Jailtime For Jailbreaking

No ex post facto laws by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-02 05:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

And? The clause about no ex post facto laws swings both ways.

Re:No ex post facto laws by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-02 05:18 · Score: 3, Funny

Yea, except the case was brought after the exemption, since this is about jailbreaking to port to a different carrier, not jailbreaking to run other software. The latter exemption wasn't until this year, but the former was back in 2006. However, the shitty slashdot summary leaves out a key point, this idiot pleaded guilty, so you can't really blame anyone but him.
Re:No ex post facto laws by commodore64_love · 2010-12-02 05:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

>>>this idiot pleaded guilty, so you can't really blame anyone but him.
The Supreme Court has ruled that your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent is still a protected right, if it can be demonstrated that the person was never informed of that right. They also stated that oftentimes completely-innocent people will plead guilty to a crime they never committed, so that alone is not enough evidence to convict.
Bottom Line:
Keep your mouth shut. I've had people tell me, "Oh well if you were innocent why wouldn't you cooperate with the police and let them see inside your trunk, or home?" Answer: Because innocent people have been sent to prison. Better to not volunteer anything.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:No ex post facto laws by hedwards · 2010-12-02 05:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

You're being dense. Nullification is the whole reason why we have an independent judicial branch.

Nullification is what happens when SCOTUS rules a law to be unconstitutional. Unless of course I've missed the cases where SCOTUS rules something to be unconstitutional and the law stays legally binding. What you're arguing is semantics as any law that's ruled to be unconstitutional is unconstitutional unless SCOTUS issues a new precedent or test that indicates otherwise.
Re:No ex post facto laws by msauve · 2010-12-02 05:36 · Score: 4, Informative

In the same way that regulatory agencies make regulations (regulatory "law"), Congress has also transferred authority (unconstitutionally in both cases, IMHO) to the LoC with regard to exceptions to the DMCA. They're doing more than interpretation, they're effectively changing the law. See Section 1201(a)(1) title 17, United States Code. Seems the exceptions only go for 3 years, and begin when the determination is made.

Following the links in the article, "Majed... was arrested by FBI agents on November 22, 2009." If one goes back to the determination in effect at that time, from 2006 (These exemptions went into effect upon publication in the Federal Register on November 27, 2006, the 3 year term was later extended), one finds this exemption:

5. Computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network, when circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.
That sure sounds like exactly what he was doing.

Here's the section of the DMCA which grants authority to the LoC:

The Librarian shall publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined, pursuant to the rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected, and the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:No ex post facto laws by msauve · 2010-12-02 05:58 · Score: 2

I'll just add to this, since many posts show that people are confusing the action at issue here with what's allowed by the most recent LoC findings. As I referenced, there was an exemption going back to 1996 for "jailbreaking" in order to move a phone to a different network. The more recent exemption (for "jailbreaking" in order to run other software) was added this past July. It doesn't appear to apply to this case at all (it is neither appropos or timely). This is from the current finding:

(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.

(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:No ex post facto laws by drinkypoo · 2010-12-02 06:00 · Score: 2

However if you break an existing law you're not being a victum of unkowable future actions. And if there's a reason to end the sentances of everyone curently being punished for having broken it the government could simply have them pardoned.
You are attempting to create a problem that does not exist. If I were as dumb as you I wouldn't log in either. If the law is bad it should be repealed, and if someone was convicted under a bad law they should be pardoned. It's just that simple because anything else creates opportunities for abuse (i.e. selective enforcement.) You pass a law, you convict everyone, you eliminate the law, you pardon only some of them? Now there's people imprisoned for something which should never have been illegal.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:No ex post facto laws by Adrian+Lopez · 2010-12-02 06:16 · Score: 3, Informative

"Certainly there's not a word in the Constitution that gives them power to negate what the Legislature duly-passed and the Executive signed."
Nonsense. Here are some relevant words for you:
"Congress shall make no law..."
and
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

--
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Re:No ex post facto laws by Attila+Dimedici · 2010-12-02 07:06 · Score: 3, Informative

You're being dense. Nullification is the whole reason why we have an independent judicial branch.
There is nothing in the Constitution about judicial nullification. The idea that the Supreme Court gets to decide whether a law is constitutional or not was the result of a Supreme Court decision where they basically said that was their place. However, since the ruling was made while the Framers of the Constitution were still among those running the country, it does not seem that they found this to be an unreasonable reach. Of course at the time the understanding was that members of Congress would not vote for bills they believed to violate the Constitution and that Presidents would not sign such bills into law (since all such persons take an oath to uphold the Constitution). We now know that to not necessarily be the case since George W. Bush signed a bill into law that he explicitly said he expected the Supreme Court to overturn at least parts of.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:No ex post facto laws by msauve · 2010-12-02 09:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

You obviously didn't read, or didn't understand, the article. He was buying (heavily subsidized) pre-paid phones, then modifying them so they could be used on other carriers. No theft mentioned in the article at all. The carriers (TracFone, in this case) don't like that, because it costs them the money they spent subsidizing the price of the phone, which they hoped to make back on service.

You might notice that the wording was slightly changed in the most recent version of the exclusion, it now applies to "used" phones, and must be done by "the owner," which changes the rules, and makes what he was doing illegal now. The government clearly recognized that the exclusion covered his actions, and consequently changed it.

To Faylone: making a profit isn't illegal.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:No ex post facto laws by Fallen+Kell · 2010-12-02 17:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually, I would argue that the second the phone is removed from the box, it is now "used" and as he was the "owner" at the time of performing the service, he had every right to jailbreak it. And as there is no current law forbidding the sale of phones between people, he had every right to sell this own used phone to someone else, and if he can do it and make a profit at the same time, more power to him.

--
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"

Not really jailbreaking by dogmatixpsych · 2010-12-02 05:05 · Score: 4, Informative

I know this is a semantic issue but jailbreaking usually refers to installing apps on phones and not usually unlocking a phone from a particular carrier. Anyway, carry on with the discussion.

Re:Not really jailbreaking by Zed+Pobre · 2010-12-02 05:21 · Score: 5, Informative

Quoting the text of the relevant exemption, with some added emphasis:

(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.

The man doing the unlocking wasn't using any of those phones to connect to a network. He was unlocking phones for resale overseas, making a profit by violating the terms of a subsidy. The exemption doesn't cover this, and you probably don't want it to cover this, assuming you still want to be able to buy phones at less than full market price. If you find a story where someone is convicted under the DMCA for unlocking his or her own phone for personal use, then there's a story. This isn't one.
Re:Not really jailbreaking by MoonBuggy · 2010-12-02 05:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

He was unlocking phones for resale overseas, making a profit by violating the terms of a subsidy.
There were no terms - it's a prepaid phone, no contract was signed. The worst that could happen is they declare him in violation of their terms of service (and thus stop providing said service), but I really don't think that'd be an issue to him...

The exemption doesn't cover this, and you probably don't want it to cover this, assuming you still want to be able to buy phones at less than full market price.
It makes little difference if the end user can still legally unlock their phone - the carriers can't rely on the law to back up their technical measures, and that's the way it should be. If you want to enforce terms after the initial sale, do so with a contract (as the pay monthly services already do).
Re:Not really jailbreaking by Zed+Pobre · 2010-12-02 05:50 · Score: 2

Because you bought it below cost and the company that was selling it will go out of business if you are allowed to do so.
Let me continue that Lego analogy:
If you purchased a high end Lego Mindstorms kit at half market price from a company that did so on the condition that you were doing so for personal use and for the next two years any generic buckets of legos you bought for use with your Mindstorms kit would be purchased from them at their normal rates, and then turned around and resold that kit without even using it, you are effectively stealing from that company. Literal stealing this time, not the 'copying is theft' kind of stealing. A physical piece of merchandise has been removed without honoring the purchase agreement, which happened to have some contractual terms in addition to a nominal initial exchange of funds.
Now, if the company added a high tech marker to the Mindstorms kit that would shut it off when used with generic lego pieces to prevent exactly this kind of theft, and you went out of your way to disable that marker not even so you could personally violate your agreement and use generic buckets of legos bought from other people, but instead so you could run around taking advantage of the fact that the company in question couldn't keep track of how many of these kits you were buying at different outlets to start your own business in competition with theirs, using their own subsidy to undercut them, you are in violation of the DMCA.
The exception as written is a good and necessary thing, because that kind of marker tends to have a major flaw: the restriction tech doesn't self-destruct at the end of the contract, leaving people who have actually completed their agreements unable to make full use of what they purchased. To protect that ability, it was written loosely enough that you can even shaft the company you bought it from as long as you are doing it for personal use.
It was not written so loosely, and should not be written so loosely, that a purchaser can drive a company out of business by bulk subsidy abuse, unless you're of the opinion that no phones should ever be subsidized by contracts.
Re:Not really jailbreaking by DavidTC · 2010-12-02 06:58 · Score: 2

Indeed, I'm all for jailbreaking, but unlocking so you can run out on the contract you signed and keep the phone is not something we want to allow.
I mean, I'm all for freedom, but running off with a phone that you signed a contract to pay off over the next two years is theft. I can see some argument that the law should require the cell phone company to let you pay off the phone at some pro-rated rate or something, but just walking off with it is stealing.
Whether or not not letting people unlock phones is the best way to stop that theft is unknown. Perhaps a better method might simply to require people to put up a deposit or something.
Regardless, this guy wasn't unlocking those phones, he was unlocking actual stolen from the store phones. Again, I don't know if the best way to solve this problem is via restricting unlocking...I though they could report the IDs as stolen and the second anyone tried using them, they'd be caught, but maybe not.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?

Jailbreaking is not unlocking by SuperKendall · 2010-12-02 05:07 · Score: 5, Informative

The convictions were all from people breaking phones (as in hundreds or thousands of phones) to use on different carriers. The iPhone jailbreaking (which the story summary was meant to make you think of even though no iPhones were involved in this story) does not unlock the phone for use by other carriers.

You may proceed jailbreaking as normally despite this FUD, just as many millions have already done...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Really bad summary by secretcurse · 2010-12-02 05:08 · Score: 4, Informative

It's legal to jailbreak your own "used" phone. This guy was jailbreaking phones by the thousands and selling them. It's still legal to jailbreak the phone you own and use, it's just illegal to unlock and sell in bulk.

--
I'm using all of my mod points to mod ancient memes down. Please join me.

Re:Really bad summary by StikyPad · 2010-12-02 05:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

[citation needed]

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:Really bad summary by The13thSin · 2010-12-02 05:39 · Score: 2

Exacty, and I don't understand why more people aren't asking the same question. How is this not outrages?
Why is it illegal to legally purchase items, do something with them, then resell? (If the car industry worked this way, I know at least a couple of car companies that would go out of business.) And even more ridiculous: why is this a criminal offence opposed to a civil matter?
I know some people have a weird idea about ownership, but the *only* reason I see for this is to keep a broken businessmodel working... and without any good reason too. If the phone is subsidized, there should a legally binding contract attached that forces the buyer to (for instance) also have subscription X for Y months. That's it.
Can someone please tell me why jailbreaking / unlocking phones (even for commercial gain) should be a criminal offence?

--
"This should be fun, and by fun, I mean a wholly depressing insight into the cognitive ability of some grown adults."
Re:Really bad summary by drinkypoo · 2010-12-02 06:03 · Score: 2

Jail Breaking your iPhone which you paid for either full price or after paying a termination fee, to go on a different network is up to you. But selling that phone is the problem.
No, it is not a problem. The law says the owner may jailbreak the phone. First Sale law says the owner may resell the device. If you acquire the phone legally and completely (e.g. not a lease) then you have the legal right to modify it in this fashion and subsequently resell it as the law is written today. There are ways in which you're not allowed to modify it at all, but none of them preclude selling it.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:Well naturally... by tysonedwards · 2010-12-02 05:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

Seems more likely that Mr. Majed was already in custody for previous offenses prior to the exception being enacted. As such, as far as the law is concerned, the agency holding Mr. Majed is in the right.
As far as I see the situation, as soon as the acts that 'did not cause harm to others' (quote from article) ceased to be a crime, he should have been released as he was simply being held on those charges, and prosecution had not yet commenced.

--
Thirty four characters live here.

Phone companies are evil by troll+-1 · 2010-12-02 05:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

If they controlled the Internet you'd buy your computer from your ISP and it wouldn't work with any other ISP, your Internet bill would list every website you went to, out-of-state websites would be billed at a higher rate (except for nights and weekends). The current model for phone networks is an overpriced relic of the last century.

A Lot of Confusion by cob666 · 2010-12-02 05:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

I read the article and some of the comments below the article and I was amazed that there are people that equate unlocking or jailbreaking a phone to stealing intellectual property. I'm not very familiar with the wording of the DMCA exlusion that allows you to carrier unlock a phone but I did believe that it applied to a phone that you own. I somebody is charging a fee to unlock phones that clearly this doesn't fall under the DMCA exclusion as I understand it. However, if somebody were to purchase a phone for X dollars, carrer unlock it and then re-sell it for X+Y dollars then that SHOULD fall under the DMCA exlusion although it would be exploiting a loophole.

I'm still not sure how this guy ended up doing jail time and what kind of precedent that sets.

--
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley

Re:A Lot of Confusion by puto · 2010-12-02 05:41 · Score: 2

The article is FUD, because the guy was busted doing a ton of other shit. For Immediate Release November 23, 2009 United States Attorney's Office Eastern District of Pennsylvania Contact: (215) 861-8200 Eight Charged in Conspiracy to Traffic Counterfeit and Stolen Goods PHILADELPHIA—United States Attorney Michael L. Levy, together with Special Agent-in-Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Janice K. Fedarcyk, Special Agent-in-Charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement John P. Kelleghan, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Internal Revenue Service Don Fort, and Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police Colonel Joseph R. Fuentes, today announced the unsealing of a 33-count indictment charging Sadek Mohamad Koumaiha, Mohamad Kassem Sibai, Hassan Mahmoud Koumaiha, Ali-Ibrahim El Sayed Abdallah, Mohamad Majed, Bilal Hussein Hamden, a/k/a “Billy,” Shady Anis Ghadban, a/k/a “Danny,”and Ali Kassem El-Sibai with multiple counts of conspiracy, trafficking-in stolen goods, trafficking-in counterfeit goods, false statements to government officials, and conducting an illegal money transmitting business. According to the indictment, Sadek and Hassan Koumaiha, Mohamad Kassem Sibai, Ali-Ibrahim El Sayed Abdallah, and Majed purchased stolen merchandise, including Sony PlayStation 2 systems, laptop computers, and cellular telephones, purportedly worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, from an undercover law enforcement officer. The indictment further alleges that defendants Sibai, the Koumaihas, and Shady Anis Ghadban, purchased thousands of dollars worth of counterfeit goods, namely Nike shoes and a variety of brands of cellular telephones, from an undercover law enforcement officer.

--
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Re:A Lot of Confusion by mcgrew · 2010-12-02 06:30 · Score: 2

I was amazed that there are people that equate unlocking or jailbreaking a phone to stealing intellectual property.
You can't steal intellectual property any more than you can steal rainwater or air. The writer doesn't own his work, it belongs to everyone. He merely has a limited time monopoly on its publication.
That's not pedantry, it's a distinction with a difference. Please stop saying "stealing IP" because IP can't be stolen.

--
Free Martian Whores!

Beyond the Scope by Voyager529 · 2010-12-02 05:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

From the link in TFA:

Majed shipped several thousand prepaid wireless phones to co-conspirators in Michigan and Hong Kong.

Majed didn't go to jail for jailbreaking his iPhone, or even a handful of them for friends. The jailbreaking exemption (http://www.copyright.gov/1201/) states that the exemption exists for the owner of the device in order for the owner to use an alternate cellular network. This guy was essentially running a business buying heavily subsidized Tracfones, unlocking them, and selling them by the thousands. One could argue that between the purchase and the resale that he was the owner of the device and thus was covered, but let's keep perspective - Majed wasn't convicted for rooting his Droid, he was running a business on a technicality, and a stretched one at that.

Re:Beyond the Scope by Bert64 · 2010-12-02 05:25 · Score: 2

So basically the courts are propping up a flawed business model operated by a large telco...
Most telcos tie subsidised phones to a long contract to recoup the cost, this model just doesn't work with prepaid phones which is why telcos usually offer massively inferior phones on prepaid plans.

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Re:Beyond the Scope by l0ungeb0y · 2010-12-02 05:28 · Score: 2

Well, look at it as a service for those who wish to OWN an unlocked phone but lack the know-how. Stretching the law or not, he was within his rights.
Re:Beyond the Scope by tlhIngan · 2010-12-02 05:39 · Score: 2

Majed didn't go to jail for jailbreaking his iPhone, or even a handful of them for friends. The jailbreaking exemption (http://www.copyright.gov/1201/) states that the exemption exists for the owner of the device in order for the owner to use an alternate cellular network. This guy was essentially running a business buying heavily subsidized Tracfones, unlocking them, and selling them by the thousands. One could argue that between the purchase and the resale that he was the owner of the device and thus was covered, but let's keep perspective - Majed wasn't convicted for rooting his Droid, he was running a business on a technicality, and a stretched one at that.
He's also accused of funnelling his profits from selling the phones to terrorist organizations, which is the real charge. They're throwing every possible crime he's doing as well in the hopes that maybe one charge will stick. Selling unlocked phones en masse is one charge he can do, but the real reason is the funding terrorist organizations.
It's the sort of link you wish people wouldn't make, because it means unlocked phones can get tainted with the "supporting Al Qaeda" and "causing 9/11" crap. "Only terrorists need unlocked phones".
Re:Beyond the Scope by MoonBuggy · 2010-12-02 05:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

He was running his business to the letter of the law. Tracfone was running theirs on a gamble that the subsidised phones would pay for themselves. Majed owned the phones and was well within his rights to do what he liked with them - dump them in the ocean, if he wanted - with no regard to repaying Tracfone's subsidy; if they'd wanted the terms to be different, a simple contract at the time of sale would've solved all their problems (and made Majed's business immediately untenable by virtue of breaching that contract).
Re:Beyond the Scope by puto · 2010-12-02 05:52 · Score: 2

Actually he pled down to a lesser charge,DMCA violation. He was trafficking in stolen and counterfit goods and money laundering as well and his buddies got caught by an undercover agent in a sting. Those are the real reasons he was busted.

--
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Re:Beyond the Scope by puto · 2010-12-02 06:20 · Score: 3, Informative

Court doc. Seems all the phones were sold to them by an undercover agent as stolen goods. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/1136.pdf

--
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Re:Beyond the Scope by MoonBuggy · 2010-12-02 06:32 · Score: 2

*facepalm*
Neither the article or the one subsequently linked from there mentions that, but I guess I stand corrected. Looks like everybody's trying to spin it a as a victory for the DMCA, with their own bias one way or the other, and more or less ignoring the actual case.
I suppose most of what I said is still generally applicable, but this case is not the place to argue it.

Disgraceful waste of public resources by Fast+Thick+Pants · 2010-12-02 05:14 · Score: 2

It's pretty appalling that our police, courts, and jails are being used this way -- basically as a favor to the well-connected telecom oligopolies and their sleazy lobbyists. Sure, the law is the law -- but the corporations really ought to be footing the bill for this themselves. AT&T and Verizon should create and maintain their own police force and prisons.

(Also, the Irish should eat their children.)

Primitive heathens by countertrolling · 2010-12-02 05:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Putting people in the stockade for stealing a loaf of bread... No not even... for not renting the baker's knife to cut his own bread...

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone

Re:Lawsuit Phishing by Desler · 2010-12-02 05:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Except that what he was doing does not fall under the exemption. The exemption was that you can jailbreak YOUR OWN phone. This is the same reason why it's legal to break CSS encyption on DVD to use copyrighted clips in fair use works but it is not legal for someone to run a business where by they are stripping CSS off of ripped DVDs and then selling those unencrypted discs.

Both Techdirt and the submitter seem to have reading comprehension problems.

Illegal uless used? by grimJester · 2010-12-02 05:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's legal to jailbreak your own "used" phone. This guy was jailbreaking phones by the thousands and selling them. It's still legal to jailbreak the phone you own and use, it's just illegal to unlock and sell in bulk.

Is it illegal to jailbreak a phone if you haven't used it? Illegal to jailbreak more than one phone? Illegal to sell a phone after you jailbreak it? Illegal only if two or more of the above?

I think you have a case of the ole "illegal to profit from someone else's work" mindset.

Jailbreak? by russ1337 · 2010-12-02 05:27 · Score: 3, Funny

as Steven Colbert would say.....

Jailbreak.... or...... Freedom Patch?

Breaking something out of jail is known to be bad... setting something free is much better....

Technicality? by grimJester · 2010-12-02 05:37 · Score: 2

One could argue that between the purchase and the resale that he was the owner of the device and thus was covered, but let's keep perspective - Majed wasn't convicted for rooting his Droid, he was running a business on a technicality, and a stretched one at that.

Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works

(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.

I don't see how the fact that he was the owner of the phones is a technicality or a stretch in any way. He wasn't hacking someone else's phone; he was hacking phones he owned so they could connect to another network. Would it be legal in your opinion if he resold the phones as-is and the end user "initiated the circumvention" by asking him to do it? Is it illegal in the US to make a business out of doing something you're legally allowed to do?

Re:Clarification by drinkypoo · 2010-12-02 06:11 · Score: 2

It's worth noting that the FBI can allege anything it wants against this poor fucker without facing any real repercussions, and that it's totally irrelevant to this issue.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:Well naturally... by puto · 2010-12-02 06:13 · Score: 5, Informative

Yes, and you can read the original filing. The guy and his buddy bought thousands of stolen phones, and playstations, and laptops, that he knew were stolen from an undercover FBI guy over the course of few years. He and his pals are no angels. No heros. But then again, they could have posted a link to it. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/1136.pdf

--
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

Re:Well naturally... by DJRumpy · 2010-12-02 06:26 · Score: 4, Informative

Exactly. This wasn't some poor cell user trying to get his phone working on another network which is the specific use case allowed under the exception, but rather he was specifically prosecuted for breaking DMCA for the explicit purposes of trafficking that same hardware for a profit.

Hardly innocent.

Re:Well naturally... by cayenne8 · 2010-12-02 06:42 · Score: 2

"Miranda v. Arizona would tend to disagree with that notion as applied here. . ."

I'm pretty sure they read him his Miranda rights upon arrest...

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

Re:Well naturally... by SleazyRidr · 2010-12-02 06:51 · Score: 2

How does that quote go?

It's hard to defend freedom because you always find yourself defending scoundrels, as these are the first people whose freedoms get taken away.

I've butchered that quote terribly. The point is, slapping a bunch of DCMA charges on this guy sets some dangerous precedents that can be used against the rest of us. Punish him for what he did wrong, trafficking the stolen goods, but leave it at that. Jailbreaking the phones isn't a crime in itself, so he shouldn't be charged for it.

--
Is 1563649 a prime number?

Re:Well naturally... by DJRumpy · 2010-12-02 06:57 · Score: 2

It does nothing of the sort. The law is very clear. Jailbreaking is legal if used for the purpose to allow someone to move a phone from one provider to another. it does not remove any legal consequence for doing so strictly to traffic hardware for profit. This person violated DCMA for the purpose of profit, not portability.

Re:Well naturally... by shadowfaxcrx · 2010-12-02 07:16 · Score: 2

Doubtless. The point was that Miranda decided that being ignorant of your rights, in that case your right to an attorney, was, in fact, an excuse and that the state was responsible for informing you of your rights.

In this case, if he pled guilty without realizing he was pleading guilty to a nonexistent crime, I think it could be argued that it was the state's responsibility to admit that what he did isn't illegal.

--
"I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."

Re:Lawsuit Phishing by sjames · 2010-12-02 07:30 · Score: 2

Unless you allege that he stole the phones, they were his own phones when he jailbroke them. He then chose to sell his phones.

Re:Well naturally... by Yvanhoe · 2010-12-02 09:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

It is really astounding that government organizations in US can bait people by being accomplices of make-up crimes. How far do they go to convince the guy to cross the line ? "Hey man, this cheap shit is stolen anyway, you won't help giving it back by being stupid and saying no to it. I will find someone to buy them anyway. You know what ? You may even do a social act in the grand tradition of free market by selling cheap phones to the poor. I mean these were stolen in the rich part of town. Sell them back in the ghetto and you become a good man..." I have once seen on TV a documentary, can't tell how much it was fake, about US policewomen who tried to arrest prostitutes clients by posing as some. One even went as far as proposing free service to convince the "suspect", who got arrested.

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.

Re:Well naturally... by hairyfeet · 2010-12-02 10:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sorry but I gotta call bullshit. You think the average Joe is gonna have the skills to jailbreak? Nope, they'd have to bring it to someone like me, just like they bring their desktops and laptops, and I ain't doing jack for free.

This is just an end run around the "jailbreaking is okay" exception, by making sure those that have the skills have no reason to share those skills. Imagine what a shitfit everyone would have if they said only yourself or authorized licensed laptop centers were allowed to work on your laptop? The average Joe is scared to go into Windows Control Panel, he sure as hell ain't doing root hacking. This is just a way to make sure nobody can actually use that exception, and considering how "corporation yay!" our government has become this really doesn't surprise me.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.

Re: H.L. Mencken quote by bobv-pillars-net · 2010-12-02 13:02 · Score: 2

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

--
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.

51 of 281 comments (clear)