Not seen this answered in any forumn

[MercurE1]

ok if i am a dumbass tell me i will not be offended. my question is????? CAN and unlooper be used for ANY OTHER PURPOSE than to fix cards used by direct tv. Meaning can i use it to crack into smart cards to read their contents. Has ANYONE found this answer. I have been researching smart cards and their uses and have not found an answer. I would think that traditional smart cards would have the same security as Dave but would be bypassable with unloopers given the right software. I am asking does this software exist. If not could it be developed. I am looking into studying the matter and then working on it as an excuse for having one. Thanks

Merc

[Kool Aid]

From the SDLOGIC web site.......

Full Featured Hardware Based ISO-7816 PC/SC Factory Format/Repair Terminal (Compatible With All MCU Smart Cards)
The SD7816U USCT rev 3.0 terminal will support full ISO-7816 smart card factory format/repair capabilities at 18.432, 9.216, and 4.608MHz with the unprecedented performance of a totally new and enhanced rev 3.0 design concept. Everything is automatic! Just develop or load any compatible code into the on board AVR micro-controller and the possibilities are limitless.

Looks like you can format/repair smart cards with this one.

[REDx]

just as a side note it would not be
illegal to unloop hu cards.
if you only unloop cards with it
you could charge for that service.
no laws would be broken as long as
you didnt alter the card to recieve
dtv's signal.

[mrself_destruct]

Yes an unlooper can be used to for normal smartcards.

Now, for months people have been "researching" the legitimate use theory as a defense/excuse against Dave's extortion letter. I'm just gonna say this, if you're not really involved in smartcard programming then going this route is a big trap, especially with an Unlooper becuase "unloopers" are devices specifically manufactured for the purpose of hacking satellite....cmon people you don't think Dave is prepared for this defense? If you really think about it this is probably the worse defense you could take....(next to admitting and paying the settlement).

Why admit to the purchase in the first place? Why admit to anything? Don't give him any extra ammo. Deny everything...make them prove you actually purchased and received the device...if they can't do that they have nothing. If they can then MAYBE use the "legitimate use" defense as a last resort but even then it's shakey.


Originally posted by MercurE1
ok if i am a dumbass tell me i will not be offended. my question is????? CAN and unlooper be used for ANY OTHER PURPOSE than to fix cards used by direct tv. Meaning can i use it to crack into smart cards to read their contents. Has ANYONE found this answer. I have been researching smart cards and their uses and have not found an answer. I would think that traditional smart cards would have the same security as Dave but would be bypassable with unloopers given the right software. I am asking does this software exist. If not could it be developed. I am looking into studying the matter and then working on it as an excuse for having one. Thanks

Merc

[REDx]

if dtv can prove you bought a unlooper.
rather than lieing you simply say i use
the device to repair Hu cards.
there is no law against that.unless im
wrong the question was is there a legal
use for a unlooper. the answer is yes.

[mrself_destruct]

LOL....you say that to them....you're just begging for a lawsuit and most likely a loss in court cuz there's no way Dave's lawyers would back down after that...gimme a break....thats the worse advice I've seen yet.


Originally posted by REDx
if dtv can prove you bought a unlooper.
rather than lieing you simply say i use
the device to repair Hu cards.
there is no law against that.

[fizzo]

What doesn't make sense to me is that just because someone purchases a device, doesn't make him a dtv pirate. If I purchase a CD burner, does that make me a software pirate? If I purchase a DVD burner, does that make me a movie pirate? VCR, Tape Recorder, copy machine, etc. The list can go on. From what I've read and heard from others, the letter is just stating that you purchased a device. Where's the proof that the person programmed DTV cards?

[mrself_destruct]

EXACTLY....Dave has alot to prove and so far none of the lawsuits he has filed have gone their full-course with an actual decision from a jury either way...so we'll see what he can prove if anything.

Problem is that no one wants to take it that far because the expense is too great for the average person and Dave knows this, so the question then becomes how to respond to his extortion letter (if at all) and get him off your back without settling and getting a summons.

So do you want to go the full-course with a suit and make Dave prove with a proponderance of evidence that you damaged him? I think we all know the answer.

So, AGAIN, the question is how to deal with this without getting sued and settling.

Of course there's the class action lawsuit also which everyone should join.


Originally posted by fizzo
What doesn't make sense to me is that just because someone purchases a device, doesn't make him a dtv pirate. If I purchase a CD burner, does that make me a software pirate? If I purchase a DVD burner, does that make me a movie pirate? VCR, Tape Recorder, copy machine, etc. The list can go on. From what I've read and heard from others, the letter is just stating that you purchased a device. Where's the proof that the person programmed DTV cards?

[REDx]

ok ill give you a break just this once.
i have never advised anyone who has stolen
dtv's product to go to court.
when most were saying ignore the letters
i said get a lawyer. i was band from a lot
of sites a couple of years ago for saying dont
buy from US based dealers.
i simply answered a question. my answer is stands.
a unlooper has legal uses.
what you and most others dont get is that
dtv doesnt care if there is a legal use for
the equipment. only that the purchase is enough
for a law suit. maybe in your RESEARCH you missed
the fact that OWNING a pirate device isnt a CIVIL
actionable offence.
this is all about getting people to settle or to
get them to discovery. at that point when you deny
everything as you in YOUR vast wisdom is the correct
action .all they gotta do is prove you lied.
then YOU have lost.

[morgana]

It really is not that the components of the unlooper are illegal. They are not. The assembled unit along with the programmed atmel, while designed for mostly one specific purpose, it does not mean that you can not alter it for use in a legal purpose. Many things have perfectly legal uses for them, but also have illegal uses as well. You need to be sure you can either be so smart to know all the differences in detail, or better to show total lack of any knowledge to the point where you probably could not understand the way these were used, and just caught up in the curiosity of all the hype, never being told about the illegal side if things. One is a whole lot easier to do the other is very difficult to play. It would have to also be credibly in a cost efficient manner. This is where most will die on the vine with the legal uses defence. As when they start to ask you all the technical things about this legal use, you have to be able to answer with some degree of knowledge and personal experience. If you fudge this, and get caught up in it, the judge will then see you are trying to mislead and you will be dead in the water. If you get too technical and dazel DTV, with your knowledge, you will then go on the list of people to deeply investigate.

Playing dumb, while bad for the ego, is usually the best and easiest thing to do. Even if they find you now are not as dumb as you claim, that could be due to you having learned things along the way. It is much harder to prove that you were so smart in the beginning and got dumber along the way. If you were a judge which one would you think is more probable?

[mrself_destruct]

Dude, relax...your post was advocating telling Dave you used an unlooper to "fix" HU cards, so come on, you have to admit that's horrible advice. You get a letter and you're gonna call Dave up and say "I was fixing HU cards" I was just responding to what you said in that post. Of course an unlooper has legal uses, no one is debating that....what we're talking about is a response to Dave's extortion letter regarding the alleged purchase of an unlooper.

What you're saying below I mostly agree with. As for "vast" wisdom, I have none....all I speak is from experience. The response I advocate worked for me and others that I've kept in contact with through this ordeal.

As for your assertion that owning a pirate device isn't actionable CIVIL offense, well I think if that were true there wouldn't be over 250 lawsuits filed by DAVE working there way through the court system with 10-15 defendants listed on each one (at least 2500 people sued). Seems to be pretty damn actionable to me.


Originally posted by REDx
ok ill give you a break just this once.
i have never advised anyone who has stolen
dtv's product to go to court.
when most were saying ignore the letters
i said get a lawyer. i was band from a lot
of sites a couple of years ago for saying dont
buy from US based dealers.
i simply answered a question. my answer is stands.
a unlooper has legal uses.
what you and most others dont get is that
dtv doesnt care if there is a legal use for
the equipment. only that the purchase is enough
for a law suit. maybe in your RESEARCH you missed
the fact that OWNING a pirate device isnt a CIVIL
actionable offence.
this is all about getting people to settle or to
get them to discovery. at that point when you deny
everything as you in YOUR vast wisdom is the correct
action top take.all they gotta do is prove you lied.
then YOU have lost.

[REDx]

you need to reread my posts.
plus check your facts.it is
NOT i repeat NOT in itself
a civil actionable act to buy
a unlooper.it is not illegal
to repair a Hu card to its original
state. a unlooper is not in itself
a illegal device.
IF you were to admit you used a
unlooper to repair a Hu card to
its original state. you did nothing
illegal.

[mrself_destruct]

I'm not sure why you keep harping on this or playing semantics.

I think you've just proved my point. Perhaps you like to put your money where your mouth is and call Dave and the nearest Federal U.S. Attorney and tell them you've been using an unlooper to "restore HU cards to their original state" and that you're not doing anything illegal.

Let us know what happens.



Originally posted by REDx
you need to reread my posts.
plus check your facts.it is
NOT i repeat NOT in itself
a civil actionable act to buy
a unlooper.it is not illegal
to repair a Hu card to its original
state. a unlooper is not in itself
a illegal device.
IF you were to admit you used a
unlooper to repair a Hu card to
its original state. you did nothing
illegal.

[Lager]

If he calls dave all he will need to do is look over the cubicle divider.

Lager

[freetv4mee]

Originally posted by Lager
If he calls dave all he will need to do is look over the cubicle divider.

Lager

LOL

...Can always count on you Lager ;-)

[freetv4mee]

Originally posted by morgana

Playing dumb, while bad for the ego, is usually the best and easiest thing to do. Even if they find you now are not as dumb as you claim, that could be due to you having learned things along the way. It is much harder to prove that you were so smart in the beginning and got dumber along the way. If you were a judge which one would you think is more probable?

Morgana, I actually agree with you for a change.;)
Force dave to prove how intelligent you were at the time the supposed crime occurred.
You do this by remaining deaf and dumb and not offering anything, especially some excuse like "i unloop Hu cards."
The burdon of proof is on dave, and establishing a preponderance of evidence is only made easier when one offers lame excuses or alibies.

If it ever gets as far as a summons, let your lawyer speak for you and don't sweat the bogus allegations otherwise.

[REDx]

Originally posted by Lager
If he calls dave all he will need to do is look over the cubicle divider.

Lager
really just how many people
have been arrested for only
haveing a unlooper.
i dont mean selling them but
owning one.
its simple a unlooper is not
illegal. read the law i did,
TTRK also did.
the problem arises during
discovery. when they ask you
under oath did you use that unlooper
to alter a card to recieve dtv's
programing without paying for it.
if you can answer no.without them
proveing you lied then you win.
if not you lose.

[REDx]

you would have to be a moron to
deny everything when they have
proof you bought one.
well i guess if the shoe fits lol.

[DaPup]

REDx,
So when you unloop the cards, what are you writing back to it to repair it? Last i read you cant repair an hu card to its original image without having the original image like you could with the h card. If you are writing the original back, why did you save it? How did it get looped in the first place? Now with that being said, if you are writing a different img (cloning) to it you are altering it, thus ILLEGAL!!!!!!!
You can use this defence if you want, but i sure as hell wont be!!!!

[REDx]

Originally posted by DaPup
REDx,
So when you unloop the cards, what are you writing back to it to repair it? Last i read you cant repair an hu card to its original image without having the original image like you could with the h card. If you are writing the original back, why did you save it? How did it get looped in the first place? Now with that being said, if you are writing a different img (cloning) to it you are altering it, thus ILLEGAL!!!!!!!
You can use this defence if you want, but i sure as hell wont be!!!!
good point.
but i dont think anyone is getting MY point.
ill try again forget if the devices are legal
or not. dtv cant win just based upon you owning
them. he has to prove covinced a judge you used
them to steal his programing. this will de done
during discovery.

[mrself_destruct]

Why not make Dave prove you purchased it....what's this proof? A quickbooks generated invoice? A copy of a fax of a copy of a packing slip? You never purchased it....OR you never received it...much better defense then "I unloop HU cards"

hehe....this is funny

BTW, when I saw "defense" I'm not referring to in trial...this all how your attorney should respond in resposne to the letters before a suit is filed.


Originally posted by REDx
good point.
but i dont think anyone is getting MY point.
ill try again forget if the devices are legal
or not. dtv cant win just based upon you owning
them. he has to prove covinced a judge you used
them to steal his programing. this will de done
during discovery.

[REDx]

what ever, as soon as you lie and
get caught which you will get caught.
i never said to use it as a defense
i simply answered a question.
but after reading another thread you
posted in Destruct i see GS-2 corrected
your logic as far as lieing to the court.
i can not improve on his answer.

[mrself_destruct]

Nobody is advocating lying in court. And GS2 didnt correct anything I said, he wasnt even responding to me and in the offchance he was responding to me then he simply misunderstood what I was saying as you obviously do.

I'm referring to discussions your attorney would have with Dave's attorneys before any suit is filed...the WHOLE point being to prevent them from filing a suit. By denying everything, ....by challenging the purchase, you're sending a signal that they will have a fight on their hands every step of the way. And like I said before....this tactic has worked (so for albeit) for quite a few end-users I know.

Now if you are dealing with a lawsuit...denying you purchased the device is still an excellent defense. Denying this is NOT lying...they're not going to catch you perjuring yourself for anything like that. I do know what I'm talking about here because I happen to work in the criminal justice system - in criminal defense. I am not a lawyer either....that should narrow down what I do for anyone experienced in this field. I work over 50 cases a year...veyr few actually go to trial, maybe 8-10. Point I'm trying to make here (which will probably escape Redex) is that I know how the system works (granted criminal court is a little different than civil)...and Denying the purchase and receipt of these alleged "illegal" devices is a good defense....much better than "I was unlooping HU Cards"

LOL

Originally posted by REDx
what ever, as soon as you lie and
get caught which you will get caught.
i never said to use it as a defense
i simply answered a question.
but after reading another thread you
posted in Destruct i see GS-2 corrected
your logic as far as lieing to the court.
i can not improve on his answer.

[REDx]

i still contend that if dtv has
proof ie credit card receipts and
or records were it was signed for
by you. your best defense if you
chose to fight it is to say i purchased
it to repair cards to there origonal state.
further you tell them dtv wanted 80.00 ea
to replace them. they then must prove you
used it to steal there signal. there is
nothing illegal about repairing a card.

[JD490]

If you use a programmer/unlooper to program HU cards no matter what you are programming on it you are subjecting the HUcard to glitching which in turn is hacking the card circumventing there built in security system. This is what DirecTV will say you were doing. If you plan on fighting them don't even call them. The time for you to explain will be when the plaintiff rests, and your defense lawyer starts his opening statement.

[bill41]

The onus of proof is on DTV....they have to prove you used the said device to circumvent thier card to descramble thier signal....they MUST have evidence of such or they don't have a case....sure they got your name on a list from a busted dealer...but can they prove that you even recieved the product....mabey you got a rock or a PICTURE of an unlooper like some of the unscrupulous thieves were doing out there....once bitten twice shy...end of story.;)

[Doc203]

The bottom line is this...

Don't call a lawyer or talk to DTV at all until the subpoena you. 2nd if they do and you go to court they have to prove that you were using the said device to STEAL SIGNAL. The key here is they have to prove that. These aren't crack pipes that are deemed illegal in written law. They are assuming that you bought this product to steal signal, and they have to prove that you have been stealing signal, not that you bought a loader.

I guarantee you that of you talk to any lawyer he will tell you that buying a loader is not a crime. Also do you think that DTV would send a letter to you if they knew that they could convict you based on the basis that you bought a loader? HELL NO. They would just take you to court and collect what they have coming. Most criminals incriminate themselves with a little intimidation... that is a fact.

[MercurE1]

just wannqa say thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread.


Merc

[gunsmoke2]

I haven't posted in this thread until now. Therefore I don't know what post I made that's being refered to. I suspect its in another thread.



GS2

[Dolphin]

It is not illegal to use an unlooper to probe a hu card. It is not illegal to reverse engineer a card's programming using an unlooper. It is not illegal to read an eprom, to clone a image to another card, or to repair a damaged card with either a true or cloned bin. All of this becomes illegal the moment you put that card in a receiver and attempt or succeed in accessing signals that you did not pay for. Every manufacturer with competition in the market place buys the first new products from their competitor and starts to reverse engineer it to determine what makes it work. This is protected by law. It is synergy in action, building on the efforts of a previous person to make a better product. What you do with it is the difference.

It is also not illegal to probe and play with DTV's cards in order to learn more about smartcard tech, security, and the like. Education of how a system works in a viable, legal defense, whether or not you have any real need for it in you professional occupation. If your occupation does include net security, conditional access, or biometrics, and is verifiable by your employers, then DTV will have a real fight on their hands.

Flame away...

[mrself_destruct]

Okay Redex, now we're getting somewhere...so let's just follow this argument to it's logical conclusion.

1. How many people do you think actually signed a CC receipt for whatever they ordered? answer: none....all these orders were made via internet - no signatures on credit card receipt.

2. How many people actually signed for delivery on these orders (tracked shipping, etc)? answer: maybe a few with Fedex.

Now, anyone that has actually taken the time to have their attorney contact Dave's lawyers and request and have received their so-called "evidence" will be delighted to find out that Dave's evidence is very flimsy....as I have stated above....a quickbooks generated invoice, something easily forged. No credit card receipts, no shipping records...just an internal invoice.

Now instead of ignoring these letters and waiting to get a summons (some people here actually like to AVOID lawsuits in the first place) if you hire an attorney, have him contact them, request and receive their evidence, you are in a much better postiion to evaluate their whole case. When you see what flimsy "evidence" they have it becomes apparant to anyone that challenging the actual purchase in the first place becomes and obvious and prudent inital action. Most of the time they will back down after that and move onto someone they deem an EASIER target....like someone who ignores the letter and is waiting for a summons (or saying please sue me I dont take this seriously) or someone who calls them to settle or someone who calls them and says "I was just unlooping HU cards!" LOL

If they don't back down and provide more proof, then you can fallback to another response. However in most cases (again, this is from experience, myself and talkign to other end-users) Dave's attorneys back down and leave you alone.

That's all I'm saying

Originally posted by REDx
i still contend that if dtv has
proof ie credit card receipts and
or records were it was signed for
by you. your best defense if you
chose to fight it is to say i purchased
it to repair cards to there origonal state.
further you tell them dtv wanted 80.00 ea
to replace them. they then must prove you
used it to steal there signal. there is
nothing illegal about repairing a card.

[mmmmkaaay]

Why not make a complaint as out lined by sandmen in this thread:

http://www.dsschat.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142259

Seems like the most logical step...

[mmmmkaaay]

double post please remove

[condmca]

Originally posted by mrself_destruct

Now instead of ignoring these letters and waiting to get a summons (some people here actually like to AVOID lawsuits in the first place) if you hire an attorney, have him contact them, request and receive their evidence, you are in a much better postiion to evaluate their whole case. When you see what flimsy "evidence" they have it becomes apparant to anyone that challenging the actual purchase in the first place becomes and obvious and prudent inital action.


I agree with you mrself_destruct,

But what's wrong with waiting for the summons before having your attorney contact them?
Personally, this is nothing but a nuisance to be avoided for some of us "old-timers" (low on my business priority anyways) and I would rather wait to be summoned before spending a dime on attorney fees.

Any thoughts on this are appreciated...

[mrself_destruct]

Well that's up to you...I dont neccessairly think it's a bad idea but not a good one either, I just prefer dealing with it before a suit is filed. If you receive a summons it means they already filed a suit and that becomes pubic record regardless of the outcome. Plus you're committed to spending more money becuase now your attorney has to prepare a response to the suit, plus after they file you'll probably have to go through discovery before they will back off, unless you want to settle. I think it's better to handle this before they file suit, but it's up to each person...my opinions in the above psots are specifically for dealing with them before they file suit not after.


Originally posted by condmca
I agree with you mrself_destruct,

But what's wrong with waiting for the summons before having your attorney contact them?
Personally, this is nothing but a nuisance to be avoided for some of us "old-timers" (low on my business priority anyways) and I would rather wait to be summoned before spending a dime on attorney fees.

Any thoughts on this are appreciated...

[gunsmoke2]

It is not illegal to use an unlooper to probe a hu card. It is not illegal to reverse engineer a card's programming using an unlooper. It is not illegal to read an eprom, to clone a image to another card, or to repair a damaged card with either a true or cloned bin. All of this becomes illegal the moment you put that card in a receiver and attempt or succeed in accessing signals that you did not pay for. Every manufacturer with competition in the market place buys the first new products from their competitor and starts to reverse engineer it to determine what makes it work. This is protected by law. It is synergy in action, building on the efforts of a previous person to make a better product. What you do with it is the difference.

It is also not illegal to probe and play with DTV's cards in order to learn more about smartcard tech, security, and the like. Education of how a system works in a viable, legal defense, whether or not you have any real need for it in you professional occupation. If your occupation does include net security, conditional access, or biometrics, and is verifiable by your employers, then DTV will have a real fight on their hands.

Flame away...



Trying to educate yourself to learn more about the security of the card by probe would be very serious in regards to their interlectual property. It becomes ilegal when you modify the card. NDS who reversed engineed Echo cards are now facing indictments and it doesn't matter what method you use.


I would not advise to try to use that as a defense.



GS2

[condmca]

Originally posted by gunsmoke2
Trying to educate yourself to learn more about the security of the card by probe would be very serious in regards to their interlectual property. It becomes ilegal when you modify the card. NDS who reversed engineed Echo cards are now facing indictments and it doesn't matter what method you use.


I would not advise to try to use that as a defense.



GS2

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here GS2,

Education is all we have in learning how to become productive citizens able to compete with our peers.
If reverse-engineering a ham radio helps educate my kid to give him or her a leg-up on his/her peers, I'm going to allow it.
I will further educate them that it IS illegal to transmit over ham radio w/o a license, but listening to the signal they intercept is perfectly legal.

The only reason people believe it is illegal to intercept dave's signal is because dave distorts the truth.
When one reads about satellite pirates getting busted it is ALWAYS because they have defrauded dave in some recognizeable way.
When Wynona Ryder was on trial she faced a potential 10 tears in jail and $100,000 fine, the maximum the law would allow. Was it ever realistic she would be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law? Of course not. Just as it is unlikely that any end-user in here will ever be charged $10,000 restitution to dave, but conventional "wisdom" within these forums continues to say otherwise.
Should make everyone wonder...

To further illustrate my understanding of what the FCC will allow:
If I own a small plot of land in the middle of the mojave desert and I own all my equipment outright, I can reverse engineer to my heart's delight. If what I'm reverse engineering is deemed to be harmful to someone I will likely be investigated.
When the investigation is through and I am deemed a threat to no one, I will be allowed to continue my hobby.

The lesson of the story is:
If I'm intelligent enough to open my test card to all channels, I am within my rights.
The minute I start broadcasting for the benefit of others around me however, I am then guilty, but not until then.
Likewise, if I sell or physically give my work away to help others receive dave's signal then and only then am I guilty of harming dave the corporate entity and am subject to prosecution.

Knowing that very few people in here keep this hobby to themselves is why so many are paranoid that dave will prove them guilty. Thus, the perpetuation of this false belief that reverse engineering your own equipment is somehow illegal within this bastion of capitalism.
:gg

[Doc203]

That is all great in theory, but it isn't the law...

Mainipulate your telephone to make free phone calls and see if the phone company doesn't prosecute you. That defense will not stand up in court, and it won't for Direct TV either. Theft of service is just as illegal if you do it or if you do it for someone else, makes no difference.

Speaking of phone manipulation, old hackers will remember the guys that figured out how to use a little device that would put "tones" thru the phone and you could call anyone for free, on any line. He got caught, and went to jail.

Back to the Law Suit filing... you have the same if not better odds of winning if you wait until they sue you versus going to them from a simple letter that means nothing. I think it would be utterly stupid to try and cut a deal "admitting" wrong doing. Just like I said before, most criminals give up the info that prosecuters need to prosecute them after they have been charged, or accused. Same applies here.

[condmca]

Originally posted by Doc203
That is all great in theory, but it isn't the law...

Mainipulate your telephone to make free phone calls and see if the phone company doesn't prosecute you.


Nice try Doc, but phone lines are physically owned by someone, the airwaves are not.

[mrself_destruct]

Good point Doc....thats why getting an attorney and denying everything is important if you decide to respond before they file a suit.


Originally posted by Doc203

Back to the Law Suit filing... you have the same if not better odds of winning if you wait until they sue you versus going to them from a simple letter that means nothing. I think it would be utterly stupid to try and cut a deal "admitting" wrong doing. Just like I said before, most criminals give up the info that prosecuters need to prosecute them after they have been charged, or accused. Same applies here.

[Doc203]

Nice try Doc, but phone lines are physically owned by someone, the airwaves are not.

We aren't talking about stealing phone LINES we are talking about stealing phone SERVICE. Theft of SERVICE.

[condmca]

Originally posted by Doc203
We aren't talking about stealing phone LINES we are talking about stealing phone SERVICE. Theft of SERVICE.

So if you subscribe you can then "improve" your reception and still be within the law ;)

[Doc203]

Nice try...:cool:

That is not the law at all, at least not in the states. I guarantee you that there is no law stating that it is ok to improve your signal. It really is cut and dried here in the States... if you manipulated your card to receive channels that you are not paying for you are breaking the law, no gray areas here, it's just that simple.

The simple explanation here is this. If you do it, and they can prove it, your done. Don't give them the info they need to prove it, or you will lose.

[gunsmoke2]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here GS2,

Education is all we have in learning how to become productive citizens able to compete with our peers.
If reverse-engineering a ham radio helps educate my kid to give him or her a leg-up on his/her peers, I'm going to allow it.
I will further educate them that it IS illegal to transmit over ham radio w/o a license, but listening to the signal they intercept is perfectly legal.


I have no problem with education. You can take any course you want to further your education.


However that doesn't mean you have the right to reverse engineer DTV's card. Sure I would like to say its perfectly fine but its not and not good advise to tell one to use as a defense. Just ask your attorney.


I would also suggest you read the laws about intercepting a voice transmission.


You are not entitled to receive an encrypted signal and then decode it without a lawful payment to the provider of that signal. If we could then there wouldn't be any cases from DTV. The law is very clear on that.


You are intitled to received any FTA ( free to air ) signals because its not encrypted.



GS2

[condmca]

Originally posted by gunsmoke2
I have no problem with education. You can take any course you want to further your education.

However that doesn't mean you have the right to reverse engineer DTV's card.


DTV's card is in the public domain. "Dave's" card is in fact, not owned by dave.
Maybe this is where he screwed up. Dave should have LENT us all his cards like the cable companies LEND their boxes to the user. In doing so, the cable company never stops owning their equipment. Pretty smart. If you reverse engineer a cable-company-owned box and turn it into a "blackbox" you're subject to prosecution. This is cut and dry.
Ownership of the access cards is simply not cut and dry at this point in time.


Originally posted by gunsmoke2
Sure I would like to say its perfectly fine but its not and not good advise to tell one to use as a defense. Just ask your attorney.


I'm not suggesting it as advice. I'm simply challenging people to freely think against the grain in order to influence inevitable changes in this "grey" area of the law. When somebody says there is no "grey area" as doc said, I feel he's not really trying.


Originally posted by gunsmoke2
You are not entitled to receive an encrypted signal and then decode it without a lawful payment to the provider of that signal. If we could then there wouldn't be any cases from DTV. The law is very clear on that.
[/B]


To which I say pay dave his subscription. I'd never advocate stealing.
Maybe it's simply time for dave to create a special "testers" subscription to "keep people honest" so to speak.
I do advocate that everybody learn this access-card hobby though any way you can. As Americans, we're way behind Europe in its many uses.
If this game has gotten to easy for the individual end-user and dave fears too many will cancel their subscriptions, dave needs to update his technology. End of story.

The ball is in Dave's court. Maybe an annual card swap is what's needed, despite the cost to dave. Maybe Dave should sue NDS again to recoup his perceived losses. Maybe the testers in here will create an American company based on access card technology and start working for dave. Or maybe it's already happening.
All I know is if it's in the public domain, be it a Personal Video Recorder or access card, it will be reverse engineered by individuals bent on simple human curiosity. The minute we allow ourselves to be intimidated out of using our curiosity is the day we regress to darker times. Dave's intimidating us, so use your money to fight back. Like I've said before, GM sales reps can speak volumes on our behalf. Your money is the American weapon. Dave uses it through his clever letters. You can use it in your next car purchase. Send GM a stinkin' message people. It really is as easy as that!
Remeber above all else you read in here, you are worth about $30,000 to EVERY GM car salesman!:K

[mrself_destruct]

I cant believe you're arguing this.


Originally posted by condmca
DTV's card is in the public domain. "Dave's" card is in fact, not owned by dave.
Maybe this is where he screwed up. Dave should have LENT us all his cards like the cable companies LEND their boxes to the user. In doing so, the cable company never stops owning their equipment. Pretty smart. If you reverse engineer a cable-company-owned box and turn it into a "blackbox" you're subject to prosecution. This is cut and dry.
Ownership of the access cards is simply not cut and dry at this point in time.




I'm not suggesting it as advice. I'm simply challenging people to freely think against the grain in order to influence inevitable changes in this "grey" area of the law. When somebody says there is no "grey area" as doc said, I feel he's not really trying.





To which I say pay dave his subscription. I'd never advocate stealing.
Maybe it's simply time for dave to create a special "testers" subscription to "keep people honest" so to speak.
I do advocate that everybody learn this access-card hobby though any way you can. As Americans, we're way behind Europe in its many uses.
If this game has gotten to easy for the individual end-user and dave fears too many will cancel their subscriptions, dave needs to update his technology. End of story.

The ball is in Dave's court. Maybe an annual card swap is what's needed, despite the cost to dave. Maybe Dave should sue NDS again to recoup his perceived losses. Maybe the testers in here will create an American company based on access card technology and start working for dave. Or maybe it's already happening.
All I know is if it's in the public domain, be it a Personal Video Recorder or access card, it will be reverse engineered by individuals bent on simple human curiosity. The minute we allow ourselves to be intimidated out of using our curiosity is the day we regress to darker times. Dave's intimidating us, so use your money to fight back. Like I've said before, GM sales reps can speak volumes on our behalf. Your money is the American weapon. Dave uses it through his clever letters. You can use it in your next car purchase. Send GM a stinkin' message people. It really is as easy as that!
Remeber above all else you read in here, you are worth about $30,000 to EVERY GM car salesman!:K

[Doc203]

I'm not suggesting it as advice. I'm simply challenging people to freely think against the grain in order to influence inevitable changes in this "grey" area of the law. When somebody says there is no "grey area" as doc said, I feel he's not really trying.

The fact of the matter is that this is just wrong. Sure i do it, but I don't try to justify it as being "My Legal Rights!". Come on... if you were stealing fom my company you better by God be ready for me to come after you.

The plain facts are that DTV owns the Sat that sends the signals, thus they own the signals. The sad fact of the matter is it is Illegal, and it is wrong. Unless you are saving lives with it, stopping world hunger, or ending wars you can't justify it as anything that is "Legal".

Get real, we all know it's Illegal and this discussion should not be about coming up with fictional reasons that won't help anyone with anything we should be helping them with real, hard truths that can help them.

Last but not least the reason that I say there are no "gray" area's is because I know of none. Show me one that will hold water in court and not get you convicted I will join the "gray area finders" club.

Not intended for flame, just opinion.

[condmca]

Originally posted by Doc203
The fact of the matter is that this is just wrong. Sure i do it, but I don't try to justify it as being "My Legal Rights!". Come on... if you were stealing fom my company you better by God be ready for me to come after you.

Are you Dave?


Originally posted by Doc203
The plain facts are that DTV owns the Sat that sends the signals, thus they own the signals. The sad fact of the matter is it is Illegal, and it is wrong. Unless you are saving lives with it, stopping world hunger, or ending wars you can't justify it as anything that is "Legal".

They own their end of the signal. Do they really own my end?


Originally posted by Doc203
Get real, we all know it's Illegal and this discussion should not be about coming up with fictional reasons that won't help anyone with anything we should be helping them with real, hard truths that can help them.

Really. So why don't you just dictate ALL the discussions for ALL of us in here then.


Originally posted by Doc203
Last but not least the reason that I say there are no "gray" area's is because I know of none. Show me one that will hold water in court and not get you convicted I will join the "gray area finders" club.


Try constructively joining my argument then. Maybe within fifty-posts' time we'll have a legitimate argument to present to the courts.

Originally posted by Doc203
Not intended for flame, just opinion.


I don't feel flamed. You subjected your opinion to scrutiny as did I. This is how the freedom of information flows and I hope it keeps flowing, despite any attempts to squelch these very debatable ideas otherwise :mad:

[Doc203]

Are you Dave?

I wish

They own their end of the signal. Do they really own my end?

Yes, although it is your rights as an American to take legal action for the pain and suffering it is causing you.

Really. So why don't you just dictate ALL the discussions for ALL of us in here then.

I was referring to the beginning topic of this thread that has taken a different path.

I don't feel flamed. You subjected your opinion to scrutiny as did I. This is how the freedom of information flows and I hope it keeps flowing, despite any attempts to squelch these very debatable ideas otherwise

We do finally agree on something

[JD490]

Dave doesn't give a sh!t about curiosity. They will see any tampering with there access card which is considered a encryption security device a violation of federal law. If anyone is thinking of calling dave, and using this as a defense please make sure you speak to a lawyer about this kind of defense. I don't agree with it. The minute you say something like this daves collection people will be throwing your name into the Lawsuit pile.

[Acehigh]

A friend, who received a letter got a reply from his lawyer that said the reason he got the letter, was the invoice from VT where he purchased an unlooper and emu board, stated the unlooper had su2 loaded and that made the equipt only usable to intercept DTV...

[condmca]

Originally posted by JD490
If anyone is thinking of calling dave, and using this as a defense please make sure you speak to a lawyer about this kind of defense. I don't agree with it. The minute you say something like this daves collection people will be throwing your name into the Lawsuit pile.

Like I said, this is not a defense strategy for anyone. This is merely brainstorming within the applicable community.
Also, Dave's "collection people" are just that, collection people, one step below a lawyer even ;-)

Originally posted by JD490
Dave doesn't give a sh!t about curiosity. They will see any tampering with there access card which is considered a encryption security device a violation of federal law.

This is still part of the debate. Who really owns the access card? Read my cable box analogy in my earlier post.

This is all just fun and theory people, don't take any of it too seriously!

[gunsmoke2]

Who really owns the access card


You can own the card but that doesn't mean or give you the right to access their interlectual property inside the card. Why do you think people have been convicted and sent to jail. Just ask Al Lewis known as bags of stone Lewis who got sentenced to six years.


The signal is encrypted on purpose and it doesn't matter if its in your backyard.


I don't think its just fun for people who have received letters


GS2

[ISO7816101]

Well, this thread is good reading but things will soon become very clear...

1. The original HU's are based on the Atmel AT90SC3232C micro with enbedded crypo engine. DTV was not, is not, and will not be the only one using these cards.... SOOO one could say that "their" technology inst that exclusive and thus the hardware to interface that technology isn't that specific.

2. Windows Magazine will be producing a smart card buyer's guide for the March 2003 issue.

3. The USCT 3.0 mentioned at the begining of this thread is rumored to be included in this review article because the device can replace the typical windows log on mechanism with the right code on the Atmel.

Well, it looks the "ugly corporate giant" has NO leg to stand on now unless they catch someone programming cards red handed. The typical repair terminal will soon be as main stream as a computer mouse...

Something to think about...
ISO7816101

[gunsmoke2]

What became clearer ? if you modify their card for theft its illegal and the tech used in the card doesn't have to be exclusive.



GS2

[REDx]

ok GS2 what if i pay for my sub and
my card got hit. i purchased a device
to repair it. i didnt use it to get
dtv's signal for free. is that illegal.

[Doc203]

Try it in court...

[CanBert]

Civil case -- MORE LIKELY THEN NOT

That is all DTV has to prove -- MORE LIKELY THEN NOT

That you purchased and used it .. pretty easy to convince MORE LIKELY THEN NOT.

And you would have to prove MORE LIKELY THEN NOT that you didn't...

[ynot20]

Is an unlooper with a su 2 code only use is to decrypt dtv? According to dtv lawyers it is. Any info appreciated.

[eeprom7777]

Originally posted by ynot20
Is an unlooper with a su 2 code only use is to decrypt dtv? According to dtv lawyers it is. Any info appreciated. No. It is not possible to decrypt dtv with this device. And further, it is probably not possible to use this device to alter any card into decrypting dtv...

[REDx]

Originally posted by ynot20
Is an unlooper with a su 2 code only use is to decrypt dtv? According to dtv lawyers it is. Any info appreciated.
it could also be used to repair
Hcards back to original condition.

[eeprom7777]

Yes, I failed to mention "currently". Before the H card was shut down that device probably could be used to alter the programming on that specific card.

[morgana]

RedX
Not to burst your bubble, but just take a moment to think about this one thing. Since the card has a copyrighted program and also has a patented security encryption, that means you are not allowed to use any part of that, period. You have no rights to do this at all. The things you are going to do to repair the card, are 100% prood you have now tread on DTV's copyright. You can only repair the card if you do not use any code that is part of their copy right. Oddly enough bootloaders, that we all for a time thought might be harder to defend, are really easier as all they do is glitch over the damaged area and alow the card to run under the rest of the code that was put there by DTV. Since they do not add code, then yes they are a repair tool.

The unlooper, actually adds a bootstrap and writes code to the card and that code is copyrighted by DTV, so it has now infringed on that copyright. We lost all repair arguement when we had to write a new cam and zkt to the cards to unloop them. We have the right to the original cam and zkt that came on the card, and only to use it as a subscriber. We never owned it. Not now or ever. The card itself we can own, but not the intellectual property.

I hate taking the devils advocate stance in this, but I do not want anyone to think this is easy. DTV is not stupid and they will love for you to admit anything along the way. Because as soon as you do, they now have proof you ordered the unit and received it and actually used it. With the fact of where you bought it and the atmel code on it when purchased, it makes me think that to the judge that the balance of evidence has just moved to DTV's side. Remember this is not beyond reasonable doubt, but only one side need a tiny bit more leading one way then another. The one other thing that people do not realise is that it all does not start out with nothing on the scale, otherwise they would never get the case adjudicated. DTV starts out with the scale all on their side, and that is where discovery allows you to add you own weight or remove some of theirs. The safest defense is one where you reduce their weight to where they lose, without adding any weight of your own. As soon as you add weight they will use it to extract more for their side. I should not have to say be careful.

[REDx]

granted i would have to rewrite my
original bin back to a Hu card.if that
is all i do just how did i harm dtv.
in addition on a Hcard all i would have
been doing is glitching it to unloop it.
most people who are recieveing these letters
are people who used there unloopers to unloop
Hcards.
my only point is if they can prove you bought
a unlooper and claim that it has no other use
than to alter a card to steal dtv's signal they
are wrong. i will go even further by stateing you
could repair cards for other people.

[morgana]

RedX
You do not have the right to use the original file at all. You can not use the coprighted material ever. Not even for repairing it back. If you want to write your own file that only returns the damage areas back to normal, and not use the copyrighted file, then you have a legal position. If you add a file to microsoft operating system, you can not claime the whole system as yours and are free to use or sell it. The only thing you can do is use or sell the addon to the system. If you try and sell or use it as a complete system you will be in deep trouble. The same as what is going on here. You never want to even hint that you can read their cards or even know how to do so, as that will only bolster their claim that you have used this hardware illegally. Look at this from a judges position, and which story is more inline with the claims and the laws?

Even with the h-cards you were still using code that was not your own but was part of the copyright. It still all comes down to whether you have the right to use the copyrighted code, and that answer is pretty clear that no you can not without permission of the developer. All this stuff can get nasty and take years to settle, but usually it has landed on the side of the copyright holder and large penalties then apply. If I was DTV, I would love to see people try this defence as it will become a good money maker for them.

[thepoet]

Originally posted by morgana
...Oddly enough bootloaders, that we all for a time thought might be harder to defend, are really easier as all they do is glitch over the damaged area and alow the card to run under the rest of the code that was put there by DTV. Since they do not add code, then yes they are a repair tool...

OK, but doesn't this beg the question of WHY someone would feel a need to repair a card in the first place? A legitimate subscriber, who's access card got BS'd, collateral damage from friendly fire if you will, would simply naively call one of DirecTV's nice CSRs and have a new card FedEx'd to him overnight. By the process of ellimination, that leaves the not-so-legitimate viewer as the most likely user of a bootloader, doesn't it?

[Mirror]

Originally posted by thepoet
OK, but doesn't this beg the question of WHY someone would feel a need to repair a card in the first place? A legitimate subscriber, who's access card got BS'd, collateral damage from friendly fire if you will, would simply naively call one of DirecTV's nice CSRs and have a new card FedEx'd to him overnight. By the process of ellimination, that leaves the not-so-legitimate viewer as the most likely user of a bootloader, doesn't it?
Change your nick, your post are no longer effective.:gg

[eeprom7777]

Bootloaders were commonly thought to offer some form of protection for the card. They were about as common as surge suppressors. I'm sure many legitimate subs used them...

[REDx]

Originally posted by morgana
RedX
Even with the h-cards you were still using code that was not your own but was part of the copyright. It still all comes down to whether you have the right to use the copyrighted code, and that answer is pretty clear that no you can not without permission of the developer. All this stuff can get nasty and take years to settle, but usually it has landed on the side of the copyright holder and large penalties then apply. If I was DTV, I would love to see people try this defence as it will become a good money maker for them.
if they can prove i bought an unlooper. my response would be
i bought it to repair my card. dtv tried to fix it but couldnt
and wanted 80.00 to replace it. besides its in my camper and im
on the move a lot. i spend a lot of time in remote areas to replace it
is just not possible sometimes. if i miss my nascar races i go into
withdraws. once again i ask just how did i harm dtv. what damages
can they claim. i understand that if i sold copies or gave away copies
of my windows xp i violate microsofts copy rights.if i copy the windows
xp for my own use on the computer the orginal is on or even used it
to help others to repair there copies of windows that they purchased.
i violated no laws. same applies to dtv.

[morgana]

Ok, so you now have admitted you have the ability and where withall to write programs to the card. You bought the unit from a site on the net known for selling these for pirating the cards. You admitted that and so will the site owner you bought from. You will now have to explain how you read the file from the card without using some s/w that is also capable of being used to pirate the card. They may even ask you to demonstrate. Then they will ask you to show them your card that was subscribed and will want to see the account etc. The original card id will need to be for that card. When you bring all this isn they will read the IRD to see if their is a secondary card id in the slot that will tell them if another ID was ever in the unit and got 745ed, etc.

All this time the judge will be looking at you thinking that you are guilty as sin, when all he needs is slightly more to DTV's side then there is to your side. He will order you to name who you git the s/w to read the card from, and will hold you in contempt of court if you refuse. The sale, or gift s/w to read the card is a copyright infringement, as it need to use DTV's keys and encryption to do what it does. The author does not have the developers permission. Now I would imagine at this point they will say something like they would replace any legally subbed card if it was determined to be damaged by an ECM, Youwill counter no I can tell you that is not true because we see that on the pirate sites where a small number of legal subs do get killed..... Now the judge knows you have the hardware and s/w that was bought from a pirate site. you actually hang out in these sites reading this that happen after an ECM. You had the good sense to read your card ID, incase it was damaged. All this is really the actions of a pirate. The subscriber really only watches TV, Does not know anything about programmers or hardware, and would never spend the kind of money to buy these things when DTV will replace the card free, or if cause of damage in doubt, for $20.00.

Hell, I would have like to make this long story short, but that is not my style.:D I guess that is why I have carpal tunnel in both hands :( But anyways think about this and you judge it yourself as to how well it will play out. I am not a lawyer and I rest assure you that they will have many more tricks to trip you up. That is why a different path is probably better. Yes, some are going to take this path, but it is not one I would ever choose.

[Salty Jizm]

And who knows... Maybe the DTV lawyers will start quizing you about various posts you made on the top pirate sites too? Post that say you can beat the rap by claiming you were going to repair a card that was improperly targeted as a pirate card.

I think I'll just fight the battle in a traditional way.

[Raz]

So let's say you bought some equipment....a 3 in 1 or an emulator....they are not illegal to purchase or possess....just the fact that you purchased it does not make you guilty of stealing....Don't you need an access card , software and of course a dish and an Ird...to do all this.....So how does dave destroy your credibility when he can't prove you have those items except the programmer. If I bought somehting that is illegal to buy and possess and Im squealed on then I have some explaining to do. I would like to hear from someone on any of these forums that actually received a summons and spent their day in court.... Until then it's all speculation.... yes I read on this site about the court case in California but I havent seen it anywhere in the news......

[eeprom7777]

Your honor, I've been studying/evaluating electronics about 10 years longer then they've been in business.

You admit then posessing the device in question?

Certainly! I've got more computer devices laying around then you could imagine. As a matter of fact, computer interfaces are my specialty!

You admit then to posessing the knowledge to reprogram these cards to work without paying?

SSSssshhhh! Hell, between you and me, I could make that card do things you never imagined! Being knowledgable in electronics/programming/assembly/etc. is not criminal, is it?

Did you in fact then utilize these device to obtain service without payment?

Most certainly Not! Now your implying that I am a dishonest person! I've got 10 character witness sitting right over there that all say I'm one of the most honest people they know! What type of proof suggests such use?

The HU Loader Atmel code was found on your pc.

Along with every other freeware atmel load on the net, yes I evaluated all of them, so ...???

Um, you had some HU binaries on there also...

Yeah, and some pages i copied out of a book and some other bs, okay, you've got me on an ileagal bu copy maybe, Is that what the freakn' charge is here ?

Oh, just cuz these queers use an iso standard device for a proprietary security system now capacitors are ileagal?

Okay?! (NOT!!!)...

Oh, almost forgot! What about damages?

Not possible your honor. You see, I never had a sub and have absolutely zero potential to sub in the future.

Zero? How can you be so sure?

Honestly your honor, with these common devices and the knowledge I've got, would you subscribe to thier overpriced bs?!!! ;)

[REDx]

no i simply say i bought it to use with my hcard.
all i did was put it in and clicked on fix card.
i would also tell them to check dtvs records. it
would show i called to bitch about my card being
screwed up more than a dozen times. ya see i called
dtv everytime they attacked the hcards. i would love
to show a judge how a unlooper worked. after i fixed
the card i would say did you notice any security.
see how easy that was i would say.

thats the problem with this hobby its just to damn
easy. hell with the hcards the big brains had made
it as simple as clicking on win exe then on fix card.
it takes no brains no work no study.
on the hu its just about as bad but it dose take some
brains and some work. so i further contend that there
is no REAL security on the cards at this time. it is
easier to get all the channels on dtv than erecting and
positioning a "legal" antenna to recieve legal free channels.

[condmca]

Maybe the next logical step here is for dave to send extortion e-mails to everyone that's ever visited any of those busted DSS web sites, eh?

They could have the same legal group draft a threatening e-mail and send it to people claiming to know they downloaded ExtremeHU, or for the matter at hand, even posted a remark that implicates any knowledge of this hobby.

They could threaten to say, shut down the recipient's Internet service within 20 days unless the person deletes all files associated with this hobby, e-mails them back promising never to steal from dave again, and paypal's the legal firm oh... $350 for starters.

Wouldn't this be on par with dave's current letter campaign??:gg

[eeprom7777]

Originally posted by REDx
...
so i further contend that there
is no REAL security on the cards at this time. it is
easier to get all the channels on dtv than erecting and
positioning a "legal" antenna to recieve legal free channels. BINGO!

This is the equivalent scenario. I build the biggest drive-in theater in the country. It's going to be quite costly to launch this project and being the greedy corperate pigs that we are, we get a little too scimpy on security. Yep, we got the 4' fence instead of the 8' fence. At first it wasn't bad, but once it caught on, well there were about the same amount watching from the non-paying side of the fence. Hey, and that's grandma's house over there! Look, she can watch the movie when her and grandpa are out sitting on the porch! How nice. Then one day the evil theater builder decided to have all the non-paying people arrested (DMCA I think?, security breach?, some had stools, chairs and other "devices" that aided in obtaining the signal, yep grandma & grampa both got in the ass that one).....
....
..
.

[REDx]

Originally posted by eeprom7777
BINGO!

This is the equivalent scenario. I build the biggest drive-in theater in the country. It's going to be quite costly to launch this project and being the greedy corperate pigs that we are, we get a little too scimpy on security. Yep, we got the 4' fence instead of the 8' fence. At first it wasn't bad, but once it caught on, well there were about the same amount watching from the non-paying side of the fence. Hey, and that's grandma's house over there! Look, she can watch the movie when her and grandpa are out sitting on the porch! How nice. Then one day the evil theater builder decided to have all the non-paying people arrested (DMCA I think?, security breach?, some had stools, chairs and other "devices" that aided in obtaining the signal, yep grandma & grampa both got in the ass that one).....
....
..
.
lol dont laugh in davis ca. just up the road from
me they had a xxx drive in. you dialed in a fm radio
station to get the sound.there back fence was only 5ft
tall. it was a open field behind it that field at one point
had more cars than the drive in.they called the cops the cops
sited them .well it just so happened that one of the people
sited was a relative of the person who owned the field.
the owner told the judge that he didnt that care that the people
were in his field. the judge ruled the theater had no grounds
for a complaint because they hadnt done due dillagents.

[eeprom7777]

Your honor this entire issue solely stems from this private companies lamer security or lack thereof. Remember when it worked okay and the most expensive content they had was a movie package at 8.99? How many times have they upgraded their security in proportion to the freakin radical increase in (supposed) content value (shall I total up the sports packages here?)? If your renewable security system has been renewed twice to twice as secure, it would still only be enough for a $35.00 package. Thats assuming it was sufficient then, I'm sure it wasn't, I think a novice could tell it was alot closer to non-existant.