![United States United States](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/usa_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
Russian Student Arrested For Revealing DirecTV Secrets 467
An anonymous reader writes "The Associated Press is reporting the arrest of Igor Serebryany, 19, of Los Angeles for industrial espionage under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. Serebryany is accused of providing details of DirecTVs 'P4' card technology to a number of websites."
He probably just forgot to tell the police... (Score:5, Funny)
Real reason for arrest (Score:5, Funny)
This has a maximum punishment of 20 years of hard labor building beowulf clusters for Profit!
Re:Real reason for arrest (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Real reason for arrest (Score:2, Funny)
Punished under the Smirnoff Act of 2002 (Score:3, Funny)
Sounds about right. (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll note that this is not being described as a DMCA case, but as industrial espionage. And if it's true and he's convicted, he should go to jail like all the other white-collar criminals who do this.
Re:Sounds about right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruce
Re:Sounds about right. (Score:4, Interesting)
Bruce
Re:Sounds about right. (Score:2)
The only thing I can think is that the document contained no trade secrets which I believed to be what constituted industrial espionage. Of course i'm not a lawyer so I should probably shut up now.
Re:Sounds about right. (Score:2)
In this case, the guy used his priviledged position (working in DirecTV's law firm) to gain information, while ESR got his through a leak.
The DirecTV documents contain design information that can be used to break the system and to create an equivalent system without researching it. Halloween is, I believe, a set of strategy documents which can be used to aid the competition.
The biggest difference, however, is given in the article. Before March 2002, it was very difficult to use the Corporate Espionage law. It required the cooperation of highly-placed Justice department officials. I don't know what happened to change it, but before that date, Microsoft may not have had whatever was required to activate the clause; now, it may be too late to activate it.
Re:Sounds about right. (Score:2)
Re:Sounds about right. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sounds about right. (Score:5, Informative)
Since [h]e wasn't a lawyer, but rather was in the employ of a lawyer, is it possible for him to violate attorney-client privilege (I honestly don't know)?
The correct answer is "it depends on which state we are talking about." Basic agency/principal law would say that the action of the lawyer's employee would reflect on the lawyer himself/herself, and the disclosure is a clear violation of the canons of virtually every state of the Union. The devil is in the details of the Codes of Conduct of the State Bar Association.
One thing is virtually certain: that lawyer is going to have a very bad start to 2003.
IANAL -- I am not a lawyer
Are you sure? (Score:3, Informative)
Check out this link [planetpdf.com]. Note that it says
Now, this is Arizona-specific, but I suspect it is similar to other states.Bruce
OOPS, Wrong Link (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.asu.edu/counsel/brief/privilege.html [asu.edu]. Sorry!
Bruce
Re:Sounds about right. (Score:2)
This guy should be in jail. Anyone who disagrees doesn't understand business.
Re:Sounds about right. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Sounds about right. (Score:2)
Could you be a little more specific? After having read the article, it appear that he is indeed guilty. He used his business relationship to obtain trade secrets that should have been protected under a NDA, and then provided them to others who will be able to economically benefit. The espionage law doesn't require that he be the financial beneficiary.
No matter how you look at it, he's up a creek without a paddle. None only did he violate the espionage law, but he also violated a contractual agreement with the law firm he worked at. Once he's convicted, he can probably count on a civil suit filed by the law firm.
Oh great... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh great... (Score:2)
Man arrested for obvious criminal activity... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Man arrested for obvious criminal activity... (Score:2)
I noticed that they're not claiming a copyright violation or anything else. This isn't a free speech issue, it's a "you didn't figure this out on your own, but rather because you got something that doesn't belong to you" issue.
Re:Man arrested for obvious criminal activity... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Man arrested for obvious criminal activity... (Score:2, Interesting)
Is there a web site somewhere that summarizes this kind of stupidity? Something similar to the "Darwin Awards" would be nice.
Yes, but did he *sell* them? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Serebryany was charged under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 [...] It prohibits anyone from disclosing trade secrets for economic benefit"
But it does not say wether he sold the info to the websites. If he did, I'd say he's in deep doodoo.
Re:Yes, but did he *sell* them? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think we have all the facts here. Unless I'm missing something.
Re:Yes, but did he *sell* them? (Score:2)
Re:Yes, but did he *sell* them? (Score:2)
I also remeber something about, legally speaking, possible economic benifit being as bad as actual benifit. If you stole trade secrets, and lose your shirt on the deal by selling them for less then it cose you to get them, you still can go to jail.
Re:Yes, but did he *sell* them? (Score:5, Informative)
It prohibits anyone from disclosing trade secrets for economic benefit, and carries penalties in this case up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Although investigators acknowledge that Serebryany apparently didn't profit from the disclosures, the law bars giving away secrets for anyone else's economic benefit.
Re:Yes, but did he *sell* them? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes, but did he *sell* them? (Score:3, Insightful)
But look at what this new law says: if you misappropriate a trade secret and *anybody* profits from it, then you are committing "economic espionage". Pretty much any leaked trade secret can be argued to profit somebody. Remember the article from a few weeks back about the price information leaked on some website? Well, maybe competitors profited. Shit, must be economic espionage. Even though it's just arbitrary chunks of business data, not detailed technical information, schematics, source code, or other copyrightable material, it's still a "trade secret" to somebody. There is a reason that trade secrets always used to receive weak protection under the law - any arbitrary piece of information can be a trade secret, and information DOES leak like an anus on Olestra. A law enforcing the secret status of trade secrets can be whipped out against almost anybody who pisses off their employer or former employer, and does seem to be open to substantial amounts of potential abuse and capricious prosecution.
Luckily, this case seems pretty cut and dried. This guy sounds like he really directly misappropriated quite valuable trade secrets, and he probably deserves to go to jail if he's actually guilty. But the law (which is well and amply described here [bipc.com])
But look at the way DMCA prosecution has been handled. I'm just surprised that we haven't heard about more abusive cases involving this law, and I fear we will hear more in the future.
Corporate Espionage Act (Score:3, Interesting)
Will the charges hold up under this act?
Re:Corporate Espionage Act (Score:3, Insightful)
It's an issue for the lawyers and courts to decide, which frequently has little bearing on common sense. Should they prove that he did acquire the documents without permission (as opposed to, oh say, reverse-engineering the information) then I imagine that all they'd have to prove is that the information -could- be used by another party for economic benefit, not that his intention was for that to happen. And that will be very easy to prove, since there are companies that make cable converters and the like, and even an individual stealing DirecTV gains economically by virtue of not having to pay for what he/she receives.
Why 'Your Rights Online' Category (Score:5, Insightful)
This person stole technology plans while working at a law firm. He didn't reverse engineer, he stole. This is illegal and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This is not a case of our rights being stepped on. This is a case of the rights of a company to trust that when they disclose something to a law firm that it won't end up all over the internet.
Re:Why 'Your Rights Online' Category (Score:2)
from the article:
Serebryany was charged under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, a law so powerful that until March 2002 only the most senior Justice Department officials in Washington could authorize prosecutors to wield it. Only about 35 criminal cases have been filed under the law.
It prohibits anyone from disclosing trade secrets for economic benefit, and carries penalties in this case up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Although investigators acknowledge that Serebryany apparently didn't profit from the disclosures, the law bars giving away secrets for anyone else's economic benefit.
Re:Why 'Your Rights Online' Category (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you misunderstand the slashdot crowd. It's not that everyone here thinks they have the right to everything. The slashdot crowd is concerned about vague, overly-strict laws being used inappropriately. This incident is a possible (not certain, bet definately possible) example of such an issue.
Serebryany was accused of violating a law which prohibits stealing economic secrets for profit, or for the profit of those to whom the secrets are provided. Serebryany, however, did not profit from them, does not appear to expect to profit, and the websites do not appear to be profiting. This would seem to be the misapplication of a very strong law for the purpose of busting someone who has greatly pissed off a very large corporation but may only be guilty of a minor crime.
The greater issue is that if the government can get away with applying laws recklessly and arbitrarily then people whose jobs/lives/hobbies involve information or activities which might one day be injustly prosecuted may be in danger. This is rather worrisome to the slashdot crowd for obvious reasons.
Parts is parts (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, nothing really, because he didn't. Sam Colt did.
Other things Henry Ford didn't come up with include the car, the assembly line and mass production.
He was a strong believer in trade secrets though, and the sort of guy who wouldn't hire lawyer if you stole one from him. He was more inclined to hire a thug to beat your head in with a baseball bat.
He was also a primary participant in one of the longest, nastiest and expesive patent busting cases in American history.
Go figure.
KFG
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Security though obscurity (Score:2, Interesting)
Another classic example of how security through obscurity doesn't work. It's only as strong as your weakest link!
How much must a company lose before it realizes it should work smarter not harder?
Re:Security though obscurity (Score:3, Interesting)
But inno way does this have anything to do with security through obscurity...why would you think it does?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (Score:2)
Go grind your axe somewhere else.
The weakest link in security (Score:5, Interesting)
I've followed DirecTv's skirmishes with hackers for a few years and have always believed that Dave's (DirecTV / NDS) house of cards would crumble from the inside. It's simply a matter of how many people have access to the keys.
Yea, and? (Score:5, Insightful)
Serebryany obtained the documents while working part-time at a law firm in California that performed legal work for DirecTV.
I'm -sure- they had to have had a non-disclosure agreement in place, especially working with a law firm. They guy broke the law and stole coroprate trade secrets. He should be arrested.
Now if he'd bought himself a DirecTV receiver and reverse-engineered the thing himself, and then got arrested, I'd scream "foul!". But come on... this is no Dmitry Skylarov case. This sounds like a case working the way the law should work.
-S
Since when... (Score:2)
Since 1996 (Score:2)
Re:Yea, and? (Score:2)
If it's an NDA issue, then deal with it via breach of contract.
I think that the guy should be arrested, as what he did was wrong, but I worry that this law is not the one he broke.
This is good (Score:2, Redundant)
Listen people. You do the crime, you do the time. Would we be whining if he was arrested for stealing DirecTV's CEO's car? How about their money? Why are these documents any different?
Re:This is good (Score:5, Insightful)
If 5 years from now, cars became so computer controlled that you could literally hack into them and steal them, then drive them remotely, and some guy did this, it shames me to say that it would make a YRO article and we would be called to arms to defend this obvious victim from the slings and arrows of the cruel and unjust American justice system.
Re:This is good (Score:2)
So he probably had a non-disclosure agreement that he broke. Breach of contract. Trafficking stolen goods. Even without the Corporate Espionage charge, he'd be in a bit of shit.
TEH INFROMASHUN WANST TO BE FERE!!!1 (Score:2)
Re:This is good (Score:2)
Fry him (Score:4, Redundant)
Since he obtained the documents working for a law firm, and I have a hard time believing a law firm wouldn't make an employee sign an NDA, this guy should fry.
No sympathy for those that distribute trade secrets. Intellectual property is far too valuable to ignore cases like this.
My 2.5 cents.
Re:Fry him (Score:5, Informative)
For those of you with no knowledge of american culture.. "Fry him" often just means "send him up the creek". Calm down kids.
Re:Fry him (Score:5, Informative)
To anyone still confused: in this case, it's likely that the original poster simply meant that the justice system should show the alleged stealer of secrets no mercy--that they should prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law. It's doubtful that the original poster meant that they should electrocute the alleged thief.
Re:Fry him (Score:4, Funny)
But if the original poster were a member of the RIAA, it would be a completely different story.
Wish I could afford to buy laws like that.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Reading a (slightly dated) article [bc.edu] on the legislation being used to prosecute him, I'm not even convinced that requirements of intent are met in this case. Who was he hoping to provide economic benefit to? Do the satellite hackers sell mod chips?
Re:Wish I could afford to buy laws like that.... (Score:2)
Obvious economic benefit (Score:2)
Re:Obvious economic benefit (Score:3)
I think even the argument that the satellite companies are harmed by lost revenue is stronger.
What??? (Score:2)
This is illegal anywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
What's funny is that Slashdot is reporting this as a YRO article... I'm pretty sure industrial espionage isn't on anyone's list of rights...
Re:This is illegal anywhere (Score:2)
Hehheh
There are a number of people who are hostile to intellectual property in any form, until it bited them. "Information just wants to be free" is like "you can't legislate morality" -- sounds nice, but carried to the extreme it's absurd. The legislation jingle could be intelligently limited to private, consensual acts; and the first? Well, that's a hot issue, but it should be easy here. Where the secret-holder doesn't want to share -- do you then have a right to break in? Maybe if you steal without disturbing anything?
I'm amused that a 19 y.o. is suddenly a "kid." Because he can't drink?
Re:This is illegal anywhere (Score:4, Funny)
You're new here, aren't you?
Information wants to be stolen.
I will now prepare for my first flamebait mod.
Profit? (Score:2, Insightful)
The government needs to find the answer to #2 if they want to prosecute him under that law. Now, they could wait until modified chips start be sold assuming the information he took actually helps such a device to be created. Even if it could, how could they have enough proof to say that the circumvention device actually benefited from his leaked information? Innocent until proven guilty. At least, that's the way it's supposed to work.
not entirely correct... (Score:3, Informative)
here's the statutory goodness...
1831. Economic espionage
(a) In General.-- Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly--
(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains a trade secret:
(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys a trade secret:
(3) receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization:
(4) attempts to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3); or
(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (4), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of conspiracy.
shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.
(b) ORGANIZATIONS.- Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $10,000,000.
Take a deep breath and read the story.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy *worked* for a legal company that had access to sensitive company documents. He *stole* the documents, then released them to the underground web sites.
This was not some clever hacker sitting in a basement and figuring a bunch of stuff out with a soldering iron in one hand and scope probes in the other.
How would you feel if some clerk at your university office did the same thing with your class transcripts? Some waiter posted your charge card number? Some guy at the help desk of your ISP sold your email account and password to a company that writes spammer distribution programs?
There are legitimate issues with the DCMA and similar legislation and common law that *really need* to be hammered out. Waving guys like this around as "little guy getting stuck by the man" is the *worst* thing we can do for sensible legislation.
Re:Take a deep breath and read the story.... (Score:3, Insightful)
This was not some clever hacker sitting in a basement and figuring a bunch of stuff out with a soldering iron in one hand and scope probes in the other.
What is illegal is that he obtained this information that is a trade secret of DirectTV. The fact that he obtained the information from a legal firm is not at issue - or he would be sued in civil court in breach of his NDA, not find himself in criminal court on industrial espionage charges.
Why does the mechanism by which he obtained those secrets important? Do you really believe that because it is done by a hacker this somehow magically makes it okay? What exactly makes obtaining trade secrets through reverse engineering alright, but doing so by reading documents in a lawyer's office illegal? It is the fact that he obtained and published the secrets that is wrong, not the manner by which he aqcuired them.
Re:Take a deep breath and read the story.... (Score:2)
Re:Take a deep breath and read the story.... (Score:3, Informative)
The same thing that makes trade secrets a valid method of Intellectual Property protection only until the secret is disclosed. Once word about a trade secret is out you have no legal recourse. Presumably if the information were worthy of legal protection, the company that 'owned' it would get a patent on it. Since they did not, the information is only proprietary to them until somebody else figures it out. If somebody else discovers the secret through reverse engineering, the company the trade secret no longer has any legal protection. Even in this case, DirecTV can prosecute this guy, but afterward they are still without their trade secret. The prosecution will be for how he obtained and distributed it, not that he obtained and distributed it. It's not the knowledge or the distribution of the knowledge that makes this illegal, but solely the method through which the knowledge was obtained that makes it illegal.
What is illegal is that he obtained this information that is a trade secret of DirectTV.
This is where you were misguided. The only thing that protects a trade secret is that it's a secret. Once the secret is out there's no more protection. If the secret gets out because DirecTV implemented said secret and sold the product on the market than all that's protecting the secret is the obcurity of their implementation. It's perfectly legal to try and figure out how something you own works, and once you know how it works the trade secret isn't a secret anymore.
damn sat pirates . . . (Score:2)
good to see this defined as what it is, not DMCA.
fact is, they are very clearly breaking the law, very deliberately, and they make a considerable sum doing so. the one i knew, earned about 50k in a year. i am glad the asshole is not part of my life anymore. a real pathetic schmuck too, so worried about IRS that he spent it all on toys (stereo, new machines) and strippers, then sat around and said he couldn't afford rent, or couldn't find a job because he was just unemployed and not reporting his Stolen income. he was 27 at the time.
sad to see a 19 yo kid getting stomped on. 19 yo kids just see the law as something to break anyway.
I give up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I give up. (Score:2)
(some) Republicans hate Russians... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a Republican who loves Russia. I lived in Russia for two years after high school and graduated with a degree in Russian.
As far as this case goes, it's going to be a difficult one for both the prosecutors and the defenders. In order for the prosecution to win, they'll have to prove that Igor Serebryany was trying to steal secrets for his, or someone else's profit.
It seems that the Corporations would have had a better case by going after the law firm that breached a contractual relationship of trust. Bringing the feds in was not the best move. Igor will not finish his education here, even if he wins the case, and that is the really sucky part of this whole deal.
How does this suck again? (Score:2)
Is this why I got a new directivo card in the mail (Score:2)
What I want to know (Score:2)
Seriously though, this may hurt anyone under the age of 25 trying to get a job outside the
nationality (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:nationality (Score:2)
DirecTV and me (Score:3, Interesting)
What I do isn't in the moral good-books, but I can't imagine paying for the piles of crappy programming that are offered by DirectTV or the Canadian equivilants -- I watch the NHL games the the occasional movie, and would pay a reasonable fee to do it above-board, but I can't seriously imagine shelling out hundreds per month to do it.
FYI -- Canadians CAN'T subscribe to DirectTV due to Canadian laws, as the government feels that we should be using the alternatives in our own country. However that doesn't stop a wackload of people from watching "grey-market" TV -- it isn't illegal, but you can't actually legally subscribe to it. It's really a very strange situation.
My Rights online? (Score:2)
Guy deserves to go to jail, plain and simple. No rights have been violated other than DirecTV's and the law firms.
Big Discrepancy (Score:5, Interesting)
Sometimes it helps to search [google.com] for alternative versions of the story.
Maybe we're not all nuts here (Score:2, Insightful)
My beef is... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it was industrial espionage, yes he deserves to go to jail, etc. etc., but all he had to do was to sit on the information for a few months until his job expired and then release it through an anonymous remailer in Norway.
As a guy sitting in Canada, who is not allowed to subscribe to Direct TV, we have to pirate it to watch the Sopranos on HBO. And it annoys me that this guy could have been of huge assistance if he just held things close to his chest and then released them after a few months when he was long gone from the firm.
By the way, for those who care: the Canadian government originally said that Canadians could watch Direct tv all they wanted because DTV didn't have a licence to broadcast here. Now the supreme court has said "Nope" because although they don't have a licence here, it's "wrong" but we still aren't allowed to subscribe because DTV doesn't have sufficient Canadian contend.
So now approximately 200,000 Canadians have been made criminals in one stroke of a pen.
Re:My beef is... (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot of people might say 'yeah, they say that, but...', and to them I say, if you've lived where I've lived, you'd know that it's impossible to NOT see DirectTV dishes all over the place, from public property, and the RCMP could be throwing fines left and right. Despite this, no one's said a thing. Curious, no? This is just the Supreme Court defending the local broadcasters (Starchoice/Bell) in principle, and encouraging people to support local (national) business, but nothing more.
--Dan
Nobody makes the Robin Hood argument here? (Score:5, Interesting)
Lots of people are saying "He broke the law, so fry him", but you don't really mean that, because the consensus around here is that some folks who break some laws (i.e. bad laws, laws we don't like) are heroes who don't deserve frying. But this law is a law preventing theft, and since we all agree that theft is bad, and we don't want our stuff stolen, we basically like this law.
But in this case, what he stole was a description of technology that is going to be used to stifle the flow of information. Somebody could argue that this property doesn't deserve to be protected from theft, and that anybody who steals from the information-rich to give to the information-poor doesn't deserve to be punished.
If this doesn't prove that the law is bad in general, it proves that this application of this law is protecting an unjust institutionalized system of information as property, when information isn't and shouldn't be treated as property.
If you treat this as an act of civil disobedience, in the style of MLK, then let the system arrest and punish the guy, so that the system reveals its own injustice to anybody who happens to be watching.
I'm not sure I buy it myself, but I think it is a serious argument to consider, and so I'll throw it out there, since nobody else seems to be.
Re:Nobody makes the Robin Hood argument here? (Score:3, Interesting)
DirecTV and EchoStar pay a hefty sum annually to the FCC for the right to broadcast in that spectrum. It is not being "stolen". It's being regulated. Get it right.
Since both DirecTV and EchoStar do minimal (if any) sell through advertising, and finance most of the cost of buying systems, they have no revenue stream if they don't charge for the use of their service. Don't want to pay? Then don't use the service. It's not being forced on you, and it's but one of several options you have for television -- including the choice of opting out entirely.
For those interested (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of these people are ligit suscribers to DirecTV service. They see this as a game, release files to the public and see what Dave counters with. Its your typical hacker scene, more about bragging rights than free TV.
That is not to say it hasnt caused a black market to spring up. There are lots of scammers out there trying to rip people off. Just search eBay or Google for HU 3m some time.
kids today (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing New About Criminal Trade Secrecy Laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Usually, DA's have better things to do than to prosecute causes for which civil remedies provide adequate deterrence, relying instead on the private actions to keep honest folks honest. But every now and then, civil remedies fail to adequately encourage good behavior -- particularly when the defendant is effectively judgment-proof -- and a state attorney may decide to try to get someone's attention.
At any rate, the Economic Espionage Act is simply a Federal law against theft of trade secrets. The remedies are tougher than most analogous state laws, but so are the reqirements. No doubt, the language is somewhat different from uniform acts, but it is hardly anything new or special -- and chances are that if it weren't applicable, one or more state laws would also be relevant.
Here's why this may be about your rights... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is about the disclosure of a trade secret by an employee of an employee of a company being prosecuted as if it were an act of industrial espionage by a person employed by a foreign power in order to harm the U.S. industrial base relative to foreign competition.
There are several problems here:
1) We don't know if he had legal access to these documents, prior to the disclosure, in the course of his normal work responsibilities, as assigned by his employer.
2) We don't know if he's the original discloser, or if, assuming he did *not* have legitimate access, the original discloser was someone who left a CDROM sitting in the lunch room, instead of maintaining physical control over the information, as required by due dilligence... making them the discloser.
3) Trade Secrets have no constitutional protection. This is on purpose. To obtain constitutional protection, you have to file a patent, and agree to lose that protection after the patent expires. The lack of protection is intentional, to encourage disclosure.
If he went out of his way to steal the documents, that's one thing. If it's simple disclosure, however. which seems likely, then the amount of recourse is (intentionally) limited to damages to the company, recoverable from him personally.
In any case, now that the information is disclosed, it's disclosed: it's in the public domain. The company has the right (in the U.S.) to file patent, up to a year following first public disclosure. Foreign patents, except for Japan, are now impossible -- if they weren't imposssible as software patents everywhere else (except Japan, again), anyway.
Personally, I doubt he had to violate the law to obtain the information, and I doubt that he profitted from the disclosure, and I doubt foreign companies will profit from the disclosure. So this is a likely an attempt to bludgeon him for the disclosure, using an inappropriate law.
On the other hand, it's likely that no one will hire him for an NDA position, ever again, even if he didn't violate NDA through the disclosure (by being a person who picked up a CDROM that was not dilligently stored or protected by someone else). That's as it should be.
In any case...
The reason that makes this about your rights, is that Trade Secrets are not Constitutionally entitled to the level of preotection that is being attempted to be enforced in this case.
We should be wary of any attempts to increase legal protections for Trade Secrets, without some benefit to society, in trade (and that's what Patents and Copyrights are intended to do). Permitting a company to obtain (in effect) patent protection without the disclosure required for patent protection is simply wrong.
-- Terry
Re:How did he get the docs? (Score:4, Informative)
RTFA!
"Serebryany obtained the documents while working part-time at a law firm in California that performed legal work for DirecTV."
Re:How did he get the docs? (Score:2)
"Serebryany obtained the documents while working part-time at a law firm in California that performed legal work for DirecTV."
Re:How did he get the docs? (Score:2, Funny)
Mitnick cracked their system, stole the docs, but they were in e-book format, so he used Slyarov's software to decrypt it.
Re:How did he get the docs? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only issue is which law he was arrested for breaking. It is the toughest of such laws and is meant for people that take these actions with the intention of monetary benefit. He didn't benefit monetarily. However, the law apparently also says that you can't give trade secrets to anyone else that will benefit from them monetarily either. So there is the assumption that he gave it to people that will use it for monetary benefit.
He broke a law and deserves to be arrested. Did they choose the right law? That's for a jury to decide.
Re:not getting any sympathy from me (Score:2)
What if he stole the book?
Re:Our legal system... (Score:2)
So we only lock people up when they are intelligent? What fantasy land are you living in? He committed a crime, period, whether he's a nice guy is irrelevant.
An aplogist for every situation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless he's brain damaged, I'd have to assume that he knew exactly what he was doing.
Re:Our legal system... (Score:2)
Re:Our legal system... (Score:2)
I suspect he had full knowledge of the fact that what he was doing was wrong and against the law. Sure, he's only 19 and God knows a 19 year old male's cup o' common sense does not runneth over, but this does not mean that he should be let off the hook, or granted leniancy even. If that were the case then why not change the law to allow for people below the age of 21 to be tried as children? He took a chance with something and failed, I have to assume that someone working at a lawfirm would have some clue of the potential repercussions...
Re:holy crow...(and I don't mean Brandon Lee) (Score:3, Informative)
The HU cards still work and the P4 cards are still relatively rare (they've been around for ~6 months, but only come with really new recievers or in the mail if your HU card gets fried), so there hasn't been much time spent on cracking them yet. If it seems like they're going to turn off the HU data stream, you can bet your ass that some hotshot DirecTV cracker out there would figure out how to crack the P4 stuff.