"They were charged with wiretapping"? You must have better sources than
the one given. I haven't seen the complaint or charges. I have seen what
is apparently the law, which covers a lot more ground than that.
We know the source originally pointed to is florid. I am not advocating
"denying the hacker connection". I have been suggesting reading through
it, and I now suggest that guilt by association is a poor use of a fine
Mr. Newstrom, have you taken a hard look at Brin's book?
MMB, ceasing to discuss the bust
"That broad brush must save you a lot of time.
Reduces repetitive stress, too, I'll bet."
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Doug Jones <email@example.com> wrote on Saturday, January 08, 2000 2:36 pm,
> > I made the original crack about cable descramblers, but on investigating
> > further, found this list of products that were seized from Ramsey
> > Electronics:
> > Most are innocuous, like the FM transmitters and the generic video
> > the disguised cameras are most likely to be used for home security (one
> > testimonial mentions a smoke alarm video set up to monitor the front porch
> > for grandma, another was used to find a person putting threatening notes
> > into a schoolgirl's locker); and the only items really close to bending
> > law are the downconverters and 800 MHz receivers which could be used to
> > listen in on cell phone calls.
> They were charged with wiretapping. I don't think the cameras were at
> issue. The equipment to listen in on cell phone calls is at issue.
> There is a reason that the original report cited here comes from the 2600
> Hacker's website. It is a little late to deny the hacker connection now,
> after the hackers have worked so hard to defend one of their favorite
> Harvey Newstrom <http://harveynewstrom.com>
> Certified Consultant, Legal Hacker, Engineer, Research Scientist, Author.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:09 MDT