough creature. And given the chance they will try to lay your leg open or worse when they run up to gore you. Generally as long as you are careful it is hard to get in that situation though.

A few years back I was out hunting with a friend who handloads his own 30'06 rounds. He was trying out different powder loads and at a lower powder he couldn't drop this hog. It must have been out about 400m and every shot looked like it knocked dust off of the hog, would get turned sideways a bit from the shot, correct itself, and just kept running (away). It is one of the only hogs we ever lost. We followed the blood trail for ~2 miles before we realized we'd been walking in the middle of a snake breeding ground (which in and of itself is a pretty freaking scary experience) and had to call it quits.

Re:What!?

[Tynin]

And to you I'd say, whatever. Tickets are used as a means of driving up cash for the local coffers. I've never been pulled over for speeding, nor have I noticed anyone going over 100 mph around here in a long while (it does happen no doubt. I'm on the highway 5 days a week, it is just rare where I live I guess). What we have here is police who pull you over for driving violations that are at best minor, and generally are made up.

I've been pulled over for dim tail lights, I got out checked them myself, saw no problems and asked the officer how many lumen are required for tail lights as they seemed plainly lit to me. He didn't like my answer so he kept me their a while so he could call his buddies and generally just give me a hard time and a $80 ticket. I still haven't replaced that tail light and this was several years ago, no problems with the light.

Another time was for failing to come to a complete stop. This was due to how the road was laid out, I came to a stop, and then pulled out into traffic, but due to where the stop is it is hard to see if you are driving perpendicular to it. So when I pulled out to turn right the cop never saw I was stopped, and didn't care for my excuse, $120 ticket.

Yet another time was while I was in the left turn lane and when I made the turn I ended up in the right lane (in order to make the turn in to a gas station, as it would be impossible to get to the station otherwise). Got an improper turn for that one and another $120 ticket. These are just a 'few' examples. Police where I live pull over anything that moves and I do feel it is largely a tax. I'd like to end this by saying I am nothing but 100% polite to these officers, and I still have never talked my way out of a ticket. Safer roads indeed.

Re:What!?

[tomhudson]

Look - YAF -(yet another fuckwit) who shoots their mouth off without even bothering to follow the links.

" ... BTW, the maximum sentence for sexual assault [rapereliefshelter.bc.ca] when tried as a misdemeanor in Canada is $2,000 + 6 months. ..."

There is no misdemeanor sexual assault charge in Canada. You are referring to a Criminal Code (in the US, Felony) procedure by Summary Conviction. I could go on, but I'm done. You don't know what you're talking about, and you aren't on topic.

Did you even follow the link? It's to a CANADIAN RAPE CENTER. Their source: "after sexual assault...; Your guide to the criminal justice system, Department of Justice Canda, Ottawa, Ontario 1991:61-62"

So, are you going to say that the Canadian Department of Justice doesn't know what they're talking about? You're so full of shit.

Here's the actual text of the law: Section 271 of the Canadian Criminal Code - and it states that sexual assault can be either an indictible offense OR a misdemeanor.

Sexual assault

271. (1) Every one who commits a sexual assault is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

Indictments == felonies. Summary convictions == misdemeanors.

Sexual assault is a dual-mode or hybrid offense. It can be a felony or a misdemeanor. It's up to the prosecutor to decide how to proceed - I've posted links to the federal prosecutors' handbook elsewhere in this thread for those who want the gritty details.

What an idiot.

Re:What!?

[sskinnider]

Just because a politician labels a bullet a "cop killer" does not mean that its intended purpose was ever to kill cops. More and more criminals are wearing kevlar these days. The armed cilvilian population needs to be as prepared as the criminals are.

Re:What!?

[Khyber]

What does the bullet do when you shoot it? It PENETRATES, it DESTROYS.

PERIOD. There is NO OTHER FUNCTION FOR IT. It is meant to rip into whichever target it hits and blow it the fuck away.

Re:What!?

[tftp]

9mm rounds are usually sold in boxes of 50

Well, it depends - Hornady packs 20 or 25 per box, Winchester can give you 300 per box, and Federal will give you 50, just as you said. In my example asking for only a few rounds is extra suspicious, like buying a one-way airplane ticket nowadays. No sensible shooter would buy just a handful of rounds - ten would be good for what, two groups at the range? That won't even warm the barrel up.

Re:What!?

[swillden]

All correct, with one small caveat: I'd say you shouldn't be shooting someone you aren't willing to kill, rather than someone you aren't intending to kill. There are very few situations in which a law-abiding person should be shooting with intent to kill. Self-defense and defense of others is about attempting to stop the target, not attempting to kill the target. Generally, the best possible outcome is that the target is prevented from doing harm, but makes a complete recovery from the injury sustained.

That said, the best way to stop the target is to stop his brain from working, either from direct trauma to the central nervous system or by inducing massive, rapid blood loss that deprives the brain of blood and causes blackout. So the sorts of injuries that stop most effectively are usually fatal, but that's an unfortunate (but acceptable) side effect, not the intent.

Off-topic hair splitting, sorry. The rest of your post was completely accurate.

Re:What!?

[nomadic]

Like there's ANY OTHER PURPOSE for a bullet.

That's a little scary...The vast majority of bullets (I hope) are purchased for target shooting or hunting; neither qualifies as "murder." And those bullets bought for home protection? Well, self-defense also does not qualify as "murder."

Re:What!?

[sjames]

I believe you misunderstand me. What you describe is what they actually do every day, I only wish I could disagree.

But that' not actually what they're *SUPPOSED* to do. It's not actually their job. They are supposed to uphold the law (even the rights of criminals are part of the law) and they are supposed to seek justice. That includes not railroading the innocent or seeking convictions for inflated charges.

Essentially I'm agreeing with you but refuse to let them off the hook based on "just doing my job".

Re:What!?

[Datamonstar]

It only took about an hour. The worst part is how this particular county makes you wait in a huge group of people just to get your case on the books. That takes hours. I learned too late that you can reply by mail and you never even have to appear until your court date is scheduled.

Re:What!?

[rhook]

And coating a bullet in teflon doesn't turn it into an armor piercing round.

Re:What!?

[WaXHeLL]

The firmware probably does not affect the bootstrapping code, so that if a bad flash goes through, the modem can just be reset, and booted up again to receive and attempt a new firmware flash.

Re:What!?

[tresstatus]

way to spread the FUD. you are basing your main argument on the exception, not the rule. most shoplifters get charged with a misdemeanor....not felony burglary. the loss prevention worker has input on the charges because they are the ones that call the police and tell them what charges to file. at one point, i stopped an employee that was stealing over $1000 of stuff.... the loss prevention manager didn't want to mess with felony charges, so he told the cops she had stolen under $500.

Re:What!?

[tresstatus]

furthermore, i stopped somewhere around 60-70 people in the 5 months that i did loss prevention. all of them were charged with a misdemeanor and were put on probation for 11 months 29 days. these cases are shuffled through the court system so fast that the judges usually don't even pay attention to the actual case. the average amount of time that a shoplifter sat before a judge was about 5 minutes.

Re:What!?

[Dun Malg]

Considering the venue, you may well be expected to do a citizen's arrest

You're an idiot. No civilian is ever expected/required to make a citizens arrest, no matter what the circumstances.

I won't even begin to address the cockamamie notion that gun store clerks are required to be humorless drones ready to lock the doors and call 911 at the slightest hint of murder, as if they're DHS agents who hear someone say "hijacking".

Re:What!?

[gordguide]

" ... You're so full of shit. ..."
" ... What an idiot. ..."

Well, at least now I see why you prefer to post via cut-and-paste. When you use your own words, the Tourettes' takes over.

" ... Indictments == felonies. Summary convictions == misdemeanors.

Sexual assault is a dual-mode or hybrid offense. It can be a felony or a misdemeanor. It's up to the prosecutor to decide how to proceed - I've posted links to the federal prosecutors' handbook elsewhere in this thread for those who want the gritty details. ..."

You make distinctions and conclusions that do not exist in Canadian Law.

Offenses punishable by Indictment, Offenses punishable by Summary Conviction (Part XXVII, Criminal Code of Canada), or hybrid offenses (where the prosecutor can choose between either) are all part of The Criminal Code of Canada.
All convictions under any statues of the Criminal Code of Canada, where by indictment or summary conviction result in a Criminal Record.
Appeals of decisions where the Crown proceeded by Summary Conviction are by Indictment (PART XXI APPEALS -- INDICTABLE OFFENCES, 675; 1,1)

The closest the Criminal Code ever gets to the word "misdemeanor" is when it refers to "less serious offenses" of the Criminal Code. The word "misdemeanor" never appears at any time in the Criminal Code of Canada.

It is your word, which you interpret rather freely.

Search of all acts at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/

" ...
  Act(s) match your query for:
Text >

Results 0 - 0 of 0

Sorry no results were found matching your request.
Edit Search ..."

Re:What!?

[tomhudson]

The definition of misdemeanor is "a criminal offense less similar than a felony". So, how is that different in any shape, manner, or form, from "summary offense", which, btw, many people won't be familiar with? Or do you think that people should purposefully obfuscate their writings? I made it clear to include the concepts of dual-mode offenses, and explained them clearly. I also made the mapping between the terms VERY clear. Why would you want to confuse the issue, except to troll?

All convictions under any statues of the Criminal Code of Canada, where by indictment or summary conviction result in a Criminal Record.

This is either a barefaced lie or just ignorance at work.

Obviously criminal code convictions can (but not necessarily) result in a criminal record, but you're TOTALLY wrong in saying that summary convictions mean you will automatically have a criminal record; this is an outright lie, and another indication that you either don't know what you're talking about, or are just trolling. The court is allowed, where there is no minimum penalty, to grant an absolute discharge, which - guess what - means you don't get a criminal record. Again, this is what most people would understand as one of the possible outcomes of a "lesser criminal offense", aka "misdemeanor". Using the term "summary conviction", without qualifying it by using the more commonly understood "misdemeanor", adds nothing to the discussion, and just confuses the reader - especially when "misdemeanor" literally means "lesser criminal offense."

Or would you prefer that, for example, I use the legal term "prescription" when talking about certain rights under the Code Civile, without qualifying it so people don't confuse it with a "medical prescription" and go WTF?

BTW, there are other legal limitations on summary offenses, which people won't grok, but if you also put it in context with the more common term misdemeanor, they'll more likely "get it." For example, you can't be fingerprinted if you're charged with a summary offense in Canada. The cops will try anyway - it's up to you to refuse to cooperate by saying "unless I'm under indictment, fuck off." Unfortunately, most people don't know their rights, or think that being impolite will hinder their case. To the contrary, Canadian courts have ruled that it's perfectly fine for people to tell police officers to "go fuck themselves" - there is NO requirement for people who believe that the police are overstepping their bounds to be polite, and one person was awarded $6,000.00 after being arrested for telling the police to fuck off after being asked for ID when there was no reason. He was walking through a vacant lot, minding his own business, and the police asked him for ID. He asked them why, and when they fed him a line of BS, he told them literally "Go fuck yourself, pig". They arrested him, he filed a complaint, and it was upheld. The police had no right to arrest him because they were offended that he asserted his civil rights.

Knowing this, when polite refusal has failed, I've told cops who have overstepped the bounds to go fuck themselves a few times, and followed that with "If you want to have a hearing on the 8th floor at the commission, I have the forms sitting at home." They ALWAYS back down, because nobody wants to face the sort of paperwork that they'd have to fill in, trying to justify why they've screwed up.

This is one reason why I can't understand why anyone who is innocent would accept a plea bargain. Or why lawyers would recommend it. Bullies always back down. If you're in the right and someone is bullying you, then you KNOW that they're really cowards; don't encourage them. It's like feeding the trolls.

Re:What!?

[gordguide]

" ... Obviously criminal code convictions can (but not necessarily) result in a criminal record, but you're TOTALLY wrong in saying that summary convictions mean you will automatically have a criminal record; this is an outright lie, and another indication that you either don't know what you're talking about, or are just trolling. The court is allowed, where there is no minimum penalty, to grant an absolute discharge, which - guess what - means you don't get a criminal record. ..."

The relevant information can be found by referring to the Criminal Records Act (of Canada).

Records are kept by the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) is managed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).
Upon first contact with Police, local police will create a file for their records.
If the charge is an Indictable or Hybrid Offense (can proceed by a choice between Summary Conviction or Indictment) then a temporary file will usually be forwarded to CPIC. This file is accessible only by the charging police department, and exists until further action is taken by the courts.
It will consist of a hard copy and a storage copy (microfiche, currently).
If no further action is taken by the courts, this temporary file in the CPIC database is destroyed after five years.
Local police are under no obligation to destroy their own file.

The CPIC database allows authorized personnel to access:
Vehicle Information
Criminal Records (Adult and Youth)
Dental Records and Offender Information held by the Correctional Service of Canada
Wandering and Missing persons
Motor Vehicle information specific to each Province and Territory
Records in the United States National Crime Information Centre

Once you have a conviction for an offense in the Criminal Code of Canada, you have a Criminal Record.
A Criminal Record is permanent, unless you receive a Pardon, with the exception of Absolute Discharges and Conditional Discharges, where special rules apply. They are:

If you receive an Absolute or Conditional Discharge, there is no conviction entered into CPIC.
However, there is a Criminal Record in CPIC, including the fact you were charged with the offense.
If an Absolute Discharge, all reference is removed after one year, after which it's existence cannot be disclosed.
If a Conditional Discharge, all reference is removed after three years, after which it's existence cannot be disclosed.

The above only applies to the RCMP, and to the departments and agencies of the Government of Canada.

It does not apply to the following who can none the less access CPIC:
Agencies authorized under the Young Offenders Act
Canadian Pacific Railway Police
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Correctional Service of Canada
Department of Agriculture
Federal and Provincial ministries of the Environment
Insurance Crime Prevention Bureaus
Parks Canada
Provincial Correctional Services
Provincial Courts
Provincial Securities Commissions
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
United States Customs
United States Immigration
All State Police

There is legislation requiring Police to submit information to CPIC with regard to Young Offenders, but there is no legislation in place that requires local police to submit criminal information to CPIC for adult offenders. Therefore, CPIC does not represent the totality of records that exist.

When Criminal Records are removed from the accessible database, they are not destroyed. They are moved to a separate record keeping system in Ottawa and kept an additional five years minimum. If your records are kept in the separate repository after being purged from CPIC, they can be accessed when fingerprints of a discharged person are found at the scene of a crime, or to discover the identity of a dead or amnesic person. That information will include the name, date of birth, and last known address.

If the discharge occoured before July 24, 1992 when newer legislation came into force, a

Re:What!?

[swillden]

I wish I could say you're wrong, but you're not. Not only is there the issue you mention, that it may be harder for the family of the intruder to sue than the intruder, but if the civil jury finds against you the damage calculations are likely to be much worse if the intruder lived.

The reason is that when someone dies, damages for the wrongful death are calculated based on what that person could have earned had he not died. In the case of most burglars, that's not much (relatively speaking). But if he lives, then damages are calculated on a more subjective scale based on pain and suffering inflicted. When the result of the shooting is that the intruder will be in severe pain the rest of his life juries award crazy sums.

Luckily, I live in a state with a "Castle Doctrine" law that states that if someone breaks into my home and I reasonably believe he's there to harm someone or to commit a felony (like burglary) then whatever response I take is presumed to be "reasonable" for purposes of both criminal and civil cases. The burden is then on the plaintiff to prove that my action was unreasonable.

Still, civil liability issues aside, I'll stick with the ethical standard. I'd rather have the jury take everything I own than to have to live with having executed a man in cold blood just to avoid a civil suit.

Re:What!?

[tomhudson]

All that's very nice, except that whether a person has been charged or not has NOTHING to do with whether they have a criminal record. You don't get a criminal record when you're charged with an offense, only when you're convicted.

If the judge grants an absolute discharge during the hearing for a summary offense, you have no criminal record - not at that point, and not going forward. That any police agency tracks that you got an absolute discharge is irrelevant. You simply don't have a criminal record.

Case in point - a guy tried to steal the hubcaps off my car. He was charged, and at his trial, his lawyer asked for an absolute discharge so he would not have a criminal record, because it would impare his security clearance at the airport. The judge denied the request.

So, just because an electronic trail about how the charge was handled exists in some computer has no relevance. Not everyone who is charged with a summary offense is convicted, and they may be found guilty, have to pay a fine, and still not receive a criminal record at the judge's discretion.

Don't argue with me - tell it to the judge.

In other words, just because something is in the CPIC is irrelevant to whether you have a criminal record. The CPIC is a tool, and as your own quote shows, it also contains information about people who have been charged but not convicted, charged but found not guilty, charged but the charges stayed, etc.

Either a person has a criminal record, or they don't. It's binary. An absolute discharge granted at the time of trial means they do NOT have a criminal record, contrary to what you claimed. So stop with the bullshit. Spend some time in court and see how it works. It'll be a real education. I've easily spent more than 1,000 hours in courtrooms, as a witness in one murder trial, as a juror in another, as defendant and plaintiff in more than a dozen other cases, etc. So cut the crap.

Re:What!?

[gordguide]

I give up.

You won't read the applicable statues, or do any research yourself; you just blindly repeat your incorrect mantra. So, I'll hand it to you on a silver platter.
http://www.mceachin.com/index.php/cdn_pub_rec/criminal Consult a lawyer
http://www.canadianlegal.org/canadian_pardons.php#8 Refer to an organization that is in the business of securing pardons
http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/A5.htm Ask the John Howard Society

The Criminal Records Act, which you refuse to either check or cannot comprehend; lately it seems more likely the latter.
" ...
Criminal Records Act (R.S., 1985, c. C-47) ...
Discharges

6.1 (1) No record of a discharge under section 730 of the Criminal Code that is in the custody of the Commissioner or of any department or agency of the Government of Canada shall be disclosed to any person, nor shall the existence of the record or the fact of the discharge be disclosed to any person, without the prior approval of the Minister, if
(a) more than one year has elapsed since the offender was discharged absolutely; or
(b) more than three years have elapsed since the offender was discharged on the conditions prescribed in a probation order.
Purging C.P.I.C.

(2) The Commissioner shall remove all references to a discharge under section 730 of the Criminal Code from the automated criminal conviction records retrieval system maintained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the expiration of the relevant period referred to in subsection (1).
1992, c. 22, s. 6; 1995, c. 22, s. 17(E). ..."

" ... Either a person has a criminal record, or they don't. ..." You are absolutely correct.

" ... An absolute discharge granted at the time of trial means they do NOT have a criminal record ..." You are absolutely wrong.

What does the phrase "the existence of a record" found within "The Criminal Records Act" mean to you? Apparently not the same as what it means to people who work in the administration of Justice.

Tell it to the judge, indeed. Know any? Ask him. Sounds like you do know a few lawyers. Ask one.

" ... So stop with the bullshit. ..." Well said. Can't take your own advice?

Re:What!?

[tomhudson]

The "existence of a record" in a database is not the same thing as having a criminal record. That is strictly a data retention policy, for internal usage (administrative purposes). The person who is granted an absolute discharge at the time of their trial does not have a criminal conviction, despite the presence of a notation in the database that they received the discharge. An absolute discharge means that the judge never convicted them, even though they pled guilty. The judge has the absolute right to order that the person not be convicted of a crime when there is no minimum sentence, even if the accused has pled guilty.

Or perhaps you forgot the case where a JUDGE turned out to have had an absolute discharge for an offense when he was a lot younger. It came out years later, and his argument was quite simple - absolute discharge == no criminal conviction, as per the law. It happens all the time. It's not hard to find cases where that happened. It took me less than a minute to find one, and only a few minutes more to cut-n-paste a bunch more.

Here - recent cases: read them and weep.

SAGUENAY, Que. -- The son of former Montreal Canadiens goaltender Patrick Roy received an absolute discharge Wednesday after pleading guilty to an assault charge in connection with a nasty hockey fight last year.

Jonathan Roy, a former goalie for the Quebec Remparts of the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League now turned singer, will not have a criminal record. He will have to donate $5,000 to local charitable organizations.

The younger Roy was charged after pounding rival goalie Bobby Nadeau during a hockey brawl in March 2008.

Another case from July of 2009

P.E.I. MLA gets absolute discharge for assault

P.E.I. Progressive Conservative MLA Mike Currie has been given an absolute discharge for assault during a sentencing hearing in Charlottetown on Friday.

Currie, MLA for Georgetown-St. Peter's, said he was relieved by the judge's decision to grant him an absolute discharge, which means he will not have a criminal record.

And Another one, April of 2009

Quebec boy's record cleared despite kirpan conviction

Judge says case has been given too much attention, gives boy unconditional discharge

Jan Ravensbergen, Canwest News Service
Thursday, Apr. 16, 2009

A 13-year-old LaSalle youth involved in Quebec's latest skirmish over the kirpan was declared guilty yesterday in Quebec Youth Court of having threatened two schoolmates with a hairpin normally used to secure his turban.

But Judge Gilles Ouellet then removed the sting from that conviction by handing the youth an absolute discharge -- ensuring the boy remains free of any criminal record.

One form BC in February, 2009

B.C. Supreme Court Madam Justice Marvyn Koenigsberg also found the man at the centre of the ruling, a worker for a marijuana compassion club on Vancouver Island, guilty of producing and possessing for the purpose of trafficking the drug, but gave him an absolute discharge.

Same with an RCMP Officer in Nova Scotia

Truro, N.S. (Canadian Press) - An RCMP officer was granted an absolute discharge today on a fraud charge in Nova Scotia provincial court.

In passing sentence in Truro, Judge Robert Stroud said Ron Lamb has an u

Welcome to the DMCA

[MaerD]

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?

Re:Welcome to the DMCA

[MobileC]

What has the DMCA got to do with this case?

Re:Welcome to the DMCA

[mooingyak]

Accidentally modded you 'overrated', replying to remove the mod.

Re:Welcome to the DMCA

[LoRdTAW]

Did you get that PC from comcast? No?

God dammit don't give them any ideas!

Welcone to your new Time Warner Home PC! Where would you like to go?

Google.com - $1.99/month
Time warner web portal and search - FREE!

Youtube - $1.99/month
Time Warner Video Page - FREE!

Slashdot.org - $0.99/month
Time warner tech news - FREE!

Necro-bestial-anal-butt-sex.com - $4.99/month
Time warner...... nevermind

Re:Welcome to the DMCA

[DerekLyons]

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

Re:Welcome to the DMCA

[noidentity]

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?

There is a difference, though. A mod chip simply affects what you can do with your own hardware, while a hacked cable modem allows theft of bandwidth (yes, theft is the proper word here). It's little different than hacking your eletric meter or water meter.

Re:Welcome to the DMCA

[Rogerborg]

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

See also: 1984 is not an instruction manual!!!!1!!.

Re:Welcome to the DMCA

[mpe]

There is a difference, though. A mod chip simply affects what you can do with your own hardware, while a hacked cable modem allows theft of bandwidth (yes, theft is the proper word here). It's little different than hacking your eletric meter or water meter.

A utility meter isn't "yours" it belongs to the electricity, water, gas, etc supplier (or to someone acting on their behalf). If a cable modem is supplied in a similar way then the same issue of tampering would apply. If it's your device, even if you bought it from the cable company, then things are very different.

Re:Welcome to the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

circumventing a restricting device. It is okay to do original research, determine how to circumvent a control and then do so. It is not okay (by the DMCA) to then inform someone else how to do so. Ridiculous or not, this is part of the DMCA and has been upheld in court. Sorry, I don't have the citation handy, but a judge justified it by saying something along the lines of "the provision is okay because it provides a legal path for circumvention."

This provision may have been originally aimed for DVD "protection" to protect the profits of the DVD consortium in licensing fees, but was definitely intended to more generally protect the profits and interests of corporations and consortiums against the interests of the public.

Re:Welcome to the DMCA

[linuxrocks123]

You missed that the provision is actually against circumventing a restricting device WHICH PROTECTS ACCESS TO COPYRIGHTED CONTENT. The DMCA does not apply here.

Re:Welcome to the DMCA

[noidentity]

Yeah, OK, good point. The cable modem is told "don't let user receive more than X bits per second, on average". The provider is saving cost by having your modem play nice, rather than having their neighborhood server do the limiting. If you modify YOUR modem, it's just requesting more bits per second, and the neighborhood server is giving those to you without complaint. Put that way, it kind of reminds me of the way an open WiFi access point basically says every second or more, "Hey, there's an open access point, and here's how you connect" and then when you ask for a connection, it says "Sure! Here's your IP address." but then people claim you made unauthorized access because you didn't know the owner of the access point.

That sucks, sort of.

[the_humeister]

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.

Re:That sucks, sort of.

[palegray.net]

yeah, I'm new here

Slashdot UID 922869. Fibber ;).

Re:That sucks, sort of.

[mysidia]

So failing to "properly moderate" your forums is a criminal offense now?

Even slashdot has anonymous cowards, and I doubt they'd delete posts discussing such matters, unless ordered to (by DMCA letter or similar), even if the score was -1, same difference....

Re:That sucks, sort of.

[hpycmprok]

No really, he is new here.

Re:That sucks, sort of.

[simoncpu was here]

Where is that guy who instantly appear out of nowhere and declare "No, I'm New Here"?

Re:That sucks, sort of.

[palegray.net]

He got himself caught in a routing loop, and will spend the rest of eternity replying to himself over HTTP.

Re:That sucks, sort of.

[gmhowell]

Yes, he is.

Re:That sucks, sort of.

[geekoid]

If you give a forum for people to discuss criminal activity, then yes, that's a crime.

Whether the forum is electronic or a local bar.

Assuming such talk did happen, he is going to have a hard time proving he didn't know about it, and he didn't know how to turn it off.

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[ILuvRamen]

Probably as soon as he tries to steal broadband lol. That or if he changes his name to Osama Bin Hackin.

It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[erroneus]

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

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[palegray.net]

As long as people keep on wanting to kill each other, they've got a significantly more powerful force than lobbyists on their side. It's called human nature.

Yes, I do own a gun.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[BeansBaxter]

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

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[mysidia]

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)

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[gatekeep]

Also, they have guns.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[SgtChaireBourne]

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.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[mabhatter654]

Gun sellers also have extremely specific laws they have to follow or the face jail time for not filling out paperwork.... but following that paperwork limits their liability for the gun owner's actions AFTER the sale.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[wizardforce]

The second amendment is largely protected because there are enough people defending the amendment to make it meaningful. If there weren't, then I'd say that the second amendment would be just about where the tenth is now: discarded as being "inconvenient."

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[gmhowell]

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

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[DNS-and-BIND]

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.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[martin-boundary]

Who prevailed in the end, people with computers or people with firearms? Modern-day equivalent, my ass.

Well, without computers the US military would just be a bunch of people armed with knives and handguns. All the major modern weapons systems require all sorts of computer systems to design, build, and operate them.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[ChiRaven]

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

Provided the Supreme Court agrees that it is in the Chicago case this term

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[argStyopa]

I agree with you to a small degree, except insofar that there is an order of magnitude difference at the ultimate point where reality intrudes - the pen can be mightier than the sword, but only figuratively. In point of fact, a murderer breaking into your home (or the agent of a thieving government) can be killed by a bullet, where writing something nasty isn't going to do much.

Finally, as regards your comparison - you're right, except to continue the metaphor, this guy who cracks cable modems is essentially asserting that people are entitled to free bullets which is nonsense.

I think it must be that people spend too much time watching clever courtroom dramas where the cagey defense attorney saves the day by finessing some narrow point of legal semantics. Not how it really happens; in point of fact, most judges are sensible enough to see that a guy 'hacking' cable modems is trying to cheat the system - and then SELLING them is trying to profit from it, and it suddenly becomes nontrivial in the eyes of the law. In the same sense that you don't get the black DEA choppers descending if you build a water bong, but the moment one tries to sell them (as if people don't know what they're for) then you start to catch some official attention.

I'm going out on a limb, but I'd guess strongly that he wouldn't have ANY issues if he was just hacking cable modems and saying 'aha, I beat you guys again'. No, it's not the charges that are "bullshit", it's someone thinking that they have some civil right to break laws that they don't feel apply to them. (And as for the civilly disobedient, yes, there IS a human right to break laws you think are immoral; however, your unjust suffering of the punishment is supposed to attract attention, NOT get you 'off the hook scot-free'.)

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[drinkypoo]

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.

So, when the government comes to execute you for crimes you did not commit, you're going to throw your mouse at them and try to hit them with your keyboard? I think most of us can agree that once you have reached the point of violence, there has been a kind of failure. Does that mean you should be unprepared for violence? If computers have a place in self defense, it is as a fifth box between soap and ballot, long before the one for ammo.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[swillden]

Well, without computers the US military would just be a bunch of people armed with knives and handguns.

I must have missed where the military has computerized their rifles.

All the major modern weapons systems require all sorts of computer systems to design, build, and operate them

I would say that all the modern weapons systems make use of computer systems, because computers exist. Without computers, nearly all of the weapons would still exist, though they'd be less effective. The loss in effectiveness would be in accuracy and communications, though, not in destructive power.

Computers are very useful tools, but they're hardly a replacement for firearms.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[DerekLyons]

Most of the folks who participated don't know who prevailed in the end - nor do they even care. The whole thing was much less about freedom than in being seen as being in favor of the current fashionable cause and participating in the latest internet meme de jour.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[tmosley]

Encryption used to be classified as artillery, IIRC.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[mog007]

Don't forget that it took a WAR to make the 10th amendment "inconvenient".

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[green1]

So, when the government comes to execute you for crimes you did not commit, you're going to throw your mouse at them and try to hit them with your keyboard? I think most of us can agree that once you have reached the point of violence, there has been a kind of failure. Does that mean you should be unprepared for violence? If computers have a place in self defense, it is as a fifth box between soap and ballot, long before the one for ammo.

If you had a credible example of anyone in the United States stopping themselves from being killed by the government because they were armed... you'd have an argument.
As it is, all anyone might do is kill several government agents before being executed. their own chance of death actually INCREASES if they are armed, as if they are not they will likely have their day in court, whereas if they get in a gun battle with the police they will very likely end up dead.

However, with information, you can take down entire governments...

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[drinkypoo]

As it is, all anyone might do is kill several government agents before being executed.

Probably true.

However, with information, you can take down entire governments...

By the time the men with guns show up, you have failed (at least on a personal level) and your computer will not help you, unless it's rigged to blow up when you die or something. I have no argument against the idea that the computer is important and that access to information must be preserved. I have an argument with the idea that the guns don't accomplish anything. I have no intention of or belief that I would ever be in such a situation myself, but then I'm not a freedom fighter living in a fascist dictatorship.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[Hythlodaeus]

You also might see that Cthullu is in your laundry hamper. Either way you're making wild claims with no supporting argument.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[Khyber]

"I must have missed where the military has computerized their rifles."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_Individual_Combat_Weapon_program

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[R2.0]

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

This is the biggest fallacy in the anti-gun movement, and where they are making a huge tactical mistake - trying to portray firearms manufacturers in the same manner as tobacco companies. Aside from the wholly different regulatory regime, there's a practical matter - small arms manufacturing is a marginal business proposition, and always has been. This is ESPECIALLY true in the consumer market.

Look at some of the best names in US firearms manufacturing: Winchester, Smith and Wesson, Remington, Colt, Marlin, Harrington & Richardson, etc. The one thing they have in common is that they have ALL gone bankrupt at one point, or multiple times, or been bought out under financial duress. Ruger is a notable exception, but it's not like they make money hand over fist. Small arms still require quite a bit more labor than other consumer machines, and there is massive competition due to the fact that very many firearms designs have gone out of patent protection. One of the best handgun designs of all time, the Colt model 1911, is almost 100 years old and is manufactured by dozens of companies. Profit margins are slim, to say the least.

The second failure is the nature of the product. The theory of product liability has historically been based on the idea of liability for damages due to a product failure, or by hiding the risks in using a product. But with firearms, that is being turned on it's head - the makers are being sued, not because their products fail, but because they succeed. When a firearm works correctly, someone or something is damaged - it's just not the user. And, as much as people don't want to admit it, a lot of times that damage is applied in a legal and proper manner. So the gun manufacturer's are being sued because their products do what they are supposed to. Can people use them for illegal means? Sure - they can also use VCR's for copyright infringement. Sony put paid to that, and the courts would have done so to the gun lawsuits. So instead of waiting for the manufacturers to be bankrupted (again), Congress stepped in.

The third failure is connected with the first two, in that the motives of the people who sued the tobacco companies are similar to those suing the gun manufacturers. First, you have the True Believers. The product is bad, and should be banned. But not being able to achieve an outright ban, they go after the companies who make the products and try to make them go out of business, in teh hopes that the product will disappear as well. The problem is that the company is not the product!. If Reynolds or the otehr tobacco companies had simply said "Fuck it - we quit", that wouldn't have stopped production and sales of cigarettes. The brands would simply have been sold to Japan Tobacco or some other company, WITHOUT the liabilities of the original companies, and people just keep smoking. Same with guns. The second group I'll call "The Pragmatists". These people believe that an outright ban isn't going to happen, so instead are using the courts to regulate the product in lieu of statute, and by means of those regulations drive the product out of the marketplace. For Tobacco, they seem to have succeeded: tobacco companies still exist, and cigarettes still exist, but now they are regulated under a "regime" that's laughable - paying for the privileged of being ridiculed, not being allowed to use certain advertisements, while the "settlement" money has been pissed away by the complainants.

The Pragmatists had another "success" with the gun lawsuits, although I'm not sure they'd call it that. Smith & Wesson, under financial pressure from the lawsuits and industry competition, settled the suit by agreeing to certain regulation, ALSO designed to lessen the utility of their product (hint - NONE of S&W's customers thinks and internal gun lock is a good idea.) In return, they were prom

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[swillden]

:-)

Nice try. A failed program to attach computerized grenade launchers to rifles doesn't constitute computerization of the rifles.

And even if computers were added to rifles, it still doesn't make computers a replacement for rifles.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[Uberbah]

If there weren't, then I'd say that the second amendment would be just about where the tenth is now: discarded as being "inconvenient."

Yes, I am eagerly awaiting the teabagger protests of the Air Force, NORAD, the CIA, the NSA, and our spy satellites as the Constitution "only" grants Congress the power to fund an army and a navy.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[green1]

you still fail to show how any weapon will help you once "the men with guns show up"
The computer may get a last ditch message out to let people know what's happened... the gun will more likely kill you then save you.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[drinkypoo]

you still fail to show how any weapon will help you once "the men with guns show up"

It might not help you, but it might help the populace if it happens enough times. A disarmed populace loses their vote.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[StikyPad]

Who said we've reached the end?

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[iamhigh]

Keeping it illegal does keep prices high as the risk of arrest is there; prohibition does nothing to prevent new competition in the market, but actually increases the competition as profits are higher and there is no reason you can't buy some weed and sell it on the next block. There are no forms to fill out, hardly any startup costs (you don't need a store), no worries about bad checks, cc processing, etc. Your only barrier is the willingness of the competition to stop you (turf wars).

I know you weren't advocating prohibition, but you really have to think about all the angles, and for the most part there is nothing that prohibitions makes better, safer or less appealing for almost every party involved. Also my dealer would rather have a day job like you and I (and he's a sincere guy who is trying), but his felony conviction makes it pretty hard.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[j00r0m4nc3r]

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.

Hmm, so I can use my computer to kill the British? Excellent...

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[gmhowell]

Nowadays, the computer (and internet access) takes that role. Your ability to tell the whole world about the abuses you're receiving at the hand of the government are MUCH more powerful (and important) than a shotgun.

Umm.... Yeah. I'd like travel directions to the fantasy world you're living in.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[green1]

It might not help you, but it might help the populace if it happens enough times. A disarmed populace loses their vote.

And just how will it help the populace?
There is only one thing a gun does in this situation, and that is kill people (most notably, the person who thinks he can stand up to the government with his gun). nobody is helped in any way.

what helps is when enough people get outraged at something, and guns will never cause that, the only thing that can cause it is communication.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[green1]

perhaps I should clarify.
If you shoot at the police/soldiers coming to get you, they simply shoot back.

If you communicate with the world and convince enough people your cause is just, those same police/soldiers refuse to shoot at you. THAT is where change and revolution come from, not from the masses taking up arms against the government, because the day and age where that was once possible has long passed, but instead by convincing those soldiers that they are on the wrong side of the conflict, it is only when the might of the government ceases to be at the government's control that a real revolution happens.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[Khyber]

If you read all of that you'd have found from the program that several of the offshoots from the program are computerize, and are in service, though not computerized to the extent that the OICW was. Mainly biometric locks on weapons, etc, but the OICW is the progenitor of that.

And a computer would make a damn fine replacement for a rifle if said computer was attached to a megawatt laser.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[swillden]

On the other hand, the megawatt laser would make a fine replacement for a rifle even without the computer.

Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers!

[FragHARD]

Bravo!!! Sir I am pleased to find a fellow slashdotter that knows what the 2nd amendment is and that it is part of the bill of rights!

Prosecution haggling?

[vikstar]

"They’re filling in their own blanks."

Is this a way to haggle up the punishment? Make the defense spend valuable time worrying about completely bogus prosecution claims, and it might neglect other more legitimate claims.

Re:Prosecution haggling?

[Moryath]

No, it's called "padding the charges to force a plea deal."

They say "well we COULD charge you with xyzqelsoerjninn but instead, we'll let you 'plead out to just xyz with reduced time'" and they're hoping to get a conviction off of it.

Not to mention this is federal court, so chances are the judge is on someone's (hollywierd, cable cartel, etc) payroll on the side.

Thousands of innocent people "plead guilty" thanks to this shit every year.

Oh, really?

[russotto]

"I'll tell you right now I'm not going to plead guilty."

Guilty plea in 3...2...1...

(shouldn't take long after the prosecution makes suggestions about the average casualty rate of white collar criminals in serious prisons, and suggests a guilty plea in exchange for an easier prison)

Re:Oh, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The most they would do is put him for a few months into a white-collar, minimum-security resort. You know, they have conjugal visits there?

Re:Oh, really?

[mweather]

The most they would do is put him for a few months into a white-collar, minimum-security resort. You know, they have conjugal visits there?

Conjugal visits? Mmmm. Not that I know of. Y'know, minimum-security prison is no picnic. I have a client in there right now. He says the trick is: kick someone's ass the first day, or become someone's bitch. Then everything will be all right.

Re:Oh, really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'll tell you right now I'm not going to plead guilty."

Guilty plea in 3...2...1...

(shouldn't take long after the prosecution makes suggestions about the average casualty rate of white collar criminals in serious prisons, and suggests a guilty plea in exchange for an easier prison)

I went to high school with Harris. This isn't his first stint in federal prison.

Re:Oh, really?

[mcgrew]

He says the trick is: kick someone's ass the first day, or become someone's bitch. Then everything will be all right.

That worked for me in Junior High! Not on the firs day though, I got bullied for a couple of months before I snapped and beat the crap out of the bully, who was much bigger than me.

However, I got more respect from the other kids when I brought a "hydrogen bomb" to school

Re:Oh, really?

[geekoid]

"they have conjugal visits there?"

If they don't they should. A laid male population is a lot calmer.

OTOH, they should be trying to reform people, and stoping the internal ass kicking and as raping.

Seriously, they control the prisoners lives, there is no excuse for that kind of activity.

Re:Oh, really?

[russotto]

OTOH, they should be trying to reform people, and stoping the internal ass kicking and as raping.

Seriously, they control the prisoners lives, there is no excuse for that kind of activity.

The internal ass kicking and ass raping is how they control US on the OUTSIDE.

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[mister_playboy]

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.

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it sad that I thought he wrote Obama? Is it sadder that I didn't think he was being sarcastic?

Re:This is not a crime

[CSMatt]

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?

Re:This is not a crime

[mikeken]

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.

Paperwork infraction

[Anonymous Coward]

There are so many laws on the books, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who is not a criminal.

Not to be paranoid, but that's the way the man wants it. You are all guilty of something, so you can be rounded up, if they deem it necessary.

It sure would be a lot simpler if you just categorized crimes into various logical levels (rather than political levels) and meted out justice accordingly.

This case doesn't seem like much of a "real crime", more of a civil annoyance. Here is a first hack at the scale of "crimes":

Victimless crimes. (e.g. Drugs - if you have a problem, let's offer help, not expensive law enforcement and jail.)

civil annoyance - pay a fine (parking violations, let your dog crap on the sidewalk, etc.)

small, medium, large screw ups - crimes of opportunity, stupidity, and passion. Typically one-off crimes. Fines and jail sentences of varying lengths. Some hope of offenders seeing the error of their ways.

Bad People - this person needs to be put down, like a rabid animal. Purposeful injury of another. I don't care about the motive. If you fuck up someone else on purpose, we don't need you.

There should be no thought crimes. If you harm someone, let's put you down. I don't care if it was a "hate" crime or robbery for profit. If you are capable of that crime, I don't care why. If you have a sawed off shotgun that is 1" too short to be legal, what do I care? Not a crime. Use it on an innocent person, off with your head, just as if you had used a legal baseball bat.

Re:Paperwork infraction

[tomhudson]

civil annoyance - pay a fine (parking violations, let your dog crap on the sidewalk, etc.)

As a dog owner, I want people who don't pick up their dog shit to do more than just pay a fine. Put up a big sign on their lawn, declaring it to be a "public doggie comfort zone" for one year.

The punishment SHOULD fit the crime. And it should be creative, so people can't say "well,if I get caught, it's just a fine." It should have some relation to the original act, and it should benefit the community.

Driving too fast in a school zone? You just volunteered for crossing guard duty.

Beat your wife? Welcome to the Lorena Bobbitt School of Body Modification.

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

Killed your mother-in-law? Gee, that's a toughie. How about $10 plus time served.
(just joking ... $10 might be too high ... )

Seriously, make slum lords live in their buildings, make the banksters who did the fraudulent mortgages live in the communities they've wrecked, etc., because fines are not punishment, they're the price you pay for permission to continue to shit on people.

Re:Paperwork infraction

[Dunbal]

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.

Re:Paperwork infraction

[tomhudson]

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.

Re:Paperwork infraction

[Locke2005]

The punishment SHOULD fit the crime. What do you suggest the sentence for spammers should be?

Re:Paperwork infraction

[Adaeniel]

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.

Re:Paperwork infraction

[tomhudson]

The punishment SHOULD fit the crime.

What do you suggest the sentence for spammers should be?

Isn't it obvious? Convert them to Spam. Soylent Green forever.

Re:Paperwork infraction

[th3rmite]

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Martin Niemöller

Re:Paperwork infraction

[Dunbal]

I'm curious which morals would you have me and the rest of us adopt to solve our "problems" because to me that sounds like another case of "makes" 'cause you want to make me have the morals you would want me to have.

      Well, the ones about not killing people or driving on the approved side of the road, or how about not stealing... those morals. You seem to think they are commendable things, since obviously you want to make people do them.

      I don't have the answer to all problems. But I certainly know that making legislating for every possible scenario of human interaction and thus having some central bureaucracy make every possible action a potential legal minefield is not a good answer.

Re:Paperwork infraction

[tomhudson]

All that is expensive and has no return for your government. The government will of course choose the punishment that nets them the greatest possible amount of money, so they can go on spending it on weapons and wiretapping initiatives.

I'm in Canada. We don't spend that much on weapons, and the courts have already ruled that plastering CCTV cameras all over public places in the hopes of catching Random J Offender are an unconstitutional invasion of privacy (we have a concept of "the anonymity of the crowd" - that people going about their own business in public should be able to do so without being spied upon).

We're also the country whose privacy commissioner forced Facebook to change its' operations wrt user data. The recent "memorializing of the dead" policy (item #3 in the link) is part of that process, just as making it clear to users that they can both deactivate AND delete their accounts (item #2). They have a year to get into full compliance, and they probably realized that if they didn't, other countries would start making the same demands, since they're reasonable.

Going after Facebook wasn't about getting money from them, but of making sure they respected people's rights.

Re:Paperwork infraction

[MindlessAutomata]

The OP's post has obvious logistical problems, but you have to realize that even the law is an invention of convenience. What good is the law if the laws is bad or tyrannical? If you ever suggest that the law be followed simply for its "democratic" status or because someone said so, then it becomes moral or justice that someone be unfairly tortured or even killed because the "law" says so.

The horrifying truth is that there is no good or evil or any sort of justice, it is an invention within your head and no external entity has some divine mandate or authority over you. The law only gets its validation if you think it's valid. There are no gods to set up rules--and even then, what if there were?--and kings and large crowds don't solve the problem either.

So yes, what is the use of a law that is injust? How high does the body count need to be before "rule of law" and "justice" no longer outweigh your sense of morality?

Re:Paperwork infraction

[Bobx23456]

Good thought. The punishment should fit the crime. Arrogant young A**holes who want to "punish" everyone SHOULD be put in a public stock with a supply of whips available to the public.

Re:Paperwork infraction

[tomhudson]

Nobody wants to punish everyone. If you pick up after your dog, you don't get "punished" for it. If you don't speed in a school zone, you don't get "punished" for it.

Learn to troll better. Or at least come up with a better bad car analogy, because that was pathetic.

Re:Paperwork infraction

[Bobx23456]

In general there are way too many laws and way too much "punishment." We live in what could be accurately characterized as a "police state" with more men in prisons than any other nation at any other time in the history of humanity. Victimless "crime" is not a crime at all. The government should mind its own business. If the prosecutor can't find a victim to appear in court and demonstrate their injuries, then the prosecutor should be slapped with a penalty. And police don't count as "victims." They aren't there to create "crime." Annoyances are not crimes. The government should not get involved. That leaves crimes against other people, murder, robbery, assault, etc. Again, if the person isn't harmed, then no crime is committed. Most fights are offsetting penalties, no government penalty involved. Robberies and other property crimes need restitution, not punishment. The criminal needs to be an indentured servant to the victim until the debt is paid back. That leaves serious injury or death crimes. If its a whiny MIL he should get a medal, not a punishment.

Re:Paperwork infraction

[tomhudson]

If I feel a law is just, I will mostly obey it. If a law is unjust, or even just stupid, I'll mostly ignore it or disobey it. I say mostly, because I can't be 100% sure that I've, for example, always ignored bad laws.

I believe most Canadians are the same way. Americans ... you'd have to ask them. They're the ones who originated the phrase, "My country, right or wrong!" and whose leader made jingoism national policy with "You're either with us, or you're against us."

Re:Paperwork infraction

[MindlessAutomata]

Oh please. It's easy to blame America because we're the strongest world power (and I'm not bragging about this at all, believe me). If Canada or anywhere else took the USA's place the roles here would be reversed. If you think that sort of patriotism is exclusive to the USA anyway you're severely deluded.

Pulling a completely random example from Wikipedia out of my ass--it's illegal, in Finland, to burn their flag, yet Americans still have that right (in most places) despite the protestations of many politicians and red necks here. And yet Finland (and all you other supposedly better nations) is supposed to be so progressive and free? You say, "oh, yeah, that's one of the laws they'll just ignore" but given how much patriotism I see out of Europeans here resembling a more sophisticated "Yee-haw Bob, 'MERICA!" I'm not convinced that their officers won't arrest them for it. I'm not convinced that Europe is any better than the USA. And Germany? Can barely even have red blood in their video games, and god forbid there's dismemberment. I don't see that one going ignored...! If I had time I could probably find plenty of examples.

Believe me, I'm no flag waving patriot--I'd rather burn the flag than wave it--but I'm sick of the "MY grass IS greener!" mentality people have regardless of where they are from. Just because Canada (or any other nation, or America compared to another nation) might be better on whatever issues currently making the rounds through the world medias these days doesn't make it overall more free.

Re:Paperwork infraction

[Dunbal]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a nanny state, you dumb libertarian cunt.

      Well enjoy your nanny state. Me, I moved.

Re:Paperwork infraction

[doojsdad]

Common misquote of the great Thomas Jefferson. http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Government_big_enough_to_supply_you Please, see that link and cease to attribute that statement with him.

"We have never found such a statement in Jefferson's writings. As far as we know, this statement actually originates with Gerald R. Ford"

Re:Paperwork infraction

[mog007]

Thomas Jefferson never said that. It was Gerald Ford.

Re:Paperwork infraction

[tomhudson]

Burning the flag is a poor example.

it's illegal, in Finland, to burn their flag ... yet Americans still have that right (in most places) despite the protestations of many politicians and red necks here

Americans have that right in ALL parts of the US, not just "most places". It's not just a right - burning is the PROPER way to dispose of a flag that's no longer suitable for display. The knee-jerk uninformed reaction of many Americans to flag-burning ("OMG it's WRONG and UNPATRIOTIC") is just another example of the sheer stupidity of misguided patriotism. Even the American Legion insists that burning the flag is the ONLY proper means of disposal.

Also, if you actually go to the link that claims that burning the flag is illegal in Finland, it references a flag-burning incident in *Australia*. No reference to Finland. In other words, wiki's citation is completely bogus, which means yours is too ... good thing you pulled it out of your ass :-)

So come up to Kanuckistan and burn as many flags as you want. Our attitude is that it says more about the person doing the act than anything else. We had Quebecers stomping on the Canadian flag in order to try to provoke anger, and most of us said "When you get down to it, that's pretty f*ing childish. Grow up already." Our pride is in our country, our people. In that context, flags are pretty much secondary.

Just because Canada (or any other nation, or America compared to another nation) might be better on whatever issues currently making the rounds through the world medias these days doesn't make it overall more free.

The fact is that in terms of freedom, Canada ranks a lot higher than the US. We have freedom from bailing out banksters (we've only had 2 bank failures in almost 90 years; our banking system is rated the best in the world for a reason). That's not just a multi-trillion-dollar freedom - it's priceless. We have freedom from a de-facto two-party electoral system. We have campaign financing laws that give us political freedom from corporate overlords buying elections. We have public health care that gives us freedom from worrying about losing everything should we get sick. We're also already more than self-sufficient, energy-wise. In terms of the percentage of people in jails, we're definitely a LOT freer (but then again, so is every other country in the world. Ironic that the "land of the free" has not just the highest percentage of people behind bars, but more people than China, Russia, or any other country in the world).

Those are all current issues - and on every one, we're "more free". If it were only one or two issues where we were more free, you might be right ... but not when it's consistent, on such a broad range of issues.

It's a darned shame, because for a large portion of the last century, the US was *the* example of freedom (if you didn't look too close beneath the surface at the treatment of blacks via Jim Crow laws, for example, or jews, or asians, or the still-ongoing discrimination against gays and lesbians).

The comparisons aren't made to put down the US, but to point out that there are problems that need to be addressed, that other countries have successfully addressed them, and that maybe its time to drag the lobbyists (and the politicians beholden to them) behind the barn and shoot them in the wallet. That's what the ballot box is for.

Re:Paperwork infraction

[paragon1]

The collapse of a country is always preceded by a moral collapse.

If that's true, America is doomed. We've come to love money above all else.

Re:Paperwork infraction

[mcgrew]

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.

Parenting is over rated. My late friend's first wife was bipolar; she was nutty as a fruitcake, once trying to murder my ex-wife with a butcher knife. After their divorce she had custody as much as him, and all the kids turned out all right. Their oldest son is the sanest man I know.

My friend John is the nicest, politest, soft spoken gentleman I've ever met. His mother is on parole right now.

I know people with more than one kid, all of whom are fine except the one in prison. I have a hard time believing your brother wasn't raised the same way you were, unless you were raised in different families.

I'm not sure what it is that causes kids to grow up to be assholes, but when when there are two kids and only one is an asshole, how can it be parenting?

Re:Paperwork infraction

[MindlessAutomata]

When someone says flag burning is illegal, they are referring to burning flags in a particular context, so your argument there is tangential to the point being made here.

You're doing exactly what I talked about by listing freedoms you perceive the USA not to have when I could do the same here. Not to mention you equivocate on "freedom"--the freedom you refer to in healthcare is a totally different type of freedom compared to, say, "freedom of speech." In fact, given that Canadian healthcare participation is compulsory (at least paying for it is via taxes) I'd have to argue that it's less free (not that I'm endorsing the system that has evolved in the United States--but "freedom" it ain't, as freedom doesn't mean "superior" or "less expensive.")

I could play the same game and point to America having a greater freedom towards ownership of means of self-defense, freedom of speech (which we excel at especially compared to European countries) so on and so forth. But I have a feeling that those individual freedoms, in your view, probably go "too far" or are bad freedoms.

The scariest thing about countries that aren't USA is that they point to a couple of facts that appease them politically and cheer themselves on. It's scary when it seems like "NOT AMERICA, WHEW!" is what you think an acceptable level of "freedom" is.

Re:Paperwork infraction

[Locke2005]

I find that answer a little hard to swallow.

Re:Paperwork infraction

[tomhudson]

When someone says flag burning is illegal, they are referring to burning flags in a particular context, so your argument there is tangential to the point being made here.

Burning flags is not illegal in either the US or in Canada - it's Constitutionally-protected speech in both countries. But what we see all the time is American politicians trying to "rally around the flag" and make it an issue. They do this because a sizable portion of the American population - mostly republicans - finds restricting that form of freedom of speech appealing.

As for other measures of freedom of speech, Canada still ranks higher than the US wrt freedom of the press.

I could play the same game and point to America having a greater freedom towards ownership of means of self-defense,

Another bad example. You can buy firearms in Canada - just not handguns. Only 5.5% of the population owns a firearm, and they're mostly hunters. We don't have the same crime levels (1/3 the murder rate, for example), and as I pointed out, you have much higher rates of incarceration; we on the other hand don't generally feel the need to go shooting up the neighborhood. The freedom to walk down the street without worrying about getting shot counts for something. Our big problem is guns smuggled in from the US.

In fact, given that Canadian healthcare participation is compulsory (at least paying for it is via taxes) I'd have to argue that it's less free

And Medicare/Medicaid is supported by taxpayers in the US - even though those same taxpayers may not necessarily benefit from it. So that's taxation without concomittent benefits - far less free.

The current US system is unfortunately very broken. It's gotten that way over the course of the last 4 decades, and it may not be fixable. Only time will tell if Americans have what it takes to take an objective look at how bad things have gotten, and to better prioritize. Bailing out the banks and Wall Street should not have been a priority - not when it has so thoroughly compromised the future of the citizenry. Nationalization of the banks, and letting Wall Street fail, were the way to go, would have been cheaper, and would have been completed by now. Instead, you have the "too big to fail" being even bigger - they're now the "too big to survive without continuous bail-outs." Not too smart. Then again, the concept of fixing the debt by running even higher deficits over the next decade is also stupid. Look for the dollar to depreciate in terms of true purchasing power by at least 50% (and more likely 80%).

Re:Paperwork infraction

[CyberSaint]

That one's easy. Minimum sentence: 3 years tier 1 tech support.

Re:This is not a crime

[WilliamX]

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.

Re:This is not a crime

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

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.

Not criminal? Prove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.)

Theft of Services

[westlake]

Did you really expect to "circumvent" the locks that cable companies put in place and nothing was going to happen?

Did you expect your cable TV and Internet service to be free before the DMCA?

  165.15 Theft of services.
A person is guilty of theft of services when:

  4. With intent to avoid payment by himself or another person of the lawful charge for any telecommunications service, including, without
    limitation, cable television service, ...., telegraph or telephone service which is provided for a charge or compensation, he obtains or attempts to obtain such service for himself or another person or avoids or attempts to avoid payment therefor by himself or another person by means of (a) tampering or making connection with the equipment of the supplier, whether by mechanical, electrical, acoustical or other means, or (b) offering for sale or otherwise making available, to anyone other than the provider of a telecommunications service for such service provider's own use in the provision of its service, any telecommunications decoder or descrambler, a principal function of which defeats a mechanism of electronic signal encryption, jamming or individually addressed switching imposed by the provider of any such telecommunications service to restrict the delivery
    of such service,----

New York Penal Law Section 165.15 - Theft Of Services.

Last revised July 30, 2006.

Selling descramblers will take you into Class E felony territory. Three or four years hard time.

Theft of Services in New York state has a much broader reach than I can suggest here.

Re:This is not a crime

[Renraku]

Car analogy.

You have a car. This car's CPU has been programmed to fit a certain performance profile. Namely, of a cheap econo-car. The maker also comes out with a 'sport' version with no 'underclocking' of the engine, giving it the illusion of having better hardware than the vanilla model. Is it REALLY stealing if you remove that underclocking programming from your own car? Of course the car company wants their shoddy business model to be protected artificially.

Utility analogy.

The water company installs a small pipe to your house. About the size of your navel. Of course, they had to seriously downgrade pipe sizes from their main connection to your house. You go in and install pipes of your own that match the main outlet. Of course the water company doesn't like it, since they would have charged you thousands to do it. Is that stealing, because you did it yourself?

Really? Shoplifting? This stuff is as much of a crime as it is to refill your water bottle out of some company's water fountain they have in their lobby.

smart guy, good book, ISPs commit the real fraud

[hyperion2010]

I've been reading his book a little bit at a time, very interesting and informative. I don't really see how this is illegal unless you pull a DMCA on it since he is not defrauding anyone. The people he sells these to might be defrauding their ISP. Truth be told I'm more inclined to agree with the position that the real fraud here is the completely artificial pricing schemes and complete scam that is provisioning [not remotely based on the real (physical) limitations of the connection technology] enabled by regional monopolies and a virtual lack of competition in the ISP market.

Does anyone else remember LaMacchia?

[Antique Geekmeister]

If you look back to the old David LaMacchia case, the FBI tried to convict someone running a secretive FSP site on school computers of conspiracy and software theft. It was obvious he was guilty as sin at running a pirate software site, but because he received no money for it (merely stole school resources of bandwidth and computer time), they failed miserably to convict him.

This idiot, according to the FBI, asked on a bulletin board for the necessary MAC addresses for the Phoenix Arizona area. That was inviting illegal behavior. This is why I don't even make _jokes_ like that about pirating software or computer cracking: because I've explained to people how easy it is to do, I have to keep my nose clean lest someone testify against me.

Re:This is not a crime

[WilliamX]

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.

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[J_Omega]

Emmanuel Goldstein would agree

Re:This is not a crime

[tomhudson]

I can compromise an ATM machine with a crowbar

No you can't ... but you used to be able to compromise an ATM with nothing more than a 3x5 index card and a 25-cent plastic comb.

1. Thieves would fold the 3x5 card in half like a small folder, and shove it in the money slot, with the fold towards the outside.
2. People would try to withdraw money, but the money would collect inside the "folder". People assume the machine is defective, and go elsewhere.
3. PROFIT: Thief uses plastic comb to tease out the 3x5 card, now stuffed with victims' money

One of my friends fell victim to a similar scam that uses adhesive tape (works *sometimes* since they fixed it so the "card trick" no longer works - the thief doesn't care if it mostly doesn't work and jams up the machine or doesn't successfully intercept the money - they just go to another machine).

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[tomhudson]

AND i'll teach every damn criminal i can while in there MUHAHAHAHAHA

In Soviet Russia, prison teaches YOU!

Oh wait, that applies everywhere ...

It's assholes like you giving bad advice

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It's assholes like you giving bad advice

[Philip K Dickhead]

The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.
  -- Dostoyevski

Re:It's assholes like you giving bad advice

[Roland Deschene]

That was a joke. A line from "Office Space". You should check it out. It's hilarious.

Re:It's assholes like you giving bad advice

[gmhowell]

It's also the advice I've received from most of the people I know who have spent time in prison.

Re:This is not a crime

[westlake]

I never really understand the argument where there are more important things for such and such to be doing.

The bank robber is hunkered down in the New Jersey flats and doesn't know you from Adam.

The guy who sold you a hacked cable box was arrested in his garage two blocks down the street.

Diagnostic cable modems? what happen with some use

[Joe The Dragon]

Diagnostic cable modems? what happen with some use one? Say they got it a garage sale, dumpster, some one gave it them, cable guy ended up with on his truck after some in a warehouse messed up.

are you risking jail by useing it?

also what you build a box to get all the channels you pay for one tv and used to get them on all the other tv in your house that is not selling that is getting what you payed for on each tv and is ok under the law as by law cable co all not able to force you to use there hardware what if that box talked to the network in the same as any other cable box and all you are doing is useing your own hardware vs renting the cable box.

How about cell phones that are unlocked to run on any network?

Re:This is not a crime

[DJ Particle]

Car analogy is bad. Either you own the car outright or are making payments on it (under which it's still considered yours unless you miss a payment). You're allowed to do what you wish with it. The cable modem, OTOH, is owned by the cable company. Water analogy is bad too, as it's not billed on a flat rate. It's in the water company's best interest to put nice fat pipes into your house to encourage you to waste more water.

Arrest this guy!

[tomhudson]

He's obviously running one of those hacked, uncapped cable modems!

Re:This is not a crime

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Re:What's this have to do with my rights online?

[pete6677]

That is the case for the vast majority of the articles in this section. Many of them are just anti-government propaganda fearmongering.

Moterola's fault.

[dsavi]

It's Moterola's fault for making such a crappy device that the firmware can be bypassed like that. And once it's possible, it has to be done, right?

Re:This is not a crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't that be more:

Utility Analogy.

The electric company offers you a flat rate for any electric usage up to 100KWh. You sign up for it and agree to the contract. Then you bust the meter and suck down gigawatts to power your skyscraper-sized tesla coil without paying for it. You then sell your services to others to bust their meters too, so they can steal from the electric company as well.

Except..... not as cool as a huge tesla coil.

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[reub2000]

Huh? If they can keep their survalance and other scary powers after he's captured, then why would his freedom be useful to them?

Re:This is not a crime

[mister_playboy]

What he was doing is more akin to modifying your debit card so it lets you withdraw from other people's bank accounts. Of course, there is infinite supply of 0s and 1s, and a finite supply of money (although the US Treasury seems to be doing all they can to change that!)

It's curious that the security in the system is assigned not within the system itself, but to the end user's hardware... that seems just plan lazy, and implies that what they are selling isn't worth enough to really bother securing it.

Re:This is not a crime

[JStegmaier]

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.

Re:What's this have to do with my rights online?

[Datamonstar]

RTFA. He ceased criminal activities long ago and now simply sells the unlocked routers. They got him on conspiracy and aiding and abetting computer intrusion and wire fraud because someone bought a router from his group's site and used it to get unlawful access to internet. The biggest piece of evidence beside all that is a post he made on his forum asking for a valid MAC address. Supposedly, just because he (allegedly) asked for the MAC add, he committed all 6 crimes he was convicted of. That's bullshit, he's fighting it and I would too. Definitely a "your rights' issue.

Re:This is not a crime

[lkeagle]

Except the cable modem is NOT owned by the cable company... This isn't like the telephone companies of 30+ years ago. Obviously people were buying their own cable modems from the guy, therefore they are the legal owners of the devices. The cable company only owns the modems in their substations, and the cable itself (up to the demarcation point outside your home).

A better analogy is if the water company installed low-flow faucets and showerheads to try and prevent you from using water, and you went ahead and removed them so that you could actually enjoy a hot shower once in a while. The only difference is that the cable company doesn't bill you by the gallon (or MB, as the case may be).

The water company example is actually quite good, in that it parallels the 'tubes' of the internet. The water company can only supply a certain amount of capacity (pressure) to a given area. The difference is that the water company is highly regulated, as they have to be able to provide adequate pressure not just for home/irrigation use, but also for emergency services (fire company). Most water companies bill based on actual usage in a tiered pricing plan.

Cable companies on the other hand are allowed to oversell their bandwidth capacity by an enormous amount, are not required to maintain a minimum level of throughput for emergency services (although some now have to maintain 911 services for digital telephones), and do not bill based on actual usage!!!

As far as I'm concerned, if the cable companies billed based on usage instead of bandwidth, people would be a lot more careful about what they download and what services they expose to the outside world, and that solves most bandwidth problems in one step.

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[mister_playboy]

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.

Re:Not criminal? Prove it.

[Renraku]

Bad analogy.

Better analogy would be: Someone sells lockpicks online that will only work with their own car. Instead of using OnStar to unlock their car when they inevitably lock their keys in their car (for a fee, of course) they unstrap the lockpick kit from the bottom of their car and open the door. Of course this violates the DMCA because the lock required an RFID chip to operate normally, but since you circumvented it, you're now on the hook for DMCA violations.

Re:This is not a crime

[Mistlefoot]

Hard to say it's not stealing or not illegal when the author of the book himself says:

"WARNING: The practice of modifying a cable modem violates service agreements, and hackers risk being banned by service providers for life. This book is not intended to be used for stealing Internet service or any other illegal activity."

Easiest way to find the book is to simply google the quote above.

"stealing internet service" and "illegal activity" in the disclaimer certainly go towards whether or not your analogy fails. I do think he has many defenses, but yours likely won't be one of them.

Re:What's this have to do with my rights online?

[Roland Deschene]

> Why is this in the "your rights online" section? It has nothing to do with rights.

Of course it does. If you will scroll back, you will see all kinds of posts discussing why, and why not, the modem hacker had or had no right to do as he did.

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[Anonymous Coward]

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

I agree and I would add that they are probably even more cynical than you give them credit for. There have been no sightings and only a handful of highly dubious videos (in some of which he looks younger?!) and recordings of him since 2001. In all probability Bin Laden was killed at Tora Bora. But as you said, he's much more useful (both to the US govt and Al Qaida) not being "dead."

Re:Niggerdick

[Venik]

I love poetry!

Citizen vs Corporate citizen...

[macinit]

Wealthy corporations can stomp these people out of existence at their whim. I can't believe someone actually thought that in today's post 9/11, ever increasingly fascist era, thought they were going to have the upper hand against corporate America. Corporate America own Congress and can practically have the Constitution thrown out of the courtroom if it suites them. Lot's of luck buddy, too bad you were a little too naive.

Re:This is not a crime

[narcc]

Wow! Someone found a way to explain this very simple concept without using an unnecessarily complicated analogy involving cars.

Bravo

Re:This is not a crime

[NonSequor]

If the power grid isn't sophisticated enough to detect that I've modified my power meter then modifying my power meter isn't fraud.

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[gmhowell]

Emmanuel Goldstein would agree

The character in the book, or the editor of the magazine?

Re:Niggerdick

[Hognoxious]

Me too, will you tell me when some turns up?

Re:This is not a crime

[xtracto]

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.

Re:This is not a crime

[Martin Soto]

Great post! If you'd replace "its" by "it's", it'd be perfect...

Please bother to live on Earth before talking.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're talking like someone who just came from Mars with a head full of theory about how humans can live, but with no actual experience of human behavior. Your ideas are unworkable in any real human civilization.

P.S. Quotes without reasoned discussion of those quotes just make you look like you're Gene Ray jabbering about Time Cube, slapping together quotes to make you look smart.

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[selven]

Of course, we don't even know if Osama is still alive.

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[hAckz0r]

Not a chance. Osama doesn't use cable modems. They should better spend their time chasing the hackers that do tethering hacks on cell phones if they were after Osama.

OH! Heaven forbid that someone actually makes use of all that 'unlimited bandwidth' sitting locked up on your cell phone network plan that they keep paying for, to like actually do some useful work? Just imagine if everyone were reading and writing email from a laptop teathered to their cell phone as a modem. Complete anarchy I tell you! But Osama could be doing that too, so we had better make that illegal for everybody while we are at it!

</sarcasm>

Plus who would you rather harass?

[Shivetya]

The geek with computers or the gun with guns?

Eventually it might become more dangerous to go after the geeks, until then they are free check mark in the win column

Re: What is and should never be...

[griffinfinity]

"Saw this exact scenario play out when a college student was busted stealing a $20 CD."...

I say we send the kid back to school if he agrees not to press charges on the guy selling $20 CD's...now THAT should be a felony...

the griff

Re:This is not a crime

[selven]

The fact that there is a limited number of prison slots pretty much all of which are currently full.

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[mpe]

Probably as soon as he tries to steal broadband lol. That or if he changes his name to Osama Bin Hackin.

Will that be before or after his name is changed to "Emmanuel Bin Laden" or "Osama Goldstein" :)

The ignornance, it burns

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:The ignornance, it burns

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:The ignornance, it burns

[MaliciousSmurf]

++ Mod Up, if I could.

Re:The ignornance, it burns

[sg_oneill]

You mean like the time the Taliban tried to deport Bin Laden, but was blocked by the Afghan supreme court , because like all other countries in the world, you can't just deport people without presenting evidence to a court. Of course the americans couldn't accept that the taliban where blocked by the court from deporting him so they decided to just say 'fuck it lets bomb' and started the first of a pair of illegal wars of agression.

And the sad irony is, after invading one friendly country (Afghanistan, at the time a US friendly country) for not breaking the law, we are now bombing a second friendly country, pakistan. All of this, btw , could have been avoided by simply sending the evidence over. I mean its not like there wasn't any, its just it would have prevented a war Bush *really* wanted. tens of thousands of lives lost.

Good old USA.

Re:The ignornance, it burns

[Pulzar]

You mean like the time the Taliban tried to deport Bin Laden, but was blocked by the Afghan supreme court ... Of course the americans couldn't accept that the taliban where blocked by the court from deporting him so they decided to just say 'fuck it lets bomb' ...

Citation needed.

Re:The ignornance, it burns

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't just walk over there with an arrest warrant.

Yeah, but you CAN send a unmanned drone and ignore the subsequent local government's protests!

Ummmm, have you heard of the ATF?

[Sycraft-fu]

There's an agency that deals just with guns, alcohol and tobacco. A large part of what they deal with these days, is guns. There are laws upon laws as to what is and isn't legal with guns, and they are zealously enforced. Is selling a gun legal? Sure. However there are plenty of kinds of guns that aren't, except to special people, and modifications that aren't. Like try selling modifications that convert semi-automatic carbines in to fully automatic ones. It is just a modified trigger/firing pin assembly. You sell that and your ass is going to prison for a long time. Or how about dealers that can sell automatic weapons? Well first off they have to have a special class of license to be allowed to do that (class 3 FFL if you are wondering) which is a pain to get. Once the have it though doesn't mean they can just sell them. Nope, only certain people can buy them like police. Sell them to random civilians, again off to prison with you. Heck you sell a shotgun with a barrel less than 18" to a civilian and you are in trouble.

So it seems to me that there is no difference, other than that guns have far more rules and restrictions. They are not saying you can't sell cable modems. Cable modems are for sale everywhere. Best Buy has hundreds from all different makers. Cable companies give them out for free with new accounts often. You can get a cable modem any time you like with no background check (something required to buy a gun) for very cheap from any number of stores, none of which need to be licensed to sell them to you. All they are saying is that you can't sell cable modems designed to commit theft of service by taking service you have not paid for.

But please, don't let facts get in the way of your manufactured rage and gun rant.

Yes, it is

[Sycraft-fu]

Gun stores need to be careful about who they sell to. While they aren't liable provided they take necessary precautions, they can well face criminal charges if they don't. A simple example is background checks. Gun stores have to run a background check on all customers through the NCIC. This works basically by them getting your info and then calling the police, who enter it in to their NCIC computer. This either says yes, no, or you are going to have to wait because there's not enough info. IF the answer is no, the gun store can't sell the weapon, and will get in trouble if they do.

Likewise they can't sell you a weapon if you indicate you intend to use it for an illegal purpose. As a practical matter, most gun stores will tell you to get lost if you are acting sketchy about why you are buying the gun at all. They tend to be very careful about such things.

In general what it comes down to is if you know someone is going to commit a crime, and you provide them with support in that regard, you can be charged. You can't take the "Well *I* didn't actually commit the theft, I just told him the building to hit, how to get past the alarm, where the goods were, and who to fence them to," approach. If you provided them with aid to commit the crime, you yourself can be charged.

Re:Niggerdick

[grolaw]

Crawl out from under your rock and I'll give you the Texas Bird treatment - you sick puppy. Stick your head in a bucket of water and drown!

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[fbjon]

Yes, you're a sad case.

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[228e2]

incompitent goverment

funny irony is funny . . . .

C o r r u p t i o n !

[redelm]

Precisely! This is _corruption_ : prosecutors abusing their powers to make their lives easier and get look better (higher conviction rates). If this is really "to reduce costs", then the voters are corrupt. Plea bargains should be outlawed.

Sometimes interesting varients play, like overcharging the cops with attempted murder in the Rodney King beating so they get off scott-free (intent unproveable).

Advanced corruption does not use bags of cash or anything tangible.

Re:What's this have to do with my rights online?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

He did nothing wrong.

[MindlessAutomata]

Hacked hardware is nothing without a user. Charging him for selling hacked hardware is like charging a handgun manufacturer with murder or assuming all P2P traffic is pirated, or even worse, assuming all copyrighted stuff being shared isn't being shared legitimately (and we all know the law is designed for assuming traditional notions of copyright and not GPL-style copyright).

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[MaliciousSmurf]

That being said, they're not fearmongering his name. At least, no reputable political figure uses it much any more. These days most of the discussion seems rather eggheaded, to me. Which is good.

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[elrous0]

Because the bogeyman is a lot less scary when he's behind bars or dead. Right now, if the politicians want MORE powers, they can still point to the fact that he's running around out there plotting against us. If they caught or killed him, they could still do that to some extent (by pointing to other lesser-known terrorists) but the fear-mongering wouldn't be as effective.

Using your own modem is illegal?

[Thruen]

Last time I signed up for Comcast (a long while ago, I admit) they gave me three options for a cable modem: Rent one of theirs, buy one of theirs, or provide my own. That last option is the key here. If I was allowed to provide my own modem, why wouldn't I be allowed to use a modified one? The way I figure, if Comcast (or any other company) relies on the user's hardware to impose limitations, and they then provide their own hardware that doesn't include the ability to impose such limitations, the user hasn't broken any laws, nor has the provider of the modified modem. The exception to this would be if the agreement with the internet provider states you can't use modified hardware or hardware that can't impose the limitations the require, but even in this case the hardware provider shouldn't be charged only the end user who agreed not to use the hardware. As near as I can figure, this is just another case of America, Inc. using the legal system to support big companies. I'm not a lawyer, or expert in any way shape or form, but it seems to me that two things should happen here: this man should be allowed to walk, and internet providers should start capping bandwidth from their own routers and not the users' hardware. Sure, they might not have the hardware in place to already do this, weren't internet providers supposed to be trying to upgrade our national network infrastructure anyway?

Re:Gun analogy is bad

[FeatherBoa]

Agreed. I would go lower down the ladder still -- like charging someone for selling washers because they could be put into parking meters to fraudulently obtain parking.

story

[jDeepbeep]

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.

Re:story

[StikyPad]

Point oh-eight what? They measure to 3 decimal places... If you were 0.080, then honestly, you were just lucky you didn't blow one 1/1000th of a percent higher, as you undoubtedly would had you been tested just a few minutes earlier. (Unless you were *literally* drinking and driving and hit peak volume after getting stopped instead of before).

I don't know anyone who's ever killed themselves or anyone else, but I do know plenty of people who've gotten DUIs -- myself included, and most of them just keep pushing their luck. I'm not going to lecture about the risk to others, but the risk to self should be motivation enough. DUI doesn't make you a rebel or a hero, it makes you a fool. Nobody wants to seem like a pussy, but on the contrary, you might be amazed how many people will actually respect you for your restraint (including yourself), no matter how much shit they give you at the time. More often than not, avoiding the wheel after drinking is more difficult than just hopping in the car, but in the big picture it's worth it.

Anyway, I don't mean to preach, but you know.. driving under the influence is just setting yourself up for failure. Glad you got a second chance, cause the penalties even for first time offenders really suck in most states.

Re:This is not a crime

[Taibhsear]

You don't have to rent their equipment. I bought my modem for use on their networks. They just log the mac addy and mark it in their systems as user owned. (granted one of their techs stole it and replaced it with a rental, but that's offtopic...)

Asking for a MAC is no smoking gun!

[brennz]

Asking for a MAC address for a specific network or region does not indicate criminal behavior. I can think of several valid technical support reasons to be asking for MAC addresses like that, and I am sure an IT competent defense lawyer would be happy to use them in court too.

Re:This is not a crime

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

This is one time the law and its application are way out of line. That's equipment you pay for and service you pay for. It's not even in the same category as stealing cable or utilities. I understand the arguments from cable company and device makers but if their system is so primitive it can borked at the point of contact with the customer, then where's their accountability?

Why should they have accountability? Let's use that old "if I left my door unlocked does that mean you can take anything you want?" argument. If you walk in and take (modify the modem for better service than you're paying for), you're stealing services by any accepted definition of theft. It's not their responsibility to lock the front door, it's your responsibility not to walk through it.

If we had completely eliminated any other crime and this is what we were down to enforcing, I'd still think it was bull****. 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.

Apples and oranges, and completely irrelevant to the discussion. The government, with its tens of thousands of Righteous Enforcers, can multitask.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

You assume you'd survive with an attitude like that. I wouldn't want to bet on that one.

Taking the lead from DirecTV's lawyers?

[Rastl]

As much as I hate linking to blogs SecurityFocus seems to have the most detailed story on the DirecTV lawsuits against anyone and everyone who ever bought a smart card writer. Their reasoning seems to be "People use smart card writers to pirate our service therefore everyone who purchases a smart card writer is doing so to pirate our services."

Good luck with that.

Re:Taking the lead from DirecTV's lawyers?

[cdrguru]

Well, you might look at the incredible penetration of smartcards in everyday use for a hint as to why DirecTV might be going this way. In the US today there have been two credit cards using smartcard technology, and as of yet there is really nowhere to use their smartcard functionality.

Target did pass out free smartcard readers for a while, until they figured out that nobody was interested and it didn't really improve security at all. As far as I know, there is nothing to use the American Express card with at all.

There is some integration with Windows for extended identification, but I have never seen anyone actually using this capability. As I do not believe the cards for this application are in fact writable in any respect, a writer isn't very useful with these cards.

So while read/write smartcards are interesting and all that, in the US they have extremely limited use. In general, I would say the only consumer application of smartcards today is DirecTV. So what would the average consumer use a smartcard writer for? Well, DirecTV of course.

Re:Taking the lead from DirecTV's lawyers?

[DigitalSorceress]

So I guess the idea of someone buying a smartcard writer/reader and tinkering with it to develop some new use / application for it not involving fraud is completely out of the question then?

~sign~

"Nothing is intrinsically good or evil, but its manner of usage may make it so." -St. Thomas Aquinas

Asking for a MAC address sure *IS* a smoking gun!

[tomhudson]

Asking for a MAC address for a specific network or region does not indicate criminal behavior. I can think of several valid technical support reasons to be asking for MAC addresses like that, and I am sure an IT competent defense lawyer would be happy to use them in court too.

Asking for a MAC address for use by a third party who wishes to remain anonymous IS a smoking gun. That's what he did on his own forum. And that will hang him.

We're all waiting for your "several valid technical support reasons" - but remember, they have to be credible enough that, to use your words, "an IT competent defense lawyer would be happy to use them in court."

Censorship FTL

[clone53421]

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."

You know what else is bullshit? Wired can publish the word "bullshit" but apparently Slashdot needs to censor it.

Re:Censorship FTL

[bguiz]

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."

You know what else is bullshit? Wired can publish the word "bullshit" but apparently Slashdot needs to censor it.

You know what else is bull****? Wired can publish the word "bull****" but apparently Slashdot needs to censor it.

Re:Not criminal? Prove it.

[neurovish]

Bad analogy.

Better analogy would be: Someone sells lockpicks online that will only work with their own car. Instead of using OnStar to unlock their car when they inevitably lock their keys in their car (for a fee, of course) they unstrap the lockpick kit from the bottom of their car and open the door. Of course this violates the DMCA because the lock required an RFID chip to operate normally, but since you circumvented it, you're now on the hook for DMCA violations.

That's a bad analogy.

It's more like you buy a bottle of beer at a bar, and the bartender wants to charge you extra to pop the cap off. Instead of paying his bottle opening fee, you smash the bottle over his head and drink straight from the keg tap as he's unconscious, then start serving other patrons free beer.

Re:This is not a crime

[ShooterNeo]

And some guy sells you a special kit to do this with. Or a pre-hacked meter. Anyways, he says the kits are legal because occasionally gas station owners and utility companies buy the special meters for diagnostic purposes :)

When they get good at golf

[HalAtWork]

'Round about the same time when O.J. will manage to catch the real killers... right after they perfect their golf swing.

Re:This is not a crime

[Khyber]

"The car was capable of it, and you are not stealing anything by modifying it."

The modem is capable of it, and you're not stealing anything by modifying it, because the telcos and cable companies owe us about $200 billion dollars in services, namely 45 mbit symmetrical fiber to every home, and they're very, VERY late on delivering, past due.

We're just taking back what's rightfully ours.

Re:What's this have to do with my rights online?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have two things.

1) I have no idea where you are getting that he "used to" do anything criminal. The article says nothing of the sort. I could not find ANYTHING that said anything close to that online.

2) HE HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED!?

Did you even RTFA?

Keep it simple, stupid.

[westlake]

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.

If the police can't see in - you can't see out. That can become a problem, particularly at night.

Re:Keep it simple, stupid.

[Caldrak]

That just makes driving more of a sport. Besides how else can we protect ourselves against those new extra bright headlights Canadian Tire keeps advertising?

Re:Keep it simple, stupid.

[gfreeman]

Rubbish.

Using that argument, wearing tinted glasses where no-one can see your eyes renders you blind.

You've obviously never been in a car that has heavily tinted windows.

Re:Keep it simple, stupid.

[genner]

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.

If the police can't see in - you can't see out. That can become a problem, particularly at night.

You could solve that problem by polarizing the glass which is also illegal.

The last laugh

[westlake]

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.

When a federal judge says "ten years" you serve ten years.

That makes your first felony conviction something to be avoided.

The second will be even costlier.

Tech changes. Skills erode. The geek in prison is a declining asset.

Re:This is not a crime

[kimvette]

No, it's more like this. You buy a Saab and the Trionic 8 software in the ECU senses you've upgraded the turbocharger and intercooler and retards timing and adjusts the wastegate to keep torque at the predetermined level level. This gentleman here is simply providing the equivalent of ECU upgrades, acting as a tuner. Just as a tuner isn't responsible if I decide to drive 170mph, it's not this gentleman's fault that people used the information and equipment to abuse network resources.

I hope this is a better analogy, because in the case above, nothing is being "stolen" - the ISP isn't "missing" any bandwidth (what, do they have a warehouse stocked with bandwidth and are running out now?), and no electrons were "stolen." :)

If people are going to make bad car analogies, I'm going to ask how much bandwidth was "stolen", quantified in units of volkswagons or libraries of congress. ;)

Bandwidth control at the customers site?

[ACMENEWSLLC]

Doesn't it seem that one should place the bandwidth controls at the central office, and not at the customers site?

You have less control of the uplink (from someones home to the Internet) by placing bandwidth restrictions it at the central office, however you would also have tighter control of the bandwidth from the Internet to the customer. You also remove the issue where the customer an circumvent your controls because the hardware is in their hands.

Seems this would also help assist in the problem previously mentioned here about allowing Torrents to use more local bandwidth by allowing more bandwidth between an ISP's customers.

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[rgviza]

As soon as he starts downloadin'

Using your own modem is legal

[frzndrag]

You can use your own modem, the issue is supporting it on the plant, different modems support different parts of the DOCSIS protocol, and providers use specific portions for different things (like voice QOS or bonding for other BW tiers or redundancy) and they need to set a modem to support them.
What you are actually paying for in that rental is not just the hardware but the maintenance behind it, if your modem dies they will replace it at no cost to you. If you Bring Your Own you are responsible for it once the warranty from the manufacturer expires (if it dies you need to buy a new one)

Motorola, Cisco and others sell Cable Gateways you can go buy at your local big box store and those are supported by the cable companies but give you more features than your average dumb modem.

Re:This is not a crime

[rgviza]

Really? They provide an "unlimited" connection to your house and you install your own box. Shouldn't they be controlling the speed you get at their switch? If you don't touch their equipment it's not like you are bypassing their controls. What they should be doing is metering your bandwidth and charging you for what you use...

That way, feel free to mod your box all you want! Just be ready for a big ass bill if you increase your bandwidth use and total download GB. That way the cap is there for the user's own good and them removing it only hurts themselves.

IMHO it's not stealing as much as the cable company's billing model and way of doing business being, well, retarded. They can certainly track your usage but don't. Is that really the user's problem?

Relying on a box the user has in their possession to control their connection is, not to put too fine a point on it, abject stupidity. Physical access > root. Security 101.

If I were the guys lawyer, I'd approach this case from that angle if there's a good legal argument somewhere in there.

The cable company plays itself as a victim but you make your own reality. They could easily fix the problem with economic means. I guarantee you after that first bill came, every one of those modems would have an artificial cap turned back on ;-)

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[geekoid]

the FBI? probably when they have reason to believe he's in the US.

WHat? try about 100

[geekoid]

Federal Prosecutors, with up to 250 assistant Attorneys.

"Not tens of thousands"

Re:WHat? try about 100

[mikeken]

When I said "federal prosecutors," I was using poor language. What I really meant was the people involved in taking down criminals like that and such.. you know, the FBI and such.

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[Smoke2Joints]

yes

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[mundanetechnomancer]

...perhaps it is not in the government's interest to do so.

or perhaps it is not in their best interests to admit having already done so. i get the feeling that when it becomes convenient for those in power, Osama will be conveniently caught

The tech requires it

[localroger]

A typical cable modem block services around 100 end users. They all share the pipe. In order for the pipe to work at all the end user hardware must cooperatively multitask on the uplink channel. In such a shared environment it would be very difficult to design a protocol that makes it impossible to build a cheating node -- and a DOS attack against your neighbors is always possible.

Re:Not criminal? Prove it.

[angelbunny]

That is like saying white hats have no use. Of course his studies have a use. I know TONS about the cmts on I'm because of his studies and have been able to trouble shoot my own network issues because of it instead of running through the crappy tech support, 'Did you pull out the power and put it back in?' Instead I could be like, 'so you know. Channel 3 is down in the area right now. Could be a bad wire out on the road. You guys might want to check for power outages or issues out here. Maybe the cmts is down? And BAM I've saved myself hours of a potentially annoying and stressful phone conversation.

Re:This is not a crime

[angelbunny]

The equipment you modify is bought by you for you not from an ISP.

Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime

[kaoshin]

I'm just asserting that perhaps it is not in the government's interest to do so.

While there is probably something to conspiracy theories, I disagree with that. Osama's capture would probably be in the public relations interests of the current administration. Here's a conspiracy theory for you. Maybe Osama is actually kdawson!

Typo

[tomhudson]

Typo: misdemeanor - "a criminal offense less serious than a felony". For those following along, sorry. wish we could edit posts on /.