NTL hacked box

randomer

A few weeks ago I heard about these NTL hacked boxes which apparently give you access to all of the channels on NTL with a basic subscription. Since hearing about them, I have now been offered three boxes from different people.

As a principal issue I wouldn't buy one, but I have a question with regard to the laws that would be broken by using one.

I am sure it would be breaking the terms and conditions of your NTL subscription, and they would be entitled to disconnect your subscription, but would they be able to do anything else?

And, what Law or Laws are being broken?

It seems to me that it would be a DRM issue? Is it similar to downloading music from a file sharing website? Is it a copyright infringement?

NTL are already sending the signal into your house and you are merely "decoding" the signal?

seamus

As best I can see, it would be theft of services. You would be knowingly and fraudulently obtaining services without authorisation and without payment.

With a standard NTL hookup, it's just a cable that runs into the house. They don't necessarily "switch on" your house. With some simple know-how and tools, it's possible to hook yourself up to free cable without damaging their property. This too is theft. Just because the service exists, that doesn't mean you're entitled to partake.

jhegarty

There is actually a specific offense ... can't remember the details but there is a large fine and prison involved...

if you pm one of the cable tv (http://boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=54) mods they should have the details... don't post over there about it, or the ban stick will be out very quickly....

randomer

Thanks for that. I will PM them now.

Pines

Using a hacked box is a specific offence:

Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000

Offence of unlawful reception.

371.—A person who receives a broadcast or cable programme to which rights protection measures have been applied, knowing or having reason to believe that it is being received unlawfully with the intent to avoid payment of any charge applied by the rightsowner for the reception of that broadcast or cable programme shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500.

randomer

Pines wrote:

Using a hacked box is a specific offence:

Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000

Offence of unlawful reception.

371.—A person who receives a broadcast or cable programme to which rights protection measures have been applied, knowing or having reason to believe that it is being received unlawfully with the intent to avoid payment of any charge applied by the rightsowner for the reception of that broadcast or cable programme shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500.

That's brilliant, thanks.

Just to go one step further. What about the person who sells the device?

robd

randomer wrote:

That's brilliant, thanks.

Just to go one step further. What about the person who sells the device?

The system you're talking about it not illegal in it self. The dreambox as an example of one of these systems. In order to get the NTL channels you have to install a software CAM (conditional access module) that is a cracked version of the CAM that NTL use to code their signal.

It is the software CAM that is illegal rather than the box. The box itself is merely a standard set top box that supports DVB-C (Digital Video Broadcast for Cable). You can even get cards (albeit they are rare at present) for your PC that support DVB-C. If the person is selling the box with the cracked software CAM installed then I guess this could be proven to be illegal.

Also the same box is available in a DVB-S variant (Digital Video Broadcast for Satellite) that supports Sky Digital. However Sky use and updated version of the CAM that NTL use which hasn't been cracked. Thus you can use the box with the supplied Sky Card and there is nothing illegal about this. The box has many additional usage features over a supplied set top box such has Video Streaming and Recording.

I've had to be a bit obtuse in my description as it's against usage policy to provide details of how to break the law and someone else reading this might be able to gleam such information from what I say.

Anyway, I'm reliably informed that NTL are well aware of the existence of the boxes and are upgrading to a completely new digital system as part of their video on demand services. This uses a different system which cannot be viewed by the box you talk of. NTL specifically forbid the use of non NTL supplied boxes so when the upgrade it would still be illegal to use a dreambox with the NTL supplied Card.

watty

It's not copyright. (Which is I believe civil). It's theft of service. Criminal.

Nor is the CAM illegal if you use a legitimate viewing card to only get the channels you pay for, but there is a catch.

The T&C do not permit unapproved decoders. Unless you have permission in Writing, you can't use an non-operator supplied decoder.

They can only cut off service for using unapproved receiver. But a judge or jury may decide that it was unlikely you did not use the dreambox to steal service, unless it was a dreambox that can only deliver the programs the viewing card pays for.

Similarly, you may use PC or Dreambox on Satellite to watch the Sky channels you subscribe to and all Sky can do is disable the card and cease your contract. But if you were able to watch pay channels you did not pay for that would be theft of service and criminal.

EU decided that the area of Pay TV is not about copyright (some channels may even be available FTA on Satellite or a different Satellite), but about theft of service. I think Ireland ratified this some while ago.

Sky & NTL use completely different CAMs.

It's not the CAM that is the issue, but the viewing card.

Using a Sky card or NTL card in a Dream box to receiver exactly (or less) that you paid for is not a crime. But in both cases it does break the T&C. They are entitled only to cancel your service if you have not stolen additional viewing.

There is NOTHING illegal about any CAM, it is the inculsion of fake virtual viewing card in the CAM emulation that is illegal.

You'd have a hard job in Ireland convincing a court that ANY cable receiver NOT supplied by Chorus/UPC was not intended for theft of service. Indeed owning it or selling it is not itself automatically illegal.

If I was "raided" and had a dreambox-c or ****, or Reelbox with DVB-c card or PC with PCI DVB-c, I can point to a legitimate use. Most householders can't and would likely get charged for full package backdated to when house last had it (can be civil case, sued for that money) and potentially be charged by Garda with CRIMINAL offence of theft of service.

None of it to do with copyright.

Copyright comes into it only if you record and make VHS or DVD or Upload torrents, and the viewing is no longer for personal use.

Showing it in Hotel, College, Pub, Club etc live is breach of copyright if you have only a home subscription (if no subscription.. EEEK the hotel bill for cable/satellite is several K a month.. you could be backdated sued for that! but probably only fined the same for theft of service).

But I'm no lawyer. I did find this stuff once on the EU and Government websites, so I'm not making it up either.

robd

watty wrote:

Sky & NTL use completely different CAMs.

It's not the CAM that is the issue, but the viewing card.

Using a Sky card or NTL card in a Dream box to receiver exactly (or less) that you paid for is not a crime. But in both cases it does break the T&C. They are entitled only to cancel your service if you have not stolen additional viewing.

There is NOTHING illegal about any CAM, it is the inculsion of fake virtual viewing card in the CAM emulation that is illegal.

I'm being a little bit sticky here but...

Sky use's an updated non compatible version (nagravision-II) of the CAM that NTL use (nagravision).

The CAM that NTL use does not have available CAM software that reads the NTL Card as per the available software that reads the Sky card.

Thus the software for NTL decodes the channels without the use of the card which is illegal.

watty

Really "robd" your last post is factually completely inaccurate.

Sky's CAM is NDS videoguard. Nothing remotely to do with Nagravision.

Anyway, the flavour of CAM is nothing to do with the legal issues.

You can get a 3rd party CAM for NTL (Nagravison) that only works when you put the NTL card in, i.e. is not criminal. The fact that the boxes do not have that type of CAM but one that emulates a cracked viewing card suggests intent to steal service.

NTL are going to make all those boxes be doorstops. It's NOT a victimless crime as the new cards and countermeasures cost money and the subscriber ends up paying.

When eventually Sky card is cracked, it will create serious anguish as Sky do not have up to date database of who has a FTV card. No-one with a FTV card will get it replaced automatically. And Sky will pass the €8M++ changeover cost in Ireland Alone on to the subscriber in subtle ways.

The cracking of Canal+ (who and why is an interesting story) some years ago resulted in sale of two Italian Sat TV companies to Sky, the subscribers gradually all changed over to closed Sky Italia Digibox (just like ours) and partly collapse of ITV OnDigital (also due to insane price they paid for sport). Up to 35% or more of UK DTT pay TV was getting watched on cracked cards.

Pines

watty wrote:

It's not copyright. (Which is I believe civil). It's theft of service. Criminal.
[... discussion of CAMs and cards...]

None of it to do with copyright.

Copyright comes into it only if you record and make VHS or DVD or Upload torrents, and the viewing is no longer for personal use.

It's not copyright, but it is covered under the Copyright & Related Rights Act (it's one of the related rights). That Act brings plenty of formerly civil infringements into the criminal realm. As quoted above, receiving a protected cable program, in the knowledge that it's illegal, is a criminal offence.

randomer wrote:

Just to go one step further. What about the person who sells the device?

Long story short, the rightsowner (NTL) has recourse against anyone selling devices which are designed to defeat NTL's copy protection under Section 372 of the same Act:

Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000

Rights in respect of apparatus, etc., for unauthorised reception of transmissions.
372.—(1) A person who is authorised by the rightsowner—

(a) to make charges for the reception of programmes included in a broadcast or cable programme service, or

(b) to send encrypted transmissions of any other description,

has the same rights and remedies against a person who—

(i) (I) makes,

(II) sells, rents or lends, or offers or exposes for sale, rental or loan,

(III) imports into the State, or

(IV) has in his or her possession, custody or control,

any apparatus or protection-defeating device, knowing or having reason to believe that the apparatus or device is to be used to enable or assist persons to receive those programmes or transmissions when those persons are not so entitled, or

(ii) provides information, or offers or performs any service, intended to enable or assist persons to receive those programmes or transmissions when those persons are not so entitled,

as a rightsowner has in respect of an infringement of any of his or her rights under this Act.

(2) Without prejudice to any other remedy, in cases of innocent infringement of the rights conferred by subsection (1), the appropriate court may award damages as it considers appropriate in the circumstances, and such damages shall not exceed a reasonable payment in respect of the act complained of.

(3) Sections 145 and 264 shall apply with any necessary modifications in relation to the disposal of anything delivered up or seized by virtue of subsection (1).

watty

Yep I forgot about that one. No problem though to selling a DVB-c box or a Nagravision CAM that needs a card to decrypt.

That one applies to sellers of hacked cards. Which is why the smarter mail order companies leave the user to download and install the hack.

barrybevel

Does anyone know how long before these boxes will be useless with NTL?

I dont see how something like this works.
Can someone give me a basic explaination?

I thought NTL have a "code" that decodes the picture.
I thought that NTL could change the "code".

Do these boxes have a master code, so no matter what code NTL change it to, it will work?

How does it work?

watty

They will be useless soon.

It is illegal to assist someone to steal a Cable Service. Using these boxes is not a copyright issue but theft of service.

All encyrption other than one time key using a key the size of message can be broken.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7098005.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption

After the decryption the MPEG2 is decoded, which actually requires more CPU power, but it's codec, not a cipher.

uberwolf

my understanding of these devices was that they were undetectable by the supplier, as it's upstream info only?

I can see with the likes of Sky digital box that allows for interaction, and connects to a phone line, how they'd be caught, but saving a 'raid' or diligent tv license inspector

watty

Your understanding is faulty.

Sky encryption has not been compromised. They are not out to "catch" anyone. The phone line is not needed.


The issue is not the ease of detection. That does not affect the legality. Nor is the TV licence inspector involved.

Hypothetically when the broadband upgrade is complete NTL (UPC) could have a "handshake" scheme for keys and non-authorised boxes will fail. UPC will be introducing a new key scheme.

So there are separate issues:
:: Stealing a service is morally and criminally wrong. The people doing it and helping others to do it are criminals and parasites. This is not primarily a copyright issue (which is civil).
:: Mechanisms and "authorised agents" to catch people stealing.
:: UPC (NTL/Chorus) may release counter measures that "brick" some receivers
:: UPC are changing the encryption method for more security, which will render illegal boxes unable to decode (different from "bricking").
:: Future schemes may use the Cable broadband for handshaking and keys, making it extraordinarly difficult for cracking and all existing boxes (including all UPC older ones) useless as they don't have a cable modem.

From cable head, TV station, Internet to consumer is Downstream. From Modem to Cable head/Internet is Upstream.

uberwolf

Tv Inspector comment was facetious!

I have been presented one of these boxes as being 'undetectable', hence my question. We in Ireland have different shades of illegality, coloured only by likelihood of detection and moreover prosecution.

It's moot for me, I don't even have a tv. I'm sure everyone who has these boxes is aware that they are in contravention of a law or morality. They are operating under the impression that they can't be caught, and won't be prosecuted. That detection relies entirely on the service provider, and if NTL need to have full BB roll out before they can catch people then the populace can rest easy for while.

watty

I'd not assume they are undetectable.

If I was in a Van driving down a street, I personally have the gear to figure out which TV channel people are watching in which house. The UK used to use such technology both for viewing figures and licence evasion detection over 30 years ago. Now they just send a letter to every house demanding TV licence and the the onus has shifted to occupier to prove they don't watch live TV.

I'm sure someone could come up with other methods.

Tom Young

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001

Section 6. Deception Making Loss or gain: 5 years conviction on indictment max.

Section 26. Using a false instrument:

26.—(1) A person who uses an instrument which is, and which he or she knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with the intention of inducing another person to accept it as genuine and, by reason of so accepting it, to do some act, or to make some omission, or to provide some service, to the prejudice of that person or any other person is guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.

I believe there is also prosecutions possible by the Commission for Communications Regulation under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 and potentially also the broadcasting act.

dSleeper

watty wrote: »

I'd not assume they are undetectable.

If I was in a Van driving down a street, I personally have the gear to figure out which TV channel people are watching in which house. The UK used to use such technology both for viewing figures and licence evasion detection over 30 years ago. Now they just send a letter to every house demanding TV licence and the the onus has shifted to occupier to prove they don't watch live TV.

I'm sure someone could come up with other methods.

rubbish. You cant tell. You know i'm right.

watty

And your expertise & training and sources for that statement is?

Your statement is wishfull think with no facts to back it up. Just because NTL did little in the past doesn't mean UPC can't in the future. However is seems likely they will instead render all the pirate boxes useless rather than spending money on detection.

Since I did the post I thought of another method to detect cable piracy even if the box is turned off!

watty

watty wrote: »

All encyrption other than one time key using a key the size of message can be broken.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7098005.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encryption

After the decryption the MPEG2 is decoded, which actually requires more CPU power, but it's codec, not a cipher.

This is very misleading. While you may be technically correct, its like saying it is possible to count every grain of sand in the world.

You can break say AES, but on average you will need a few billion years to do it!

watty

Or the Mk1 Quantum Home Desktop?

In practice "real world" systems make compromises or have bugs that are later found to make the encryption less good than expected, even down to measuring how quickly the system responds telling you incorrect key, or measuring spectrum emitted or current drawn. Real world systems can have many unforeseen flaws. Or in case of WPA AES, while better than WEP, people still put stupid passwords easily broken by brute force attack.

Yes I was being pedantic.

cast_iron

watty wrote: »

Since I did the post I thought of another method to detect cable piracy even if the box is turned off!

Care to educate?

watty

Google
Time domain reflectometry

I think with the right gear connected you can generate a map of connections. Unconnected cable ends, pure 75Ohm terminators and tuner heads "look" different. You can even know how long the connecting cable is, detect splitters and even the length of cable and what is connected at far end of splitter.

Simplifed introduction.
http://www.tscm.com/riprcop.html

In theory you can "see" the difference between an official outdoor "Trunk Tap" and an unofficial tap to the trunk cable.

You don't have to limit testing to normal cable frequencies. In theory a Broadband modem can add extra testing at a lower frequency in the reverse direction.

I'm sure UPC has some Agilent or Tektronix or who ever makes these things these days. You can demonstrate the principle with an ordinary 'scope and RF pulse generator in a school lab. You can even kink the cable and "see" on the screen where the kink is.

It can be very very sensitive.

watty

Password cracking goes up a notch:
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/hax/playstation-3-turned-into-crackstation-for-super-hacking-goodness-327738.php

rubadub

watty wrote: »

NTL are going to make all those boxes be doorstops.

I hear UPC are already broadcasting Nagra II along with Nagra I, and that newly issued boxes to customers are NII and the new box that records are too.

I also hear UPC have totally changed to versions of nagra II in some other EU countries, and that it is already hacked in some cases. The might send out new cards which will cost a lot, to do it properly needs new equipment sent out, but as they are already investing in NII it is a bit late to be thinking of that.

Some boxes might only need a software update to handle the new encryption. It is rumoured it is already hacked, but it would not be released since they might alter it. Why not wait till they install it all, then release the hack.

watty wrote: »

It's NOT a victimless crime as the new cards and countermeasures cost money and the subscriber ends up paying.

Did anybody say it was victimless? even without new cards cancelled subs will be adding up. Once the countermeasure costs less than the potential re-subscriptions it is worth their while.

watty

People frequently justify it by claiming it does no harm.

There was a fake claim of a Nagra II hack back in 2005 that was really a Nagra I hack (both transmitted). It's not clear to me if Nagra II is hacked or not, or simply vulnerable before the N1 is turned off.

There is no shortage of scam sites for all kinds of alleged keys for everything from Nokia E series phones to Vista.

The reason of course that Sky Digoboxes have a hidden CAM type slot might be the doomsday situation of NDS crack that can't be fixed via an update (which given how NDS and the Sky box works that seems unlikely). Another theory is that unlike cable the viewers own the box and EU might rule that the box must work with other payTV providers. Another theory was that it was for a HDD (I think unlikely).

kopparberg

Tom Young wrote: »

Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001

Section 6. Deception Making Loss or gain: 5 years conviction on indictment max.

Section 26. Using a false instrument:

26.—(1) A person who uses an instrument which is, and which he or she knows or believes to be, a false instrument, with the intention of inducing another person to accept it as genuine and, by reason of so accepting it, to do some act, or to make some omission, or to provide some service, to the prejudice of that person or any other person is guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.

I believe there is also prosecutions possible by the Commission for Communications Regulation under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 and potentially also the broadcasting act.

should that not be 10 years on indictment max. also anyone with a box could be charged with possesion of certin articals with intend under the 2007 criminal justice act. possesion of certin articals under the theft and fraud offences was repealed in may

Alo10

I imagine a digital receiver (not a hacked box) that can receive cable channels without a basic subscription is illegal also ?

watty

yes
But that is unlikely. maybe receive of clear analog channels on a hybrid digital/Analogue TV.

Though even clear anlogue channels on Cable need a sub.

Alo10

Thanks for clarifying - FYI they have a new apartment with a cable terminating - they have no sub, no hacked box - using a "starview 2" digital receiver and get about 100 channels..

watty

That is an inherently hacked box (illegal cable receiver). It's theft pure and simple as well as copyright violation.
Those are illegal to sell or use in Ireland.

Garda are seizing those and UPC have "bricked" many similar models.

timmol

does 'the box t' work with sctv in carrigaline?

watty

SCTV uses satellite TV type gear. It's a wireless Cable system like MMDS (11.7Ghz instead of 2.5Ghz). You must use their subscription and equipment. Cable Theft law applies.

johnfás

UPC (NTL) went around every house on my road today checking to see did anyone have these. [snipped]

BostonB

johnfás wrote: »

UPC (NTL) went around every house on my road today checking to see did anyone have these. [snipped]

How would they know?

krinpit

johnfás wrote: »

UPC (NTL) went around every house on my road today checking to see did anyone have these. [snipped]

Yeah right! Did they have a search warrant?

seamus

krinpit wrote: »

Yeah right! Did they have a search warrant?

Since NTL/UPC retain ownership of the digiboxes (not sure about the PVRs), I imagine there's some legal hole they can use that allows them access to inspect their equipment. At a reasonable time and with your consent obviously.

Our man in Havana

seamus wrote: »

Since NTL/UPC retain ownership of the digiboxes (not sure about the PVRs), I imagine there's some legal hole they can use that allows them access to inspect their equipment. At a reasonable time and with your consent obviously.

They can ask to come in but you can tell them to go away as they have no automatic right of entry. They will then return with a search warrant and Gardaí.

BostonB

How hard is it just to refuse entry and hide the box?

Hobart

Bond-007 wrote: »

They can ask to come in but you can tell them to go away as they have no automatic right of entry. They will then return with a search warrant and Gardaí.

Is this what are tax dollars are being spent on? Are Gardai readily available (or do they make themselves available) to accompany NTL/UPC personnel as they do their daily inspections? How easily are these search warrants granted? On what basis is the warrant granted?

watty

Stealing cable service is "theft of service", a criminal offence, not like Warez etc which is civil copyright infringement.

johnfás

Of course they didn't have a warrant but of course they would report it to the Gardaí if you refused them to look at it. We just let them in as we have nothing to hide anyway. They were also doing maintenance on the area in recent days so I'm sure they have a right of access to their boxes within your house as they still own them.

Our man in Havana

They still need a warrant to enforce their right of access if the householder tells them to go away.

Hobart

watty wrote: »

Stealing cable service is "theft of service", a criminal offence, not like Warez etc which is civil copyright infringement.

I appreciate that, I'm just wondering if what has been stated is actually the case. I have never seen a report of anybody being presented with a warrant in order to allow UPC reps to "check out" the house.

I'm also wondering on what basis the search warrant is issued. Surely there must be "suspicion" of theft.

rubadub

Hobart wrote: »

I appreciate that, I'm just wondering if what has been stated is actually the case.

I wonder the same thing as you. Will the gardai actually come out with UPC, it is hard enough to get them out if your house is robbed, surely there are more pressing issues for them. It is like the eircom illegal download thing, saying it is up to the music companies. If I was the gardai I would say it is up to UPC to get better protection systems.

Hobart wrote: »

I'm also wondering on what basis the search warrant is issued. Surely there must be "suspicion" of theft.

Exactly, can I just call to someones house and ask to come in, then get a warrant saying I suspect they stole something from me. Or do I need to have a UPC uniform on before the gardai believe me?

Stealing cable service is "theft of service", a criminal offence

There are a massive amount of criminals out there on the loose so. Are there any other common criminal offences being committed like this?

Do warrants have to be issued by a judge? would a judge really allow the massive administration costs etc happen for an issue like this? I should hope not, as the taxpayer ends up paying. Imagine the cost of raiding and imprisoning every person who used one of these boxes.

jawlie

johnfás wrote: »

Of course they didn't have a warrant but of course they would report it to the Gardaí if you refused them to look at it. We just let them in as we have nothing to hide anyway. They were also doing maintenance on the area in recent days so I'm sure they have a right of access to their boxes within your house as they still own them.

Nobody has a right of entry on to someone elses's property. Additionally, it is well within anyone's rights to remove NTL's apparatus from private property.

watty

There are possibly two reasons that officials without warrent can enter your property, even using force. Excise Acts and previously Wireless Telegraphy acts. I havn't checked lately.

jawlie

watty wrote: »

There are possibly two reasons that officials without warrent can enter your property, even using force. Excise Acts and previously Wireless Telegraphy acts. I havn't checked lately.

there is a difference between officers of the state legally entering private property, and employees of a private company.

Our man in Havana

They will obtain a search warrant and they will return to execute it with Gardaí. If you then refuse them entry the Gardaí will break down your door.

I used to work for a semi state agency that had equipment that customers would interfere with to gain advantage i.e. pay that agency less money for services obtained. I and other colleagues would call to houses/businesses to check such equipment for signs of interference. If we were refused entry, it would be sufficient cause to obtain a warrant and return with the Gardaí. Peace commissioners had no problem approving warrants in such situations.