Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

telecom.csail.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 486 posts

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#151

Post by kelnos »

Zuiii wrote: post #110
dylan604 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Its using a service without paying for it which is theft if proven that it was done intentionally. Not sure how copyright was brought into this conversation.

No, it can't be theft unless the service provider lost the channel being "stolen" to the "thief" which makes no sense. Things quickly become silly when we insist on using the wrong concept where it doesn't apply. Charges like disrupting business operations or unauthorized access I can see, but theft? nah.

"Theft" doesn't just mean "physically taking something away from someone else, who now no longer has it". As much as you might like it to mean that, that's not what the law says.

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#152

Post by emodendroket »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #107
emodendroket wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article gives an estimate closer to $1000, which sounds likely in what sounds like a pretty straightforward case.

The article is 24 years old...

In today's money $1000 in 1999 would be worth about $2000. Which is still considerably closer to $1000 than $10,000. Any other trivial nitpicks you'd like me to address? https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=1000&year1=199...

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#153

Post by emodendroket »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #28
emodendroket wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article gives an estimate closer to $1000, which sounds likely in what sounds like a pretty straightforward case.

That is hindsight bias. How much do you need for the typical defense?

This isn't the "typical defense" since there is ample documentation that no crime was committed which all parties acknowledge.

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#154

Post by sublinear »

kmeisthax wrote: post #104
wkat4242 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of incidents involving firearms is astonishing. I'm glad I live in Europe where literally nobody has guns except police and heavy criminals that only really use them to shoot their rivals. I thought most people in the US were proud of their firearm handling professionalism which of course includes not brandishing, threatening or murdering people. I'm really a bit surprised to hear this. I did a similar job…

You're right that the US is very proud of their trigger and muzzle discipline. Or at least half of it. The other half points loaded guns with the safeties off directly at their own crotches to own the libs[0]. Going a layer deeper, Americans really, really love to abuse the shit out of customer service workers. To put it extremely charitably, we're used to being fucked by corpos so we pre-emptively fuck them back in…

> Americans really, really love to abuse the shit out of customer service workers.

That wasn't my experience when I worked in customer service for a few years. Maybe 10% of people were like that and it was always because they were tired of not getting solutions to their problems, and that was always because their account fell into a bad spot in the customer service flow policy (suspicious activity, low LTV, fraud, etc.). It was really hard to take any of that personally.

I'd argue it's more like the corporate powers that be often have unforgiving policies and account review practices sending people to the moon with anger.

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#155

Post by kelnos »

jonny_eh wrote: post #3

I feel like if something this dumb happened now, there'd be no way to get it resolved that quickly, and without hiring a lawyer. Getting Comcast lawyers to respond to you at all is the one bit in particular I can't picture happening.

This ran through my head so many times while I was reading this. I hesitate to believe Comcast was ever a good company, but it seems they were a much better company back then.

And yeah, I expect if this happened to anyone today, the first bit of advice anyone (including myself) would give them would be to get a lawyer to handle it.

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#156

Post by CalRobert »

wkat4242 wrote: post #89
thatoneguy wrote: post #31

I was a "broadband technician" around then and AT&T Broadband did not give AF if you were stealing cable or not. I only handled cable modem installs and quit after a year to go major in philosophy and because: - Getting quietly threatened once (with AR-15 up against the customer's front door) on a troubleshooting call that I wasn't able to leave until "the internet started working". - Having to increasingly go do cab…

The amount of incidents involving firearms is astonishing. I'm glad I live in Europe where literally nobody has guns except police and heavy criminals that only really use them to shoot their rivals. I thought most people in the US were proud of their firearm handling professionalism which of course includes not brandishing, threatening or murdering people. I'm really a bit surprised to hear this. I did a similar job…

When I lived in rural Ireland most of the farmers had a shotgun or rifle.

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#157

Post by chmod600 »

wkat4242 wrote: post #131
noduerme wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a gun owner and I believe in the rights of citizens to be armed, but I'm still not sure this is a good argument. On principle, anything that causes unnecessary deaths should be curtailed unless the benefits somehow outweigh the damage. We still have people driving cars who kill each other every day by accident, but there's a general feeling that it would be better to do away with that if we could find a way to el…

I think the whole concept of "carrying guns to prevent a police state from taking over our country" is a bit outdated. These days this is not done with bullets but with carefully planned public manipulation through media and social networks. And if it really comes down to bullets, the government owns a lot bigger guns than you do.

The recent surge in violence as DAs have stopped fully prosecuting criminals -- including those who commit violent gun crimes -- has blurred the line between criminal violence and state violence. That renews the argument for self defense.

In other words, as the state declines to protect you, you have a better claim on the natural right to protect yourself.

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#158

Post by emodendroket »

aidenn0 wrote: post #103
emodendroket wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, I've had similar thoughts about the Hertz debacle where people were thrown in jail for having rented cars and used them as agreed. I don't think if I made a phone call to the local police department and told them so-and-so stole my car they'd throw them in jail without asking any questions (at least I hope not). Why is Hertz any different?

If you lend a car to a friend and then report it stolen, your friend will absolutely end up in jail.

In the Hertz case sometimes the cars had already been returned. Maybe it is that easy to get people arrested even if your car is sitting in your driveway but one would hope not.

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#159

Post by peyton »

wkat4242 wrote: post #131
noduerme wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a gun owner and I believe in the rights of citizens to be armed, but I'm still not sure this is a good argument. On principle, anything that causes unnecessary deaths should be curtailed unless the benefits somehow outweigh the damage. We still have people driving cars who kill each other every day by accident, but there's a general feeling that it would be better to do away with that if we could find a way to el…

I think the whole concept of "carrying guns to prevent a police state from taking over our country" is a bit outdated. These days this is not done with bullets but with carefully planned public manipulation through media and social networks. And if it really comes down to bullets, the government owns a lot bigger guns than you do.

I think you’re missing the nuance here. If I can protect myself using a weapon, I don’t need to vote for mass surveillance to protect me. The ability to engage in shootouts with the police isn’t what prevents the formation of a police state. The problem with a police state is that state violence becomes a way to exercise political power.

Re: Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999)

#160

Post by OhMeadhbh »

russdill wrote: post #148
wkat4242 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of incidents involving firearms is astonishing. I'm glad I live in Europe where literally nobody has guns except police and heavy criminals that only really use them to shoot their rivals. I thought most people in the US were proud of their firearm handling professionalism which of course includes not brandishing, threatening or murdering people. I'm really a bit surprised to hear this. I did a similar job…

You should see some of the nextdoor and facebook communities. So many people are super eager to shoot someone over pretty much any petty crime.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN