raistlin wrote:
Something of a postscript to this:-
The defendant pleaded guilty at the plea and case management hearing at the Crown Court this morning. Adjourned for sentencing.
A further thought provoking item from the FS people though, was that the EPROM removed for testing had in fact, been the subject of modification and that several other interesting items of information had been recovered from the memory including the date and time that the code had been modified.
So they know when it was done; no saying it was done by the previous owner(s) then as a get out. Interesting, very interesting. Wonder if they could tell by which machine it was as well? If so could any action be taken against them as part of a civil action perhaps?
The debate has been started again on the OC in a new thread, with at least one person saying that following the post of the previous article they have informed their insurance with little difficulty in carrying on with their cover, albeit with an extra (reasonable) cost. Also interesting to note that those who carry out the modification are no longer stating that they are "invisible".
It has certainly made people think.
Gary M.
]]>