News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Microsoft furious at $2,000 bounty for open source Kinect... by jrockway on Friday November 05, 2010 @05:18PM (#1874965)
I don't really see the difference. The Kinect is a piece of plastic and lead-free solder that you buy. DirectTV is a radio transmission that they broadcast into your house.

Once the Kinect is in my house, who cares what I do with it? I can smash it with a hammer, I can send it USB commands. My Kinect, my house, my rules.

DirectTV is the same. Once the radio waves are in my house, why can't I decrypt them to watch TV for free? If DirectTV wants me to pay for TV, why are they sending the signal into my house!?

Re:Microsoft furious at $2,000 bounty for open source Kinect... by wnoise on Friday November 05, 2010 @05:57PM (#1875098)
I completely agree in terms of ethics and what the legalities should be. In terms of what's possible to do, and to do so easily, the satellite TV vendors have managed to stay neck-and-neck with those trying to watch TV for free, precisely because of little details like being able to alter the format and update the software to work with it.
Re:Microsoft furious at $2,000 bounty for open source Kinect... by tptacek on Friday November 05, 2010 @07:56PM (#1875427)
If you agree with 'jrockway, then you must also believe it's perfectly ethical for me to listen to your cellphone calls.

Otherwise, this argument is a bit more nuanced than either of you are acknowledging.

Re:Microsoft furious at $2,000 bounty for open source Kinect... by jrockway on Friday November 05, 2010 @09:07PM (#1875564)
Break the crypto and enjoy.

The difference between cell phones and DirectTV is that you have session keys for your phone calls, but there is one global key for every user in the country for DirectTV. Such is the nature of broadcasting.

They chose a "cheap" method to distribute TV to users, but it's also very "insecure". The cell-phone companies, on the other hand, developed a very expensive infrastructure, and it's more secure as a result.