Feds Bust Cable Modem Hacker 658
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."
Re:That sucks, sort of. (Score:3, Informative)
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:I wish I saw this earlier (Score:5, Informative)
That might have worked, if he wasn't actually selling the hacked modems.
Re:What!? (Score:4, Informative)
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!? (Score:5, Informative)
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!? (Score:5, Informative)
And that's a great example of why you should never talk to the cops [youtube.com]. EVER. [youtube.com]
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.
Theft of Services (Score:3, Informative)
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. [onecle.com]
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:What!? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What!? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What!? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What!? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What!? (Score:3, Informative)
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!? (Score:4, Informative)
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!? (Score:2, Informative)
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!? (Score:4, Informative)
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 [justice.gc.ca].
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!? (Score:3, Informative)
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's this have to do with my rights online? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What!? (Score:3, Informative)
It also speeds up the trial considerably, which reduces your legal fees.
Re:What!? (Score:2, Informative)
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!? (Score:3, Informative)
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!? (Score:3, Informative)
What about selling a fine set of hunting knives along with a DVD box set of Dexter?
http://img269.imageshack.us/i/pbygd.png/ [imageshack.us]
Re:Oh, really? (Score:1, Informative)
"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:What!? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What!? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What!? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What!? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Yes, it is (Score:3, Informative)
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:I wish I saw this earlier (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What!? (Score:2, Informative)
"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!? (Score:5, Informative)
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:Welcome to the DMCA (Score:2, Informative)
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:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The ignornance, it burns (Score:1, Informative)
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:I wish I saw this earlier (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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:What!? (Score:2, Informative)
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 [mindfully.org]
Keep in mind these are only the false confessions that were caught between 1989 and 2003.
Re:The ignornance, it burns (Score:1, Informative)
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!
Re:What's this have to do with my rights online? (Score:1, Informative)
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?
Re:story (Score:3, Informative)
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:What!? (Score:3, Informative)
Look - YAF -(yet another fuckwit) who shoots their mouth off without even bothering to follow the links.
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 [canlii.org] - 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.