Conference noted::hackers_v1

        I think that .0 is referring to the following from the SATELLITE
        conference (also AAP news)
        
        
Associated Press Mon 28-APR-1986 01:59                             HBO-Hacker

   FCC To Investigate Hacker's Penetration Of HBO
        
                            By RICK HAMPSON
                        Associated Press Wri[Dter
   NEW YORK (AP) - Home Box Office was showing a movie about a
breach of U.S. defense secrets when it had its own security breach:
a hacker who stole HBO's signal in an apparent protest of the
network's effort to cut off non-paying viewers.
   The message, printed in white letters on a color-bar test
pattern background, appeared at about 12:30 a.m. EST Sunday during
a broadcast of the film ``The Falcon and the Snowman.'' It read:
``Goodevening HBO from Captain Midnight. $12.95 a month? No way!
(Showtime Movie Channel Beware.)''
   ``It's a criminal, willful interference of a government-licensed
satellite broadcast,'' said David Pritchard, an HBO vice president.
   ``It's kind of like terrorism of the airwaves,'' said Greg
Mahany, who was watching in Middletown, Ohio.
   The message stayed on the air for about five minutes and was
seen in the eastern two-thirds of the nation, which accounts for
more than half of HBO's 14.6 million subscribing households.
   Pritchard said the unprecedented incident would be referred to
the Federal Communications Commission.
   The hacker effectively replaced HBO's signal with his own,
apparently with the use of a satellite dish and a powerful
transmitter, he said.
   ``This represents a clear danger to every satellite user,
including the federal government,'' he said.
   FCC spokesman William Russell said the agency would investigate
but he refused to provide details about how the authorities might
locate the perpetrator or prevent him from striking again.
   ``I can't go into detail about what we may or may not be doing
technically,'' Russell said Sunday. ``I don't think it would be
beneficial to have the person involved know what we're capable of
doing.''
   Sunday's intrusion was immediately noticed at HBO's
communications center in Hauppauge, but it was not clear whether
the hacker ended his own message or was forced off by HBO.
   The HBO cable signal is scrambled to prevent reception by
customers who get cable television but do not pay for HBO. But
until recently, HBO did not scramble the signal it sent via
satellite to the earth stations that relay the signals to cable
customers, enabling interceptions by satellite dish owners.
   In January, HBO began scrambling all its satellite-to-earth
signals. HBO told dish owners who had been watching for free that
they would have to buy a specially made descrambler for $395 or pay
$12.95 a month.
   Showtime, another leading pay cable service, announced plans for
a similar system.
   Pritchard said action like Sunday morning's had been threatened
in letters to HBO and in magazines read by dish owners.
   ``We'd been threatened for the last four or five months with
something like this if we didn't reconsider our plan to scramble,''
he said. ``They said they'd do something. They didn't say what.''

   Another leading pay cable service, Showtime, announced plans for
a similar system.
   Pritchard said about 6,000 dish owners put down the cash for the
decoder and signed up for HBO or its sister service, Cinemax. But
the proposal has been unpopular with others.
   ``They say things like, `The airwaves are free,' and `They (HBO)
are using government satellites that our taxes pay for,'''
Pritchard said.
   Pritchard said HBO's programs are its property, and it leases
space from privately owned satellites.
        

Umm, John, perhaps you had better read the radio law again.  Changes
in the "ownership" of the spectrum are made by the FCC under United
States laws and treaties, not by hackers.

Martin
(FCC 1st Phone\enohP ts1\General radio license holder for 20 years.)

    Flame on!
    
    Anyone who hacks into the signal I'VE PAID TO RECEIVE is VANDALIZING my
    property.  We tend to cheer the little guy who takes on "the system
    (HBO)", but he's stepping on hundreds of millions of more toes than
    those belonging to HBO. 
    
    Flame off.
    
    There!  I feel better.
    

	    "Terrorism of the airwaves?"
			<_Jym_>

Sounds like America got its first real live slapstick in
years--and didn't like it!  (At least in Ohio, and where ever
.3 lives :-)

Now for the big question.  Since HBO wants to sic the FCC on
these 'Tverrorists', do you think they will refund any money
to any of the cable companies who carry it?

I think they did it to themselves to get the publicity, since
they have been sucking some big financial wind lately :-)

    
    	I didnt mean to imply that the hack was legal.... It is deliberate
    interference, one of the MOST serious violations of FCC law.
    I was referring to the fact that HBO does not OWN that frequency
    and I have serious doubts that they OWN the transmitted signal that
    ends up in my backyard.
    
    	An interesting aside... as far as catching the Captain Midnight"
    triangulation is reasonably difficult on shortwave frequencies (signals
    that propagate between the ionized layers and earth. The concept
    is simple, but execution is time-consuming. However a transmitted
    signal aimed straight up, with a fairly narrow lobe could only
    be triangulated from space! Any thoughts on this? (perhaps this
    should move to ham radio or satellite notes).
    
    	A 10 yr ham, general licencee
    
    	-John
    
    	PS: Terrorism on the airwaves????? what wonderful headline copy
    	to confuse the masses!!!!  :-)

    
    
    	HBO = "hacked briefly overnight"

    Come on, what kind of great achievement was it to just ram a big
    transmitter at a sitting-duck satellite?  Brute force, just to annoy.
    
    The public owns the airwaves, but some private party owns the satellite
    and it's paid for out of subscriptions.  HBO had every legal right
    to scramble, and they should have long ago.  Ham operators would
    be interested to read Wayne Green's view of the subject in the May
    issue of 73 Magazine (also in some libraries, including LKG).  He's
    no prig but notes scrambling HBO is really key to preventing laws like
    the pending proposal in Congress that would prohibit casual listening
    in to whatever you find.  (Yes, the Cellular folks want to make
    SWLing illegal.  After all, they don't scramble, and their customers
    just found out they can be listened to!)

    Well, it wasn't _too_ lousy a hack...
    
     fred_k1io_
    20 year ham
    retired pirate broadcaster (heh heh)

    My feeling is that it does not seem right to be prosecuted for
    receiving anything.  After all, it is they who are dropping the
    signals on my backyard.  However, I think HBO has a perfect right
    to put whatever they like on their signal.  Encoding is in
    the eyes of the beholder.  After all, modulation is a form of encoding.
    It's just that our TVs happen to have a decoder for only one form
    of encoding called NTSC.
    
    One still can't help but cheer a bit for the little guy, though.
    
    Burns
    

	
    re: -{
    HBO has the right to scramble... I maintain I have the right to
    descramble ..... 
    re:-2   pirate eh? I'd enjoy some private correspondence on that
    issue!!!!    :-)
    
    	-JB

    Something that went on last fall in San Jose, the local Cable company
    was using a micro wave link between two distribution points, and
    the people under the path found that a simple, inexpensive receiver
    would give them free HBO...  Well the Cable Company threatened Criminal
    and Civil action if these people continued to use these receivers.
    That was the last I heard, a lot of people were scared into trashing
    the receivers but I didnt hear of any legal action.
    
        

    A few of the previous notes came close to the mark, but....
    
    The airwaves are owned by the public.  In recognition of this,
    and the need of a central registry, the FCC licenses bands of
    frequencies.  By broadcasting on HBO's licensed frequency, the
    'hackers' violated federal law.

    Subscribers to HBO have no legal recourse against the 'hackers'
    (as a previous note suggested), and would probably be unable to
    make any claim against HBO.

    I know that public power utilities are legally protected against
    theft of their power (as in running a wire near power lines, and
    using the induced potential to run appliances).  I *don't* know
    whether this law applies to the airwaves (or even to private power
    utilities), but suspect it doesn't (note that radio receivers
    drain a miniscule amount of power from the broadcast signal).

    If the law *did* apply, non-subscribers receiving HBO broadcasts
    *might* be in the uncomfortable position of either drawing power
    from the broadcast or (as is possible) *enhancing* the broadcast,
    thereby violating the FCC rights to license the airwaves (!?).
    Cars and I-beams receive HBO broadcasts; perhaps *intent* is an
    important consideration, too?

    The Privacy Act makes electronic eavesdropping of private communication
    illegal.  Eavesdropping on Bell Telephone's transmissions is (or *was*)
    illegal (when Ma Bell was a privileged carrier).  I assume MCI is also
    so protected.  However, the FCC license for HBO broadcasts requires that
    the broadcasts be *public* (though not necessarily free), in the sense
    that HBO may not capriciously deny service.

    Altogether, it's an interesting legal question.

    I've been a ham radio operator (and also hold a General Radiotelephone
    license) for years and was under the impression that you can legally
    receive anything on the airwaves (after all, you didn't ask to be
    bombarded with their RF), but that the Privacy Act prevents you
    from *divulging* anything that you may have picked up.

Re. .11 -- In June 1984 I got a letter from a Sunnyvale, CA. law firm 
stating that I would be sued if I didn't take down the "illegal" microwave
dish on my San Jose, CA. home. They said that they had put public notices
in the bay area newspapers in March and April 1984 stating that they 
would bring charges against people that didn't comply. There was only one
problem with their case against me. I hadn't lived in the house and 
hadn't been in the bay area since February 1984, because I took a job 
with DEC in Co. Springs. I never did hear if they did take anyone to 
court.

I really hated to see them scaring people into removing dishes, and felt 
bad about it because I built a number of them myself and sold them to 
friends.

    
    	....re: -1
    
    	One is not "draining" any signal from satellites. The sat's
    transmit a certain amount of power, that is spewed across its receiving
    footprint. If the power was not captured by a dish, it would be
    absorbed by the soil around your house.
    
    	Also, one can legally receive transmissions that ARE NOT intended
    as public broadcasts. (Air Force One transmissions, Cordless telephone
    transmissions etc.) as long as the content is not divulged. Ham
    radio transmissions are not intended for public reception, but they
    are legally receivable. The Ham that sent tapes of The Irreverand
    James Jones transmissions from his "mission" , to a local TV station
    was under FCC scrutinty because of his divulging content.
    
    	-John
    	(WB5OAU)

Thanks for the clarification, that receiving is legal.

However, dishes *do* drain (a miniscule amount of) signal from satellites.  
So does a car, or any other unshielded conductor.  I doubt whether this
could be considered 'theft of power'.

    Re: .16
    
    They may drain a miniscule amount of signal from the satallite,
    but they do not effect the strength of the signal at the earth station
    that the local cable company is using.  
    
    Larry

I'm not an expert (even though I do have a "bachelor's" degree in electrical
engineering), but I would suspect that the ground would drain as much
satellite power as the dish.

Could someone please explain why they think a dish drains more than
the ground ?  (I realize we're all talkin' spit in the ocean anyway,
but it's an interesting concept)

I suppose that if someone LIVED in the ground, they'd have better
reception if my dish weren't obstructing their "view" of the
satellite.

My concept of the satellite is that it's like a garden hose sprayer
nozzle that sprays in all directions.  If you stand on one side,
you'll get wet.  If I stand on the other side, you'll get just
as wet (and so will I).  if I wear a raincoat or not, you'll still
get just as wet !  So why will a dish drain satellite power
from someone else's receiver ?

/Eric

re .18:
Think of the satellite as a big light bulb, with the dishes as parabolic
mirrors, and the feedhorns as black objects at the focal point of the mirror.
You'll see that something behind the dish will be shaded by it, and will not
get a signal.  (it will get a little, pretend the mirrored dish is slightly
transparent.)  A dish next to the first will be unaffected.  There are small
effects of diffraction, constructive and destructive interference so a dish
close to the first may get more or less power because of it.  So one dish will
not drain another, as long as the other isn't in the "shade" of the first. 

-Mike

    Re: .15
    But it's illegal to receive public broadcasts (without permission)?
    

>    But it's illegal to receive public broadcasts (without permission)?

No it's not!  The communications act of 1934 allows you to receive *anything
you want*. You may not divulge what you heard to anyone else unless what
you listened to was: 1) Broadcast transmission; 2) Amateur radio transmission;
or 3) An emergency.  In other words, it is perfectly legal for you to set up
a dish and receive free HBO, but it would be illegal for you to tell someone
that you saw such-and-such movie on your HBO receiver (unless that person
was there to see the movie, too)

-Mike

    But surely all you put the dish up there for was to *PROTECT* your
    household from the deleterious effects of the microwave radiation.
    
    SUE HBO!!
    
    	Ian. :-)
    

   
    It is at least debatedly legal (see below), at least for the time being
    and I hope forever, to receive and even to unscramble rf (HBO,
    cellular, ...) signals, but the people who object most strongly to HBO
    scrambling often stretch that into a claim that such broadcasters have
    no right to make doing so a difficult or expensive form of
    entertainment.  They seem to be angry at HBO for violating the
    assumptions or the misinformation on which they based their decision to
    buy an earthstation.  I find it ironic that they don't seem to get
    angry at the equipment dealers and magazines that led them down this
    path and took their money, but rather to continue to view them as
    "leaders in the fight against big business". 
                                                            
    There is also a second aspect to the circumstances under which the
    reception of signals is permitted.  From what I have heard it is
    a crime to use any information obtained that way for personal gain,
    even if doing so would not involve disclosing it to anyone else,
    e.g., if you overheard a careless business executive on a cellular
    phone disclose plans for a new plant, it would be a crime to use
    that knowledge by buying land in that vicinity and making a profit
    on the coming real estate boom.  (Admittedly, it would be very hard
    to prove that you did that, but I'm talking about the strict legal
    situation here.)                   
    
    Some broadcasters, whether or not they encrypt their signals, are
    saying that receiving but not paying for TV programs that authorized
    consumers do have to pay for, violates this aspect of the law - that the
    entertainment received has value and is a form of personal gain. 
    I'm not particularly sympathetic toward them, but they do seem to
    have some legal basis for their complaints.                
    
    Joe

      
    
    	Then I cant think of one reason that a radar detector can be
    considered illegal in some states...It's only receiving a signal
    and this is a supposidly right of "the people". SO how come someone
    who's had thier radar detector taken by the "law" gone to court
    and made a big stink over it!??
    
    Another_tip_to_the_iceberg...

    No one. And that's why the laws are still on the books.

There is a big difference between receiving broadcast signals and
police radar signals. THE ONLY REASON to "detect" radar signals 
it to purposely break the law and then evade capture. I believe the
reason nobody has taken this to court is that their lawyers probably
told them they would be wasting their money on lawyers fees, because the
court would not give them the decision they wanted. 

Take for instance  encrypted military communications, you can readily
receive them in the HF and Satellite bands. If by genius or a stroke
of luck you manage to decrypt them, you'll be breaking the law!

Let us be thankfull (?) that more states have not jumped on the bandwagon
banning the use of radar detectors. Personally I don't own one, I keep my
speed around 65 or so on the highways of NH and have passed many a cop
without any difficulty. Their looking for the guys doing 75-85 who have
a radar detector. New police radar units act like guns, they point and
shoot, and have your speed before you can slow down!


			--Tom

    re: .27
    
    Oh no, not another fine display of holier-than-thou attitude here.
    
    - Vikas

re: .28

Whoa! What do you mean "Holier than thou" ????

I don't own a radar detector, but I don't care if you do. 65mph is
fast enough for me and the cops don't seem to mind either. So why
have you labeled me "Holier than thou" ?

I do mind getting passed by a pair of clowns who are racing each other
down the interstate at 90+ Mph! I also believe that the 55MPH speed
limit is to low for the modern interstate highway, they were designed
for safe travel at 65. 

I was merely stating the legal position the courts have regarding the
banning of radar detectors, although I am ambivilent either way 
regarding the banning of radar detectors, I find it difficult to believe
that anybody out there would disagree that their soul purpose is 
to allow the user to break the law and evade capture. I simply don't believe
it relates to the legal points raised with regard to the reception of
satellite signals.
					--Tom

    Simple, if you are going to bitch about breaking the law, make sure you
    are not guilty of the same crime. The last I knew, the speed limit was
    still 55 mph.  Going above is breaking the law. Whether 56 or 96, it is
    breaking the law nevertheless. 
    
    Not only that you have publicly claimed your total disregard to the
    law but I get a distinct impression that you are also proud of it.  The
    recent uproar in the noteland would dictate little more prudence in
    promoting illegal acts than what has been shown here. 
    
    Driving ten miles above the speed limit and then sneering at other
    speeders is nothing but height of hypocrisy.  
        
    Please note that my own driving should be left out of this discussion
    as I do not like to pass value judgment on others.  So whether I drive
    below speed limit or whether I use radar detector is not open to
    discussion. 
    
    - Vikas

This is my official notice to anyone transmitting anything.

I want a nickel a micro watt for anything that falls in my backyard.
I think it hurts my grass.  HBO - you have been notified.

And if HBO don't like my grass listening they can try and sue them.
There are more of those little grass guys than HBO guys and they
have more green stuff.

Bye
Kay R. Fisher

    Re .30:
    
    There is nothing hypocritical about thinking 65 is safe and higher
    speeds are not.
    
    
    Re radar detectors:
    
    Federal law says people may receive anything.  Does anybody know
    whether states are allowed to add their own regulations to this?
    
    
    				-- edp

    
>    There is nothing hypocritical about thinking 65 is safe and higher
>    speeds are not. 
    
    There is something hypocritical about thinking 65 is LEGAL and higher
    speeds are not.
    
- Vikas 

    
    What has any of this to do with hacking?  How about taking your
    personal conversation about speeding to VAX MAIL or PHONE?  Frankly,
    Scarlet, ...
    

    Re .34:
    
    Done.
    
    
    				-- edp

    If you lived next to a drive-in movie theater, could the owner
    sue you for watching the movie over the fence?  Or if you lived
    next to a concert hall, could the owner sue you for overhearing
    performances?
    
    I think the burden would fall on the owner to build higher fences,
    more soundproof walls, etc. and no way could you be sued.  So it
    would seem logical that the owner of a dish could not be sued for
    receiving unsolicited signals.
    
    Of course, common sense is all too often a stranger to the courtroom.

      John

> I want a nickel a micro watt for anything that falls in my backyard.
> I think it hurts my grass.  HBO - you have been notified.

People have a hard time showing mega watt power lines hurt their grass! :-)

Re .32

The states don't regulate WHAT you can receive, just WHERE.  It is perfectly 
legal to have a radar detector in your house - you just can't have it in your 
car.   Some states ban the use of headphones in cars too!

Steve

    re .36 -- watching the drive-in movie next door for free
    
    There is an old Chinese tale about a poor student who could only afford
    plain white rice to eat, but since he lived above a gourmet restaurant
    it tasted like the fine food being served below. 
    
    The restaurant owner learned of this, and decided to sue this poor
    student for the price of the scents.  The judge who heard the case
    agreed with the owner, but declared that the price of the smell of food
    is the sound of money. 

    Although the parallel is not exact (after all, seeing the movie
    over the fence is just as good as seeing it from within the fence)
    perhaps the price would simply be to exhibit the money?
    
    re .37 -- banning radar detectors
    
    The U.S. Supreme court has ruled that it is legal to receive anything
    anywhere.  Those states (such as Connecticut) which ban radar detectors
    have laws which are unconstitutional.  This is an unstable situation
    which will last only until the laws are challenged in court.
    
    Headphones are illegal to wear while driving an auto simply for safety
    reasons -- so you can hear sirens and horns.  There are other rules of
    a similar nature, such as no bare feet while driving. This type
    of regulation is perfectly constitutional. 
    
    Andy V 

    	I have been amused by the apparently opposite legal arguments
    against radar detectors between U.S. and U.K..
    
    	In the U.S. the freedom of information guaranteed by the
    constitution has been argued as allowing the reception of the radar
    signals, with the counter argument that it can be made illegal since
    the signal has no information content.
    
    	In the U.K. a licence is required to receive information by
    electromagnetic radiation. (There is an implicit licence for recognised
    sound broadcasting stations). The reception of sunlight is legal
    since it has no information content. It was decided that a receiver
    for the police radar was illegal because the signal *had* an
    information content.
    
    		Dave   :-)

    The real difference is that in the U.S. the airwaves were declared
    public by the Federal Communications Act of 1934, long before there was
    either radar or radar detectors. That law says that everyone has the
    right to *receive* any band that has not been declared classified. If
    some enterprising person found a classified band on which to build a
    police radar, then a detector for that band would be illegal. 
    
    	Jon

    The concept that the airwaves are free is under attack in the U.S.
    There is a bill before congress that would make it illegal to listen
    to various radio services. It is being aimed at the Cellular Radio
    Service but would also affect the reception of various Fire and
    Police services.
    
    This bill would effectively make it illegal to own a scanner or
    radio that is capable of receiving some of the above frequencies.
    
    

    re.40.... "a classified band?" Please explain!
    
    	-John -WB5OAU

    The government has several bands that it has restricted access too.
    If you look on a frequency map you'll find them.
    
    	Jon

    Not to get off of the subject of radar detectors, but I read somewhere
    that one way that they were able to at least narrow down the search
    for Captain Midnight was to use the satellite.  Apparently the sats
    dont just hang there absolutely stable, but because of various
    gravitational effects, they follow a [very small] figure-8 pattern
    (as seen from the ground).  If you have the right hardware on the
    ground, you can use the doppler effect or the phase shift or something
    like that to calculate the approximate area of the country that
    the transmitter is located in.
    	It's kind of interesting to note that people have been 'pirating'
    satellite transponders for quite a while.  By using a low-power
    signal on the edges of the passband (where the owner considers the
    transponder 'unusable'), you can get a free ride.  Yes, it's illegal,
    but not everyone who owns or leases a transponder pays attention
    to all of the bandwidth.
    	BTW: My opinion is that I have every right to recieve and
    unscramble for my private use, any signal being broadcast at me.
    On the other tentacle, HBO (or whatever broadcaster) has every right
    to scramble the signal in such a way as to make it impossible (or
    economically impractical) for me to make use of the signal.  If
    it's cheaper for me to buy or rent a decoder from them, I'll do
    that.  Well, I spend far more time watching the entertainment on
    my VR-201 than I do my Sony, but you get the idea.
    
    Willie
    

    "Investigators believe Captain Midnight was probably an engineer
    at a commercial satellite uplink site, since to generate a signal
    as powerful as his would require a dish at least 30 feet in diameter,
    three times the size of the typical backyard model.  There are only
    about 200 such sites in the country.  By weeding our tranmitting
    stations known to be in use at the time (CNN's, for example), experts
    were able to narrow the list to only a few dozen.
    
    Here the high-tech trail ran out.  Video engineers say it would
    probably have been possible to identify the particular tranmitter
    involved by its electronic quirks if a high-quality tape of the
    broadcast existed.  But nobody made such a tape.  HBO engineers
    had their hands full trying to override the pirate signal when Captain
    Midnight struck, and the tape machines weren't rolling.  The only
    tapes were made on home video cassette recorders by viewers, including
    one Federal Communications Commission engineer who happended to
    be taping the film.  Investigators tried to get a higher-quality
    recording by making a composite of a dozen of the home tapes.  'We
    were hoping to find a color bar generator that was unique in some
    way - in other words, a smoking gun,' says one.  'But it wasn't
    successful.'
    
    As a result, the investigation shifted to old-fashioned legwork.
    As we went to press, FBI and FCC agents were trooping from station
    to station, asking each to account for its activities on the morning
    of April 27.  Meanwhile, HBO had taken steps to prevent a recurrence.
    The company, which is owned by Time Inc., the publisher of DISCOVER,
    increased the power of its signal to make it more difficult for
    a would-be video pirate to intrude.  But HBO - and the FCC - is
    also hoping Captain Midnight will try it again.  'It's easier to
    trace a phone call when the party is still talking,' says Joseph
    Boyle of SPACE, a satellite dish industry trade association.
    
    However, Captain Midnight or other could escalate the war.
    Geosynchronous satellites, like the Hughes Galaxy 1 and RCA Satcom
    3R that carry HBO, tend to drift in their orbits because of
    discontinuities in the earth's magnetic field.  Therefore, these
    satellites are euipped with small rockets that are fired periodically,
    on orders from earth, to keep them on station.  Satellite experts
    say that if someone knew the special codes and frequencies for such
    orders, he could send a multimillion-dollar satellite spinning off
    into space."
    
    (DISCOVER Magazine, "A Signal Event:  On the Track of Captain Midnight,
    July 1986 issue)
    

    How likely is it that someone could get ahold of the codes and
    frequencies needed to 'correct the orbit' of the HBO bird, and somehow
    assemble the hardware to talk to it?  Doesn't sound likely to me,
    but I _could_ be wrong...
    
    Willie
    

    Well, Captain Midnight was arrested today.  He is a dish dealer
    in Ocala, Florida and part-time technican at the Ocala Teleport.
    
    I live just down the road from Ocala and have never heard of the
    Ocala Teleport.  Certainly SOUNDS impressive.  Other than Silver
    Springs and the forest not much else is impressive in Ocala.
    
    The Captain was tripped up by the character generator he used. 
    It seems that the Ocala Teleport was the only uplink powerful enough
    to take over the circuit that had the particular brand of character
    generator used for the message.
    
    Based on the way the FBI acted at the arrainment, the feds plan
    to make an example of this guy.
    
    Don

    
    I guess you can't call the man a hacker no more , hackers 
    don't get caught ......
    						randy

    I heard on the news last night that he had already pleaded guilty,
    was going to get a $5,000(?) fine and have his ham liscence revoked,
    so maybe they won't make too much of an example of him.  I would
    suspect that they don't want to make _too_ much of an issue of it...
    
    Willie
    

    
    Yup, he's caught.  But what about Oliver Wendell Jones?