Slashdot Mirror
Man Convicted For Helping Thousands Steal Internet Access
angry tapir writes "An Oregon man has been convicted of seven courts of wire fraud for helping thousands of people steal Internet service. Ryan Harris, 26, of Redmond, Oregon, was convicted by a jury in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. He faces a prison term of up to 20 years and a fine of up to $250,000 on each of the seven counts."
don't to the crime if you cant do the time
I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
Oh, except when someone has to pay for it... or works for a living...
Courts are an odd unit to measure instances of wire fraud.
Interesting how when it is internet service theft, nobody seems to mind the arrests but when it is intellectual property everyone bawws the fuck out about it. What's wrong? Isn't internet service ~unlimited~?
If this guy could build a business, complete with websites, forums and so on, it must have gone on for quite a while (6 years it turns out), so it is obvious that:
1) The ISP didn't know enough about their business to realize the giant holes this guy was exploiting.
2) The ISP was incompetent enough to let this guy and his customers steal service (which the ISP's other customers paid for) for a long time.
Any sentencing here should include a heavy fine to the ISP for technical incompetence.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Life moves really fast. If people are a vhs tape, jail time is like hitting fast forward through a huge chunk of it.
Why would anybody give up that time? I just don't get it.
So say this guy got $50 from each stolen internet setup. Times a few thousand, and that's maybe up to $100,000.00. Is 140 years in prison worth six figures? I don't think so. If you do the math, it only comes to $714.29 per year (I'm assuming he's not paying taxes on these figures, and lives through the entire 140 year sentence). That doesn't sound like a good return on investment to me.
Writing tools to configure cable modems is what he got convicted for. He just wrote some tools so you could BOOTP your cable modem with a "valid" MAC and uncapped access speed. The cable companies knew they were putting the security in the dynamically configured end user device. They didn't fix the security flaw after it was publicly known. All the guy did was write an exploit for a publicly known bug, others (end users) were the ones that abused it.
Oh well, at least now there is jurisprudence to put gun manufacturers into jail. After all, they make the tools that others use to commit crimes, which is what this guy is going to do hard time for.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Tcniso uncapper to remove bandwidth restrictions http://www.cable-modem.net/dcforum/DCForumID5/205.html lot of interesting software still available by googling tcniso and on the torrents... stuff is really interesting how he wrote it
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You are ok with a fine on you if your house gets broken in to and it is found you didn't do a good job securing it. After all, if we fining people for not doing security properly, then it needs to apply to physical security too, and to individuals too. So if you are like most people and have a cheap lock that is vulnerable to bumping and picking, single pane windows with no security screen or coating, no security locks on your windows, no alarm system, and so on then if you get broken in to, you get fined too.
After all, it is something you can fix. You can get high security locks from someone like Medeco or Assa that can't be bumped, and key controlled, hard to pick etc. You can have your windows replaced with coated glass and screens that are very difficult to break through. You can buy friction security locks for your windows that you take on and off when you want to open them and so on.
You probably don't choose to. Few people do. It costs more and is inconvenient. However it does make it much easier for someone to break in to your house.
Now if you aren't ok with that, then I have to ask why it is ok to fine the ISP. Could have the had better security? Most certainly. However they chose not to and that doesn't make what was done to them right. Same shit with you. You can choose to have better security. Just because you don't, doesn't make it right for someone to break in.
With all the effort and work that went into this thing, he could have built a legitimate business offering legal goods and services.
I mean -- 20 years for a simple financial fraud thing. In other countries, murder is less.
No wonder you have a considerable fraction of your population in jail.
Scary.
Geez, dude, just because your town's name is Redmond doesn't mean you have to conduct an IT business by illegal means, okay?
I mean -- 20 years for a simple financial fraud thing. In other countries, murder is less.
What's the point of spending money to incarcerate someone? That takes away the convict's productivity and costs money!
This restitution thing is not even applicable to around 25% of the US prison population who are in the can for victimless "crimes".
How come Kevin Mitnick gets helicopter fucking triangulation but this guy gets a slap on the wrist?
You make a Blue box in the 70s, you later become billionaires.
You steal internet in the 2012, you get charged.
My, how the times have changed!
We should never outlaw creating tools like lockpicks, knives, cable modem sniffers, or CPUs able to run unsigned code. We should only outlaw specific usages of said tool.
A priori, there is nothing wrong with explaining how such tools work either, but aiding customers with the specifics of their particular cable provider could eventually cross the line into conspiracy to commit wire fraud, just like helping a robber a house's door would become conspiracy to commit robbery.
I therefore hope they convicted him on specific instances of technical support he provided which unambiguously made him a conspirator in specific customer's wire fraud. And I hope he wins back his freedom on appeal if they convicted him on any other grounds.
In fact, we should discuss the physical plans for equipment and software which he sold here because I'm sure we're curious what exactly he sold. Anyone got links to DIY kits? We should add this stuff to thepiratebay.se's physibles section : http://thepiratebay.se/blog/203
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
$1,750,000, 140 years... that's harsh unless he was actually hurting someone.
i agree with a serious fine, he shouldn't profit from selling criminals tools for crime. but that jail term is in my opinion over the top. 15 years total with parole set at 10 and no computer privileges is what i'd say is fair. i mean you have to weigh this against 25 years for killing someone
Those that walked in to various loans, eyes wide shut? Or those who took loans they couldn't afford because they figured they'd just flip the house and make money?
The idea that individuals were completely blameless in the financial crisis is silly. Sure there were some people who were suckered in. They were told one thing and given another. For them I have some sympathy (though really, there's a standard loan terms sheet that comes with every loan, it isn't hard to read). However there were plenty that got greedy and just ignored all good sense.
An example would be my cousin, call him B. He owned a house that he'd had for quite some time, around 8-10 years on a 30 year fixed mortgage he could afford. then things went crazy and he decided he's take all his equity out in a refinance so that he could buy a bunch of new toys like a truck, take an expensive vacation, shit like that. His loan amount went way up because he was taking out more than the original loan had been for since his house was allegedly worth more. He couldn't afford a fixed loan at that rate so he got a cut rate ARM. Then prices crashed, the rate went up, and he lost his house. Not only should have he known better, my dad (among others) told him this was a stupid idea.
Then there's me, I have a house that I had since before things went crazy, on a 30 year fixed mortgage that I can afford. It supposedly doubled in value during the craziness. I could have taken a ton of money out. I didn't, because I knew that was a bad idea. I still have my house, and I can still afford my loan.
We were both in a similar situation, he chose one option, I chose another. Nobody held a gun to anyone's head and forced the issue.
The crisis was caused by failures and greed at so many levels. The government, the bond rating companies, the investors, the banks, the loan officers, and yes the individuals. You can't just act like a certain group were the evil ones who caused everything. There is a lot of blame to go around.
Now if you just want to start locking everyone up, I guess that's a valid position, but you might want to ask how well that's work in, say, the drug war.
Shouldn't Oregon man be charged in federal court in Oregon instead of Massachusetts? WTF happened to our country? Federal failure.
This kind of news i would expect from a cracy scary dictatorship, so i guess the whole "freedom" thing is like when china says its communist...
20 years in prison is more then many murderers and rapists get.
something is wrong with that country. Seriously wrong. But well nobody ever does anything to change it, so i guess you deserve it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
http://cube-ddl.com
i simply leave my router open - i have so much bandwidth, my neighbors are welcome to it
I am quite willing to see Timothy Geitner go to jail for his allowing all the shenanigans to go on in the banking industry when he had direct oversight http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/tim-geithners-amnesia/ (use it while you can, the Koch brothers are trying to take it over)
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Where did he keep all those tubes?
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
Is it all right with you if I get you to install a trojan or something and make a copy of your PERSONAL data, then?
According to you, no harm is done because it's only a copy, so you should be ok with that.
Also based on your theory, it's ok for me or an advertising company to collect whatever data they want, because they're actually just creating a COPY of your surfing requests. So there's no harm, no foul, right?
I will never understand freetards.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
With all the talent this guy has, let's throw him in prison for 20 years (the sentence he faces for each count). Oh right, he is a super-dangerous hacker who defeated cable modem security (oh what a terrible crime!), so clearly he cannot walk the streets and endanger the general public.
The punishments for hacking are almost always out of proportion to the crime itself.
Palm trees and 8
prison term of up to 20 years and a fine of up to US$250,000
...the real criminals in the banking and mortgage industry got away scoff free even after they caused damages in the trillions. Is the law blind?
I'm tired of "stealing" getting applied to every instance of "underhandedly doing something you weren't supposed to".
Join the U.S. military go to another country kill many many civilians and maybe get a medal.
Morally I'd rather commit wire fraud by giving the people information access.
Ethically, Id spend my time exposing excessive profiting of telecommunications.
If enough of us do this we can start our own country within a country, different than the country of Washington DC... as it'd be much bigger and we'd have our own fence, food, clothing, shelter, medicine, even security, etc.... paid for by those in the outer country. And the diff from DC would be... not having the command to order the kill of many many people w'd never meet.
Wire fraud huh? What if it we wireless?
I don't think most people get that kind of a sentence for murder.
I saw one case on this "I Survived" show they have on Biography channel: a woman shot her husband six times in the chest, and she was sentenced to six days for aggravated assault. Six days for unloading a gun into somebody's chest, 20 years for stealing internet; what a wonderful justice system we have.
And after he was caught, was the internet access recovered and returned to its rightful owner or did it develop Stockholm Syndrome and want to stay with its captor?
It sounds a lot more like he helped people gain unauthorized access to a network. I don't think they actually stole anything. Maybe there was some cost associated with higher bandwidth use, but even calling that stealing is an abuse of English that might also deserve a lengthy prison sentence.
Theft:
1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious
taking and removing of personal property, with an intent
to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
So as a consumer already paying for cable (because I have an outlet to connect to, unless I've gone to heroic effort to run my own in from the street,) I choose to pay money to one guy's company to get internet access for free instead of paying an incremental increase in service fee for internet access that's "legitimate?" Seems like a fair amount of work and money to "steal" something.
I'm all for sticking it to the man, especially cable companies, but this seems to make not a whole lot of sense.
Now, let's suppose they're selling 100,000. Piracy comes along, 1 million pirating, and they're selling 200,000. We could say that piracy doubled the sales, causing a "gain" of 100,000 sales. This is fun! Complete and utter bullshit, but fun!
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Let's reflect, again. How much time did Dr. Conrad Murray receive for his MAJOR contribution to the death of Michael Jackson? It just goes to show that the American criminal "justice" system has been bought and paid for.
Is "Conflict of interest" a crime? What about "crimes against humanity"? Of course, the definition of "crimes against humanity" must be defined; but I would define it as simply denying someone access (to information, facilities, etc) or being involved in the process of forcing someone into a situation not of their choosing (one-way contract, etc) -- Yes, I realize the "definition" by governments is far more draconian and meant for far more serious crimes but that is the governments problem, not mine.
The cable company in my area (just one, localized monopoly) is spending money and effort to get the OTA channels OFF the air; thereby forcing everyone who wants even local weather reports to have to buy a cable subscription. I would call this a crime. If I cut the cable companies lines (that run through my property and look god-awful) I would be arrested for damaging my own property (of course, they justify this in saying it is NOT my property; convenient since I get the land-tax bill every month). So why is this allowed? Why is this legal? Perhaps the definition of Legal doesn't mean what it should?
Now, that same cable company, for their cheapest plan is $60.00 +tax +fees per month and you are ONLY allowed to use it on ONE TV in your house. It comes with about 30 channels, of which only 4 are not free OTA channels across the country and the cable company doesn't pay a CENT for that content (and the other four are third-rate shite that no one would watch anyways). I watch 2 channels, of which one is gone come Aug 31, 2012.... Down to one, wonder how long before that one goes too... :(
Now, under a "fair" system, would/should I not be able to run a wire to the cable that is ON my property and set my TV up to get those two channels which this company has assaulted? Why is this illegal but their actions are not? I'll tell you why, because people have been brainwashed, simply put they think like you do, that the laws are fair as they are right now and that is the saddest part of our whole system.
If a business is not making 50% profit they would not even be looked at by banks or exchanges....
You mention four people that went so far overboard to be absolutely mind-blowing in how bad they covered their tracks. If a cashier steals 20 dollars to get extra food he/she will be jailed, is the proportion the same? How many cashiers are arrested each year versus financial managers? Is the crime payment (jail time) the same? 20 dollars a week for a few months, 1-2 years in jail; millions, 120 years in jail, probably good-behaviour he'll be out in 10-15 max... Corporations get to write off the losses from the cashier, what about the people who lost the millions? -- Note, I am NOT saying the cashier is right to take the $20, I'm just using it to demonstrate how out of skew our laws and punishments are.
As for those cable companies and their poor 8% profits... this is the scary part; the problem is the owners (board directors, etc) all own spin-off business that sell services to that company (especially in locally controlled monopoly situations) where those "service" companies are private and don't have to provide any financials. Therefore, the parent company, that has to show the books can show that they have very little profit while spending a fortune for the "services" and justifying this by saying they have to get these services since no one else provides them.... It's a great scam that large businesses have been doing for many, many, many years.
This is similar to how RIAA, MPAA member businesses can say they never make any money as well; truthfully, they don't. They spend all the money buying services from spin off companies that are privately owned (like the RIAA and MPAA). Therefore, they can show, on paper, their income and expenses and write off the expenses (a great tax hole there), and break even (on almost every MOVIE!!! -- you know it has to be rigged to be this consistent).
My favorite was an Electric company, they asked everyone to reduce their power usage or the power rates would increase; the government spent millions helping people reduce their "energy" consumption. They even came door-to-door to give out pamplets and show the "savings" you can get with the government subsidies, etc. 6 months later my electric bill went up; the reason: (and I love this) power usage has reduced and therefore the electric company didn't meet its financial expectations and thus needed the increase to maintain its profitability.... Screwed if you do, screwed if you don't!
As for one sided contracts (like not being able to sue); this is where the legal and justice system has 100% failed us and where we have failed to take the measures necessary to ensure the system is "fair". To say it's "your" fault for signing such a contract is foolishness, try traveling without a credit card, or having a job without a cell-phone, or a mortgage without a credit history, etc. We HAVE NO CHOICE but to accept the one sided terms or become beggars, this to me is an ethical and moral issue that is needs to be treated FAR HIGHER than a corporations profits; this falls under life and liberty type issues; which unsurprisingly, is what these large corporations are attacking (and your ignorance is helping them nicely).
FWIW, Asgard is the "gard" of the "Æsir" (singular "As"). "Gard" is the root from which we get the modern English words garden and yard. In Norse, it apparently meant something similar, but with extended meanings of world or realm. More at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asgard.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I imagine you're also lumping Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans into the culpability for the crisis. This is a thirty-year old law. You may want to look into that; CRA-approved mortgages were less likely to be subprime and less likely to be resold.
Also, Fannie and Freddie have rules that stipulate they would cover only 80% of a mortgage. Where did the other 20% come from? Ask Angelo Mozilo; Countrywide would just give you a second mortgage to cover the other 20%. Ta-da, 0% down payment home mortgages.
Fannie and Freddie also would not take Jumbo loans. So those McMansions could not be financed that by them.
As far as "liar loans"(or NINJA loans), the fault lies 100% with the broker. While consumers are morally obligated to be honest, it's supposed to be the broker's responsibility to keep liars from getting money they can't pay back. Instead we had brokers facilitating fraud.
The biggest cause of the problem was the large secondary market for mortgages. It's all basic Supply and Demand. If there had been no market for selling shitty mortgages, the brokerage firms would never have been able to get rid of the bad mortgages and they would have crushed under the weight of their own defaulted loans (as they did when the big banks finally stopped buying their trash). But back then Wall Street was more than willing to buy up this crap, so the fly-by-nights had a willing buyer for their doomed-to-fail mortgages.
And make no mistake; Fannie and Freddie were not big players in subprime loans until Countrywide said what amounted to "if you don't buy these loans, Wall Street will, and you will lose all your market share". Fannie and Freddie didn't really get into subprime loans until about 2005. And in 2010, their loans had a foreclosure rate 30% lower than the national average.
Oh, and let's not forget the SEC decision in 2004 that exempted the banks from the capital reserve requirements. Without this ruling, they wouldn't have been able to lever up their balance sheet as highly as they did.
And all the deregulation and mega-mergers that made banks too big to fail, and allowed a shadow banking system to grow in the derivatives market which then began to exceed the size of the real banking system. And the Credit Ratings Agencies which were complicit in labeling toxic CDOs which were designed to fail as AAA-worthy.
:(){
we wouldn't even know about the ~$14 trillion the Fed loaned to the banks at ~0%
The Fed never loaned $14 trillion to the banks. What they did is make guarantees that the money would be there if the banks needed it. The Fed actually only loaned about $2 trillion to banks at the peak of the crisis.
http://timiacono.com/index.php/2011/12/07/when-guarantees-are-not-loans/
:(){
Countrywide went from an utterly bit player in the mortgage market in 94 prior to the CRA revisions to the largest holder of subprime mortgage loans by 2006. This was with direct collaboration from Fannie and Freddie. You think this happened through magic perhaps?
It wasn't FREE internet, as people had to PAY him to get it (as he supposedly made millions).
As I see it this is more of a situation of a business that didn't pay for the lines it was reselling.
Anyway I am sure his argument will be "I have done nothing physically wrong myself, I only provided the information to do so", you want to prosecute someone go after all my customers, they are the ones that are doing the actual stealing.
I am sure they can get him on something like "facilitation", but that is a pretty slippery slope.
All he did was tell people how to modify cable modems to take advantage of security (LAZY) loopholes that large ISP's failed to do anything about.
Personally I would say what he did is ethically questionable, but illegal? I am not sure of that. Is it illegal to subvert a network for free internet access? Probably. Is it illegal to simply tell someone how to do it?
This reminds me of the time *I* got suspended from school for showing a friend how to encrypt a floppy disk, and then he went and accidentally crashed the whole computer lab network by encrypting whole computers. I also had to help wipe and re-install all the machines after school. I did nothing wrong, yet got punished for it, simply by sharing information, never seemed right to me. In this case, the "intent" isn't quite the same, as clearly the "intent" was to subvert and to make money by others doing so. Even still I have my doubts.
He gave people unauthorised access, but nothing was stolen.
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/timeserv/annual/section2.html
The average time spent behind bars for someone who commits a violent crime in Florida is about 7.1 years.
Murder used to mean an average sentence of about 10 years. Lately it's an average sentence of about 20 years.
Sex crimes are around 6 years. This includes lewd acts on a child.
Armed Robbery is around 10 years.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/index.html
Violent crime is declining, even during a recession.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.pdf
About 50% of state prisoners in 2006 were incarcerated for non-violent crimes.
About 90% of federal prisoners in 2008 were incarcerated for non-violent crimes.
America is very much a non-violent place. If you don't believe me, go live in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Sudan or Israel or Syria or Libya or Iraq or Burma.
:(){
In fact I believe I said "he crisis was caused by failures and greed at so many levels. The government, the bond rating companies, the investors, the banks, the loan officers, and yes the individuals."
I do not spare the loan officers from blame, nor the banks. No do I spare the government, who should have been regulating all this shit. There is lots of blame to go around.
However I don't spare the individuals either. I don't buy in to this narrative of how people who participated were poor defenseless victims who couldn't do anything. Bullshit. A great many share in part of the blame. They let greed cloud their judgement, they did things they should have known better about.
You are a good example of why I hold that position: Even when presented with a bad option you noticed it was a bad option and didn't go with it. Why? Well because the person ultimately responsible for your finances is you and you wanted to make a good decision regarding them.
To be fair, usually such short sentences are reserved for cases where the 'victim' was a long time abuser who finally went a bit too far.Nevertheless, 20 years for each count of 'cable theft' is excessive.
If the CEOs of the crooked banks got even 1 day per $1000 worth of fraud they'd die in prison.
That summary sucked balls.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He faces 20 years for a cyber crime. Had he molested a child, he'd only get 15 years! (*).
(*) 18 USC 2243. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2243
Where is our sense of priorities or of justice?
They need to rename the Department of Justice, it is a mockery. Call it the Department of Investigation and Punishment. Justice is dead.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
By some moron's logic above. I'm going to drive away with that Ferrari down the street. But Officer I wasn't going to buy it anyways so it can't be stealing.
If he were convicted of this in Iran, they'd probably sentence him to having to murder all his friends and family with a belt-sander... Followed up by his own demise induced by stoning. Their gov't is nuts. Which sucks, cause there's some great people over there. Oh, yeah, by the way don't steal stuff. Helping people communicate while not paying others for enabling it is WRONG. And as such, you should be isolated and psychologically assaulted... You know.. For the greater good.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/the_spectator/2011/10/steve_jobs_and_the_little_blue_box_how_ron_rosenbaum_s_1971_arti.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFURM8O-oYI
My house is not being sold, rented, licensed, or otherwise traded for value to members of the public. I make no contract with nor representation to others that they may use my property for any purpose or feel secure while so doing. I suspect that this was not the case with the ISP. While a large fine might not be in order (you'll note Sony got a slap on the wrist for their breaches last year, confirmed to have released millions of credit card numbers), something to discourage poor practices by commercial vendors isn't a bad idea. Think of it as a higher insurance premium for people known to be prone to break-ins who keep failing to lock their doors (or, if you prefer, a lack of a discount for a good alarm system and high-quality locks). Just because the person breaking in is unquestionably in the wrong doesn't make the corporation being broken into unquestionably in the right.
anybody who sticks it to comcast is a good guy
The feds encouraged the deal. While they didn't force it, they really pushed it. Now B of A was happy in general, it meant more money for them in the long run since they picked up Contrywide for a song. However it wasn't a case of them deliberately ignoring problems and saying "fuck it" it was the federal government going to both companies and saying "We think this needs to happen because Countrwide failing would be a problem."