Hacking DirecTV over TCP/IP using Linux 301
siliconshock writes: "It seems that you can now connect your Directv receiver to a Linux box and then using TCP/IP to connect accoss the Internet and emulate a valid DirecTV account enabling all channels.... Oh yea, and of course it open source :)
Full story. To dtv hackers this means that you dont have to have an access card at your physical location! It can be located accoss the country, or better yet in another country all together." This seems one more step toward the fabled digital convergence, too.
Do you not see that this is not helping our cause? (Score:5)
Re:This isn't hacking... (Score:5)
Please allow me to explain.
You see, regardless of your beliefs on DirecTV, DSS and the DMCA, we're NOT TALKING ABOUT THE USA. We're talking about Canada.
Canada doesn't have the DMCA on the books. And the DSS signal is probably being illegally broadcast in Canada, which, in case you didn't know, in outside the juris diction of the FCC. So in that respect the signal is fair game to those in Canada.
That simple fact and a couple of Canadian court rulings in favor of the DSS hackers buys a get-out-of-jail card north of the border.
So DirecTV is stealing usable frequency space in Canada, and the Canadians are happily stealing the broadcast feeds off those unlicensed signals.
That seems pretty darn fair.
Moreover, since the DMCA doesn't apply to Canadians. The Canadians *do* have more rights than Americans here. They can distribute any and all devices that circumvent any encryption scheme. Especially those illegal ones that happen to be broadcast over the boarder.
There's also a question of what actually constitutes "stealing". The Canadian hackers did not "deprive" the use of the DSS signal from the DirecTV satellite service. So "stealing" doesn't quite work here. A more accurate statement might be "It's Unauthorized Decryption". Yes it is. And it's also not illegal, at least in canada. But use of the term "theft" here makes one think of a far larger insidious deed than was perpetrated, While free TV is a legal possible outcome, under law, it is not "theft".
And the last thing you were wrong about is the hack itself. Yes, indeed, it's a damn fine hack. This wasn't some two-bit script kiddie reading some t-phile on how the interface worked, no this was a serious piece of reverse engineering. I'll refresh your memory here. A script kiddie, can't by definition write c code. Otherwise he'd be known as a c-kiddie or maybe a "1337" hacker.
So, in the future. Don't play loosey-goosey with the language. 'k?
Re:Painting a Bullseye (Score:2)
YES IT WILL (Score:2)
People are finding ways around the arcane protection that these companies think will protect them.
Soon there will be a day when everyone knows that bits are copyable, and the stream/data they combine to create can and will be twisted for individuals personal use. On that day someone will just give up and do the thing that should have been done from day one: keep information free; charge for extensions to that service, like... well stuff that hasn't been thought up yet.
In the meantime learn to program in your favorite language (or C if you don't have a favorite language) and start taking stuff apart, and adding bits to existing stuff. There's enough creative energy out there to create some really impressive stuff.
Re:Sure didn't look like "Open Source" to me... (Score:2)
If you'd like a copy of the source, I suggest you simply email the author and demand it. They have no right to withhold the source since they've used GPL'd code.
(This is, of course, assuming that they haven't negotiated an alternative license from the author of the original project.)
Re:Sure didn't look like "Open Source" to me... (Score:2)
It is a violation of the GPL for pitou to not be released using the GPL.
Re:Will be GPL (Score:2)
Well, if he's serious about releasing it when it gets out of beta, and if he has a reasonable criteria for that, it's OK. But "out of beta" could potentially mean anything, including "never".
It should also be noted that the GPL does NOT offer an exception for beta or pre-beta code. The GPL requires him to offer the source code for every binary release he does. From a legal point of view, it is not clear whether anyone other than the original author of the GPL'd code would have standing to force him to do it, though.
Of course, since I'm in the US I wouldn't be able to use it anyhow.
Re:How Long? (Score:2)
They still could *attempt* to bust him.
Re:Picking up radio with your teeth. (Score:2)
Re:a few thoughts... (Score:2)
One definition [dictionary.com] of theft is 'the act of stealing'. If you then look up stealing [dictionary.com], you find
To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
Seems like the owner of the intellectual property is being stolen from, if you ask me.
The creator or owner of the media should be compensated for the effort, time and money that went into creating it. To just ignore that is selfish in the extreme.
Oh, and I find your insinuation that those who consider copyright infringement theft are somehow Nazis utterly pathetic. People always seem to try and make a link to the Nazis whenever their argument is failing... ("Oh, Hitler was a vegetarian, you know..." etc.)
Re:a few thoughts... (Score:2)
a) They are stupid
or
b) Actually they do see things the same way as you, it's just that they pretend they don't for their own nefarious purposes.
P.S. If you really just wanted to pick someone who was well known for their use of propaganda, I hardly think Himmler was a good choice. I mean, if you asked people what Himmler was, are they going to say:
"A Nazi"
or
"A propagandist"
Re:How Long? (Score:2)
I mean, if you wanna break US law but are an American with a foothold in the state, don't whine when the feds go knocking at your door...
--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.
Re:This is THEFT (Score:4)
Suppose you lived in an apartment overlooking a baseball park and you could watch the games for free out your window while most people had to pay-per-view. Are you stealing? "The media" would say so since they have a vested interest in pay-per-view.
How about if you took videos of the game from your window and put them on your website. I'll bet "the media" have already bought laws making that illegal.
Are you old enough to remember when people would say "It's a free country" and they weren't being sarcastic?
Re:Painting a Bullseye (Score:4)
No one EVER learns, do they? Or maybe it's just all in fun. More power to both sides, it's been interesting from the sidelines from the get-go.
Re:a few thoughts... (Score:4)
Why this is legal in Canada (Score:5)
there's semi-draconian media laws in Canada set up to prevent Canadian media from being overrun by the U.S media conglomerates. problematic implimentation in places, but i certainly understand the sentiment.
one of the laws is that foreign sattelite broadcasters cannot sell their services in Canada. a judge ruled that since DirecTV's service was unable to be sold in Canada, it therefore had no fair market value. and since something that is valueless cannot be stolen, it's OK to watch DirecTV in Canada for free.
DirecTV can bring up charges against Canadian individuals for violating laws in the United States, but they're not likely to prosecute them unless they come over the border.
This information I learned from speaking to one of the techie higherups at DirecTV.
DirectV could take advantage of this? (Score:2)
Maybe even have a solution where you get the key on the satillite signal, which gets combined with the unit's serial number and then checked at the central - okay this probably wouldn't work but there is an idea trying to break out, it just a little late to be thinking straight.
Re:Painting a Bullseye (Score:2)
Old argument, new context. There is legal precident against what you just said. For years people have tried to use the, "The signals are being beamed at me, I have a right to know what is passing through my body." defense when they get busted for using a radar detector in a state (VA, CN, etc...) where they are illegal. The defense doesn't work.
Re:How is that sensible? (Score:2)
I do not think that means what you think it means. (Score:2)
Don't you think that is a tad perjorative?
Why not say "piracy"?
Why not say "pillage, rape, and plunder"?
Have you not been keeping up with the debate over property ownership vs. information ownership?
Been living in a cave for the past 20 years?
Or maybe you are just another troll
Cool hack? yes. But.. (Score:2)
Yes, people have always done this.. with old dishes it was with modems, before that, just codes faxed over.
I fully support doing cool hacks.. BUT...
This is blatantly 'how to steal DirecTV'. Silly.
Re:This is THEFT (Score:2)
We are *NOT* allowed to pay for it, and they are NOT allowed to sell it to us, in Canada, therefore, we aren't taking away from anyone's market share.
We are not allowed to buy it IF WE WANT TO. This has been the case with many satellite things in the past; it's not legal for those companies to market or sell their 'product' in canada; this is what makes satellite descrambling of American broadcasts a grey-market business. It's kind of illegal, in that there are laws about descrambling television broadcasts, but on the flip side, those companies cannot claim lost revenue or anything, as tehy are forbidden from selling here.
Actually.. (Score:2)
It is perfectly legal for us to have unblocked scanners that cover *any* frequencies. The same goes for most of the rest of the free world anyway.
When the cellular companies lobbied to have this chagned here, the CRTC and others said simply (and rightly so) 'the radio spectrum is a public resource, it belongs to the people. We only regulate who can transmit, that's it'
Go check out winradio.com, and look at their models. It's only the US that has to have certain frequencies 'blocked'.
Also, as Canadians, we are *not allowed* to buy direcTV. DirecTV is NOT ALLOWED to sell television to us, they have no license to broadcast in Canada. You are NOT subsidizing anything as a paying customer; we are not part of their marketshare, and not part of their business plan. There is no 'lost revenue', they don't even try to say there is any. They DO NOT CARE. We just happen to be able to pick up their programming.
Re-state post. (Score:2)
In the case of TV signal though, nothing has been 'taken away', and the only way, I believe, the company in question could show 'theft' is by showing lost profits. In this case, they have no license to sell or broadcast in Canada, therefore, there are no lost profits.
If you don't want us to receive your signals, don't send them into our country.
Re:Sure didn't look like "Open Source" to me... (Score:2)
1) ucsimm does not make it that obvious what license it is under. I had to hunt a bit. That's not an excuse, just a point.
2) It doesn't mean he now HAS to relase his code; it means he has to release it if he distributes this. He can always decide, upon reflection, that he does not like the terms of the GPL and stop distributing it.
3) What he is enabling people to do is legal where he is. It's hardly pircay when you can't buy it in the first place.
4) Exactly what does 'based on' mean? How much of it is based on? Are portions of the code GPL? Does he have permission from Daniel Drotos to do this? If so, the GPL is moot.
Also.. and you know, I know I'm asking for it here.
Regardless of how much we want it to, the GPL is still just a contract. Some people will ignore it. If they are a company, maybe we can do something. IF its' one rogue hacker, what are you gonna do? Sue him? Gimme a break.
Re:Digital convergence? What are you talking about (Score:2)
Theft is when you unlawfully deprive the owner of property.
In both of your cases, the company involved wasn't deprived of any property.
So it's not theft.
Now, hear me out. I'm not going to make a moral statement here (You can read my other posts if you wish to know my stance.) I'm merely correcting your use of the word.
These things may (or may not be, to you) morally wrong. That would make them
Nothing more, nothing less.
Re:Digital convergence? What are you talking about (Score:2)
Psychologists can say what they will, but it's obvious to anyone with a clue than only an idiot would take their morality from law. It's supposed to go the other way, public morality defines law.
Enjoy your stilted little life. I'm sure you'll follow all the UCITA rules... Make sure to never sell a copy of Windows, MS says you don't really own it. And never fast-forward through commercials on a DVD, even if you have one of the players which doesn't enforce that. After all, having that player is almost as good as stealing from the MPAA...
I've never understood how people like you could reconcile something being legal, and thus moral, for a period of time. Then, as soon as a law is passed against it, it suddenly becomes immoral. How exactly does that work? When the MPAA buys a few legislators, does that define universal morality?
Re:Raises a disturbing question (Score:2)
I only get about 500 channels of nothing.
One story and the Slashdot Drinking Game is OVER (Score:5)
DRINKING WORDS: Hacking, DirecTV, TCP/IP, Linux, emulate, Internet, open source, digital convergence, access card, and if you count compound words, Siliconshock, the submitter.
Gives "buzzwords" a whole new meaning.
Re:Sure didn't look like "Open Source" to me... (Score:2)
(c) decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed;
DirecTV (US) has no authority to allow, or disallow their signal from being decodedin Canada. They are not authorized to operate here. The current interpretation is based on the potential to authorize the signal. As long as there is NO potential authorization (noone to seek it from) it is not illegal to decode it. The laws intent was to protect broadcasters in Canada. And yes, Canadain courts do look at the intent of the law when necessary.
Re:Sure didn't look like "Open Source" to me... (Score:2)
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Sure didn't look like "Open Source" to me... (Score:5)
1. It's not stealing in Canada as DirecTV cannot be sold in Canada by law, and therefore has no "Fair Market Value". Something which has no value cannot be stolen and is therefore legal to circumvent.
2. The author is Canadian.
-- iCEBaLM
Re:cool (Score:2)
It is considered "fair use" because Canadian courts have taken the very sensible position that if you cannot buy the service in Canada then calling in "piracy" is meaningless.
Individuals could not record something and create a derivative work based on it. They can only *watch* the channels.
Depends if Canadian copyright law more closely follows that of the US or that of the UK...
Re:cool (Score:2)
Only if the Canadian courts agree. The issue with DirectTv isn't someone thinking it's possible it's an application of applicable case law.
Re:Protecting data (Score:2)
The analogy falls down. In that what broadcast companies are doing would be akin to pulling your property into the hands of very burglar.
It comes down to an issue of what is being sold, if they were to be seen as selling a service for decrypting their signal then another receiver is not "stealing". Looking at things this way the provider always have a commercial advantage, since they control the encryption. A bit like other applications trying to read MSOffice files.
Re:Sure didn't look like "Open Source" to me... (Score:2)
The link points not to a judgement so much as the judge saying "you are wasting my time". Also the "appeal" sounds more like an attempt at "judge shopping">
Re:Sure didn't look like "Open Source" to me... (Score:2)
The Canadian judiciary do not appear to find the laws perverse. Since the purpose of the laws appears to be to protect the interests of Canadians they can't be called "perverse" either.
Re:How Long? (Score:2)
So long also as you don't employ US citizens or open an office in the US. (Quite likely even if these are for a different area of your business.)
As a bonus (if I remember correctly), anything broadcast through the air (DirecTV for example) is pretty much open for exploitation here so it's perfectly legal to pirate satellite up her so far as I know.
So long as you cannot legally purchase the service in Canada. In which case the Canadian courts will prosecute. Also that you are not a citizen of anywhere which applies laws to its citizens extrateritorially (and cannot claim political asylum in Canada.)
Re:YES IT WILL (Score:2)
But we also have the "pass laws so people arn't allowed to use water to make things wet, unless we want them to"
People are finding ways around the arcane protection that these companies think will protect them.
The problem in quite a few cases is that the organisations concerned do not understand the basics of crypography.
Something like CSS is utterly unviable. The encryption is static (including keys) and the decryption mechanisms are freely available.
Encrypting a broadcast signal is more likely to work, since you can at least change the keys, possibly the algorithm. Sending them over the air isn't much good though. You really need a completly separate channel for updating keys, e.g. telephone, post, etc.
Even then the only real use of encryption is to make things so that it is cheaper for someone to buy a decryption service from the provider than employ cryptoanalysis
Re:Peer to peer (Score:2)
Except that a licence is an abstract entity, a card is a physical entity. There's no reason for there to have to be a 1:1 mapping of licences to cards.
Several licences can apply to one card.
Re:Digital convergence? What are you talking about (Score:2)
So what consumers have no obligation (at least in a capitalist) society to ensure that a supplier's business model actually works.
If every country felt you could just steal it, then it wouldn't exist.
If you send send your signals to some country then they can do what they like with them. Anyway it would be considerably more enpensive to broadcast only to the USA. Tricky to avoid Canada (especially in you want to get Alaska as well) even though most of the border is a line of latitude. Even harder to miss Mexico where a good chunk of the border is a river.
Re:Digital convergence? What are you talking about (Score:2)
Maybe there needs to be a forced reading of "Capitalism for Dummies"
Let's get this straight: No one "deserves" money just because they put their money, time, or effort into a project.
Also if your entire business is based around one "project" then it more vulnerable to fail. Especially with such things as making "loss leaders" a critical part of the exercise. (e.g. the iopener and cuecat).
But also changes in technology can rapidly render something obsolete. So yesterday's "good idea" may be todays "utter waste of time".
This is what we are seeing, IMHO, in the media distribution and publishing industry. The cost of duplication and distribution is rapidly falling. Which also means the cost of entry is becoming low.
Re:Digital convergence? What are you talking about (Score:2)
If you want to take it further you could say that DirectTV is preventing Canadians from making use of a set of frequences.
Re:And the lawyers? (Score:2)
In quite a few cases it appears that prosecution lawyers have had their say. Possibly not defence lawyers, for the simple reason of judges ruling "no case".
Re:And the lawyers? (Score:2)
It is very hard to design a system which is secure for the application in question. Once you provide equiptment to the public you have no control of it at all.
If it is workwhile the entire thing can be subjected to any analysis known to man.
Re:This isn't hacking... (Score:2)
Again there is the issue of jurisdiction. Since DirectTV has no authority over a Canadian citizen (in Canada) in the first place. So the unauthorised bit is utterly irelevent.
Re:This isn't hacking... (Score:2)
No the "content access mechanism" wasn't valid in Canada.
and sharing the tools (although it's perhaps telling that the code is in binary form only - no source) so that any script-kiddie-wannabe can plug a few cables together and get 'free' TV.
Canadians do have general freedom of "speach", so there is no problem here.
The Canadian nature of his citizenship will not shield him from the corporate entertainment empires. Just ask Jon Johansen - and he was on the other side of the pond.
It's a double edged sword, if US corporate entertainment can "have a go" at Canadians and Norwegians then they can also counter sue. You also might like to consider how much "American Television" is actually made in Canada.
Re:This isn't hacking... (Score:2)
Maybe a US judge would do this. The Canadian judges appear to be a whole lot more sensible here and dismiss the case. Maybe if it happens often enough they'll start considering the prosecution in "contempt of court".
I've heard Canadian judges tell the RCMP off for wasting our money by attempting to prosecute people for crimes that don't exist on our lawbooks. I believe a Quebec judge said that all American DSS in Quebec is Public Domain.
Note that this is judges not simply a single judge. The entire Canadian judiciary appears to agree. Thus even appealing dosn't seem very likely to change anything.
Re:This isn't hacking... (Score:2)
In most situations people are subject to the laws of wherever they happen to be at the time. The unusual exception is where they are also subject to the laws of whereever they are a citizen of. So if he were a US citizen then he might be doing something wrong, as he's a Canadian citizen there is no issue.
The fact that he wants the service but BY LAW CANNOT purchase said service they have to do what they have to do.
Also the fact that there is a law which prevents the service being legaly sold in Canada means that it is easy for Canadian judges to dismis thes kind of cases.
Re:How is that sensible? (Score:2)
That is the Canadian government's perogative. It's not as if the US dosn't prevent other American countries selling stuff to the US.
It's sensible since it protects the interests of Canadians. Which is after all the job of a government.
Re:How is that sensible? (Score:2)
It is not illegal to import them into Canada. Anyway you don't think this hardware is actually manufactured in the US, do you...
Re:The developer is Canadian (Score:2)
Except that it isn't "stealing". A better analogy would be someone making use of unsolicited goods.
Re:This isn't hacking... (Score:2)
Or possibly even they can only actually use them for evidence when they actually have some kind of warrent. Rather than for "trawling".
Re:a few thoughts... (Score:2)
Thus the definition gets expanded to include potential revenue.
But in this case the potential revenue is zero anyway....
Re:Unencumbered Media? (Score:3)
The problem here is that publishers (far more than people who actually generate the information in the first place.) Are trying hard to prop business models which rely on copying being difficult and expensive.
Having has some sucess in lobbying for laws which artificially treat trivial to copy data as identical to a physical object which is hard to duplicate.
Even where a physical media is involved the cost is small. e.g. photocopying a book generally costs more than buying a copy, but copying a CD is a lot less than the retail price.
There are two ways things could go. Either we get more and more draconian legislation passed. Though at some point lobbying needs to be extended to police and courts or the result is laws which just won't be enforced. Or different business models need to be found. This is frightening for the current megacorps and some of them might not survive any change. Especially since both the producers and consumers don't much care about the publishers/middlemen.
Re:Sure didn't look like "Open Source" to me... (Score:2)
Re:Sure didn't look like "Open Source" to me... (Score:2)
There also may be no criminal liabiilty if the US DSS companies are permitted to distribute DSS signals in Canada (maybe by means other than DSS - the law isn't clear
Re:Law loopholes (Score:2)
If law isn't a formal system where you find holes, then what the fuck are lawyers for?
Re:This isn't hacking... (Score:2)
It would, however, cut down on the for-profit illegal activity.
I remember a similar controversy over mod chips for the Playstation. 99% of the sites were "selling" mod chips. 0.9% of the sites were selling "kits" with pre-programmed (and read-protected) PICs. Only 0.1% of the sites actually contained some PIC code and told you what was really going on.
I wouldn't call the mod chip I installed in my PS1 "hacking" (I didn't do any of the research), but I had to (a) build my own PIC-burner, (b) burn my own PIC, which was both fun and educational.
Basically, if I couldn't do the engineering, at least I wanted to do the legwork myself.
Pond scum: Guy who sells pre-packaged gadget on which he did no research whatsoever, to Average Joes who just wanna watch "free" TV, for $500. Then charges 'em another $100 for every ECM.
'L33t d00d: Makes all code and design info freely available for anyone who wants to build one from scratch. May sell prebuild gadgets/software at slight premium to finance ongoing research efforts and/or web hosting costs.
Geek: Downloads aforementioned design info and software, sources parts independently, and sees if it works. Plays with it from time to time as the ECMs come out, to see if it still works. In time, may eventually morph into 'l33t d00d or pond scum, depending on ethical proclivities.
(I don't pretend that any of the people in the three categories I've invented are legal... I'm just throwing it out for discussion... IMNSHO, if there were more l33t d00dz, there'd be less pond scum, because the increased availability of the knowledge would increase the number of pond scum to the point that pond-scumming margins would drop.)
In the case of the Playstation, it wasn't that much of a problem. In the case of DirecTV, I admit, building one's own satellite dish from scratch, would be an impressive feat. :)
Re:How Long? (Score:3)
Uhhmmm... the guy who wrote this lives in Montreal, as in Canada. The DMCA is a US law. I'm sure that the guy will get sued for something, but I doubt it will be using the provisions of the DMCA.
The fact that this is in Canada makes it very interesting, IMHO. I remember that there was some guy who used to rebroadcast NFL games on the Internet. He was allowed to do this in Canada, but not allowed to do it in the US. If I remember correctly, he was successfully shut down. But then he convinced the courts that if he put in protections for the streams so that they wouldn't reach US customers, he could continue to operate, because the NFL rules applied only in the US, not in Canada.
The NFL, of course objected saying that the protections wouldn't work (they were right). But I remember thinking that he was allowed to turn his stuff back on.
I wish I could remember the name of the service, then I could get the details a little bit more accurate. But I wonder how that case as a precedent is going to effect the current situation.
--
Umm... (Score:5)
Does Open Source need this kind of promotion?
You Know What This Means (Score:5)
Well, you can see the other side of this... (Score:5)
I believe the entertainment industry has already recognized that it cannot trust users of "their" content. Anything that we hold cannot be restricted from us. The natural progression will be to adopt subscription-based models. Why the lawsuits now? I will bet it is more profitable to preserve the current distribution model for as long as possible before switching over.
Imagine paying $30 a month to listen to any song or watch any movie you wanted...
Re:Raises a disturbing question (Score:2)
And how exactly is this not describing the situation *today*?
Re:Umm... (Score:2)
anyone know of dish networking hacking? (Score:2)
Re:Umm... (Score:4)
Re:This isn't hacking... (Score:2)
but IMHO, hacking is really using technology in a way it wasn't intended to be used, using skills that most people don't have.
This is the precise and exact definition of a hacker, be it a highly skilled programmer or an entrant of restricted systems and everyone that falls in between.
Funny how people forget that when they shout, "NUH UH, IT'S *CRACKER*!"
Picking up radio with your teeth. (Score:2)
And later I lived a few houses down from someone with a whopping big ass (and illegal) CB antenna. I could pick him up clearly with a 2-inch audio speaker with a foot of copper wire hanging off of each of the terminals.
What was really a drag was when I'd try to tape a record album on my stereo, and the dickhead would decide it was time to chat with his buddies. My tape would record his transmissions.
The neighborhood got up a petition to the FCC to disclipline him, but nothing ever happened.
Someone told me that the stove couldn't possibly have worked because there was nothing to rectify the signal, but there it was doing it. Creepy too. It wasn't very loud but you could make out words in the broadcasts.
Mike [goingware.com]
Most of you dont get it. (Score:2)
This is not new (or news for that matter). There is a really strong community behind this, reverse engineering all the "News Datacom" tricks, who, themselves counterattack by fixing the bugs found by this "community" and disabling the new attempts.
Its is not a cheap hobby either. Not only you have to upgrade constantly to follow the war, but in equipment it usually means easily a first 2000 US$ investment. If the card gets upgraded, then all your tools/devices must upgrade too (and there are many lost hours of downtime, due to ECMs, new tricks, whatever).
There is no real loss, or stealing for that matter, if you can't legally pay for the service in the first place. Remember the US crypto law? this law prohibits equipment like this to be exported outside USA, so DTV must obey and deny any outsider attempt to subscribe (since they are not supposed to have this crypto equipment on their hands).
Also this is not like breaking into phone communications, you are simply putting use of a publicy broadcast signal (TV! not private talks) falling in your head, outside of USA soil where you would otherwise do absolutely nothing with it.
At least the free available emulators kill the smugler "test" card resell business
Well, maybe the distributed server with the emu software, which is an interesting thing *if* you are into the scene.
--
Re:This isn't hacking... (Score:4)
And what act is that? Are these guys killing people or sodomizing small children? No. They're getting access to a cable channel which you cannot pay for even if you want to in the country that they are from. Maybe in your mind this is a morally wrong act but I hardly see it as such. If it were possible to buy DirecTV in Canada, then I would call it a not-very-nice thing (though, again, hardly 'morally wrong' - I reserve that for a crime that actually hurts someone in a non-negligeble way).
"Well, it's not illegal so it must be ok!"
It's not only 'not illegal', it seems that Canadian courts have examined this issue and said that it is OK.
If someone tapped in to your cordless or cell phone's signal and replayed embarrasing conversations to your family, boss and friends would you be as forgiving?
What?!?!?! TV channels and private conversations are hardly the same thing. TV is meant to be seen/heard by as many people as possible. Private conversations are not. You are confusing copyright law with something else entirely (well, at least in my case - I hardly ever copyright my phone conversations).
Re:Umm... (Score:2)
Some things flying through the air can kill a bit more quickly than others...
Re:Radar detector bans (Score:2)
Unless, of course, you are in Canada, in which case they confiscate it, destroy it, and give your insurance company a call. The insurance company then decides that you must be a chronic speeder and raises your rates.
---
Re:Fabled? (Score:2)
____________________
Re:a few thoughts... (Score:2)
It's also "illegal" to listen to cordless phones, but you can buy scanners just about anywhere that pick that up. Also, I have a nice Yeasu FT-530 that I legally modified (having a ham radio license) that now gets in the 900Mhz range (where there is a ham band). The side effect being that I can now pick up cell phones.
As many people pointed out, this is kinda legal in Canada.. I really think it's more about getting the signal rather then descrambling it, but that's me.. Because sure, you can't get DirectTV, but buy descrambling it from them means you're not getting it from the local cable company, or some other provider in Canada.
Also, you've been able to do this for quite a while now, a friend of mine does it. I think it's a dos program and not a linux program.. but that doesn't really matter.
--
This is "the McCormack hack" (Score:3)
Congratz.
Re:I beg to differ (Score:2)
Sure didn't look like "Open Source" to me... (Score:4)
If /. can't even tell the difference, we're screwed.
Re:This isn't hacking... (Score:2)
--
Re:This isn't hacking... (Score:2)
And a damn good thing you don't see me doing it, too. Otherwise you'd jump our fence and smack the shit out of me.
By the way, dude... cut the calls to 'Mistress Cleo'. She's a fake.
---------------------------------------------
Peer to peer (Score:2)
Interestingly, the FLEXLM [globetrotter.com] license manager, used for expensive software packages, allows this. The license server is designed to work over the Internet, busily checking licenses in and out. Normally, this is within an organization (you can run N copies of ANSYS), but that's not required. Someone could create an open market where you can rent out your licenses when you're not using them, or rent ones as needed.
This is THEFT (Score:2)
Why is this on slashdot? I don't care if it's legal in Canada or not, it's still stealing! This is just one more example of something the media will 'attribute' to OSS and Linux.
Just because Linux is free, doesn't mean everything else has to be.
What this _really_ means... (Score:2)
Re:Umm... (Score:3)
This is, like unlawful isn't it?
Well, I am not a lawyer, and this is certainly not legal advice, but I thought the supreme court of the US ruled that any satellite transmission beamed onto your property was yours to do with as you please. Now this was before DMCA, so maybe things have changed, or maybe I'm just misinformed, but in any case it's not like you're going to get caught, anyway.
Re:Sure didn't look like "Open Source" to me... (Score:5)
If you'd like a copy of the source, I suggest you simply email the author and demand it. They have no right to withhold the source since they've used GPL'd code.
Umm, what makes you think that someone making illegal software for stealing is going to obey the GPL? I mean, if they don't respect the copyright of DirectTV, why would they respect the copyright of the maker of ucsim?
Re:This isn't hacking... (Score:2)
Okay, first of all, if my body picks up the signals, and all radio signals pass through flesh at some point, why don't I have the right to do what the hell I want with them? I'm not condemning nor praising the hackers. All I will say is if you want to, go right ahead.
As for the cell phone myth, it's a radio, nothing more. Despite the FCC outlawing scanners that can pick up cellphones, you can still hear them via images, ie radio anomalies in the scanner. I can routinely listen to cell phone calls on my cell blocked scanner.
It's all the same damn thing. As far as I'm concerned, I have a right to do what I want with anything that invades my body, whether that be radio signals, beef burgers or anything else.
Fuck DirecTV, fuck Microsoft, fuck the FCC, fuck them all.
---
Re:Well, you can see the other side of this... (Score:2)
I can watch any movie or TV program I want to right now, on demand, for $30 a month. It's called DirecTV + TiVo. Oh wait, even though TiVo uses Linux, they want to charge for their service too, so they must be bad as well. :)
How Long? (Score:4)
Everyone is out there buying Tivo and other set top boxes only to wait for HDTV to come in with its protection schemes that will remove time-shifting and render their hardware useless. So now we use other hardware to make a workaround. This cycle of events ensures that only the wealthy can compete for control over how/when they view media. As history has shown it's the little guys who are the majority. Unless we start challenging the laws, more accurately the abuse of vague laws, that make it possible to make the hardware/software that create the "need" for these circumventing devices we will all end up getting shafted in the end. Corporations will always be one step ahead in the coming years.
I don't want to have to worry about updating my foo-emulater every time a new device comes out that threatens part of what is supposed to be a free media. I want to know that I, and the rest of the little people, will have the same unencumbered access to media that we have always had.
while this is cool... (Score:2)
Re:Protecting data (Score:2)
I disagree. Why should service providers have to pay to protect their data from stealing? It's like saying that I'm responsible for not using a more solid door lock if someone is breaking into my house.
"
If you don't want me to view it, don't beam it into my house.
Re:I beg to differ (Score:3)
I modify a box to not pay -> I've circumvented their system for gain -> bad
They are giving me stuff I didn't pay for -> That's their own bloody fault -> ok
Re:it's a sad day when..... (Score:2)
(b) It's news.
(c) It's about a somewhat-offbeat use of technology.
I think it pretty clearly falls under "News for Nerds". It sounds to me like you wouldn't want the NY Times reporting on, say, a drug problem in Central Park because that facilitates people finding places to buy drugs.
Re:I beg to differ (Score:2)
I wonder if this is the sort of hack that makes hacking more respectable, because people can understand and identify with it?
Re:Digital convergence? What are you talking about (Score:2)
Re:Umm... (Score:5)
It's already illegal to monitor certain radio frequencies... cell phones and cordless phones for example. Building a receiver from a handful of basic components can make you a felon. It's crazy. Crazy. Service providers should protect their data with technology, not new laws.
Side note: even though I am a ham and I am fairly clued in on electronics, I find it AMAZING on some level that crystal radios [midnightscience.com] work. There is enough juice flowing through you RIGHT NOW to DRIVE AN EARPHONE with NO POWER SUPPLY in the circuit. Doing the math is one thing... building a passive circuit that produces sound is something else. Wacky.
not to mention... (Score:3)
I was also thinking about those stories that used to circulate about how, under the right circumstances, people could pick up radio signals with the fillings in their teeth. What if the radio signal you happened to pick up was somebody's cordless-phone conversation? Are you breaking the law? Is your dentist part of the conspiracy for building the "receiver" that you used?
Painting a Bullseye (Score:5)
At any rate, it looks like satellite networks have one more thing to worry about now.
I just got DirecTV a month or so ago, and it beats the hell out of cable. It would be nice to unlock all those titles with big 'M's next to them, but it seems too risky.
I beg to differ (Score:3)
However, I -do- think that the majority of society are idiots and would see this and think that all hackers are out to steal cable or whatever.
A kinda off-topic example:
At my last job I got a reputation as a hacker when I figured out how to make a program run past its expiration date...All I did was open up its INI file and about 3 lines down it said:
Expires=3/1/2000
I changed that line to: Expires=12/31/9999 and wala it worked....All the employees were dumbfounded that I had actually "cracked" a program.
Fabled? (Score:3)
a few thoughts... (Score:3)
First, anyone who thinks any signal that they can reach is free for them to use should go to radio shack and try to buy a scanner with cellular frequencies. They're illegal -- and it's illegal to build something to listen to them. It's been a long, long time since frequencies were free.
Interesting technology, but as someone else noted, it's one I'd be very careful using; unlike older satellite hack technologies (where you'd call up a BBS for access codes), you're easily tracked here. I sure wouldn't do this.
Arbitrary beginning of the piracy flamewars: people have to remember that there's no free lunch. If you steal content from DirectTV, those of us who DO pay for the service are subsidizing you. Someone has to pay for this stuff; if everyone tried to steal if, it'd disappear. (we now stand back to watch all of the pirates attempt to rationalize away their theft by calling it other things...)
But most importantly, and the reason I delurked in the first place, this is yet another example of a company that uses stupid, weak, badly designed encryption techniques and tries to enforce them with obscurity and bluster. Companies like DirectTV need to learn that if they want to protect their content, they can't cheap out on the technology. DeCSS is a classic example of this -- you lock your front door with a piece of twine, and tell everyone that if they dare open the door, they'll call the police.
Anyone with half a brain knows to get a deadbolt and keep them out in the first place. Sooner or later, enough of these cracks will occur to convince even the stupid companies to get their act together. Until then, even if the pirates are wrong -- it's hard to sympathize with companies that make it easy...