Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat puts out Legislation Alert on the SSSCA
the_2nd_coming writes "Red Hat has announced a legislation alert for the SSSCA. They are collecting comments to hand to lawmakers. Get those comments in while you can, but make sure you give them some thought."
We, as a community, really need to get behind this effort. Say what you want about Redhat, but a company is probably going to have louder voice than a few disorganized individuals. Way to go Redhat!
From the Redhat article:
Essentially, all devices and software that fall into this vague definition of digital interactive technology will have to include encryption so it can't be copied. This could include VCR tapes, compact discs, and the devices that run them, as well as computers and open source software.
Surprises me. This is one of the most heavy-handed pieces of legislation I've seen. I can understand the digital aspect of it, but even encrypting videotapes, the last bastion of small-scale piracy? I'm really not for piracy, but I thought the videotape issue fell under "don't sweat the small stuff".
Gotta give credit for the thoroughness of the proposed legislation, though.
I like fire ants. They are very spicy!
But there is absolutely no way the "industry committee" will approve as "secure" any operating system where you could just reconfigure the kernel to remove the DRM feature. They would never, ever do such a thing--because they're the "industry committee."
The amazing thing to me is that Senate will be openly considering legislation to put a committee of corporations in charge of deciding which hardware and OS configurations will be legal and illegal. Even if the committee somehow miraculously doesn't ban Open Source operating systems, the thought that they might be handed the power of life and death over operating systems is startling.
I think it's wildly unrealistic to assume SSSCA won't pass just because it's obviously crazy legislation. There are a lot of crazy laws on the books, and most geeks didn't take DMCA very seriously either until Dmitry got busted. Don't be complacent.
Don't write a bit player in the software world (no offense to RedHat, but they're far from what I think of when I hear the term "multinational" bandied about), write your goddamned representatives and senators letters. Make sure your home address is on it, and make sure that you make the disdain for how the bill will treat you obvious without resorting to f bombs and the like.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Open source software is run on a great deal of the smaller and even the larger buisnesses in this nation. It is generally more stable, and easier to apply. Larger companys favor the *nix frame, as they are often familar with it, so no further training is needed in many cases. For smaller company, the thousand dollar plus (per machine) liscencing fees for other software can be overwhelming.
Many buisnesses will die, if unable to use this free or low cost software.
And there are other implications to this LAW.
Implications that, when I gave copys of the law to my sociolgy class, bursts of laughter were heard to erupt.
And the basis of the laws....
Section 109, Definitions, defines an 'Interactive Computer Service' Under a law passed in 1934!
And section 104 is laughable as well. 'Antitrust Exemption?'
Although there is minor solace, even if this law was passed. It's unconsititutional.
The fourth Ammendment protects against Search And Seizure without reasonable cause. To enact the use of software which would monitor my activitys is illegal, according to rulings which deem that any method of surveillance (such as thermal imaging) that could find information that could not be otherwise obtained warrantless, is invalid.
You could not otherwise find this information without physichal acsess to my computer.
Therefore, it is in violation of the fourth ammendment.
01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
The bill is being motivated by motion picture and television studios that seek to end piracy of their movies and other forms of entertainment. Curiously, these studios also happen to be among Hollings' top campaign contributors, as noted by Newsforge reporter Dan Berkes.
(Emphasis mine)
"Curiously" is an understatement. Apparently in America you can buy anything.
On a related note, does anyone find it strange the commiting a crime against a corporation is worse that a crime against another individual?
Violate the DMCA - 25 Years w/o parole
Kill someone - 20 Years, parole after 6-8
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
Say what you will, but to echo the statement:
/.'s posters with the Kerbos fiasco.
"Thank you, RedHat".
Think back to a not so far era with MS wielding the DMCA over
Some of the trade rags were quoted as saying "Slashdot is the only (institution) one so far to have the cajones to say 'Go ahead, sue, we'll defend that suit'".
Well, RedHat is stepping up to the plate...hot damn. "We the people" need this because the lawmakers and representatives of the people are not listening to us, but to corporations.
If I am not mistaken, RedHat is a corporation, and can probably use the "We are the voice of reason" in an insane world (or something like that).
Really, I'm not joking... Think about all the "innovators, heretics, and *individual* the quintessential Great Minds" of our time.
The ones that went against the grain, conventions, accepted beliefs, morals of thier peers (and monarchs/rulers)...as a corporation...this is what RedHat is doing.
Freakin' A.
Moose.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
I sincerely hope this gets through and happens. No I am not joking. This isn't sarcasm. This should go through, in fact we shouldn't resist it at all.
Because as others have pointed out this is *too damn* far. This is what we need to get the general populace involved. You try telling finicky Americans that they no longer have any choices. Hell it doesn't matter if that is already true, but once you tell them that to their face things will change. Sometimes things have to go way too far before enough people will stand up to it. The general populace of any nation is much like a spring. You can push it in for a long time but only to a certain point... and after you get tired of pushing they are going to push back hard.
Let this pass.
Then I will have no problems convincing friends or family why Microsoft/RIAA and their ilk are bad news in the long run. And then? Then I will be standing there with open arms to all those who want choice and won't take it anymore.
--- I do not moderate.
According to a poll that a Poli Sci proffessor gave me in college, most South Carolinians cannot name their junior Senator. Strom Thurmond is much more well known, and because of this Fritz Hollings tends to be able to do just about anything he wants without fear of retaliation from the voters. Senator Thurmond is a much more public figure and therefore draws all of the attention away from Senator Hollings. Many organizations target Hollings to support their bills because of this fact, and because of the numerous positions that he holds in the Senate:
He is up for re-election in 2004, and if I'm still in this state then he will certainly not have my support.
"Lawmakers represent those interests which supply the greatest campain funding."
Sorry, but despite what they would have you think, they DO NOT represent YOU, or ME, or any other member of the "public"... unless of course they have very large wallets.
Yesterday's "interview" with Jamie Love, he stated the problem very suscinctly...
The draft legislation has is authored by Senator Hollings (D-SC). As this newsforge.com article points out...
Sucks, huh? Well whip out the checkbook and fork over a few hundred grand and maybe "our" side of things can be represented too...
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
I have several objections to the SSSCA bill:
1) The bill contains Orwellian Newspeak. It keeps talking about "security"
when nothing in the bill is even *related* to security. I believe this
wording exists as an attempt to deceive both
a) representatives/senators who will be voting on it
b) the people of the United States
In the wake of the recent terrorism, mislabelling things as being for
"security" to play on people's fears, is particular dishonest and
reprehensible.
Even if this bill is passed (which would be bad), the wording should be
corrected to refer to its actual intent: restricting people's access to
things they themselves own. Euphemize it if you must, but calling it
"security" is going way too far.
2) 104(b), where congress creates a new power and then hands control of
the details over to "representatives of interactive digital device
manufacturers and representatives of copyright owners" is totally
unacceptable. Those so-called representatives (who will likely
represent only a handful of companies and ignore the remaining 99.9%
of copyright holders) are not accountable to voters. YOU are. You
cannot hand over power without responsibility; that leads to tyranny.
3) More semi-Newspeak: Remove the word "interactive" from the the term
"interactive digital device", since the term's definition doesn't make
any reference to interactivity. Casual readers of the bill may get
the impression that it's less restrictive than it really is, unless they
scrutize the definitions section.
4) This bill causes acts that are currently lawful, to become unlawful.
Don't you have anything better to do than take people who are doing
nothing wrong, and turn them into criminals? If you are thinking about
voting for this, ask yourself three questions:
1) What percentage of my constituents want this to become law?
2) Am I protecting my consituents from tyranny, crime, etc?
3) Are there any reasons FOR voting for this?
Fair Use has been attacked too much already, and this just makes it
worse. Please work on repealing or otherwise correcting Title 17
Section 1201 to make the situation better, instead of making things worse.
5) This bill serves no purpose for anyone, including the people who are
purchasing it. Ostensibly, the bill's purpose is to protect copyright.
But copyright law already exists, and copyright holders already have means
to remedy violations. Thus, they are gaining no additional USEFUL rights
from this bill. Piling redundant laws upon one another is a Bad Thing.
6) This bill imposes heavy burdens upon developers, for no gain. That
is a destructive waste of resources. Please end government-mandated waste
and government suppression of industry and development.
7) Certification creates monopolies. This is also anti-industry.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.