Get a cable modem, go to jail (1999) • Hacker News Board

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

#421

Post by mrguyorama » Tue, Sep 05, 2023, 4:54 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #362

what-the-grump wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America has been at war for around 225 years. Most of which has been fought outside of America. We just like shooting freedom bullets on other people's land, and when we run out of problems we shoot freedom bullets at each other.

If your thesis is that America should not have entered the world wars because of reasons other than it would've saved American lives to avoid them, I'd love to hear it.

No, the thesis is that coming to Europe in defense of soverign nations does not in any way excuse american domestic policy choices that result in people being worse off.

Just like sending aid to Ukraine does not in any way excuse the US of invading a sovereign country in the middle east for fake reasons and then attempting colonialism for 20 years under the guise of "bringing democracy"

But you already knew that.

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

#422

Post by mrguyorama » Tue, Sep 05, 2023, 4:56 PM UTC

peyton wrote: post #159

wkat4242 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the whole concept of "carrying guns to prevent a police state from taking over our country" is a bit outdated.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.

You wrote a lot but said nothing.

How does owning a firearm protect you from state violence without an implied threat to shoot police?

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

#423

Post by cowboysauce » Tue, Sep 05, 2023, 4:57 PM UTC

seabass-labrax wrote: post #313

This was a fascinating read; good on the author for not losing her cool in that absurd two months. As a British citizen, though, there were a number of things that piqued my interest about the proceedings as described in Maryland and the USA in general. - Why was the Maryland State Attorney so keen to continue with the prosecution, despite a hostile witness? In general, why do individuals and companies appear (to an…

>In general, why do individuals and companies appear (to an outsider) to have so much influence in the USA to 'press charges'?

They don't. Individuals and companies cannot bring charges against someone. They can report a crime (like Comcast did in this case) and then the government can determine if they want to prosecute. Someone saying they want to press charges is just signaling that they are willing to cooperate with the prosecution. Likewise saying that you wont press charges is just signalling that you won't cooperate with the persecution. In either case they don't actually have to listen to you.

>since a large company like Comcast could churn out hundreds of vaguely plausible but socially inconsequential claims of fraud

Filing a false police report is a crime. If Comcast actually testified in court then it would be perjury. They'd also likely be subject to lawsuits from everyone they falsely accused once this was all discovered.

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

#424

Post by mrguyorama » Tue, Sep 05, 2023, 5:04 PM UTC

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #205

Doxin wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's built into the trigger mechanism. What, so pressing the trigger automatically disengages the safety? As a non-gun-person that seems like an insane design decision.

It is probably better to say that Glocks have no safety. This is actually quite safe in practice because pistols are holstered in common use -- this makes them very different from rifles, shotguns, &c. With a pistol safety, there is an intermediate, "unholstered-but-on-safe" state that doesn't exist with rifles. This turns out to be dangerous in practice because people can think the pistol is on safe when it isn't; o…

>This turns out to be dangerous in practice because people can think the pistol is on safe when it isn't

One of the golden rules of gun safety is to not point a gun at something you do not intend to kill (the rule usually uses "destroy" because gun culture loves playing down the danger of guns) so if this is actually an issue then responsible gun owners are not as common as they should be.

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

#425

Post by nitwit005 » Tue, Sep 05, 2023, 5:07 PM UTC

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.

Legal can be much more responsive than the other parts of an organization.

You can get away with ignoring customer complaints, but generally not their lawsuits, unless you're okay with losing by default.

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

#426

Post by robertlagrant » Tue, Sep 05, 2023, 5:07 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #421

robertlagrant wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your thesis is that America should not have entered the world wars because of reasons other than it would've saved American lives to avoid them, I'd love to hear it.

No, the thesis is that coming to Europe in defense of soverign nations does not in any way excuse american domestic policy choices that result in people being worse off. Just like sending aid to Ukraine does not in any way excuse the US of invading a sovereign country in the middle east for fake reasons and then attempting colonialism for 20 years under the guise of "bringing democracy" But you already knew that.

It doesn't matter if I knew or not; it's just not relevent to the topic of whether Europeans are all the decent ones and Americans not.

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

#427

Post by cannabis_sam » Tue, Sep 05, 2023, 5:10 PM UTC

It’s insane to me that “cable theft” is even considered a criminal offense… it’s literally a civil dispute between a corporation and a person, about alleged misuse of service, with very little damage outside of theoretically “harming” the profits of the corporation, a notion that quite literally requires assuming an argument ad absurdum.

How stupid does a politician have to be to promote this as a criminal offense? It just denigrates criminal law.

Edit: my bad, it was promoted by Barry fucking Goldwater, a bona fide fascist. So not stupidity, just genuinely evil cruelty.

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

#428

Post by owenmarshall » Tue, Sep 05, 2023, 5:14 PM UTC

devnullbrain wrote: post #390

owenmarshall wrote: post #16

I feel like this story could be titled “In Which a Smart Person Overestimates Their Competency With The Legal System” Always get a lawyer.

It's very characteristic of HN to suggest that paying $1000/hr well in advance of the court date is better than spending time calling people.

> $1000/hr

Oh, give over. It's a basic fraud case, you're not hiring a white-shoe firm to represent you.

A few hundred bucks gets a lawyer to look at the case and make the phone calls - or send a letter or two - on your behalf. And the bonus is that they actually know what to say, as opposed to whatever you frenetically google, and know who to say it to, as opposed to whoever you happen to find in the phone book. Just having a lawyer signals to your counterparty that you are not winging it; that combined with an incredibly weak (at best) case & a complainant who has backed away can lead to your case being dismissed with less investment in time & worry than if you did it yourself.

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

#429

Post by mrguyorama » Tue, Sep 05, 2023, 5:15 PM UTC

foobazgt wrote: post #172

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…

A very long time ago I had internet (but not cable tv service) with Comcast. It was generally mediocre reliability, but it's the only option we had. At some point, the service just up and went out entirely. For approximately two months, we had absolutely zero internet service, while Comcast continued to collect our monthly fees. We kept calling, and they kept sending out tech after tech. I don't recall what the final…

Only about 1 out of 5 techs actually have any idea what they are doing at these cable internet providers. It's great because the company doesn't actually care whether the techs do their job or not because they will bill regardless, and as long as you are waiting for a tech to come fix your service, you aren't taking them to court to get it actually fixed.

What the fuck are you going to do about it? Spectrum's ancestor agreed to not offer service in this county so go ahead and switch back to dialup you worthless maggot.

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

#430

Post by wl » Tue, Sep 05, 2023, 5:25 PM UTC

avidiax wrote: post #416

wl wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very shallow reading of that particular situation. The robber was pointing a gun at people. At the point when someone threatens life like that, regardless of whether the motives are personal or material, it is reasonable and legally justified for someone to use deadly force to end that threat. The only real criticism that can be leveled against that particular shooter is that in hindsight he continued shooti…

> That's a very shallow reading of that particular situation. Yes, with a bit more depth to the reading, you'd know that the robber had already collected the money and was leaving when he was shot in the back. And what happens when another do-gooder walks into this taqueria, sees this guy shoot someone, and then grab money off the body? Wouldn't that person be in the clear to shoot the first guy? What if the 2nd guy…

It's not clear that the robber was leaving at the time he was shot. The robber was still threatening people with the gun when he was shot. Shooting the robber in the back was a way to get the jump on him—drawing on someone who has already drawn on you is generally suicide.

As for the risk that someone else might mistake the shooter for the robber, anyone who has taken a concealed carry class has learned that there are risks to defending yourself. It's a choice you make because you don't think there are better ones.

But fundamentally, I'm objecting to your characterization that this guy was looking to legally kill someone or that it was motivated out of a desire to keep his wallet. The robber was threatening people's lives. The danger was not over. Shooting the robber was a reasonable choice given what the shooter knew at the time.