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

451–460 of 486 posts

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

#451

Post by noduerme »

throwaway_e66m wrote: post #409
mohinder wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> gaslighting Please. Just link a study or something. FWIW I think it's wild I'm being accused of gaslighting over a simple request. Isn't that DARVO?

I think the issue is that it's such an easy web-search, your failure to do it and instead make a "simple request" appears to present an implication that the phenomenon in question doesn't exist, i.e. gaslighting. The assertion for which you asked evidence is not a correlation between prosecutorial policy ("fully prosecuting criminals") and crime rates, but rather the existence of the policies themselves. So, there's…

I appreciate you taking the time to do this, explain that the existence of these policies itself is not in doubt, and clarify the difference between asking for proof of their existence versus proof of their effects on society. Because I had started to respond, but I decided it was bad for my mental state to engage further.

It sounds like you and I are actually quite close in belief that systemic reforms are necessary but that undertaking them by prosecutorial fiat is a mistake. You'd probably appreciate this analysis:

https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-132/the-paradox-of-pr...

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

#452

Post by solidsnack9000 »

Aloha wrote: post #395
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what people hope to accomplish, by "...eliminating person to person transfers between individuals without a state license (CPL/CCW, FOID, etc)." and similar policies. It would cut down on the number of person-to-person transfers, but so what? Person-to-person transfers are not a problem in this country -- they don't contribute to anything bad. Many mass shooters actually buy their guns from licensed deal…

Do you care more about mass shootings or average day to day gun crime? They have different sources (one, poor access to mental healthcare, the other, poverty) and probably need different solutions too. I personally dont care as much about mass shootings, because in the grand scheme of gun crimes, lots less die. Nevermind Suicide, which is just access to mental healthcare. I'm really interested in making poor communit…

I'm not sure how you think the remedy you're proposing -- "I think everyone who buys a gun should have to go thru the same process, and should undergo a background check, and that a fail dangerous system is bad" -- is actually connected to the problem you're trying to solve. Most of the supply of guns used in crime is stolen guns -- it's not guns purchased legally from private people.

Private people, although they have the right to do so, don't generally transfer guns directly to strangers, because of the possibility of criminal prosecution for transfer to a prohibited person.

There are some improvements we can make to NICS -- but they all have to do with making sure the data is actually there.

https://www.stlpr.org/government-politics-issues/2022-04-29/...

Keep in mind that, in the absence of data indicating a conviction, a person is just going to get cleared in a few minutes. NICS checks basically never take even an hour, let alone a day; the time limit of three days is there to prevent the relevant agencies from engaging in malicious delays.

You have to have time limits like that for most government procedures; and we can't presume, in the absence of evidence, that someone should be denied. You are suggesting we give up something fundamental and general -- the presumption of innocence -- when you argue that NICS should default to closed.

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

#453

Post by solidsnack9000 »

diogenes4 wrote: post #379
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Registered to a different person" -- for the most part, guns are not registered in the USA. Was this in a state or city with a registry for AR-15s? "Loaded straight into fairly skinny jeans without checking the safety." -- Glocks do not have safeties. The idea with most newer striker-fired pistols, like the Glock, is that the gun goes in a hard-sided (molded nylon or kydex) holster. If it's not in the holster, it's…

I'm not sure about AR15s, but the serial number on the slide of a handgun is associated at (legal, storefront) purchase with a name and (I think) address. I presumed that was what was implied as registration. I assumed this was true for some part of the AR15 (maybe the receiver?) but I don't actually know for sure. There are loopholes, but there are reasons to prefer a gun that was last purchased under someone else's…

This is the form 4473 -- the dealer has a record of all sales that they've made. However, you could certainly sell the gun to someone else, through a different dealer. That doesn't make the old 4473 invalid -- it records a sale that actually occurred -- but it does mean the 4473s are not functionally a registry.

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

#454

Post by solidsnack9000 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #424
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What do you think "actually an issue" means in this context?

For the most part, the development of striker fired pistols and duty holsters was driven by police and military use; these are contexts where a person draws a pistol several times a day (on some days) and hundreds or thousands of times a year. General process safety concerns -- like reducing the number of "safe" states that people have to think about -- do matter in that context.

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

#456

Post by Hizonner »

qingcharles wrote: post #74
Hizonner wrote: post #7

While Comcast should get plenty of blame here, it's also true that it's flat out dereliction of duty for a prosecutor to file a case based on nothing but an uninvestigated complaint from some random corporation. At least Comcast made some attempt to fix it... and also got stonewalled by the State's Attorney's office.

I guess you've never met any prosecutors? This is pretty much modus operandi of every prosecutor office I know of.

Oh, I totally believe you.

They wouldn't have time to do anything like due diligence on all the cases they're asked to handle. Criminalization is the go-to answer for everything nowadays. And I'm also sure that most of the time the court is unwilling to actually enforce any of a lot of different standards, or to go through its procedures in a way that actually accomplishes those procedures' purpose.

Dereliction of duty is pretty much SOP for lots of people, many of them in supposedly responsible jobs that affect other people's lives.

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

#457

Post by solidsnack9000 »

bombcar wrote: post #327
hiatus wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sig p320 thing isn't about safeties at all but a mechanical design flaw that the company has remedied with a recall. And that safariland link just seems like safariland is a terrible manufacturer of holsters.

If this is the one I’m thinking of it was pretty clear that there was a police department that was incompetent and blaming negligent discharges on the firearm instead of on true officers.

Maybe, but all those police departments were there before...and the Glocks didn't ND.

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

#458

Post by Zuiii »

kelnos wrote: post #151
Zuiii wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Theft means and has always meant the unlawful deprivation of one's property. Physical or not. This is not debatable. Look it up.

If no unlawful deprivation of property has taken place then no theft has taken place. Why is this concept so hard to understand?

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

#459

Post by Zuiii »

jjulius wrote: post #127
Zuiii wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Think of it as "theft of services". Here's one example... >ORS 164.125 >Theft of services >(2) ... “Communication service” includes, but is not limited to, use of telephone, computer and cable television systems. https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_164.125

I genuinely wonder what lead them to choose a word that, by definition, is so far removed from the concept being described?

If we accept how this law wants to redefine Theft, then trespassing, squatting, illegal parking, and many other violations should now be called theft too since they involve using a resource in an unauthorized way and are actually depriving others from using the resource (which does not happen with cable modems). Spamming comments should also be called theft too since they're using server resource in an unauthorized way.

But I have to submit: If discussed within the context of Theft of services in ORS 164.125, then I supposed the misuse of Theft can be excused. That said, I really don't think we as a society should humor or follow how some lobbyist or politician decide to misuses words.

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

#460

Post by Zuiii »

dylan604 wrote: post #137
Zuiii wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>No, it can't be theft Survey says...XXX Texas Penal Code Section 31.04 - Theft of Service https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_31...

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37401155 (raises the same point)
Post reply on HN