Washington University Law Review Volume 70 Issue 1 January 1992 Privacy Protection for Programming: Is Modifying Satellite Descramblers a Violation of the Wiretap Law? United States v. Hux, 940 F.2d 314 (8th Cir. 1991) Thomas N. FitzGibbon Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Communications Law Commons Recommended Citation Thomas N. FitzGibbon, Privacy Protection for Programming: Is Modifying Satellite Descramblers a Violation of the Wiretap Law? United States v. Hux, 940 F.2d 314 (8th Cir. 1991), 70 WASH. U. L. Q. 231 (1992). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol70/iss1/8 This Case Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact
[email protected]. PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR PROGRAMMING: Is MODIFYING SATELLITE DESCRAMBLERS A VIOLATION OF THE WIRETAP LAW? United States v. Hux, 940 F.2d 314 (8th Cir. 1991) In United States v. Hux I the Eighth Circuit concluded that the Wire- tap Law2 did not proscribe the modification of satellite descramblers to 3 receive encrypted programming. On two occasions, an undercover agent requested that the defendant, Austin Jerry Hux, modify a satellite descrambler module* to receive pre- mium pay television channels without the user paying the provider of the program.' Hux performed both of these modifications and received $400 for each.6 A Federal Grand Jury returned a four-count indictment against Hux: two counts of manufacturing an electronic device for the purpose of sur- reptitiously intercepting electronic communications under the Wiretap 1.