EFF Lands a Blow On DirecTV

An anonymous reader writes to alert us to a court win for the EFF in two cases in which DirecTV employed heavy-handed legal tactics to suppress security and computer science research into satellite and smart card technology. Here's the ruling (PDF) from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. From the announcement: "The cases, DirecTV v. Huynh and DirecTV v. Oliver, involved a provision of federal law prohibiting the 'assembly' or 'modification' of equipment designed to intercept satellite signals. DirecTV maintained that the provision should cover anyone who works with equipment designed for interception of their signals, regardless of their motivation or whether any interception occurs. But in a hearing earlier this year, EFF argued that the provision should apply only to entities that facilitate illegal interception by other people and not to those who simply tinker or use the equipment, such as researchers and others working to further scientific knowledge of the devices at issue."

Re:Scientific Knowledge?

[SydShamino]

You mean someone who buys a smart card writer/reader to develop a security system for their office, or to research voting systems, etc., but does not subscribe to cable or satellite, own a dish, or even watch TV, or own any box produced or distributed by DirectTV, is doing their work just to secretly hack cable? Because that's what this case was about - anyone who bought a smart card reader/writer anywhere in the country was threatened or taken to court by DirectTV.

I wasn't sure to mod you as troll for flamebait, or just plain clueless, so I figured a post would do more justice.

Re:Scientific Knowledge?

[onion2k]

There are no valid and legal uses for this information they are hacking the boxes to obtain.

Does there need to be any 'valid' reason? Who decides what's 'valid' and what isn't anyway? If they find it interesting and challenging to hack something that someone else has created isn't that reason enough? To some of us a locked box isn't a sign that you should keep away, we see it more as a challenge thrown down by the lock designer.

The legal aspect should be limited to what we do with the contents of said box once we're in. A law stating that we can't spend our free time doing what we find fun in case we misuse the proceeds of our exploits is ridiculous.

Re:Scientific Knowledge?

[chrpai]

What you are describing is the concept of `born secret` or `born classified`. It's real, and it's important but it doesn't really compare to the EFF v DirecTV issue IMHO.

Re:Isn't this sort of thing barred by the DMCA?

[Anonymous Coward]

That wouldn't be because they issue the most verdicts, would it?

Oh yeah, it would.

Re:[AC]Oh Come On.

[CyberLord Seven]

You were trying to be a smart-ass but you've hit on the fundamental problem with the DMCA. Cooperation is needed in all studies. Hell, even Einstein needed help with the geometry for Special Relativity.

The DMCA will stop the parent from sharing what he has learned about satellite (not necessarily DirecTV) encryption. It will also stop a colleague from sharing what he's learned. This is analogous to Einstein not being able to get help with non-Euclidean geometry. It stops research!

I've often thought a good defense against the DMCA would be the US constitution itself. You know, that part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If I cannot satisfy my curiosity because the DMCA blocks my natural need to share my discoveries, then it is unconstitutional.

Re:Scientific Knowledge?

[jedidiah]

Except these people are not busting into YOUR house they are busting into THEIR house.

Once you buy a thing, you own that thing. Busting into it becomes "equivalent" to busting into your own house and not someone elses.

Anything beyond that needs to be proven.

We have standards and procedures in this area for a reason.

Re:Scientific Knowledge?

[jedidiah]

> Oh, sure, not this particular researcher. He's clean as the windblown
> snow, without doubt, including nothing but honorable intentions.

THAT, is what you are required by law and national tradition to assume.

Anything else needs to be proven.

As an individual, assuming that someone is a thief and broadcasting that assumption is called libel/slander and you can be held legally liable for it.