SSSCA Hearing October 25th: Free Software Threatened 355
A story at NewsForge details the latest on the state of Senator Fritz Hollings' proposed SSSCA, which may be the most radical attempt at legislative oversight over electronic goods ever attempted in the U.S. Opposition from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Free Software Foundation, the Association of Computing Machinery and others notwithstanding, Hollings' efforts to impede a free market in computer hardware and software through legislative fiat has been little commented on, in part because Hollings refuses to release much information about it. Eben Moglen is quoted to good effect on the risk a bill officializing and regulating all digital devices would pose to Free software. Under the SSSCA, it would be "unlawful to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies." And that rules out most Free software, right from the start. (Read on for some more information.)
Besides writing your own representatives (email and faxes are probably better than phone calls), note that according to Hollings' contact page, "South Carolina residents may call, toll free, 1-800-922-8503" to reach him. In addition, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and the Privacy Center will be holding a meeting on "Security or Surveillance? Technology's Impact After September 11" on October 22 at Washington, DC's National Press Club; you can email for details on this meeting.
only in the US (Score:4, Interesting)
just out of curiosity, if I am at a terminal in the US, but remotely logged into a machine outside the US, does that count as exporting my code?
Re:only in the US (Score:5, Interesting)
that is correct (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, it is. That's why it's posted under the U.S. topic. Our Congress isn't passing laws for the rest of the world. Yet.
Re:that is correct (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure they are, and making asses of themselves in the World Community, as usual.
Oh well... so much for Freedom of Speech, and that whole "constitution" thing so many of your politicians like holding dear to their hearts.
extraterritorial US laws aplenty! (Score:2, Interesting)
Helms-Burton law on Cuba. Just to name one that is perceived as extremely extraterritorial in Europe.
...
With a little research, you could find so many of these extraterritorial laws. They are not felt as extraterritorial as much as outside the country. But they ARE.
Surprise surprise....read the slashdot faq (Score:2, Informative)
Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it. [slashdot.org]
So what's your point? (Score:2, Informative)
Get off your high "I'm-not-American" horse, and let us who care discuss the implications of this dire policy proposal. This article apparently doesn't apply to you, so ignore it already.
-sk
Re:So what's your point? (Score:2, Insightful)
This in the sense of the electronic world not having the same physical boundraries as the USofA. This would handicap the law from day one.
Re:only in the US (Score:4, Interesting)
Further, the code is `deemed exported' even if you let a foriegn national LIVING INSIDE THE US look at the code: See the BXA Regs [doc.gov] for more information.
Will it matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:only in the US (Score:2, Insightful)
Congress.org (Score:5, Informative)
Be careful in your criticisms (Score:2, Troll)
As an avid media and software pirate, though, I am deeply concerned that the FSF, the Slashdot community, et al, will focus too much of their attention on SSSCA, and when a more modest measure (such as CPRM) reaches Capitol Hill, the powers that be will view us as naysayers. We need to be careful not to express too much dissent for hopeless measures like the SSSCA, so that we do not stand accused of crying wolf later. Because any hinderance to the free exchange of copyrighted materials hurts us all and strikes another blow to the First Amendment.
-CT
Re:Be careful in your criticisms (Score:5, Interesting)
(*) CPRM is one of these systems. It is "Copy Protection for Removable Media".
Re:Be careful in your criticisms (Score:4, Insightful)
Because any hinderance to the free exchange of copyrighted materials hurts us all and strikes another blow to the First Amendment.
Stealing music will NEVER be legal, so you might as well get over this ludicrous concept that this somehow has something to do with the First Amendment.
I'll tell you what's going to happen, eventually: Eventually, music will be released as unencrypted files similiar to how software is released. We went through this with software, and we will go through it with music. The music industry will eventually clue in that they need to just allow people to buy the digital copies, and hope that people are honest about it. And you know what? Most people will be, assuming that it's priced reasonably.
Software is pirated, but most software companies still make money.
But you might as well give up on this notion that copyright is ever going to go away. You will be able to continue being a thief and not get caught (similar to software), but it will still be unethical.
Re:Be careful in your criticisms (Score:5, Insightful)
Copying information will NEVER be stealing. As Supreme Court rulings and Thomas Jefferson's writings both make clear, copyright is not a recognition of any sort of property rights.
Copying information may constitute copyright infringement, but only because the PUBLIC grants an OPTIONAL copyright on it, a copyright that is in no way an entitlement.
Re:Be careful in your criticisms (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Be careful in your criticisms (Score:2)
Re:Be careful in your criticisms (Score:5, Interesting)
And as an avid person who hates this kind of legislation, I am deeply concerned that people like you keep provoking and justifying it.
The United States of America-Online/TimeWarner (Score:5, Insightful)
The year is 2021; corporations run what was formerly known as the United States of America. Waking up, you log onto your computer terminal and begin your morning read of the newspaper. Browsing through "IBM Times" and "Microsoft Journal," you grow sick of the corporate propaganda riddled throughout the "pages." Wishing to view an opinion different from the standard, you attempt to veer off the normal course. Immediately, you receive a message from the local Microsoft Police Corp informing you that you've violated the law, and have been fined $200 dollars. They warn repeated offenses will have the end result of imprisonment and additional fines. Not surprised, you return to reading the "IBM Times," subjected to the regulation of a corporate controlled government. Now, in the mood to listen to your favorite old music you insert a Compact Disk into the computer, and attempt to load a small program you've written to use this old technology. Unfortunately, this CD will not play, and seconds later you hear a knock at the door.
The agent for the Recording Industry of America standing before you looks like he's done this a million times, but you don't feel so comfortable in the handcuffs he's put on you. "The computer warned you, and you didn't listen," he lectures. A "repeated offense," he continues "is grounds for imprisonment." It is no longer legal to listen to the Brittany Spears or Led Zeppelin CD you purchased 20 years ago. In addition, the mere creation of your CD player is grounds for 5 years in prison, and a $200,000 fine.
Absurd as it may sound, this reality may soon exist. This month, a bill is being brought to Congress called the Software Security Standards and Certification Act. Proposed by Senators Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Fritz Hollings (D-SC) and backed by many corporate lobbyists, this bill requires all software to use government approved security measures. The effects of this law are far reaching, effecting people all over the world in addition to those in this land of the free. Beginning with the mandatory government regulation of software, then through the prosecution of those who choose not to integrate this police ware into their products, and ending at a yet unknown level, the SSSCA benefits few people. A law that forces regulation inhibits civil liberties and lessens the rights of US citizens deserves to be dismissed, but unless people are informed, this bill will pass under the noses of Americans everywhere. With the intent to "benefit" the public, the law does anything but, as it will negatively impact the technology industry, programmers and anyone who uses a computer.
The stifling of innovation, a longtime defense by Microsoft in their anti-trust trial, is a major concern of those opposed to the SSSCA. Section 105 of the SSSCA states, "The Secretary shall certify technologies that adhere to the security system standards adopted. . . " Under this direction, all software must be reviewed by the Secretary of Commerce before distribution is allowed. It is at the Secretary's discrescion to determine if an application sufficiently adopts the security standard created by a private industry committee. (Section 104 b) Software often has a rapid development, with some products having new versions released multiple times a day. The requirement of review by the Commerce Department would instantly destroy this rapid release cycle. The purpose of a cycle like this is to quickly stomp out bugs in applications, and allow developers quick feedback about their applications. Unfortunately, feedback will be far from quick and the technological revolution quite visible today will cease to exist, caught up in bureaucratic processes. In addition, the private panel may use the opportunity to create a security policy to legally hinder the advancement of technology in favor of gaining market share.
Not only does the SSSCA allow for corporations to determine the new security policy, it offers them exemption from anti-trust laws in accord with section 107. In the past there have been many attempts at allowing an industry to regulate itself, such as the steel industry in the early 20th Century, and more recently, cable and telephone industries. In all instances, after a period of time, the government has stepped in and taken control of the situation, for fear that monopolistic business tactics being used by the companies involved may have led to unfair completion. In fact, a major court case is still being reviewed after 4 years of court battle. The Microsoft anti-trust case has cost taxpayers millions of dollars in the attempt to punish the company for violating government sanctions. In contrast to the stern stand the US's past stance against anti-business practices, the SSSCA allows for legal exemption from anti-trust laws under the banner of security certification discussion (Section 107 c).
In addition, George W. Bush's recent dismissal of the Microsoft breakup and the ratification of laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have caused a large distrust of the government by programmers across the world and the SSSCA is enhancing that further. This fear of government holds strong in the programming community at large and has caused much concern among its more popular proponents. Reactions to the possibility of the SSSCA's ratification have ranged from vocal protest to boycotts of varying degree. Government funded research groups like those at Fermilab or NASA utilize many free softwares to cut costs and improve the quality of their work. The inability to use these applications due to either programming boycott or massive bureaucratic delay will have disastrous effects on these centers of science. The unwillingness of programmers in response to government action will only further hinder the development cycle of technology. This creates a loop of constant degradation in technology, a complete reversal of the SSSCA's supposed intent. Lower quality technology lessens a programmer's ability to perform his chosen profession. Unfortunately, the proponents of the SSSCA are not concerned with any of this.
There exists a large group of programmers known as the Open Source Community. Releasing their software free of charge, these programmers want to help others and to aid in the dissemination of information. Unfortunately for them, they are not paid and often work on their software solely in their free time. In addition, many are very attached to their products, as to many; a computer program can be a work of art. The SSSCA would require members of this community to adapt their art to the whim of a private-industry panel. To violate standards of their own decree would absolutely disgust the programmers whose goal is to aid others by making quality software. An idea proposed by those in favor of this legislation suggest standard libraries, or routines be developed by the industry-panel and government for use in software projects. While this would put the actual implementation of security in the hands of the government, programmers would still be responsible for using these libraries. Complications related to copyright and interoperability would cause many problems. A disagreement with the government in either could prevent the programmer from using the government routines under a moral or ethical standpoint, violating their right to freely voice their beliefs. Another problem exists for those who work on much smaller projects, where a government-created library might be unavailable due to either its newness or obscurity. Without the ability to use those routines, a developer would be in violation of the SSSCA if she wanted to release her application, or other software (Section 103).
In addition to inhibiting a developer from freely expressing his beliefs through an artistic medium (programming) the SSSCA would also require programmers to further monopolize their own free time and cash flow in order to integrate any certified security implementations. By adhering to the law, they agree to the terms of security set fourth by the government, and must spend their time updating software not to add new features or usability, but rather, implementing federally mandated changes. (Section 102) Although the law offers a grandfather clause to programs currently available, new releases of the software would be required to adhere to certified security standards (Section101 b). In addition to their self designated duty of helping people, open source developers would be forced into the labor of securing software all because they have the desire to help anyone who uses technology. Lastly, those with barely the skills necessary to create an application may not be able to implement security regulation into their programs, due to inexperience or lack of knowledge. This has the potential to limit further, technological advancement.
Overall, the inability of a programmer to implement security features, or the conscious decision not to, can result in numerous felony charges to be filed against him or her. In fact, even improper adherence to the standards whether intentional or accidental meet with the same punishments: monetary fines and imprisonment. With government regulation, programmers will be forced to bend to the will of ever changing standards and those who choose not to follow the regulation will be met with fierce punishment. Like many other recent technology laws, the intent will not matter, only the actions taken. In the world of technology those actions can be the exact same, only one could cause millions of dollars in damages, and the other the realization that a computer has a true security vulnerability. Enforcement of the SSSCA does nothing to protect American citizens, but the implementations of the laws have disastrous effects on most everyone, including anyone who uses technology.
First on the near-never ending list of ways the SSSCA will hurt the American public is the realization that it will cause the creation of inferior software. At first the regulation will bring to a halt the creation of some software, as it's developers will protest the passing and enforcement of the SSSCA. Quick to follow the boycotts, development testing will halt as the bureaucratic delays of the certification process delay software releases. After this, those who do not have the time to add security implementations to their application will halt development. Next, the programmers who wish to comply with the SSSCA will halt the addition of new features to their applications and instead work to comply with security standards. Finally, a halt in the open source community will begin to occur, as corporations with cash are able to bring to market applications faster than the developers who are working for free. Now the rapid, fast moving, and rapidly improving technological change will come to a HALT. Nobody benefits from a stagnant industry. As the number of new features and bug-fixes decrease so will the value of the market, as competition will be lost, and quality slashed. The efforts of open source programmers all over will be broken.
The spirit of open source will not be the only thing broken. Despite the SSSCA's purpose of improving security, a policy such as this will horribly break the security of computers and make them much more vulnerable to hackers. Consider a neighborhood where every house used the same type of lock, a type of lock with its specifications available to the public. It's easy to estimate how quickly every house in the neighborhood would be robbed. As soon as one thief figured out how to pick the lock, it would be simple to figure out the rest. Now put that into computer terms. If everyone used the exact same methods of securing their machines, methods set forth by the government, what would it mean if a vulnerability were found in the security standard. Once one is discovered, as there is no such thing as absolute security, ever machine complying with the SSSCA's provisions would be a house in that neighborhood. Easily broken into. Consider another hypothetical situation. VISA decides it does not want to violate the law so it chooses to implement the SSSCA's certified security standards on all of it's Internet accessible machines, in compliance with section 102. After this is done a vulnerability is found, unbeknownst to the company and a malicious hacker decides to exploit this vulnerability. Now he has the credit card numbers, as well as personal information of every VISA customer. VISA is responsible for the stealing of all that information, because they decided to follow the law.
The imagined world of the "IBM Times" and the "Microsoft Police" is not entirely fictional. As time passes and corporations become more involved in the lobbying of laws towards the inhibition of civil rights, those "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" need to be reminded that the governed do not agree with the legislation being snunk underneath the noses of the populace. One such law, the Software Security Standards and Certification Act is being presented to congress right now. Do not allow corporations take the "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" from us, the true rulers of the United States of America. Do not read the "IBM Times." Do not support the United States of America-Online/Time Warner by remaining silent or allowing others to be ignorant of the travesties being played upon us by the greedy.
Wrong expansion of SSSCA acronym (Score:2)
Security Systems Standards and Certification Act
The post above had:
Software Security Standards and Certification Act.
Re:The United States of America-Online/TimeWarner (Score:2, Interesting)
In reading Pravda you could figure out the truth by reading between the lines. But in the future? Even now the mainstream US media sound like the White House and Pentagon press offices.
Re:The United States of America-Online/TimeWarner (Score:4, Insightful)
It's been said that Pravda served the people of the Soviet Union far better than CNN and their ilk serve us today, because at least people knew enough not to trust Pravda.
Re:The United States of America-Online/TimeWarner (Score:2)
Britney Spears. And who's going to remember her in 20 months, let alone 20 years? ;-) Other than that, a not implausible scenario. Gave me the shivers, anyway.
1984? (Score:3, Interesting)
Does it sounds like 1984, The movie, for anybody else? Or it's just me?
Re:1984? (Score:3, Informative)
Not really. 1984 postulated a particular dystopia -- namely that Stalinism circa 1948 (oh, wasn't Orwell *so* clever in reversing the last two digits of the year in which he wrote the novel?) would become global. Today the problem isn't anti-capitalistic dictatorships -- the problem is that large corporations can subvert democracy. If you want a fictional precedent, William Gibson comes much closer to today's reality than George Orwell.
Re:Grammar nitpicking--ignore fi you don't care. (Score:2)
Effect is both a noun -and- a verb.
From Dictionary.com [dictionary.com]:
tr.v. effected, effecting, effects
1. To bring into existence.
2. To produce as a result.
3. To bring about.
There's also a usage note that's somewhat illustrative:
Affect and effect have no senses in common.
As a verb affect is most commonly used in the sense of "to influence" (how smoking affects health).
Effect means "to bring about or execute": layoffs designed to effect savings.
Re:The United States of America-Online/TimeWarner (Score:2, Interesting)
[insert nifty sounding somthing here]
one tiny glimmer of hope -surrounded by a loophole (Score:5, Interesting)
PERSONAL TIME-SHIFTING COPIES CANNOT BE BLOCKED. -- No person may apply a security measure that uses a certified security technology to prevent a lawful recipient from making a personal copy for time-shifting purposes of programming at the time it is lawfully performed, on an over-the-air broadcast, non-premium cable channel, or non-premium satellite channel, by a television broadcast station (as defined in section 122(j)(5)(A) of title 17, United States Code), a cable system (as defined in section 111(f) of such title), or a satellite carrier (as defined in section 119(d)(6) of such title.)
Which is a good first step. But this arguably would let HBO or any other premium service (do other packaged channels count as premium services) prevent me from recording The Sopranos or any of their America Undercover series...
This seems like an odd thing to do. So, for example, when the Sopranos goes into syndication I'll be able to record it off of UPN but not HBO.
I'm a teacher. I use recorded materials to teach my students. I'm allowed to do so under fair use. This law could make me into a criminal. That sucks.
Re:one tiny glimmer of hope -surrounded by a looph (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a teacher. I use recorded materials to teach my students. I'm allowed to do so under fair use.
Errrr.... I don't think so. "Fair use" is designed for your personal use. Put it this way... it's definitely not legal for you to make copies of a text book that you happened to own and distribute that to your students.
Otherwise, everyone could just get around copyright law by claiming to be a "teacher". "Mr. Lucas, I'm not showing this Star Wars movie to all these people for profit, it's for educational purposes!"
Re:one tiny glimmer of hope -surrounded by a looph (Score:4, Informative)
Which means that it most certainly is legal to copy selections of a textbook that you, a teacher, own, and give them to your students. In fact this is precisely the original intent of the fair use clause. If you refer to that section of the USC, you will see that there are also limitations on quantity.
Secondly, your argument fails on logical grounds. If "anyone could say they're a teacher," couldn't anyone also say, "this use is my personal use" for any conceivable use of a copyrighted work? You're citing law the way Napster (and its users) wishes it was. Please refer to pertinent legislation before dictating the law to others.
Outlawing Student programming? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, could this law, if it is as described, out law all student programming. Could turning in homework that did not have appropriate security measure would be illegal. Could you would have to arrest every student and teacher in the USA for criminal conspiracy. You couldn't read a book and do exercises in the safety of your own home.
He has effectively outlawed the teaching of technology and self instruction.
The question I have is if "Offer to the public, traffic", etc means "sell" - If you give it away, is it trafficking, or offering to the public? It could be one of those things that depend on the exact legal phrasing.
Loophole (Score:3, Informative)
There's a big problem with 103(b).
The language, read strictly, allows for a personal copy "for time-shifting purposes".
First, it's restricted to only non-premium content. This is becoming restricted to less and less programming of interest, and may even exclude a large number of event broadcasts: concerts, sports events, and the like.
Second, "time-shifting", read literally, could be construed to mean "record at time T, replay at time T+n". That is: you're allowed to delay playback. Once.
It's possible that restrictions might not be this severe. The content originator might deign to allow multiple playbacks, to some limit, or multiple pauses, to some limit. You might be allowed to skip over advertising, or you might not. However, the choice isn't yours, its with the content originator.
Third, the playback hardware and software would all contain "rights management" (read that as: they're managing to restrict your rights) systems, to the extent that any actions you might want to perform on the programming are going to be passed through a mediation process by the system. You ask for a playback, a pause, a replay. If the system feels that you're allowed to do this, you're granted it. If not, you're not.
And any attempt to bypass this system would be a violation of federal law.
Tell that to your beer-drinking buddies or social circle.
A nightmare... (Score:5, Insightful)
My reps (Score:2, Interesting)
Please, Senators, don't pass this legislation! (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only that, but the law will be an unfair burden on computer owners. Consider the following clause:
(a) REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF SECURITY. -- No person may --
(1) remove or alter any certified security technology in an interactive digital device;
This essentially forces consumers to run software they do not want, and prohibits them from removing it. There don't appear to be any exceptions for issues such as data protection. The government wants to do exactly what it's blaming Microsoft for. This is a serious and inexcusable affront to our liberties.
All in the name of "enhancing the security of the internet." Check out this quote:
There is little financial incentive for private companies to enhance the security of the Internet and other infrastructures as a whole.
How clueless can you get?
On the plus side, there is an exception for time-shifting, but this is little consolation compared to the decimation of our basic rights and the certainly negative impact it will have in the computer marketplace.
Re:Please, Senators, don't pass this legislation! (Score:3, Funny)
Ha! Oh man. Making an appeal to senators in a slashdot posting is like posting an IT job in Sports Illustrated. No, wait, worse.
Re:Please, Senators, don't pass this legislation! (Score:2)
Re:Please, Senators, don't pass this legislation! (Score:2)
since when is software... (Score:3, Interesting)
computers are digital devices, LCD watches are digital devices, calculators are digital devices, microwave ovens are digital devices, software is not a "device"... and even *if* it were this would have NO effect on software written places other than the USA...
Re:since when is software... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:since when is software... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:since when is software... (Score:2, Funny)
An analog computer.
True, it would be a nightmare to write, and inefficient, but it is not an "interactive digital device."
**braces for slaps upside the head due to stupid comment**
Re:since when is software... (Score:4, Informative)
- -- The term "interactive digital device" means any machine, device, product,
- software, or technology, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine, device, product, software, or technology, that is designed, marketed or used for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving, or copying information in digital form.
I'm guessing linux is software which is capable of processing information in digital form.Re:since when is software... (Score:2, Insightful)
Jon
Re:since when is software... (Score:5, Interesting)
In an ideal world, of course, US-based legislation will have no effect outside the US, but actual laws would appear take a back seat to the whims of large enough corporations.
Consider two well publicised cases involving the DMCA. DeCSS is software, and was created in Norway, but it was still labelled a "circumvention device", under the DMCA, which is of course a US law that shouldn't apply in Norway.
Dmitry Sklyarov created the e-book decryption program in Russia, and it was labelled a circumvention device, and Sklyarov was prosecuted under the same *US* law.
Say someone in a non-US country puts some software on the web which does not conform to whatever "standards" the government see fit. It can be argued that since the software is on the web, it is available in the US, and so it is breaking US law.
Therefore, if this law is passed, and if I am correct in my thinking, the US government will be able to prosecute anyone who puts non-certified (say, Free) software on the web, as it can be argued that someone in the US can download it, so therefore whoever uploaded the software can be accused of "offering it to the public".
So the SSSCA is actually a lot scarier than you might think. Even if the legal grounds for applying US law to other countries are shaky, corporate lawyers will find some way of doing so, as they have done with the DMCA.
will response to congressmen be read? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:will response to congressmen be read? (Score:2)
Re:will response to congressmen be read? (Score:2)
Rep from WHERE?! (Score:5, Funny)
According to the Title of the article on Newsforge [newsforge.com], Senator Fritz Hollings (D-Disney) avoids talking about SSSCA, he's a Democrat from the state of Disney?!
When did that happen? Talk about getting your moneys worth from your lobbying efforts... Not just protected by corporate statutes, but now they can elect their own government officials!
Well Disney is a government entity... (Score:4, Informative)
However I suspect it was sarcasm as I think Disney had a hand in authoring the act.
Re:Rep from WHERE?! (Score:2)
Ridiculous (Score:2, Insightful)
Do these people have any idea how much it would cost to replace all these wonderfully vague "interactive digital devices" in order to make them compliant? Telephones, keyboards, remote controls, speakers, hearing aids, car stereos, printers, wristwatches, etc etc. What lunacy.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:2, Informative)
I believe this grandfather clause covers any current technology already out there.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:2)
Hmm. Does this mean that existing free software, provided it is not explicitly modified to copy movies and music, is OK to distribute?
Opensource solutions. (Score:3, Interesting)
That being said...
If this law passes...IF....then I think that open source will become a cradle of freedom, but in the process, will carve the "technology haves/technology have-nots" line in stone. If this passes, we need to follow the guidelines that they give us. We need to put all the security measures in the code..right there for everyone to see. And remember, not only will they be able to see them, they will be able to edit them out, and recompile. Not that this will likely be legal...but the people writing the software won't be the ones breaking the law...it will be us. A sad, sorry state of affairs, for sure, but this law will not pass, and if it does, it will not stand for long. Any person that looks at what they are attempting knows that, while the intent is not evil, the method they are using is unconstitutional. Life as we knew it is slowly slipping away, on a dozen fronts. We're not going to win each battle, but if we keep a cool head, and look at things from the perspective of the people we are against, then we will prevail in the long run.
There's something wrong here (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a couple of things I find real fishy. First, any proposed law in Congress should have full disclosure. Second, if he's not willing to talk about it, could he be almost embarrassed oveer it? Or hiding something? Most lawmakers are proud of their proposals.
Someone just needs to explain it to them (Score:5, Interesting)
So I get up in front of the class, and it's completely filled with non-geeks. But it really only took about 5 minutes for these folks to grasp some of the basic ideas. I touched on DMCA, and why it is dangerous. I explained the two ways of owning something (physically owning it, like a car, and licensing, like software), and how the Music/movie industry seems to want it both ways. I talked about Sklyarov and the sheer ridiculousness of his "crime" and the punishment.
5 minutes later everyone in the class understood. My "amendment" passed with a unanimous vote.
In a way, Congress is a lot like my class. I'd venture that probably 75% of congress is a lot like the proverbial "mother" we wouldn't let try to install linux. And that's to be expected. A lot of them are much older than the folks who have grown up with computers, and lot of them went into careers (legal) that wouldn't require a lot of computing knowledge.
Maybe all we need is one person with some computing experience and a good persona to go and explain to Congress what's going on. Maybe I'm being a bit too idealistic here, but I have a feeling that if they just understood some of the underlying concepts, things might go a little more smoothly.
Re:Someone just needs to explain it to them (Score:5, Insightful)
Then see whether or not your amendment passes...
Re:Someone just needs to explain it to them (Score:3)
Here are the negative effects I can think of:
1) Burdensome effect on industry. It will slow
competition by raising barriers to entry by adding requirements.
2) Furthermore, there is strong potential for abuse... will the standard for establishing
security be open and easily implementable and
interoperable? Or will it (more likely) be closed
and favor some industry players over others?
3) The average citizen (thanks, we are citizens
and not just consumers) will see their fair use rights diminish or disappear.
4) It stands to reason that all data storage will
become proprietary, and therefore, data ownership
for the average individual will go down the drain.
Anything else? Am I wrong about these?
Re:Someone just needs to explain it to them (Score:2)
Re:Someone just needs to explain it to them (Score:2)
Re:Someone just needs to explain it to YOU (Score:2)
So who was the lobbyist in your classroom? Who was passing out the bribes^Wcampaign contributions? Who was doing the glad-handing in the Capitol foyer?
Relax... (Score:2)
Re:Relax... (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a big difference between panicking and taking action.
Re:Relax... (Score:2)
Maybe not, but who wants to bet that rather than abandon this tripe, the legislature will instead try to "fix" it by tacking on a wad of amendments instead, and end up passing it essentially as it was intended, but with a lot of language to make it sound "not so bad" (much as the language about not abridging fair use rights and allowing reverse-engineering for interoperability are in the DMCA to make it sound 'not so bad', even though they appear to be ignored in reality)
Re:Relax... (Score:2)
Don't Relax... (Score:2)
Broad and dangerous legislation was just passed. It's called the USA Act, and it allows the police to hold people indefinitely without filing any charges, among other "broad and dangerous" things. If you think that the USA Act is not broad and dangerous, then maybe you deserve the SSSCA.
Rash Decisions... (Score:4, Interesting)
I am continually frustrated with the process that this country takes in making laws for its citizens. This issue is not an easy one and demands discussion. However, instead of meeting and deliberating what would be the most effective solution, our elected representatives rush to a "quick fix" by proposing legislation that not only doesn't address the problem at hand but suggest solutions that infringe on our liberties. All this in an attempt to be the first kid on the block to introduce a solution. When will our elected officials realize that political issues that affect us all are NOT easy to solve and require intelligent discussion? Woodrow Wilson said, "The whole purpose of democracy is that we may hold counsel with one another, so as not to depend upon the understanding of one man."
Alas, I remain hopeful.
Malcontentedness may be the beginning of promise. - Randolph Bourne
This has to stop (Score:2)
Computer hardware doesn't violate copyright laws; people do.
Staffers Don't Know (Score:5, Interesting)
The State Director had not heard of it at all. I had to spell it for him ("Sierra-Sierra-Sierra-Charlie-Alpha") and describe it. His question was "Are you sure Mr. Hollings proposed this?"
Since it is close to closing time on the East Coast, he could offer me no further assistance.
He did promise to put me in touch with the right people on Monday, though.
this doesn't really mention software (Score:2, Interesting)
AFAIK, doesn't that currently rule out *all* software? I mean, your point there is rather vacant - no software currently follows it, all software could follow it. If you want to argue against this don't argue against points that are dependent on the final implementation, which is yet to be determined, argue against it on grounds based on what it currently. Once they try to determine implementation *that* is the time to make arguments on.
One problem I see is summed up by this example: you are writing your first "Hell World" I mean "Hello World" that prints to a file. Since you are "storing...information in digital form" you now have to write authentication code to go along with it. Think about the pipe command... that will have to be rewritten for all OSes (that have it) because you are "processing,...[and],transmitting... information in digital form".These are more the problems I see and the arguments I would make.
Hobbyists Beware. (Score:2, Insightful)
What about those people who make case mods, does the neon light have to meet security standards?
If you open a gameboy advanced to install a backlight kit, will you be found guilty of modifying / bypassing a copyright circumvention method because you MAY have been attempting to access a component.
At this rate, we will have no rights left. It's bad enough WindowsXP desktop themes need to be digitally signed by microsoft, that is considered annoying. Having to digitally secure any digital device? Thats a restriction of freedom.
What about devices created by inventors in the production phase.
We are slowly, piece by piece losing our rights to exist in a free society.
This reminds me of when I watched an Episode of Sliders (damn Kari Wuhrer is h0t), in which possession of technology was illegal. At that time I thought it could never happen. After a quick glance at the article in the post, I realize this may be where our society is heading.
FAX (Score:2)
FAX OR CALL your senators now.
with the state of the mail delivery as it is, a letter won't get through in a timely fashion. A handwritten fax will be delivered instantly, and will get you a letter in return, and possibly even make an impression.
I'm going to mark mine as Personal, and ask for a chance to speak face to face.
Problem is getting drivers done (Score:4, Interesting)
If it were added to this bill that the said security algorithums were available to anyone whom requested them free of charge or for a small fee ( cost of publication most likely) we are set. Then this bill does nothing to us except we now have one extra dev device that implements the security if one chooses to use it. Make it an option in new programs so if one chooses to use it, one may. That way it can't be said that the OS is non compliant and our international friends don't have to worry about it. OSS is currently one of themost standards compliant set of OS's in existance, once we have the specs, a driver can be whipped up in no time. Most importantly after the driver is finished, we go on with our lives and ignore it. Back to making OSS the best software on the planet.
On a side note, hopefully we could get CSS termed a "security device" and then under my proposition, we could finally get hold of these drivers legally!
insert intelligent argument here (Score:2)
My freedom includes being able to do whatever the fuck I want. (And for others to download and use what I make however the fuck
Who are these "representatives" ? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a copyright holder, so am I going to get to vote to select a representative? Or can I represent myself? I doubt it. They'll only allow the MPAA and RIAA and maybe a couple other token people in. So how is that supposed to represent all copyright holders? Because they sure don't have my interests in mind.
-Todd
Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
And then I hope the geeks of the world don't back down, but get fined/arrested in droves.
Lets see what happens to the economy then.
I'm not in favor of 'unionizing', but isn't there some kind of way the geeks of the earth could organize (is the eff sufficient?) to prevent this kind of stuff?
We create the technology that enables the modern world, and here we are letting a bunch of business majors who failed first year physics (if they even took it) tell us how to do things. Its the brainless ones who always seem to be in management/government. What's wrong with us?
Aren't there enough of us who have gotten successful? Or did they all "drop out" like the Woz and others who made their money, invented a few cool things and retired..
Yes, this is a rant.
Re:Who cares? (Score:2)
Old computers will run linux fine. The problem is they break. All my systems break down after 3 years. My current system is top quality so it may last for 5 years but its only time before it breaks. Cd-roms die first. If I buy a hollywood-government approved cd-ron, will it run in Linux?
I don't think so. Fans die alot and they can be replaced aobviously but its only a matter of time before we have to trash our computers or upgrade so it only runs Microsoft-hollywood approved "right to use" operating system.
Linux hackers will only be arrested if they write drivers to disable the security in new peripherals. I bet we will have another decss vs MPAA all over again. Only a few individuals will be targeted.
I am sure the price of XP will skyrocket after linux can't compete not for technical but for legal reasons.
NIST would develope the standard? (Score:2, Informative)
One item that caught my eye in the working draft is this:
I'm not sure if this means that NIST would be directly responsible for developing the standards, but...
At least if the NIST developed (or played a role in) the standard, it would be open to all... probably better than coperate dominated creation method.
It seems it would take clear out to 2006 to really get things rolling. If it took NIST that long to develope the standard, how much longer would a 'digital device' have to be in conformity?
And it looks like there would be some grants available for research... I wonder if some OSS projects (University sponsored?) could get their hands on that... make something like BSD or Linux one of the leading edge embracers of the tech, thus ensuring that the source code was out there for all to see?
Digital Cameras outlawed by SSSCA? (Score:2, Insightful)
make a camera tell the difference?
Or will they just outlaw books =)
Encrypting source code ?!? (Score:2)
How could the source possibly be open yet encrypted ?!?
GPL, for instance, says: All right... scroll back to Section 1: Seems clear enough, no?
Hollings hates FREE SPEECH, but loves FREE PEE. (Score:2, Funny)
Hollings wants to censor our FREE SPEECH, letter by letter.
First he'll take away our S, because it stands for Security.
Then he'll take away our C, because it stands for the Constitution.
Then he'll take away our H, just for the Hell of it, because he can.
That will leave us with nothing but our own precious bodily fluids: FREE PEE!
If you're PISSED OFF at Hollings and his Politically Incorrect Security Systems Standards and Certification bill (PISSSCA), then urinate your hot yellow opinion into a film canister, clearly label it "100% PURE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FREE PEE", and mail a sample of your FREE PEE to:
Fritz Hollings
Washington, D.C.
125 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Fritz Hollings
Charleston, S.C.
112 Custom House
200 East Bay Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Fritz Hollings
Columbia, S.C.
1835 Assembly Street
Suite 1551
Columbia, SC 29201
Fritz Hollings
Greenville, S.C.
126 Federal Building
Greenville, SC 29603
Act now to stop this menacing yellow wave of Trickle Down Censorship!
"The content industries want to make a leakproof pipe that leads from their production facility directly to the eyeball and eardrum of the consumer." -Eben Moglen, Chief Counsel for the Free Software Foundation.
Here's to You, Mr Hollings (Score:2, Funny)
Section 109 says "The term 'interactive digital device' means any machine, device, product, software, or technology, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine, device, product, software, or technology, that is designed, marketed or used for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving, or copying information in digital form."
Since I believe the human body is wonderful example of technology, I'm wondering if Section 101(a) means that I have to use my Microsoft IntelliFinger(tm) to interactively and digitally salute Mr. Hollings and Mr. Stevens.
Corporations and Government. (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time a story like this comes out, up comes a chorus of "Megacorporations shall rule us all! McWorld! Save us Nader!" And everybody misses the root cause.
Are corporations out of control? Yes. Are they powerhungry? Yes. Do they collect and trade Senators like baseball cards? Yes. But the problem is not with the corps themselves. The problem is with the Government.
The only reason that corporations are buying, is the the government is selling. Corporations are allowed to exist because of the laws that have been passed in the U.S. They play by (or fail to play by) the rules that are set by the government. Microsoft, the richest company on Earth, pales in comparison to the size and scope of the U.S. Government.
If you really want change. Quit focusing on corporations themselves. Yes, their actions are immoral, indefensible, and often illegal. However, they have absolutely no rights that have not been given to them by misguided, ignorant, and overbroad legislation. You can bitch on /. all day long and it won't change a thing. Spread the message. Help others understand the issues. Grow come consensus. And vote for chrissakes, with your ballot and with your checkbook.
Re:Corporations and Government. (Score:3, Insightful)
The corporations are out of control.
The corporations are powerhungry.
The corporations bribe politicians and corrupt democracy.
The corporations are immoral.
The corporations do things that are indefensable.
The corporations do things that are illegal.
Despite all this we should not hold them responsible for their actions because the govt "let them do it".
Yea right! Listen it's not either or OK? You can hold BOTH the govt AND the corporations resposible for their actions.
I just thought of something (Score:2)
We elect these people. (Score:2, Interesting)
Another thing, it seems to me that a good proportion of our population is technically illiterate. In addition, as the sampling age goes up technological illiteracy does as well. If this stands, then I'd say our Congressmen are close to the bottom of the barrel when it comes to this kind of stuff. It's unfortunate because their mostly uninformed points-of-view can have potentially disasterous effects on the future.
Good phone number (202)224-6121 (Score:2, Informative)
(202)224-6121
appears to get one to an answering machine that is directly associated with the senator.
Remember, no foul language.
What are you fighting? (Score:2, Interesting)
Does this law violate the constitution? Does it limit something like free speech?
I think this bill is terrible, but the only way to effectively fight it is to address it in terms that might have some kind of results. Reacting to it out of sheer anger at the results is a very emotional response, but if you haven't noticed emotions are running pretty high across the country at the moment.
This bill must be addressed on its constitutionality, not its effects. You can convince someone (like your congressman) to not vote for a bill based on effects, but it doesn't seem that we have the ear of those who make such decisions at the moment. Bringing up the illegality of such a bill, if possible, is the only way I think legislation like this can be fought.
Any one have any advice on the legality of the proposed SSSCA bill (if such a thing is possible without the text of the bill available)?
zor_prime
demonstration? protest? (Score:2)
The protests for Dmitry seemed to work a little. They got some reporters to report it. Is there anything similar in the works for this? Does anyone know of a Web site that I can view about organizing some people in a planned march?
Big Iron (Score:2)
Yeah. Right.
Then think of all the old government systems that would have to be upgrade to comply. But they'll probably exempt the government, like they always do.
Free software not special (Score:2, Interesting)
So, Linux will still be perfectly legal afterwards as long as they put in the required changes. Linux will be treated exactly as MacOS and Windows.
That being said, this bill is pure evil and we all have a duty to lobby our congresscritters to get it destroyed, with extreme prejudice. This is not an attack on Free software (free as in money, anyway), but an attack on ALL software.
Not going to happen. (Score:4, Insightful)
Too many consumer electronics ewuipment manufacturers will oppose it.
However, the RIAA and MPAA doen't really want the SSSCA. What they want is a wort-case scenario so that their 'compromise' bill (which woudl be completely unacceptable without the threat of the SSCA) will pass unoppsed.
Please keep an eye out for the 'comprimise' bill thely'll ask for when the SSSCA gets shot down.
Re:devices? (Score:2)
Well, it would if your definition of a digital device includes software. Luckily, mine doesn't.
Unfortunately for you, the SSSCA text [politechbot.com], does define it that way, in section 109(3).
Re:devices? (Score:2, Informative)
Unfortunately, Hollings' does:
3) INTERACTIVE DIGITAL DEVICE. -- The term "interactive digital device" means any machine, device, product, software, or technology, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine, device, product, software, or technology, that is designed, marketed or used for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving, or copying information in digital form.
They're not going to make it that easy for us.
Re:devices? (Score:3, Insightful)
Monitors do (they project images of information).
Speakers sure do.
Cameras, tape recorders, hell, a freakin' PENCIL is a product which can be used for storing and transmitting information in digital form (really... just write down the bits).
Every storage medium would have to have protection. Every telephone.
Fascist Occupation (Score:2, Insightful)
Your words :
> first off, most OSS doesn't fit the bill of
> digital device.
>
> Secondly, what is stopping you from
> implimenting AES, or whatever it is called,
> in your programs. Certainly the governments
> own standard will be certified.
>
> You are as bad as main stream media at using
> obviously inflamitory, and unsubstantiated
> conclusions in the text of a story to increase
> page hoits to increase revenues.
From the draft bill :
(3) INTERACTIVE DIGITAL DEVICE. -- The term interactive digital device" means any machine, device, product, software, or technology, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine, device, product, software, or technology, that is designed, marketed or used for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving, or copying information in digital form.
I object to the idea that my computer or SW must operate in the company of SW or HW not of my own choosing. This is an electronic Pearl Harbor, a binary Nazi occupation, a digital coup. So fuck you, fuck Hollings and fuck anyone else who approves of this dangerous authoritarian crap.
Pardon my language - I'm usually more civilized - but this sort of thing, even as a proposal, is flat-out intolerable.
Coniine
Slashdot headlines circa 2006-2007 (Score:5, Funny)
Special SSSCA Police Created (521 comments))0
Features: Why the SSSCA is a Geek's Nightmare by JonKatz (326 comments)
DMCA repealed, Intellectual Property Protection Act Allows for Private Armies (7223 comments)
Linux 2.6.0 Released, Outlawed in US. (5 comments)
Supreme Court says Fair Use was a Mistake (653 comments
Slashdot Bought Out by RIAA, Renamed IPDot: News for Intellectual Property Holders, Stuff that Matters.(error: divide by zero comments)
Former Slashdot Trolls Hunted Down and Shot (6 comments)
RIAA/MPAA form Intellectual Property Protection Army, Take Over Washington, Advance Onward. (1563 comments)
RIAA/MPAA Capture Utah, No One Cares (0 comments)
RIAA/MPAA Advance on Washington DC; Government Troops Holding Out in South.
Constitution Used as Toilet Paper by Sen. Fritz Hollings (3 comments)
Smart=2, Stupid=1, Trolled=6 (Score:2, Informative)
Here's a free clue: When you see something really funny posted to a mostly-unrelated Slashdot article, ask yourself, "is this a cut and paste"? Even a 10 second Google search may reveal, for example, that you are reading a spoof written by Jon Hamkins 4 years ago that is being copied without attribution by a karma whore today.
Of course, I realize I'm casting pearls before swine, explaining this. Anyone who would mod up "Trolligula" without thinking can't be the sharpest crayon in the box.