Aclu

[dssjunkie]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone contacted the ACLU for their take on all of this?

[RSVP]

Contact the American Civil Liberties Union for their take on what?

[Mechanic]

If you are referring to the DTV extortion letters, I asked the same thing. Here is what some had to say:
http://www.dsschat.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=146528

I still can't see what harm there would be in contacting them. You may not like them (ACLU) or some cases they have pursued, but when you are in a fight, the more heat you can put on your enemy, the better off you are.

[RSVP]

Mechanic after reading your post it seems like everyone that responded hates them. I wonder why. Anyways I agree with you there is no harm in contacting them. The problem or question is who contacts them? and do they(the ACLU) already know about all of this?

[Salty Jizm]

Originally posted by RSVP
Mechanic after reading your post it seems like everyone that responded hates them. I wonder why. Anyways I agree with you there is no harm in contacting them. The problem or question is who contacts them? and do they(the ACLU) already know about all of this?

Actually, I responded and I don't hate them. They serve a valuable role of protecting the intent of the constitution. Not all thier causes are popular. But my point was, nobody's rights are being violated. The whole purpose of the court system is so everybody can have thier day in it to resolve issues. The problem is, people are settling (and understandably so) instead of going to court.

[alldeadhomiez]

Originally posted by Salty Jizm
Actually, I responded and I don't hate them. They serve a valuable role of protecting the intent of the constitution. Not all thier causes are popular. But my point was, nobody's rights are being violated. The whole purpose of the court system is so everybody can have thier day in it to resolve issues. The problem is, people are settling (and understandably so) instead of going to court.

If your position is that "nobody's rights are being violated because they will have their day in court," then why does the ACLU help defendants attack unconstitutional laws?

The beef I have with the ACLU (and indeed the reason I let my membership lapse) is that they have adopted the habit of attacking fundamentally unfair practices, such as arbitrary police stops/searches and inappropriate employer behavior, with the Johnny Cochran-esque "I'm black and you're a racist" offense. This tends to set precedent that favors abuse by minorities (Michael Jackson's record suit anyone?) and makes the original problem worse than it already is. For instance, the "driving while black" problem sucks - but it would be a lot harder to pull off if police were held accountable for traffic stops instead of trusted to always do the right thing.

When all you've got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The ACLU has become a one-trick pony.

[RSVP]

I guess I deserved that, I did "wonder why" so here we go again. Of course our rights are being violated. If we make no money off of what we are doing than how can we be sued by them for making them lose money. IF we are "paying" subscribers and getting sued for pirating isn't that a violation of our rights? If they sue everybody who has ever bought from a "legal" company where are our my rights there? Listen I totally understand where you are coming from and I do not want to get into a heated discussion about it. Actually I do agree with you people settling when they shouldn't

[Salty Jizm]

Don't get me wrong. I wish the ACLU would jump in. But from thier perspective, things will work out without them. The legal system will run its course and the 'right' thing will happen.

[tcan]

>>>Don't get me wrong. I wish the ACLU would jump in. But from thier perspective, things will work out without them. The legal system will run its course and the 'right' thing will happen.>>>

Are you suggesting that the Lawyers are going to "Eat thier Young" to avoid Tort Reform or..........

That Murdock will "FAIL" in his plan to convert all US broadcasting to PPV.....

[acidboy]

The ACLU wouldn't have an interest in this case... DeCSS was a much more important case since it had a lot of legal uses. The WinExplorer source code to a "script" has almost no legal use. If Dextere were being charged for a Smart Card Development System that mostly work with DSS there might be a chance.

If true information (there appears to be a buffer overflow at this point) and people had to figure out how to exploit it there might be a case. If forums in and of themselves (the existance of the den) were being challenged within the US I'm sure the ACLU would take an interest...

While people's rights are being violated (extortion) there are other ways to deal with it within the court system and Dave will end up paying for his wrong doing. The ACLU >might< take that case, but I think it's a streth, more likely some high paid ambulance chasers will do that case for free (kind of like tobacco settlements and the like.)

[no1b4me]

I agree with mechanic in that the more heat generated the better it is for the cause but I really don’t think that the ACLU would be interested in this issue. I’m going to offer an opposing view to the settlement letters being sent out by DirecTV™. I do not agree with what DirecTV™ is doing but I think that in some cases it may be even appreciated. I do not want to start a flame-fest but if you feel the need to, flame away. I have my flame-retardant suit on including my goulashes :D


I think that the letter could be considered a courtesy by DirecTV™. If for example they have the records from a dealer you purchased from and they have sufficient circumstantial evidence or probable cause to file a civil complaint, the letter could be viewed favorable. In a civil complaint they could win in court by default, or by the preponderance of the evidence. They are not legally obligated to offer you a settlement, yet they do. The settlement may not be good for all circumstances but it may prove useful to some. In an attempt to allow the defendant to rid them self of legal hassles DirecTV™ extends the opportunity by way of a settlement letter. The letter is not illegal as far as I know. I don’t think there are laws on the books that prohibit this action.

I think that the ACLU would lean more to this interpretation of the settlement letter and chose not to get involve in this issue. I know most consider the letter a form of extortion but unfortunately I don’t think there is any legal basis for this sentiment. The letter does not interfere with ‘due process’ and is probably viewed favorable by any judge. It demonstrates willingness by DirecTV™ to resolve the case expeditiously and not waste the courts valuable time.

OK flame away I’m ready :)

[giveupdave]

Your a %100 right no1b4me

[condmca]

For the ACLU to get on board we need to find some pygmy midget to claim he's being harassed due to his freaky association with NAMBLA. The ACLU will otherwise have no interest in defending the normies. :K :)

[RSVP]

no1b4me... I don't agree with you 100% on what you are saying but I value your opinion very highly and I greatly respect you and what you have done for our community as a whole. For that reason I will give me .01 cents by saying nice statement but no comment on my behalf.

[Endeavor]

It's good to see that the fire extinguishers have prevailed for the time being.

No1Be4Me, Unfortunately I will have to agree with 99% of your statement. But there's always a chance.

But anyway I'm still hoping for the best and posting my tagline.

I urge all parties that have received letters and signed agreements with DTV and those that have received letters and not signed any agreement to contact this firm. It is our only hope of defeating our GOLIATH in this matter...

Support our legal rights!!!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/classaction.gif (http://www.legal-rights.org/DTV/classaction.html)

Support The Canadian Charter Challenge By donating to legal-rights.org!!!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)

Directions for adding your own Class Action tagline graphic are here... (http://www.dsschat.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=141208)

[tcan]

No1b4me,
If you look at the letter campaign as ultraistic you are dead wrong.
When I worked in NYC I always carried folding cash (muggers Money) in the hope that the mugger would not be inclined to take my live for disrespecting his profession. That does not mean that I condoned Mugging. Its just Street Smarts!

The letter is an attempted Mugging by a low life. It is, IMHO, an attempt to generate Statistics for a media blitz and/or a FCC brief that will allow them to ring the cash register, sound ultraistic?.

Legitimate Companies simply don’t make money by suing people. The Corporate Law function is to insure that business practices are in compliance with Fed/State Laws and to keep the Corporation out of the Courts.. (people that forget that get fired)

When they send the letter they have no evidence that they can introduce in a Court of Law. If a person is dumb enough to authenticate E-mails / shipping records etc, you are providing evidence that can be introduced in a Court of law. If you give up your constitutional Rights and incriminate yourself in something bigger, the FBI will get involved. These are not nice people.

I think the ACLU should be involved because its the people that don’t understand constitutional rights (Miranda rules) that are been mislead and paying for Dave’s letter campaign.

Everyone needs to deal with the threat of the Law Suit and to obtain legal advice if you are sued. Or you can simply give the mugger his cash…

[no1b4me]

RSVP, I appreciate all views and opinions offered on this subject. I especially like views that differ from mine, as they tend to simulate discussions and may bring about things that we may have previously overlooked.

tcan, I addressed the least popular viewpoint to play devils advocate, as may be noted in my original comments, however I fail to see how I am ‘dead wrong’. You do bring up some interesting point and I do agree with some of them. I certainly agree that DirecTV™ wants to rev up that numbers for a media exploit of the hacking issue. I know they love to play the media and good numbers in the form of settlements creates good media material. Good settlement figures are also good for board meetings or could be used as a hacking deterrent in the future but that hardly demonstrate ‘legal’ wrong doing. It may be morally questionable but not illegal.

I think my comments are accurate in the circumstances outlined. The settlement letter will not apply to all circumstances equally but in some cases 'some' people will find it beneficial. In many cases DirecTV™ might not have good evidence but in some they most certainly do. The end user is ill advised if he does not settle under circumstances where DirecTV™ has meticulously well keep records from a busted dealer.

A civil trial is different from a criminal trail in the requirement of proof. In criminal proceedings you must be found guilty ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. In civil proceeding you are found guilty by ‘preponderance of evidence’. Something not very promising for an end user if DirecTV™ has good records and conducts an investigation. I bet that the same end user at some point disclosed to a friend or a neighbor such activities if in fact they were involved in them. Testimony against you in a civil case from an acquaintance or a neighbor and photos of your home with a 18 inch dish on the roof together with a purchase of a known hacking device is good circumstantial evidence against you. It could certainly be considered enough to find you guilty under the terms of ‘preponderance of evidence’

Here is the definition of the term ‘preponderance of evidence’ as found in the Black’s Law Dictionary:

“evidence of great weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it: that is, evidence which as a whole show that the fact sought to be prove is more probable than not.”

I other words more likely than not....not very reassuring.

With respect to the original question asked, It is my opinion that the ACLU will not see an issue with DirecTV™ current practices and therefore would elect not to get involved.

I know this is not what most would like to hear but considering it from the point of view of the average Joe it might be more convenient and less expensive to settle. Legal battles are not cheap and DirecTV™ lawyers will probably drag the issue as much as they can. If you fight and loose it will cost you a substantial amount of money in legal fees and awarded damages.

I’m not advocating that you should settle. In fact I’m not advocating anything. I’m just voicing a different point of view. I’m not a lawyer and don’t have any real insight into the legal profession therefore my observations may be in total error. Keep in mind that all situations are different when reading the forums for legal guidance. If you are in any type of legal situation get and retain counsel. ie talk to a lawyer and keep him. Don’t second guess him either that's what you pay him for.

[tcan]

I never said Dave did anything illegal... its just a sleazy business decision that may bite his butt … Corporations do have a code of ethics.

If you want to match wits with a $10.@hr troll working a phone bank in WV .. be my guest

[FullSlab]

Tcan
Well said. They "DTV" are mugging people.



<a href="http://www.legal-rights.org/dtv/classaction.html" target=blank>
<img src="http://www.legal-rights.org/images/classaction.gif"></a>

[RSVP]

I think that the letter could be considered a courtesy by DirecTV™. If for example they have the records from a dealer you purchased from and they have sufficient circumstantial evidence or probable cause to file a civil complaint, the letter could be viewed favorable. In a civil complaint they could win in court by default, or by the preponderance of the evidence. They are not legally obligated to offer you a settlement, yet they do. The settlement may not be good for all circumstances but it may prove useful to some. In an attempt to allow the defendant to rid them self of legal hassles DirecTV™ extends the opportunity by way of a settlement letter. The letter is not illegal as far as I know. I don’t think there are laws on the books that prohibit this action.
OK you asked for it. I believe the only reason it can be viewed as a courtesy is if you know you are guilty and they offer a settlement and you settle because of either lack of funds or lack of knowledge. Even then it is not really a courtesy because you are admitting your guilt and they win. On the other hand if a valid paying subscriber gets a letter after being with Dave for 3 years paying the platinum ($100.00 a month) isn't that an insult to that person. Wheres that courtesy? Not only do they lose a great customer they also hopefully get countersued and loose even more fighting the case. Now we move onto the "preponderance of the evidence" what evidence to they truthfully have besides knowing you bought a smart card programmer from a company they raided? Smart card programmers are used for smart cards. My company here uses smart cards and that is why I have it. Of course the IT dep't needs it to keep control of the cards and security. I believe their letter is nothing but a scare tactic and a big marketing scheme to scare the hell out of all of us. Which obviously it is working great.

[REDx]

no1b4me as with everything you write in this
hobby;) very well thought out and presented.

for 99.99% of all those who recieve the letter
it is a should be looked at as a courtesy.

the problem isnt the letter itself. its when you
try to settel the matter. you are treated as guilty.
they dont want to talk or hear your side of it.
its pay up or we will see you in court.

reading how most around here say they are defending
themselves or how to beat dtv i can understand why.

the best bet to stop dtv and get the aclu involved is
to find that less than .01% that are innocent and called
dtv and are being sued.

as for the 99.99% count yourself lucky that dtv sent you
that courtesy letter.

no1b4me they wont flame you. as for flameing me they will
be happy to.

[Mechanic]

It's soo reassuring to know that our countries provide that:
You are presumed INNOCENT until proven NOT WEALTHY.

[REDx]

Originally posted by Mechanic
It's soo reassuring to know that our countries provide that:
You are presumed INNOCENT until proven NOT WEALTHY.

in case most of you havent noticed in this country
you get all the justice you can afford. OJ comes to
mind.

[no1b4me]

tcan and REXx, I totally agree with the two of you. The steps following the decision of accepting the terms of the settlement letter leave much to be desired. I think Mechanic summed it up pretty well and I find it worth repeating here.

Originally posted by Mechanic
It's soo reassuring to know that our countries provide that:
You are presumed INNOCENT until proven NOT WEALTHY.

It is a real shame that our country has decided to informally amend our constitution. We are far from the days of innocent until proven guilty. The new interpretation of due process is now ‘how much money do you have’. It is a true shame and an insult to the fabric of our democracy and freedom. People now are not measured by who they are but rather by how big their wallet is or by how deep their pockets are. Where do we go from here? Hopefully back to the days of fair laws and morally accepted practices but if the present is any indication of the future, I don’t think we will be vindicated any time soon. Just look at the DMCA. It was clearly drafted to offer a shield for those with big interest and large wads of dollars. It is a corporate legal blanket with the sole purpose of squashing any competition and curtailing any fair use policy currently in existent of what you rightly own.

It is truly a sad affair. The situation outlined previously by me is a very likely scenario. The common folks just can’t afford a long and purposely drag out legal battle. DirecTV™ is flexing their legal muscle (read deep pockets) and we are kicked to the curb together with our rights and presumed innocence. We are guilty instantaneously, guilty because we are ‘broke’. No money is akin to no possibility of a fair legal defense or guilty by default because of being an honest working tax paying citizen that can’t afford the legal hassle. Naturally since we are broke arses we can’t possibly have any reasonable and fair use of the devices in question. Which takes us back to my original point. It may be beneficial for some in some cases to accept the settlement terms of the courtesy letter (under the circumstances) and be done with the whole affair.

[Duck Of Death]

I know someone who has received letters 1 & 2. He does not have a computer. He knows nothing about computers at all. He has never had internet access at his home or at his job. These facts can be easily proven in a court of law. DTV might feel they have a solid case against alot of people, but they are gonna regret suing this guy, should they decide to follow thru with their threats.