Slashdot Mirror
Feds Bust Cable Modem Hacker
Several readers noted the indictment of hardware hacker Ryan Harris, known as DerEngel. Harris wrote the 2006 book Hacking the Cable Modem, explaining how to get upgraded speed or even free Internet service by bypassing the firmware locks on Motorola Surfboard modems. He has run a profitable business at tcniso.net since 2003, selling unlocked cable modems. (The site is now offline.) Harris has been charged with conspiracy, aiding and abetting computer intrusion, and wire fraud. Wired quotes Harris's reaction: "I read the indictment — it's complete bull****. I'll tell you right now I'm not going to plead guilty."
This information is really useful. He should have known better to post that everything he is doing is for "education purposes only" sadly.
Be careful, you could be charged with "conspiracy, aiding and abetting computer intrusion, and wire fraud."
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Now when are they going to get around to catching Osama?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
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.
Welcome to the DMCA, the same nonsense that blocks you from selling mod chips. Did you really expect to "circumvent" the locks that cable companies put in place and nothing was going to happen?
This is why we've been complaining about the DMCA since '98, and why Alan Cox won't set foot in this country. Heck, I'm suprised it's legal to hook up our own equipment to the cable networks at all. Did you get that PC from comcast? No?
I put on my robe and wizard hat..
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.
Probably as soon as he tries to steal broadband lol. That or if he changes his name to Osama Bin Hackin.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
Gun sellers have powerful lobbyists on their payroll guaranteeing that the government will not interfere with their profits.
"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.
The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
Who cares? The powers our government have assumed for themselves in the name of "fighting the War on Terrorism" won't be given up even if they catch "Terrorist #1" Osama.
Osama is more useful to power-hungry US politicians when he is free to roam than dead or captured.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
Is it sad that I thought he wrote Obama? Is it sadder that I didn't think he was being sarcastic?
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.
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?
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.
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.
This IS a crime. It's defrauding the cable company by telling the CMTS to let you online when it shouldn't. I'm surprised it took this long to find him, TBH.
I can compromise an ATM machine with a crowbar, does that make ATMs open targets? No.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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.)
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
Emmanuel Goldstein would agree
Modifying equipment to get a higher level of service than was paid for is, in fact, stealing. Morally and legally.
Uh, no. Modifying equipment is not stealing, especially when its your own damn property.
Using that equipment to steal is stealing.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Seriously, make slum lords live in their buildings, make the banksters who did the fraudulent mortgages...
Make Make Make Make MAKE!!!
All arguments for a nanny state. Consider the following:
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it." - Henry David Thoreau
Be careful what you wish for, or they will be coming for YOU soon. The problem is people wanting the government to MAKE other people do things. The solution is having people with sound ethics and principles, so that no one has to MAKE anyone do anything. This is called parenting, or raising your children properly. However it's a dying art, and we're left with half of the population of spoiled brats screaming for a government that will MAKE the other half of the population who are also spoiled brats do "x". What you will end up with in reality is a huge government that will MAKE everyone broke and oppressed, until the next revolution. History is full of these cycles, and people never learn. The collapse of a country is always preceded by a moral collapse.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
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.
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
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.
Because they can fearmonger alongside claiming these powers.
Do you hear fearmongering about Saddam anymore? Nope, because he's dead. Saddam's execution was used for a short term goal... the elections which took place just days after his death.
The OP asked why they haven't caught Osama, and I'm just asserting that perhaps it is not in the government's interest to do so.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
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.
Isn't it obvious? Convert them to Spam. Soylent Green forever.
Wow! Someone found a way to explain this very simple concept without using an unnecessarily complicated analogy involving cars.
Bravo
Required reading for internet skeptics
Thank you.
Please mod this guy up.
However, is the equipment provided to you by Comcast *your* property?, if it is (or if you bought a "premoded" one then there is no problem.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
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.
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.
funny irony is funny . . . .
Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
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.
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.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
And that's a great example of why you should never talk to the cops. EVER.
It's not their job to be fair. It's their job to get you to say something incriminating. Functionally, it's the cops' job to "aid and abet" the prosecutors' office in getting innocent people convicted.
Anyone who says different, is a clueless idealistic moron. You have the 5th amendment right to keep your mouth shut for a reason: NEVER say anything to the cops.
Just last week, I had my trial before a judge for a very borderline DWI where I had blown a .08. To describe the background, after being arrested and being brought to the station, over one year ago, the officers asked if I would agree to answer questions. I told them I would not do so without an attorney present. They asked two more times, and made it sound as if I was about to get in huge trouble if I had the audacity to invoke my rights. I denied to answer questions each of those times. What is interesting is that the fact I was alert enough to both understand my rights, and to practice them, was the final straw and indicator to the judge that I was not both physically and mentally impaired. I was found not guilty.
Reply to That ||
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.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.