EFF Lands a Blow On DirecTV 100
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."
Excellent So lets get working on descramblng the (Score:1, Informative)
Just kidding. I want a cablecard mythtv box. Now.
Isn't this sort of thing barred by the DMCA? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not that it wasn't the right decision...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh yeah, it would.
Re: (Score:1)
But seriously though, I've not seen anything to suggest the 9th circuit is particularly out of touch with reality, quite the contrary, they seem to be more in-touch with reality.
Don't forget as well, as Colbert so famously said, "reality has a well-known liberal bias", which is perhaps more correctly translated as "the average of US opinion has a conservative bias co
Re: (Score:2)
It's just like prohibition, "The war on drugs", etc, if you ban something it just makes you want it more!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but the Sup. Ct. will have to agree to hear this case before it is overturned. The Sup. Ct. usually only takes cases on issues where circuits are split. Have other circuits gone the other way with this? If not, then the Sup. Ct. probably won't hear it and it'll continue to be binding in the 9th Circuit.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I for one have thought about doing this many times just because it would be interesting. Not because I want free tv. I already pay my cable bill for that... I just find it an interesting thing to do. I havent touched it though because of these sorts of issues.
Re:[AC]Oh Come On. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
There is. DTV went around suing smart card sellers for lists of people who bought devices that were capable of writing to DTV compatible smartcards, and then went around threatening those people whether they were unscrambling DTV shows or just getting a security system for their small company on the cheap.
Re:[AC]Oh Come On. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
That's the Declaration of Independence.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. GP would have been better off complaining about infringement of his freedom of speech, eg if he wants to talk about it with somebody. First Amendment.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh Come On. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oh Come On. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Scientific Knowledge? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wasn't sure to mod you as troll for flamebait, or just plain clueless, so I figured a post would do more justice.
Not it was not (Score:3, Informative)
DirecTV didn't go that far, from the EFF's web site:
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 whe
No, you didn't RTF background (Score:5, Informative)
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.
That's what the law says and how DirectTV interpreted it. You are parroting DirectTV's now shown to be false argument.
This, too, was from the EFF's web site: http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_11.php [eff.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Scientific Knowledge? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
Hacking into systems is not some high-minded, deep, exercise of the mind, it is mischief or crime, depending on the angle.
If you really like breaking locks, feel free to buy a bunch of your own (physical or virtual), and hack away. No big deal, obviously.
-Jeff
Re:Scientific Knowledge? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
They are practicing busting into their own home, to then sell "bust-in kits" to other people who will then bust into your home. Or sell or give the info to people who will make such kits.
Oh, sure, not this particular researcher. He's clean as the windblown snow, without doubt, including nothing but honorable intentions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> 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.
Re:Scientific Knowledge? (Score:5, Informative)
DirecTV is claiming that anyone who bought such a smart card reader for their computer is deliberately trying to get "TV for free".
Will "DirecTV sue you next?" [cbsnews.com]
Such devices are available for $30-$60 integrated within keyboards, within a computer case and as external USB devices.
It seems that Microsoft were involved in the development smart card technology for encryption purposes [athena-scs.com], DirecTV makes use of similar technology, and these gets all hissy about other people using
the same technology.
Re:Scientific Knowledge? (Score:5, Interesting)
totally fictional scenario here, I mean its not like someone can actually do this...
If I designed and built a receiver that could pick up any and all satellite communication, regardless of band, system, encryption, language, broadcast tech etc and play it out for any and all to hear (sort of a reverse tower of Babel), the resultant box, my design specs, even the idea in my head would be illegal and all (including me) should be locked up with key thrown away.
(sorry, I guess I CAN think like a legal beagle!)
During the Dark ages the Church had the only literates so they virtually controlled communications. later, others learned to read and write and for a while, this skill was controlled regulated and even banned by the Church. Welcome to 900AD.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the basis for "clean room" engineering. One team reverse-engineers a product and wri
Re: (Score:2)
No. You are not violating their copyright or trade secrets. You are, however, giving them a basis for a claim that you did so.
You cannot violate trade secrets by reverse engineering.
Clean room reverse engineerin
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But yes, DirecTV was saying that your device would step on their rights.
And even if that idea were
Re:Scientific Knowledge? (Score:5, Informative)
DirecTV's lawyers started going after these businesses, obtained their customer lists through discovery and started going after their customers, too. You can guess what happened next.
As it happens, I was a DirecTV customer at the time. I never used these card readers to hack my DirecTV smart card, but I did use it legitimately for work. It took quite a bit of song and dance and a discussion between them and my (Sweden-based) management and CTO to convince them that I did have authorization to procure "SIM card readers" and expensed them through my company and wasn't using them for illicit activity, though it almost cost my job. Smart cards are very popular in most of the Scandinavian countries in many industries, and it was a bit amusing to hear DirecTV tell my CTO that he had no business reason to need a card reader for ANYTHING other than to steal from DirecTV.
For some examples, look at the security industry (physical access requiring a smart card - very popular in Finland), secure banking industry (you've seen the American Express Blue with the built-in smart card), cellular industry (all GSM SIMs are really smart cards), and Finland even uses smart cards for their national ID (which I hear makes their voting system work well).
Yes, perhaps I should have looked for a more "authorized" dealer or whatever, but money is money and my original bright idea that made my popular with my manager cast a shade over me that pisses me off to this day.
Maybe the correct question is, "Are you liable if you purchase equipment intended for illegal/illicit/immoral/ purposes for a legitimate reason?"
Tying in to the original point, it's amazing what power these guys have over people that don't have a company "in the business" to back them up. If I were doing the same job as a freelance contractor (which is very possible and more profitable in my former industry), I would have been legally fucked.
There are good reasons why lawyers should not be able to shackle research, industry, and "creative" self-education that fall outside of their business model. Generally speaking, smart cards are very secure devices, and if I recall correctly, DirecTV's woes started by using a vendor that leaked critical information (whether through subterfuge or buying off one or more of their employees) about how to confuse one of their specific types of smart cards into giving up it's secrets. This made the entire smart card industry look bad, and instead of taking it up with their vendor and immediately replacing those cards, they started suing potential customers. (I say potential, since I doubt many of them actually had subscriptions. At the time DirecTV was allowing their equipment vendors to sell receivers directly to people who obtained an unauthorized smart card to receive the service for free. Who really knows if they would be real customers had this avenue of exploitation not been available?) They took years to phase out the old cards for new, secure ones, and have since gone to a lease-only model for equipment so they can track who actually has a receiver and demand the equipment back if they're not suing it.
I'm not sure that DirecTV is evil, per se, but rather incompetent and legally blame everyone other than themselves. *Shudder* I'm glad someone is finally putting them in their place, as they have contributed to the overall chill on research that seems too prevalent today...
Re: (Score:2)
But I was objecting just to the 'scientific use' bit. If the devices they mean are just the card readers, then the EFF is obviously right. Those devices CAN and ARE used for many other applications. If the devices are the DirecTV boxes, there's no excuse and DirecTV is right.
The tricky part is this line: "prohibiting the "assembly" or "m
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understand, the satellite signals are encoded digital streams which smart card is used for the actual decryption engine, making it the most critical part in the system. I believe the "tuner" in a DirecTV receiver just points which stream it shoots at the smart card to get a val
Re: (Score:1)
(Technicalities to above statement) Whether or not it just retrieves keys from the smart card (after a PKI exchange) that are used to decode the session (which I hear gets renewed quite frequently while you're watching) or the smart card actually spews the decrypted stream itself, I'm not sure, but basically if you can take remove the smart card out of the picture, you have a straight shot at their entire service unencrypted.
The smart card is only responsible for decrypting the keys, which you're right to assume are renewed frequently.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The card reader is used to hack the card and/or reprogram it.
The card could be argued to be used to intercept (even though it's actually just decrypting), but the card reader doesn't even have exist once the card has been hacked/reprogrammed.
There used to be more sophisti
Re: (Score:1)
Freudian slip? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
no different then guns (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:no different then guns (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
And that license ISN'T easy to get...if you value privacy more than gun ownership, don't get one.
Re: (Score:2)
Beh, my Marlin 39A and my S&W 41 are plenty of fun for me:-) Iron Sights FTW!!!!
Re: (Score:1)
It's an interesting experience. For a few seconds, you are really and truly GANGSTER.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:no different then guns-be careful with this (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't true. You can legally own fully automatic firearms after you have purchased a $200 tax stamp from the BATF. They do sell this stamp, upon proper application. Some states may have laws which restrict this freedom.
Be careful with this one: it isn't generally true. The BATF has held that certain parts of a machine gun are a machine gun. Exactly what parts of a particular machine gun const
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That law was thrown out and ruled unconstitutional I do believe (early 70's?)
That pissed of Nixon, and he got the current drug laws pushed through...where they 'schedule' them. I think this was around the time just before LSD became illegal? You can google it for exact date
Re: (Score:2)
Mind, considering the sensitivity of a nominally semi-automatic rifle like the FN-C1A1 (old Canadian standard 7.62mm NATO rifle), even a match stick could be considered a "conversion kit" (you just need to jam it into the ri
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's not true. It's legal for an individual to own a fully automatic firearm (under federal law; state laws differ) if it was registered with the BATFE prior to May 19, 1986. "Conversion kits" (i.e. fully automatic sears) meet the statutory definition of a machinegun (26 U.S.C. section 5845 (b)), and must be registered as such (BATF ruling 81-4, 1981-3 ATFB 78)).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
still confused (Score:2)
Summary is WRONG! Ruling says no such thing. (Score:5, Informative)
There is no argument mentioned that the defendants were not liable under the parts of the law covering individual use of piracy devices.
The article by the EFF is also wrong/misleading. Yes, they have been fighting "DirectTV's heavy-handed legal tactics", but in this case, it just prevented them from using a bigger hammer against folks already found to have violated the law. (Did they actually do so? Who knows. They did not respond or appear for the original complaint, so default judgement was entered against them.)
SirWired
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
True. And one might add that Judge Siler's dissent points out that two other Circuits have ruled differently even on the point that the EFF won. So not only is this ruling valid only in the 9th Circuit but there is a good chance that other Circuits will hold differently and that the issue may reach the Supreme Court and be decided differently.
I wonder if... (Score:2)
...DirecTV, et al who used smart cards for their subscription service had wished they had spent a little more to have a unique physical card interface designed for their own use rather than rely upon one that is off of the shelf? While recognizing that this would increase production costs and really wouldn't be much of a deterrent against someone willing to build up their own physical interface (or part one out of an old receiver), it could have made for a better means of deterring the casual bootlegger or
This is really about specific glitching devices (Score:2)
Here Is Actually What the Court Held: (Score:1)
DirecTV employed heavy-handed legal tactics (Score:2)
.
And got better customer service and a lower bill in the bargan.
.
When a company does something silly, stupid, AND against my interests, I stop doing business with them.
That's also why I've never bought a single ticket to a Sony movie, a Sony DVD, or Sony brand for 15 years now. I can't avoid Sony chips every time, but when I can, I do. One 3,500 unit lap top deployment was switched from one vender to another ven
Re: (Score:1)
Having been threatened by Direct TV myself.... (Score:1)