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

431–440 of 486 posts

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

#431

Post by xwdv »

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I think the whole concept of "carrying guns to prevent a police state from taking over our country" is a bit outdated.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

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

#432

Post by devnullbrain »

owenmarshall wrote: post #428
devnullbrain wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Jus…

I read the link

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

#433

Post by OhMeadhbh »

krisoft wrote: post #289
OhMeadhbh wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in my experience, pro se works more often than owenmarshall implies, but probably less often than it should.

> in my experience Could you tell us more about the source of your experience please? > pro se works more often than owenmarshall implies, And there are very well documented cases where a pro se defendant gets themselves into bigger trouble.

Certainly not criminal, but I was on a county commission which put me in the position to watch people litigate pro se regarding land use suits in California. And I would occasionally be in court waiting for a final declaration (that for some reason had to be in the courtroom.) There were plenty of people who successfully defended themselves pro se, but I don't think I ever saw anything more exciting than someone bringing in documentation clarifying they weren't the owners of a property on which some crime occurred (apparently the county's GIS system is not the local sheriff / prosecutor's strong point.)

I'm not trying to imply you should represent yourself on a felony case, but at least in California in the past, people have successfully had cases dismissed when they appeared in court, representing themselves with documentation the prosecutor should have looked at before filing the case.

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

#434

Post by OhMeadhbh »

emodendroket wrote: post #398
OhMeadhbh wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No crime being committed isn't really the standard. "Due process" is the standard. If you go through the process and the judge decides you're guilty, you're guilty. And you're going to do your time. It doesn't matter whether or not you committed the crime, only that you can prove you were not provided "due process." Innocent people frequently wind up in prison and even after exculpatory evidence is discovered, it tak…

Which is still not really like this case. Hence the author ultimately managing to get out of it without the services of an attorney and without any actual trial taking place.

Yes. You're talking about a specific, I'm talking about a general case. We know that this wasn't the case here because the story didn't end with "I was carted away to prison." My comment was in reference to the general case of US jurisprudence the OP discusses when she says "not only is justice blindfolded, but is blind." In the GENERAL case, you can still be convicted even if exculpatory evidence exists. And this is the point I should have emphasized:

Do not assume that the mere existence of exculpatory evidence will allow you to evade successful prosecution.

(But thankfully, it worked fine in this case and works in many other cases.)

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

#435

Post by OhMeadhbh »

midasuni wrote: post #276
OhMeadhbh wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly... in the UK... they did something similar to the DSL Provider / ISP split we did here in the states. So you could order cable service from one company and layer 3 from a completely different company. People tell me it's done wonders for competition there.

Well yes. Openreach were fixing a problem with my phone like yesterday, that’s generally a monopoly. My layer 3 service is from A&A, which suits my needs. Other people probably wouldn’t want to chat with the engineers on IRC when there’s a problem though so they would go with talk talk or Bt or whatever.

Oh man. I would have LOVED to be able to talk to Lumen engineers via IRC a couple years ago. It took about 4 1/2 months to work through the army of script-reading CS reps to get to a manager who agreed to let me talk to a tier-2 rep who immediately put me in the queue for a callback from an engineer. Within 5 minutes of talking with THAT engineer, they had enough info to realize someone had mis-keyed my account number in one of their internal tools. It took another five minutes for them to correct it and within an hour my intarwebs were working fine. I suspect that had I been able to talk to a tier-2 engineer (even if via IRC) it would have taken at most a day to resolve.

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

#436

Post by CalRobert »

rsynnott wrote: post #360
fullspectrumdev wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, I do wonder how they decide which rural areas get fiber, do they throw darts at a map?

So the theory is that they'll roll it out to 569,000 premises which are considered unlikely to be connected to fibre via the commercial providers; it's fairly extensive. In principle, it should go virtually everywhere that the commercial providers don't. We'll see how it works out in practice, of course. They're at about 150k premises 'passed' (ie they can be connected on demand); of these 45k are actually connected.…

Rob!!! It's been a while. Hope you're doing well. I was referring to this (from 2018) for the 300k number - https://www.openeir.ie/open-eir-passes-170k-rural-homes-busi...

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

#437

Post by UweSchmidt »

marcus0x62 wrote: post #413
omniglottal wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all the value going over those lines is created by the cable company. In fact, very little of it is, and it can only exist on the vast majority of its path with taxpayer support.

So what? They still have fixed and variable costs for delivering their product. You don’t get to take it for free just because some other entity creates the content they deliver.

Point was, what should be a civil matter is a criminal matter instead. With jail.

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

#438

Post by marcus0x62 »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #437
marcus0x62 wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? They still have fixed and variable costs for delivering their product. You don’t get to take it for free just because some other entity creates the content they deliver.

Point was, what should be a civil matter is a criminal matter instead. With jail.

I don’t see what that has to do with what the previous commenter said about the cable companies not creating “all the value” going over their lines.

In any case, in the United States, theft of service is generally treated as a criminal matter. I don’t see why this should be treated any differently, or how it would be fair to single cable companies out for exclusion from protection for having their service taken for free. Inn Keepers, other utility companies, and many other businesses enjoy the same or similar protections for their services.

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

#439

Post by aidenn0 »

emodendroket wrote: post #158
aidenn0 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

Yes, that would be less likely. I was more thinking if you reported it stolen while it was in your friend's possession and they get pulled over.

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

#440

Post by Jiro »

throwaway_e66m wrote: post #386
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…

I'm not questioning the veracity of your comment, but given the number of comments here (from e.g. non-Americans) expressing surprise or disgust at the seeming frequent and cavalier use of firearms, I think it should be pointed out that it is missing some details that are highly relevant. 1. Pointing a firearm, AR-15 or otherwise, at the cable guy (or anyone else) in a threatening way is a felony in all 50 states, ju…

>I'm not questioning the veracity of your comment, but...

Given your explanation, maybe you should question the veracity of his comment.

Post reply on HN