Topic 'Re: The Greedy Hacker' in forum '' - dslreports.com

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:47:39 EDT

funny posted :

The hacker claimed he did it because he hated greedy corporations. If that was true he would have given aways his tips and tools for free. It seems he was as greedy as those he accused. And he should lookout for the IRS - he better have reported his income or they will make his life a hell for long after he gets done with his jail sentence.

you mean like this
»uha1.com/CHRONOSS/TESTDESIGN/archives3

and how about those hackers i hear they dont like romney or obama....
gee wonder how i know that....
and gee aint it great having free health care in canada....
if i were you i'd oppose that one......too...

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 23:08:32 EDT

aciddrink posted : lol I was imagining a residential street when I typed that, not a highway.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 17:55:29 EDT

anon posted : There was a time when the courts and just about everyone else said that woman couldn't vote or that the ownership of slaves was legal. Just because a judge ruled does not make it acceptable or right? Laws must change when they are no longer valid in society. Not knowing the "details" of this case, it seems to smack of first amendment rights to free speech. The hacker only provided "information". The big money boys made it happen(the conviction). Its the 21st Century "Golden Rule" Those who got the gold make the rules at play here.I personally doubt if this would evr get to the Supreme Court because too much money is behind it. All the Supreme Court has to do is say we're not allowing htis to be brought to the Court for judgement- end of story-come back when you have something taht we can/will approve to rule on.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 17:55:23 EDT

anon posted : If he actually sold hacked modems that was the property of the cable company then it's a different situation or If he sold modems he owned and modified then provided the information on how to use said devices to steal services he's in trouble as an accessory to a crime. This where he ran into trouble in my opinion along with charging for said hacked modems and information- he was profiting from items and information that reasonable could be expected to defraud a cable company.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 15:14:26 EDT

pog posted :

said by NormanS:

I expect that this case hinged on whether the publications just explained "how", or actively encouraged criminal behavior.

According to the indictment, he sold 5 already-hacked modems to an FBI agent. Under his own alias on his forum, he also solicited valid customer MACs that others sniffed using his software and hinted he would pay for this info.
--
My Site

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:47:57 EDT

Simba7 posted :

said by RR Conductor:

I consider it stupid and reckless, and I hope anybody going that fast gets tickted heavily and/or lands in jail. The highways are NOT your personal speedway.

The speed limit was "Reasonable and Prudant" here 15 years ago for a few years. It was fun while it lasted and most people driving that fast drove rather well.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:34:24 EDT

IllIlIlllIll posted :

said by Simba7:

Truthfully, the only reason I'd hack my cable modem is for SNMP access for Cacti. That way I can properly monitor signal levels, bandwidth, and errors without having to rely on the web interface.

..now if the Cable Companies would allow SNMP read-only, I wouldn't have an issue.

the older docsis 2 cable modem i had did have some read-only snmp access with most parts having write access.
this worked quite well with solarwinds broadband tools as well as allowing me to change certain parameters to fit the style i desired.
these changes however were moot if the modem received a forced upgrade or a power cycle, the parameters would have to be set again.
--
Suffolk County NY Police Feed - »www.scpdny.com
PS3 Gaming Feed - »www.livestream.com/elitedata

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:58:18 EDT

zerog posted : is this like a time-domain reflectometer?

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 06:25:54 EDT

RR Conductor posted :

said by Omega:

said by aciddrink:

said by IllIlIlllIll:

a 60 second test for proof of concept is the same as someone doing 90 MPH on a 55 MPH for 60 seconds.

Because testing for proof of concept gives the same adrenaline rush as cruising down a road at 90mph.

You consider 90mph an adrenaline rush? I consider it being 3mph faster than my normal cruising speed.

I consider it stupid and reckless, and I hope anybody going that fast gets tickted heavily and/or lands in jail. The highways are NOT your personal speedway.
--
»www.amtrak.com
»www.freightrailworks.org
»www.isu.edu
»www.nwprr.net
»www.amtrakcalifornia.com
»www.cahighspeedrail.gov

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sun, 01 Jul 2012 23:21:59 EDT

NormanS posted :

said by not :

Wait, so if I tell someone how to commit a crime and that crime happens I'm not guilty as an accessory to that crime? lol OK. Try and get out of that one in a court of law. :uhh:

There is a world of difference between telling someone how to commit a crime (every author of detective stories does that!) and encouraging, or otherwise inciting criminal acts.

I expect that this case hinged on whether the publications just explained "how", or actively encouraged criminal behavior.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sun, 01 Jul 2012 23:17:47 EDT

NormanS posted :

said by not :

Sure, you can argue all you want about certain things and while certain Constitutional rights are given to you

Not one single Constitutional right has been "given" to one single person. From the Declaration of Independence:

quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ...

The U.S. Constitution grants powers of state to the government, not rights to the people.

... they are also taken away with small statues to those rights via local/state/federal laws.

Most statutes balance my right to pursue happiness against your right to life and liberty.

It is what it is... I don't like it either, but trust me when I say this. If someone wants to convict you of something, you WILL be convicted of it, no matter how much you think it was legal or not. Unfortunately, that's the new way of the law. The best thing you can do is stay within your legal written rights based on where you are. I don't like it, but that's what it has come to and as a single person I'm not going to jeopardize my own well-being by taking a stand against it. All that does is land your singular ass in jail. Thanks, but no thanks...

So you would not have joined die Wei�e Rose?

This guy made millions of dollars from selling information that lead or could lead to illegal actions by others. Someone wanted to shut him down and make an example of... that's what happened. I'm pretty sure there's law somewhere written that allowed this to happen or could be interpreted in such a manner as to allow this to happen. Read the court papers on it if you doubt this.

No doubt; just as German law made an example of the key figures of die Wei�e Rose.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sun, 01 Jul 2012 22:50:09 EDT

anon posted :

said by Nightfall:

Read the indictment. It really is surprising he got 3 years in jail for publishing how to hack a cable modem, providing support to people who were hacking their cable modems, and selling that material to people. In the end, he was just providing information.

I am really surprised he got 3 years. I bet his lawyer sucked a big one.

Wait, so if I tell someone how to commit a crime and that crime happens I'm not guilty as an accessory to that crime? lol OK. Try and get out of that one in a court of law. :uhh:

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sun, 01 Jul 2012 22:49:17 EDT

anon posted : It's not about what is perceived as legal and what is not. Like it or not, some thing (while not written as law in such details ways) is still convictable each and every day. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be reading this story. Either this guy had an idiot for a lawyer or the judge (while upholding the written law) still found something to convict about. The law is bent each and every day by both those that are criminals and those that are in law enforcement. Sure, you can argue all you want about certain things and while certain Constitutional rights are given to you, they are also taken away with small statues to those rights via local/state/federal laws. It is what it is... I don't like it either, but trust me when I say this. If someone wants to convict you of something, you WILL be convicted of it, no matter how much you think it was legal or not. Unfortunately, that's the new way of the law. The best thing you can do is stay within your legal written rights based on where you are. I don't like it, but that's what it has come to and as a single person I'm not going to jeopardize my own well-being by taking a stand against it. All that does is land your singular ass in jail. Thanks, but no thanks...

This guy made millions of dollars from selling information that lead or could lead to illegal actions by others. Someone wanted to shut him down and make an example of... that's what happened. I'm pretty sure there's law somewhere written that allowed this to happen or could be interpreted in such a manner as to allow this to happen. Read the court papers on it if you doubt this.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sun, 01 Jul 2012 17:47:22 EDT

Montezuma posted :

said by not :

said by NormanS:

So if I sell locksmith tools, or firearms I am offering criminal tools as a business?

No, but if you were selling tools and instructions on how to make guns full automatics, that would land you in jail. Learn to give proper analogies if you're going to do it. He was charged with selling ILLEGAL things. That's the crime here. Really even giving away ILLEGAL things is against the law, but in this case since he made .5 to 1 million + in profits doing this, it looked even worse to the judge.

You obviously do not understand how the law works. Selling information on converting semi-automatic firearms to select fire or full automatic is not only not a crime, but it is protected by the First Amendment. Selling parts to convert firearms from semiautomatic to select fire, or full automatic(there is a difference) is also completely legal. The problem comes when someone that has not paid his or her SOT(Special Occupation Tax, which is $500 for those selling less than $500,000 in merchandise and $1,000 for selling over $500,000 in merchandise), in addition to having a FFL(Federal Firearms License) converts a semiautomatic firearm to select fire, or full automatic. Of course, there are other requirements, but that covers the general issues and it is only important to those that are in the business. Still, the information(the correct information) is freely available.

There is a "constructive intent" heading in the ATF's regulations, but that requires one to meet certain criteria. Having the instructions and/or the parts alone, or selling those items, is not covered by that. Oh, but, by all means, continue spreading the damned lies you are attempting to spread here. I will make sure I am around to make you look as dumb as you actually are.

As far as this case is concerned, I believe the conviction to be wrong. Selling information should never be wrong. Mr. Harris was not forcing people to se the information he provided.

You might enjoy having government telling you what you can and cannot know, but I don't. I can promise you that I have more people on my side than you do on your side.

Now, I am going to go back to gathering information about converting firearms and hacking cable "modems".

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sun, 01 Jul 2012 16:15:46 EDT

NormanS posted :

said by not :

Nothing wrong with my analogy: Show me the criminal statute which makes it illegal to sell information about making autofiring weapons.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sun, 01 Jul 2012 15:55:26 EDT

anon posted :

said by NormanS:

So if I sell locksmith tools, or firearms I am offering criminal tools as a business?

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:41:46 EDT

Omega posted :

said by aciddrink:

said by IllIlIlllIll:

a 60 second test for proof of concept is the same as someone doing 90 MPH on a 55 MPH for 60 seconds.

Because testing for proof of concept gives the same adrenaline rush as cruising down a road at 90mph.

You consider 90mph an adrenaline rush? I consider it being 3mph faster than my normal cruising speed.
--
What smells like blue?

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sun, 01 Jul 2012 12:53:47 EDT

Simba7 posted : Truthfully, the only reason I'd hack my cable modem is for SNMP access for Cacti. That way I can properly monitor signal levels, bandwidth, and errors without having to rely on the web interface.

..now if the Cable Companies would allow SNMP read-only, I wouldn't have an issue.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sun, 01 Jul 2012 11:12:30 EDT

BiggA posted : That's actually a good point. And the cable companies can obviously manage it from their end anyways, as Comcast does it that way now.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sun, 01 Jul 2012 10:27:13 EDT

Nightfall posted :

said by Linklist:

said by r81984:

This case is about if someone writing books, posting on internet forums, and writing software that COULD be used for illegal activity is protected by the constitution or not.
I say it is clearly free speech.

And almost everyone else and the courts say you are wrong.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 23:00:08 EDT

aaronwt posted :

said by aciddrink:

said by IllIlIlllIll:

a 60 second test for proof of concept is the same as someone doing 90 MPH on a 55 MPH for 60 seconds.

Because testing for proof of concept gives the same adrenaline rush as cruising down a road at 90mph.

Which is zero adrenaline rush.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:49:22 EDT

NormanS posted :

said by pog:

So what is your solution? Only prosecute people who commit crimes? If we did that, why would we need judges or juries? Who gets to decide guilt then... police? prosecutors?

Joseph Dredd!!! :D
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:42:49 EDT

anon posted : You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:53:43 EDT

TechGeek191 posted : But I still make the argument that if the cable modem is leased to a subscriber that modem does belong to the cable company. Modifying it is against company policy and illegal.

Purchasing a separate modem is a completely different story however. But it is the intentional act of connecting it to the already active cable line by paying for a subscription service.

True, MAC address filtering is not security. The cable network worked fine if everyone used their company owned or customer modem as the cable company originally intended.

Basically these hacked modems are designed to clone a MAC or use a MAC that has not been provision on the cable network and the CMTS allows it on the network to get internet connectivity.

There are other functions in the modem designed to get around BPI and certificates which authenticate modems for what they really should be as well as what config file it should be running.

Again, I have not read the book but I have an idea of who Ryan Harris is or was. He made it easy for anyone really to exploit the system that was put in place by the cable providers which was controlled by a device on customer property (but not necessarily owned by them in all cases). He did this with techniques he found and made it available for a price. That is really what the industry is all up in arms about.

Are they right, is he right? Opinions will vary but the law is incredibly twisted.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:51:43 EDT

pog posted :

said by r81984:

Because Harris exercised free speech in providing information only to his customers through books, online tutorials, and forum posts.

All the news articles I've read so far say that he also sold hacked modems. Are you saying this isn't true?

In the US you dont actually have to commit a crime, you only need to a prosecutor to convince a jury you did.

So what is your solution? Only prosecute people who commit crimes? If we did that, why would we need judges or juries? Who gets to decide guilt then... police? prosecutors?
--
My Site

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:41:37 EDT

ArrayList posted : to be fair, rocket launchers are fun as hell to shoot off. I'm all for legalizing rocket launchers for recreation.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:07:27 EDT

NormanS posted :

said by Linklist:

And almost everyone else and the courts say you are wrong.

"Everybody else" isn't necessarily right. Neither are the courts necessarily right.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 17:02:18 EDT

Linklist posted :

said by r81984:

And almost everyone else and the courts say you are wrong.
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:56:24 EDT

r81984 posted :

said by TechGeek191:

These are all valid points but...

When a company like Microsoft developed Windows they know its not 100% secure. It will have exploits. No system is 100% secure. What happens and what makes something illegal is intentionally breaching a security measure put in place.

What you are saying basically is if a hacker hacks into a bank and transfers funds into a private account for his/her personal gain its perfectly okay. Because the bank should have measures in place to know about it and either stop or reverse what just took place with no punishment to the hacker that hacked their way through the already secure measures already in place. That makes a lot of sense.

There have been arguments over using an "open" wifi network setup by a residential customer saying its illegal. Thats like leaving the front door open on a house and not expecting anyone to come in and raid the fridge or any other goodies in the house.

I do agree with the free speech claim. But he did exploit the network of his cable company and made it available to everyone. That might be what he is getting the book thrown at him for.

Just my 2 cents

Nope. Another case of scope creep to the argument.

-Harris did not hack, modify, exploit, or change anything owned by the cable company or anything on cable company property nor did he instruct anyone on how to hack, modify, exploit, or change anything owned by the cable company.
Your bank argument is completely different.

-Open wifi also makes no sense as any signal you pick up in public or private that approves you is fair game. Remember the AP has to approve your computer and if you use Open wifi you set your router to approve everyone.
That is completely different.

-Open door on a house. Completely different.

Remember Harris did not actually commit the crimes, his customers did.

The cable companies in these cases were sloppy. They left all the control of the connection up the end users equipment and their cable system would approve whatever settings the users had on the modem.
They had no security in place to control the connection from their end.
So when users changed settings on their own equipment (which is 100% legal) the cable company systems still approved the connections.

Also the same with the mac cloning. The cable companies system knew two mac addresses were on the network, but still approved both devices with the same mac address and allowed the connection.

MAC address filtering IS NOT security.
If you rely on customer owned equipment to regulate your network then you cant complain when the customer changes settings on their owned device.

Eitherway the case is not about if what the modem owners did was legal or not.
This case is about if someone writing books, posting on internet forums, and writing software that COULD be used for illegal activity is protected by the constitution or not.
I say it is clearly free speech.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:41:24 EDT

r81984 posted :

said by Linklist:

said by r81984:

That is why we should not get into the game of saying what devices that can be used for criminal activity are legal and what are not.
They all should be legal per the constitution, but if someone uses it for crime only the user should be prosecuted, not the manufacture or author.

The manufacture is not an accomplice or many industries can be shut down. The ruling is a dangerous ruling that opens up liability to authors and manufacturers.

Ridiculous argument. Under your theory, manufacturers should be able to sell rocket launchers, hand grenades, poison gas, flamethrowers to anyone who walks in off the street. Hey, it isn't their fault - it is the nut, criminal, or terrorist who is at fault. There is a reason that certain devices are not for sale to anyone and it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 1ST AMENDMENT.

Nope, you completely ignore what I wrote and are changing the subject.
Harris is protected in selling books that tell you how to commit crimes by the 1st amendment and he is protected just like arms manufactures are by selling hardware that can be used to commit crimes.

What you are talking about when it comes to weapons of war, our country regulates it to ensure it does not get into the hands of known bad guys. Completely different.
Im not talking about weapons of war or things that are a threat to national security. Remember you can still buy all kinds of guns/weapons and use them to commit crimes and the manufacture is not supposed to have any liability, but this ruling goes against that.
Your analogy is way off topic.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:51:07 EDT

TechGeek191 posted : These are all valid points but...

When a company like Microsoft developed Windows they know its not 100% secure. It will have exploits. No system is 100% secure. What happens and what makes something illegal is intentionally breaching a security measure put in place.

What you are saying basically is if a hacker hacks into a bank and transfers funds into a private account for his/her personal gain its perfectly okay. Because the bank should have measures in place to know about it and either stop or reverse what just took place with no punishment to the hacker that hacked their way through the already secure measures already in place. That makes a lot of sense.

There have been arguments over using an "open" wifi network setup by a residential customer saying its illegal. Thats like leaving the front door open on a house and not expecting anyone to come in and raid the fridge or any other goodies in the house.

I do agree with the free speech claim. But he did exploit the network of his cable company and made it available to everyone. That might be what he is getting the book thrown at him for.

Just my 2 cents

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:34:23 EDT

NormanS posted : In any case, rocket launchers, hand grenades, poison gas, flamethrowers aren't covered by the First Amendment.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:26:17 EDT

Linklist posted :

said by r81984:

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:18:33 EDT

r81984 posted : That is why we should not get into the game of saying what devices/texts that can be used for criminal activity are legal and what are not.
They all should be legal per the constitution, but if someone uses it for crime only the user should be prosecuted, not the manufacture or author.

The manufacture or author is not an accomplice or many industries can be shut down. The ruling is a dangerous ruling that opens up liability to authors and manufacturers.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:47:58 EDT

NormanS posted :

said by r81984:

Either way he committed no crime.
This verdict contradicts with free speech.

See my post about the sale of "criminal tools". Now consider the mitigating factors involved in the sale of locksmith tools (lockpicks) to locksmiths and of firearms to hunters and policemen (among others).

Consider also:

• My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
• When would it be appropriate to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater?

What are the mitigating factors, if any, in selling for profit information which facilitates criminal activity?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:46:18 EDT

burner50 posted :

said by IllIlIlllIll:

said by Goober:

Are you being serious??

a 60 second test for proof of concept is the same as someone doing 90 MPH on a 55 MPH for 60 seconds.
i dont know what "winrar's" comment was supposed to be sarcastic or what, but it surely was not necessary.

Not even close to being the same thing.
--
I'm tired of killing stupid people just trying to do my job and go home!

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:40:52 EDT

NormanS posted :

said by Kearnstd:

giving it away for free might have gotten him even as little as probation. charging for the tool made it clear he was offering theft of service tools as a business.

So if I sell locksmith tools, or firearms I am offering criminal tools as a business?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 13:14:12 EDT

Simba7 posted : ..wow.. Really?

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:51:06 EDT

Goober posted : As you wish. Debating this stuff with non-lawyers doesn't lead to anything good. I'm out.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:36:54 EDT

r81984 posted : A vague law that infringes on free speech, IS the kind of cases they hear. This argument says "supreme court" all over it.

The supreme court won't rule directly on the case, but they will rule on the argument of the case that the application of wire fraud to a situation of someone just selling things in accordance with free speech, but that person is not committing the illegal acts.

The courts and prosecutor will do everything to avoid going to the supreme court to ruin future use of a vague law, so on appeal I see him getting no jail time to shut him up.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:17:17 EDT

Goober posted : So that's how it works, huh?

I don't want to debate this to be honest. But you do realize that freedom of speech is not absolute and is subject to time, place and manner restrictions. And that there are many things that can be used for illegal purposes but can also be used for legal purposes. In those cases the harms and benefits are weighed.

This is not a Supreme court type case. They don't just take any silly old case. This will never be granted cert.
--
So it is a tax! Now what do you say, you lying sack of crap? Or would you prefer I just hand over my entire paycheck, jackass?

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 11:44:53 EDT

r81984 posted : Because Harris exercised free speech in providing information only to his customers through books, online tutorials, and forum posts.

He did not commit any of the acts (or even charged with that).
I also dont think they even prosecuted those that actually committed the acts, they went for the 1 guy who was not doing anything.

If this ruling is not overturned then every gun manufacture is screwed, any manufacture that makes something that could be used for illegal activity, and anyone that writes a book or forum post that could help someone do something illegal is screwed.
This ruling violates the guys right to free speech.

They literally based justification of the wire fraud law on twisting interpretation of previous rulings as the law just does not apply.
The previous rulings are not in the same context as what Harris did, especially if you know what a computer is.
Unfortunately this is one of those cases where you have a computer illiterate jury convicted a person of something that was not true.

In the US you dont actually have to commit a crime, you only need to a prosecutor to convince a jury you did.
The prosecutor knows when he has real evidence and knows when he is bullshitting. The sad part is a lot of dick hole prosecutors have no conscience as they could care less of getting someone convicted with bullshit evidence like in this case.

If it is not overturned on appeal, then the supreme court will overturn the application of wire fraud to a situation of someone just selling things in accordance with free speech.
I dont think the prosecutors or courts will want this to go to the supreme court as they know they will lose which will instantly stop them for misinterpreting the wire fraud laws in the future.
So they will reduce the sentence at the appeal to "no jail time" to get Harris to not appeal again to the supreme court.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:10:30 EDT

Goober posted : Actually, I think the court got it right. How do you get a freedom of speech argument out of this?

Historically the mail and wire fraud stautes have been given broad latitude in terms of scope. It's kind of like how the commerce clause is used (albeit the CC is given much broader latitude) for regulating things that don't seem commerce related on their face.
--
So it is a tax! Now what do you say, you lying sack of crap? Or would you prefer I just hand over my entire check, jackass?

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 02:22:51 EDT

r81984 posted : Either way he committed no crime.
This verdict contradicts with free speech.

The vague wire fraud statute was incorrectly applied to convict Harris as the courts have been bought by cable companies.
If only one computer/internet literate person was on the jury he never would have been convicted of anything.
»webcache.googleusercontent.com/s···nk&gl=us

1. Ryan Harris sold information and hardware, he did not force any of his customers to steal anything.
If this ruling is upheld then anyone that wrote a book on how to do something illegal is now responsible for what a reader does or any company that sold any piece of equipment that could be used for illegal activity (thats just really messed up and against free speech)
This HAS to be thrown out on appeal or will eventually be thrown out by the supreme court.

2. None of the "hacks" documented by Harris can be implemented without the cable company knowing about it.
The cable company can easily block cloned mac addresses and anything else the user has done on the users own modem.

3. The user owns the modem and can modify it if they want to. Again the cable company would be fully aware of a customer uncapping their modem and cloning a mac so they could block it at any time.
The cable company is always in control of the connection unless a "real" hacker comes along and gains access to their system and modifies the settings on the cable company's hardware.

4. If you want to ignore the cable companies responsibility to control its own network, then the courts can only go after Harris's customers who actually committed the acts.

The judge who ruled on this case should be fired for being so easily bought/bribed by cable companies.
I hope he enjoys his lifetime free tv and internet.
--
...brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:29:35 EDT

spewak posted : He might be able to find work in jail.... ;)
--

Romney equals Epic Fail!

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 23:46:26 EDT

Goober posted : You may or may not have been joking (hard to tell in text), but there are plenty on this website that genuinely would/do feel that way.
--
So it is a tax! Now what do you say, you lying sack of crap? Or would you prefer I just hand over my entire check, jackass?

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:09:44 EDT

iwinrar posted : indeed :D

I love how people take sarcastic comments :D

The internet is the most serious place in the world more so then even funerals.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 21:38:36 EDT

aciddrink posted :

said by IllIlIlllIll:

a 60 second test for proof of concept is the same as someone doing 90 MPH on a 55 MPH for 60 seconds.

Because testing for proof of concept gives the same adrenaline rush as cruising down a road at 90mph.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:16:27 EDT

BiggA posted : At least on Comcast, this wouldn't work anymore, as they are managing everything on the network side to do PowerBoost. Heck, they probably provision their modem uncapped anyways to get PowerBoost, and then throttle you back to your speed at the CMTS or higher up.

Re: The Greedy Hacker

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:59:26 EDT

DataRiker posted :

said by iwinrar:

I hope you get a year in jail for every second you were connected.

?

I guess people have just been conditioned to live in a police state. What a crazy statement.