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."
Welcome to the DMCA (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Prosecution haggling? (Score:3, Interesting)
"They’re filling in their own blanks."
Is this a way to haggle up the punishment? Make the defense spend valuable time worrying about completely bogus prosecution claims, and it might neglect other more legitimate claims.
Re:What!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Comcast owns their network and sells you access based on bandwidth. More bandwidth costs more. If you find a way to circumvent their bandwidth limits, you are breaking your agreement with them (as well as violating the DMCA). Modding your own cable modem and running it on your own cable network is ok. Running it on someone elses is not.
Hacking to gain knowledge/enlightenment is one thing. Using that knowledge to steal service is uncool.
Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What!? (Score:5, Interesting)
What intrigues me is the fact that cable co's are trusting END USER EQUIPMENT to enforce limits that should be imposed at their own network ingress.
Besides, what if someone creates a DOCSIS compliant device of their own and hooks it up to the cable network? Considering how eager companies are to pounce for it, you're almost certain to run afoul of a few patents in the process, but you're clear in copyright, and hence immune to the DMCA as well, since the only copyright involved would be your own.
Knowingly and willfully taking more bandwidth than you've paid for is fraud and should be treated as such. Everything else is bullshit.
Re:What!? (Score:3, Interesting)
Selling bullets is one thing, selling bullets knowing that it'll end up being used to murder someone specific is quite another.
So if I am a gun store owner, and I believe someone is going to murder someone, is it illegal for me to sell them bullets? If someone later (after the murder) can show that I knew about the murderer's intention and I sold the bullets anyway, can I be sent to prison?
Honest question - I genuinely want to know.
Re:It's NOT like arresting gun sellers! (Score:3, Interesting)
The second amendment is largely protected because there are enough people defending the amendment to make it meaningful. If there weren't, then I'd say that the second amendment would be just about where the tenth is now: discarded as being "inconvenient."
Re:I wish I saw this earlier (Score:5, Interesting)
He says that the telcos bought some of his hacked modems to use as test/diagnostic equipment. If he has invoices and receipts, then he may have a legit defense.
Why would they (service personnel) want hacked modems? Maybe to be able to alter the MAC on the test machine at will to clone a client's modesm's MAC address so they can determine that the clients' modems' MAC address is routable from the customer's location, and that maybe the clients' modem is defective after all ...
Re:This is not a crime (Score:2, Interesting)
Car analogy.
You have a car. This car's CPU has been programmed to fit a certain performance profile. Namely, of a cheap econo-car. The maker also comes out with a 'sport' version with no 'underclocking' of the engine, giving it the illusion of having better hardware than the vanilla model. Is it REALLY stealing if you remove that underclocking programming from your own car? Of course the car company wants their shoddy business model to be protected artificially.
Utility analogy.
The water company installs a small pipe to your house. About the size of your navel. Of course, they had to seriously downgrade pipe sizes from their main connection to your house. You go in and install pipes of your own that match the main outlet. Of course the water company doesn't like it, since they would have charged you thousands to do it. Is that stealing, because you did it yourself?
Really? Shoplifting? This stuff is as much of a crime as it is to refill your water bottle out of some company's water fountain they have in their lobby.
smart guy, good book, ISPs commit the real fraud (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:What!? (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always been struck by the system of justice in the US where, if you plead guilty, you "save the state the cost of a trial".
In most countries where the law is based on English Common Law (Canada, UK, Australia, etc) there is always a trial, to establish the facts of the case, to establish the exact culpability of the accused, to determine the extenuating circumstances. There is always a pre-sentence report, often a psychological assessment, etc. There is no procedural difference between a case where the defendant pleads guilty and where he pleads not guilty, and the defendant can change his plea at almost any stage of the trial. Occasionally, a judge will refuse to accept a Guilty plea from the defendant, insisting he wait until the evidence has been presented.
There are no misdemeanor options to fall back on; everything is the equivalent of a felony (precisely, they are all Criminal convictions, which the US considers equivalent to Felony convictions when assessing the seriousness of a record for a potential visitor, immigrant, etc). A conviction of the charge of theft of a single CD is a Criminal Code conviction; there are no other options.
The only times when you can plead guilty and avoid a trial is when the charge truly is a misdemeanor; eg traffic court.
This eliminates the incentive to create a system of law as exists in the US, with one or more applicable charges that carry huge penalties, along with a cascade of ever lesser charges and classes of charges, with corresponding lesser maximum penalties, which are then used (as you point out) to elicit guilty pleas.
It also insures that you have an opportunity to defend yourself without onerous implications should you not prevail, for whatever reason.
The truly innocent are placed in a very difficult position under the standard practices of US law (and standard procedures of prosecutors to elicit convictions).
Re:What!? (Score:1, Interesting)
The guy was not innocent.
He was guilty, just that the charge was overstated for the offense.
Keep things in perspective.
According to that logic, everybody is guilty. Keep things in perspective.
Does anyone else remember LaMacchia? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you look back to the old David LaMacchia case, the FBI tried to convict someone running a secretive FSP site on school computers of conspiracy and software theft. It was obvious he was guilty as sin at running a pirate software site, but because he received no money for it (merely stole school resources of bandwidth and computer time), they failed miserably to convict him.
This idiot, according to the FBI, asked on a bulletin board for the necessary MAC addresses for the Phoenix Arizona area. That was inviting illegal behavior. This is why I don't even make _jokes_ like that about pirating software or computer cracking: because I've explained to people how easy it is to do, I have to keep my nose clean lest someone testify against me.
Re:What!? (Score:4, Interesting)
What if I'm hunting deer that happen to have body armour on?
That "armored deer" is known as wild pig [wildflorida.com]. Its hide is so rigid that not every bullet can go through it. Hunters have to be very careful while hunting those pigs, and large calibers (or slugs in case of shotguns) are typically required. Wild pigs are a very dangerous game.
Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime (Score:5, Interesting)
Because they can fearmonger alongside claiming these powers.
Do you hear fearmongering about Saddam anymore? Nope, because he's dead. Saddam's execution was used for a short term goal... the elections which took place just days after his death.
The OP asked why they haven't caught Osama, and I'm just asserting that perhaps it is not in the government's interest to do so.
Re:I wish I saw this earlier (Score:2, Interesting)
If they go against the emission guidelines for your state, yes, and at least in California 'mod shops' are the next group they're trying to get legislation to let them go after. Currently smog shops and test & repair are fair game, but shops that do alterations, not repairs can't be hit for generating emissions violations.
Re:What!? (Score:1, Interesting)
Maybe guns and bullets are not the right metaphor. A better example would be the device used to switch traffic lights (from red to green or vice versa). You are not allowed to make them or sell them, though the actual device is not banned. The product can only be manufactured by some companies and is directly sold to police departments.
Re:What!? (Score:3, Interesting)
I thank you for replying with a cut-and-paste summary of Canadian law. Please continue; I will look forward to your summaries of the UK law, and the Australian law, and the other "Commonwealth Countries" I wrote of in my post, along with your learned experiences as to what, exactly, one can expect by way of assessments and pre-sentence reports.
I've been to many a case where the Crown proceeded by Summary Conviction. Pre-sentence reports, psychiatric assessments, and the like are common. Only last week a person who is charged with a relatively minor offense, proceeding by Summary Conviction, was remanded for a Psychiatric Report, because he acted crazy in a public place; he tried to set himself on fire in an insurance office.
Your post may be interesting to some, and I thank you for it. Perhaps you might mention that the courts in Canada are under provincial jurisdiction, and practices and typical sentences vary from province to province, sometimes significantly.
But, I'm sure you've spent time in court in every province in the nation. Please tell me about traveling courts in the Yukon, where a single van or airplane often carries the judge, prosecutor, clerks, bailiff, and defense council for extended travel to remote areas. Someone such as yourself must surely wonder what they talk about. Or did you not know about that either?
" ... Same as plea bargaining anywhere else. ..."
Clearly not, but thanks for finally, in the last line, getting back on topic to my post.
You, sir, have no experience with accused in most situations in the US, obviously. Please tell me of the time someone in Canada was charged with a rape offense carrying a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison and ended up being sentenced, after a plea bargain based on a guilty plea, to misdemeanor sexual assault, a $750 fine, no record.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/20/nyregion/prosecutor-defends-plea-bargain-in-rape-case.html [nytimes.com]
Oh, and that was just the first Google hit.
Re:WOW!!! The Feds must be really working overtime (Score:1, Interesting)
Osama is more useful to power-hungry US politicians when he is free to roam than dead or captured.
I agree and I would add that they are probably even more cynical than you give them credit for. There have been no sightings and only a handful of highly dubious videos (in some of which he looks younger?!) and recordings of him since 2001. In all probability Bin Laden was killed at Tora Bora. But as you said, he's much more useful (both to the US govt and Al Qaida) not being "dead."
Re:What!? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What!? (Score:4, Interesting)
1. You specified common law. Most of Canada is common law, and my post disproves that what you said applies to "common law" generically.
2. Why not look at the plea bargain in the Roman Polanski affair if you want something that doesn't pass the smell test?
BTW, the maximum sentence for sexual assault [rapereliefshelter.bc.ca] when tried as a misdemeanor in Canada is $2,000 + 6 months. The minimum is an absolute discharge. Aggravated sexual assault, on the other hand, can get you life.
To put this in context, we just gave a life sentence [thestar.com] to a genocidal nutbar from another country who thought that Canada would be a safe place for him.
Re:What!? (Score:1, Interesting)
You were right about a lot of things until you wrote this:
> Knowing filing charges they know the individual did no commit would lead to sanctions and disbarment.
Now who is overstating things? Can you even cite a case where this actually happened?
Re:I wish I saw this earlier (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What!? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I wish I saw this earlier (Score:3, Interesting)
If you lease the vehicle, odds are good it would be against the contract and they'd either sue you or charge you to repair the vehicle.
So in your case it may not be illegal, but it would most likely be a contract violation.
Re:What!? (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering the venue, you may well be expected to do a citizen's arrest (many gun store clerks are armed.)
I sincerely doubt you could show any legal requirement, but a gun store owner who doesn't report such an utterance to their local PD will find themselves getting a daily ration of shit. It's never a good idea to piss off the police.
Most definitely, IMO, as an accomplice.
As it should be. It's certainly true, which is why we have such a strict licensing scheme for being permitted to sell guns and ammo. If it was just about money they'd just have tax stamps or something.
Re:What!? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm just saying that the Polanski case is a good example of leniency in plea bargaining. It wasn't statutory rape (sex with someone too young to give legal consent), but "rape rape" (to borrow Whoopie's term). He probably portrayed it as statutory rape to those around him, hence their weird "defense" of Polanski.
This is the part that really blows my mind. Someone that graduated from my high school just got charged with 3 felonies after trying to meet with a 15 year old supposedly to have sex. He is 19. (Btw, 16 is the age of consent here)
The 3 felonies are:
1. Conspiracy to commit a felony (statutory rape)
2. Using an electronic device to commit a crime (texting)
3. Communicating with someone to commit a crime (this one blew my mind that it is actually a separate felony charge).
So a 19 year old, who arguably was truly making a "youthful" mistake (and never actually had any sexual contact with this girl), will get strung up, while a disgusting rapist has a celebrity signed petition. This country makes me fucking sick.
Re:I wish I saw this earlier (Score:3, Interesting)
fucking oath he'd be able to ask it. Remember its up to the feds to prove it was illegitimate, and that gives him considerable leeway to prove that legitimate uses existed. Since telcos where buying it, its a legitimate product, albeit with capacity for abuse. Case dismissed , embarassed feds with a lot of questions to answer.
Infact even if telcos where buying it for *illegitimate* reasons, it doesn't matter, as long as he believed it was legit and can prove legit reasons exist.
story (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Just last week, I had my trial before a judge for a very borderline DWI where I had blown a .08. To describe the background, after being arrested and being brought to the station, over one year ago, the officers asked if I would agree to answer questions. I told them I would not do so without an attorney present. They asked two more times, and made it sound as if I was about to get in huge trouble if I had the audacity to invoke my rights. I denied to answer questions each of those times. What is interesting is that the fact I was alert enough to both understand my rights, and to practice them, was the final straw and indicator to the judge that I was not both physically and mentally impaired. I was found not guilty.
Re:I wish I saw this earlier (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I wish I saw this earlier (Score:4, Interesting)
link to said guy with said biodiesel and said jailable offense?
I doubt making your own biodiesel and using it is the offence. The offence is not paying a tax you are legally required to pay. In the UK you can run your car on biodiesel if you like, but that doesn't let you avoid paying tax - you have to pay the tax directly rather than it implicitly being included in the fuel price. Think of it as the difference between being employed or self employed - if you are employed then you pay your income tax by PAYE; if you are self employed you don't do PAYE, but this doesn't magically get you out of paying tax, you still have to pay it to the inland revenue at the end of the year.
Re:I wish I saw this earlier (Score:3, Interesting)
It's up to the Feds to prove their case, but it's up to the judge or jury to decide how credible his defense is. Just because you can show that it is theoretically possible that you're not breaking the law, doesn't mean you won't (or even shouldn't) get convicted.
Re:What!? (Score:3, Interesting)
No, they are not a myth.
There are armor piercing pistol rounds available to civilians. The 7.62x25mm Tokarev round is capable of penetrating standard issue LE body armor and is even effective as a light anti-armor round against vehicles. It was originally a WW2 high-power pistol and submachinegun round.
9mm NATO rounds have a hotter charge and higher impact energy than standard 9mm Luger rounds, even though the bullet and case geometry are the same. Winchester makes them but only sells to law enforcement. The FBI uses these in their training MP5s. I do not know what the enhanced ballistic properties of 9mm NATO are though. I don't know about the anti-armor effectiveness of the 10mm Auto round the FBI uses either, but I do know that they are very high power, and that they seriously beat up the standard issue 10mm MP5s so badly that they try to avoid using them because HK doesn't make parts for them anymore.
Re:What!? (Score:1, Interesting)
absolutely.... if comcast is charging a user 3$/mo to rent the DOCSIS equipment, then really its the user who should "own" its configuration since they're paying to use it... if its comcast's equipment, necissary for delivering service, then it should be included in the price of service. if its the users device needed to access comcasts service, then the user is free to configure it as they desire... I never understood how some enterprising lawyer hasn't started a class action over this...
Censorship FTL (Score:3, Interesting)
Wired quotes Harris's reaction: "I read the indictment — it's complete bull****. I'll tell you right now I'm not going to plead guilty."
You know what else is bullshit? Wired can publish the word "bullshit" but apparently Slashdot needs to censor it.
Re:What!? (Score:3, Interesting)
"If they can [come up with a barely plausible scenario] that you [gave away/sold] [a burner/a modem/access to website/cool hardware hack/a torrent/whatever] to a person you [have no idea whether they might] use [to violate copyright/exercise fair use] then yes, you [should] be charged with a crime.
[Who cares if] there are so many legitimate uses for [a burner/a modem/access to website/cool hardware hack/a torrent/whatever], the [media] lobby is so powerful, [it doesn't matter that it's] nearly impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you thought whoever you were selling a [a burner/a modem/access to website/cool hardware hack/a torrent/whatever] to was going to use it for non-illegal means, [access to a burner/a modem/access to website/cool hardware hack/a torrent/whatever must be prevented at all costs]."
just sayin'