Slashdot Mirror

Information on the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act itself is available here.

Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), a version of which is posted at http://216.110.42.179/docs/hollings.090701.html Think of your reader.

Here is a link to a (very) summerized verion of the DMCA. This shows how the Senator is making no mention of the SSSCA on his own web site where he proudly lists the issues he has worked on. Lots of other gigantic conflicts of interest can be found here as well. I'd list more, but I have to go to work so I can make money to buy things that violate the DMCA..

Is a CPU an interactive digital device? I have trouble interacting with it. What about a mobo? Graphics card? Monitor? OS? Mouse?

IANAL, but it could reasonably be argued that the bill could only apply to assembled computer systems, but not to the individual components thereof. Therefore, while the Dells of the world would have to include DRM features, the home hobbying building their own machine could well be able to construct a Hollings-free computer perfectly legally.

600 word letter? I'd love to still the exact text of what they wrote. Anyone seen a copy?

(a) In General -- It is 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 that adhere to the security system standards adopted under section 104. -- http://216.110.42.179/docs/hollings.090701.html

Sharing music can take away my right to own firearms? It's a felony now and <sarcasm>felons are all dangerous criminals who shouldn't have guns</sarcasm>. In 15 states, a felony conviction removes your right to vote forever. LOSING THE VOTE:The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States

As for someone else's arguement that "I won't buy it"- great, me too. The two of us can spend some serious time trying to keep today's computers running for the rest of our lives because laws make us unwilling to buy new equipment. It will be easy as pie to market ourselves on resume's in a decade. "Still able to operate equipment from the 00's" Windows BlahX experience? nah, I don't have a machine that can run that. Apache 6.03 experience? No, but I've got 10 years experience with version 2.0

I'm trying to find a group that will tell politicans not to abuse me. EFF seems interested in doing that but they move at a snails pace. YourCongress.com seems to be interested in getting the people's voice to the politicans but the editors seem more interested in being funny then talking about issues. What groups do people use/belong to/know about that are active in fighting for geek rights?

• 600 word letter? I'd love to still the exact text of what they wrote

Uh, didn't you see the link at the start of the wired article?

• Hold on there before you throw the party. The wired article many the issue clear that the hardware manufacturers don't support government legislated control on content delivery. It however also made it clear that the hardware manufacturer would support the introduction of such control hardware as part of an industry based standard

Exactly, and when you read the letter itself, you'll see that in spades. The only objection is to having a standard mandated (sec 104, they have 12 months to decide on one or the government steps in). All that means is that each signatory is scared that this will mean that their standard doesn't get used, so they miss out on all those lovely anti-trust exempt mandatory license fees ad infinitum.

They're 100% pro SSSCA, just anti the clause that might lead to government making a bone headed choice about which scheme(s) to go with. I mean, we are talking serious money here, this isn't something that they want left to inbred idiotic incumbent political animals.

Here is a copy of the letter.

It can be found at Letter

February 27, 2002

Dear Sirs:

We write to you to urge inter-industry cooperation to ensure that digital content can be distributed to consumers efficiently through a variety of means. Each of our companies is in the business of developing the hardware and software that will make e-commerce thrive.
Constant access to information, through comprehensive broadband deployment and availability, we expect will in time be widely
available. It is clear that your companies' entertainment products will form an important part of a thriving on-line economy. Digital
television is also an important development, and we expect it will soon become widely available.

Business models are only beginning to be developed for supplying consumers' on-demand entertainment. We recognize the critical
importance of effective anti-piracy tools in this changing market environment, and that the absence of such tools may affect the development of new product offerings. To address this concern, our
companies have worked diligently, voluntarily and cooperatively with producers of entertainment content, as well as consumer electronics
companies, to develop systems that will foster the legitimate distribution of digital content. The Copy Protection Technology Working Group (CPTWG) and the Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) have been highly productive fora for developing consensus among the many disparate businesses that must work together to build a robust infrastructure for the secure dissemination of digital content. We have found these voluntary multi-industry standards setting efforts to be optimally effective in reaching workable market solutions.

For instance, these voluntary groups have successfully formed consensus on key technologies, making it possible to distribute movies in protected environments such as in DVD format, and developing effective technologies for protecting content distributed over cable and satellite. An inter-industry group is now working diligently within CPTWG to develop a consensus on a means to limit the unlawful
redistribution of digital content delivered through unprotected over-the-air broadcast channels. This task force (the Broadcast
Protection Discussion Group, or BPDG) is working to identify the workable technical and business solutions.

The information technology industry is committed to doing its part in the shared multi-industry development and deployment of effective
solutions for the protection of digital content through a variety of distribution channels and an array of settings. We understand this will be an ongoing undertaking, requiring responses as distribution methods and technology evolve and progress. Our goal is to work with you in a consensus-based and cooperative fashion. We urge you to work with us to find technically feasible, cost effective solutions.

We look forward to a fruitful collaboration to achieve our common goal of providing consumers with new and exciting digital entertainment
products.
Sincerely,

Michael D. Capellas
Chairman and CEO
Compaq Computer Corporation

Michael S. Dell
Chairman of the Board and CEO
Dell

Louis V. Gerstner, Jr.
Chairman of the Board and CEO
IBM Corporation

Craig Barrett
Chief Executive Officer
Intel Corporation

Steve Bennett
President and CEO
Intuit Inc.

Steven A. Ballmer
CEO
Microsoft Corporation

Christopher B. Galvin
Chairman of the Board and CEO
Motorola

John S. Chen
Chairman, CEO and President
Sybase, Inc.

Lawrence A. Weinbach
Chairman of the Board and CEO
Unisys Corporation

Cc: Jack Valenti

Note the mention of groups of guerrilla soldiers, including Osama Binladen, being funded by the CIA. I know that the CIA was later prohibited from hiring terrorists, and I have to wonder whether section 815 of the Combating Terrorism Act of 2001 isn't exploiting the emotional response after a terrorist attack to weaken or completely remove restrictions on funding the type of people who hijacked these planes; to supposedly combat a terrorist leader who was apparently trained and strengthened by the same funding. The only discrepancy I see is that 815 allows this practice for 'intelligence' purposes, but forgive me for thinking it could easily be abused as a loophole to fund terrorists for any purpose. If it were, you can bet it'd be 25 years later before an FOIA request had the CIA's activities declassified.

WOW. That's amazing... not only did he read your email himself, but replied to it!

My experience with a certain senator from my state was not so pleasant.

I e-mailed Senator McCain a rather long letter explaining why the proposed SSSCA was a really bad thing.

Unfortunately, the only response I got was an e-mail back a few days later explaining that Senator McCain is too busy to ever read his e-mail, and if i'm really serious about contacting him, I should visit his local office and talk to his peons.

Rediculous, no?

This bill is quite limited in its scope, allowing only 48 hours to tap without approval and only for immediate threats to "National Security."

I don't see anything that says they can't keep renewing these "48 hour" taps

``(C) immediate threat to the national security interests of the United States;

``(D) immediate threat to public health or safety; or

``(E) an attack on the integrity or availability of a protected computer which attack would be an offense punishable under section 1030(c)(2)(C) of this title,''.

Ever wonder WHY MP3s are popular? Ever wonder WHY DivX is popular? Like it or not, the masses have discovered that bits are BITS, and any number of legal wrangling and preaching over the evils of "piracy" aren't going to change that. The public has spoken, and you are clearly not listening. The RIAA and MPAA would like you to think that MP3 and DivX technology are inherently evil by pointing to the number of "illegal" uses they are involved in. But by denying that MP3 and DIVX have utility and by painting the masses who use them (yes, even illegally) as ignorant and immoral for not being good corporate lackeys is just making you look even more elitest than the worst GNU/Linux/*nix/engineer/hacker.


So, your comment appears to be nothing more than standard anti-MS zealotry. I agree, sickening.

You are conveniently forgetting the fact that it is MS's WET DREAM to completely own the codec space. Why WOULDN'T MS want to be the single source for codecs?

step 1: they could easily lock out other OS's from having functional media players

step 2: they could rigidly enforce their own defacto SSSCA

step 3: they could make sure the only online (and offline for that matter) multimedia content is MS/TimeWarner/AOL/MSNBC approved.

I assume you think this is a good thing. How sad.

If not, I am going to guess you are another pathitic MS astroturfer.

don't worry, someone else is working on making those rights obsolete right now.

I saw first this on Radio Free Nation

The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), is set to be introduced by Senator Fritz Hollings this fall. It makes it a civil offense to create or sell any kind of computer equipment that "does not include and utilize certified security technologies" approved by the federal government. It also creates new federal felonies, punishable by five years in prison and fines of up to $500,000. Anyone who distributes copyrighted material with "security measures" disabled or has a network-attached computer that disables copy protection is covered.

As noted there, the Long Line of Idiots Theory is looking better all the time.

Here is an e-mail I just wrote to one of my Senators (who almost won the Republican primaries this last presidential election... note that I'm not a Republican...) :)

Dear Mr. McCain,

I am a resident of Arizona, and a computer user. I recently read about an act scheduled to be introduced to the Senate entitled the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act", sponsored by Senator Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina) and Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Under this act, it would be a civil offense to create or sell any kind of computer equipment that "does not include and utilize certified security technologies" approved by the federal government. I politely request, as a citizen of Arizona, that you vote against this Act for the reasons in this letter.

I see this as a violation of a basic freedom to create, use, or sell anything I want to (including, of course, computer equipment) without government interference.

It is of course necessary to deny the right to create and sell certain things, such as drugs; these things can be harmful and should not be sold.

That however, does not apply to computer equipment; there is no way I can harm anyone with my own computer equipment. But this Act denies me the right to create and sell computer equipment without federally approved security technologies.

The primary purpose for this regulation is the protection of content provided by large media corporations that have lobbied for this Act. Lobbyists from the music and record industry have, and will continue to lobby congress in the hopes of further regulation for consumers and corporations to protect their content.

In a computer system certified by the federal government, their content would be protected from misuse by consumers. It is an ideal situation for the music and record industry, then, that all computers in legal use would be certified.

This helps that particular industry, but hurts another. In the computer industry, if this Act is passed, it would be illegal to create and sell anything not certified by the federal government to specifically protect the content of these corporations.

I would like to create and sell computer equipment that does not "utilize certified security technologies", and I should have the legal right to. I do have that right under the current laws.

The products of the recording industry should not be protected by laws that regulate other industries, and deny my right to sell my own computer equipment without federal approval.

I implore you, Senator McCain, to vote against the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act when it comes before the Senate.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
(my name here)