17 Charged With Hacking Into Satellite TV; violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act...

Associated Press ^

[RoughDobermann]

Okay, but what you believe and what the law states are mutually exclusive. Wouldn't you agree? Go ahead and hack into Dish or DirecTV, get caught and try the "I don't believe that the law I broke is valid" argument...

[clamper1797]

That's not the point ... the point I was making is that the government should NOT be making laws that infringe on the usage of the public airwaves just so some company can make a buck. If a company wants to use the airwaves .... more power to them. If a company does not want people to view the content of their signal I BELIEVE it is THEIR duty to ensure that it is encrypted in such a way that an unauthorized user CAN NOT decode it. To me ... using the government to help them save a few bucks on encryption is unethical especially when it restricts me from seeing what I am being radiated with in MY own house. That use of government in that manner in my view makes the government a businss partner with the DTV industry. It is the PUBLICS airwaves and it is beamed into MY home. Passing laws that restrict my ability to view something in my home is repulsive to me.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

receive commercial programming without paying for it is theft

Wrong again. Read slowly, now. If someone broadcasts electromagnetic energy into the fabric of space, it is public property, period. I don't care if you call it commercial or not. The reason this is so is because I have no say so as to whether or not I recieve it. The signal falls on me whether I like it or not. To believe that I don't I have a right to do whatever I wish with it is just plain stupid. I suppose you believe it is possible for someone to own the air just because they make noises in it and have greased a few palms in Washington. Call it commercial all you want. If it's broadcast at everyone, it belongs to everyone.

[RoughDobermann]

Passing laws that restrict my ability to view something in my home is repulsive to me.

Become a customer and you can watch all you want. Don't like the law? Quit whining and do something to get it changed.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

By the way, no has responded to my question about posting nude photos on the internet, taken through peoples' clothing using the infrared radiation they broadcast to my property as they walk past my house. They don't even bother to encrypt their broadcast. It's part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and its falling on my property, so what's to stop me?

Posting photos on the internet is not the same activity as decoding and watching a signal. If you have camera that takes nude photos through clothes and you look at those photos in the privacy of your own home, there is absolutely nothing at all stopping you. I personally would not do it, nor would I condone it. But it is not at all the same thing as receiveing a televsion braodcast. Posting on the internet is akin to re-broadcasting. Also, light reflected off someone's body is a circumstance beyond that person's control. It is not the same thing as DTV's intentional, but not unavoidable, action of broadcasting.

[glennaro]

OK, now it's your turn to read carefully. Your logic, while sound, does not address the moral nor the legal reality: Decoding and receiving a proprietary signal, even if it's floating around in the free air, is wrong and illegal. In my opinion, it's stealing and I wouldn't do it.

I appreciate our civil discussion and have concluded that we're just not going to agree on this, my friend.

Regards, Glenn

[clamper1797]

sorry ... I'm not a sheeple

[RoughDobermann]

sorry ... I'm not a sheeple

Yes, actually you are. If you care so deeply about these laws, do something to get them changed. If you are, great. If not, you're just another blowhard.

[clamper1797]

Quit whining and do something to get it changed.

Who says I'm not

[eno_]

With the very large number of video cameras out on the market (before someone figured out you could use this not just for low-light shots) that can see through clothes, I expect this is no longer a hypothetical question.

[eno_]

Making a law unenforceable is one way to get it changed.

[eno_]

"fire in a crowded theater"

Soon it will be possible for anyone with a PDA/camera or cell-phone/camera combination to monitor people around them using face and speaker ID software. This will make it impossible for people like Whitey Bulger or Lon Horiouchi, to pick two provocative examples, to walk around without being detected.

Is it a crime to shout "Lon Horiouchi!" in a crowded gun show.

My opinon is that the more that people can snoop, the more they will snoop on government officials. No more anonymity. Some IR cameras could have unmasked the Elian raiders. I think this is a good thing.

[js1138]

light reflected off someone's body is a circumstance beyond that person's control.

No, it's not. We wear clothes to block the "visible" spectrum. One could make a case that failure to wear clothing that blocks IR is just as irresponsible as going naked.

My point is that the law only deals with a tiny percentage of lawbreaking. Society exists because most people follow, for the most part, the spirit of the law. Reading another person's broadcast when they have taken steps to prevent it is just a dirty, scummy thing to do. It marks a person as having an infantile sense of ethics.

Even if it were "legal" in the sense of being unenforceable.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

Your logic, while sound, does not address the moral nor the legal reality: Decoding and receiving a proprietary signal, even if it's floating around in the free air, is wrong and illegal

If sound logic does not address the legal and moral reality of a signal floating around in the free air, what would you propose we use? A system wherein monied interest buys influence to deprive people of their right? That's the system we have. Legal does not equal moral. No one has the right to claim ownership of something they beam out into space on the public airwaves. By doing so, they are claiming ownership of said public airwaves. THAT is immoral.

I appreciate our civil discussion and have concluded that we're just not going to agree on this, my friend.

I appreciate the discussion as well, even though I get a bit heated in the process. I do not watch DTV, nor do I care to. But I am personally trying to get these sort of laws changed. Unfortunately, once they are in place, they are almost impossible to repeal due to support from persons like yourself. Alas, it does seem we will never agree.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

Reading another person's broadcast when they have taken steps to prevent it is just a dirty, scummy thing to do. It marks a person as having an infantile sense of ethics.

Wrong. Believing you have a right to own the public airwaves and jail people who play with radio reception is a disgusting crime against humanity. Slobbering after and defending such dirtbag criminals is the pinhead thing to do. It marks a moron serf who has been programmed to believe anything he is told. I suppose you would have thought King George's stamp act was cool. After all, it was the law, you know.

[IncPen]

OK, you've posed a legitimate question... Regarding the issue of children, I imagine criminal aspects of the law regarding pedophilia would cover such a circumstance. If not I suppose we'll all be wearing lead-lined undies.

On this same subject, since you seem to feel that the signals are not in the public domain, let me ask this:

If my neighbor sets out a garden sprinkler and his water falls on my lawn, what if I benefit from that water?

Further, what if I buy seeds and plant them. Is he entitled to recompense because I've 'converted his water'? Suppose he didn't pay for the water-- suppose he just collected it from his downspouts? Or, suppose he paid for city water. What then?

And further still, what obligation do I have to notify or pay him for converting his water into crops if he's letting it fall willy-nilly in my yard?

Do you see the point here?

[js1138]

You pretend that playing with radio reception is just an intellectual hobby. If it is, I would bet you are in no danger. But to the extent that such playing results in products marketed to steal private broadcast signals, it is a criminal conspiracy.

My understanding of the case presented on this thread is that actual designs were copied and sold. If this is what the case is about, then it's common theft.

As for the Stamp Act, if the Americans had been represented in Parliament, then yes, I would say it was lawful.

One of the key tests of any law is whether it offends common sensibilities. Common people may be annoyed by having to pay for TV content, but I haven't seen any mass protest movement. The reason is that ordinary people can see that the content would disappear if everyone could bypass payment. Ethics is not difficult. Even children can do it.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

Reading another person's broadcast when they have taken steps to prevent it is just a dirty, scummy thing to do. It marks a person as having an infantile sense of ethics.

.mucs elitnafni uoy ,srallod noillim a em ewo uoY .stsop detpyrcne ym rof gnigrahc trats ot dediced ev'I

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

The reason is that ordinary people can see that the content would disappear if everyone could bypass payment. Ethics is not difficult. Even children can do it.

Gee, I wonder where all that TV and radio content I watched and listened to when I was a child studying ethics came from.

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

I should add that I didn't pay for any of that content