SSSCA Hearing October 25th: Free Software Threatened

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.

Comments

Congress.org

[darnellmc]

I've found that Congress.org is a great site to use when looking for and trying to contact members of Congress that represent my area. Contact your representatives. We have to make a large outcry now to stop this.

Re:devices?

[jpalk]

Well, it would if your definition of a digital device includes software. Luckily, mine doesn't.

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:since when is software...

[szcx]

Actually, software is a digital device according to these folks;

(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."

Re:since when is software...

[interiot]

sec 109(3)

• -- 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.

Surprise surprise....read the slashdot faq

[Vermifax]

Slashdot seems to be very U.S.-centric. Do you have any plans to be more international in your scope?

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.

So what's your point?

[Squirrel Killer]

Yes, this is a story about how the US government is proposing massive restrictions on US computing, a story posted on a US-based web site under the "U.S." topic area. It's US-centric by definition. Is a story about the German Bundestag (sp?) migrating away from Microsoft Euro-centric? Worse than that, it's German-centric!

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

Well Disney is a government entity...

[Vermifax]

re: Reedy Creek Improvement District.

However I suspect it was sarcasm as I think Disney had a hand in authoring the act.

Re:one tiny glimmer of hope -surrounded by a looph

[rkent]

Um... first of all, please refer to USC Title 17, Chapter 1, section 107, paragraph (1):

[Whether a use qualifies as fair use depends on] the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

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.

Smart=2, Stupid=1, Trolled=6

[roystgnr]

What, did the moderator points get distributed to retarded monkeys today?

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.

Who cares?

[jasno]

I know this sounds a alittle stupid, but I hope they pass it.

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.

NIST would develope the standard?

[killthiskid]

One item that caught my eye in the working draft is this:

(c) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROTECTION TECHNOLOGIES. -- (1) IN GENERAL. -- The Institute shall establish a program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology to conduct, or to fund the conduct of, research and development of technology and techniques to provide security for advanced communications and computing systems and networks including the Next Generation Internet, the underlying structure of the Internet, and networked computers.
(2) PURPOSE. -- A purpose of the program established under paragraph (1) is to address issues or problems that are not addressed by market-driven, private-sector information security research. This may include research --
(A) to identify Internet security problems which are not adequately addressed by current security technologies;
(B) to develop interactive tools to analyze security risks in an easy-to-understand manner;
(C) to enhance the security and reliability of the underlying Internet infrastructure while minimizing other operational impacts such as speed; and
(D) to allow networks to become self-healing and provide for better analysis of the state of Internet and infrastructure operations and security.
(3) MATCHING GRANTS. -- A grant awarded by the Institute under the program established under paragraph (1) to a commercial enterprise may not exceed 50 percent of the cost of the project to be funded by the grant.
(4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. -- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Institute to carry out this subsection --
(A) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
(B) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(C) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(D) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(E) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
(F) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.

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?

Re:Ridiculous

[Geeky Frignit]

b) EXCEPTION.--Subsection (a) does not apply to the offer for sale or provision of, or other trafficking in, any previously-owned interactive digital device, if such device was legally manufactured or imported, and sold, prior to the effective date of regulations adopted under section 104 and not subsequently modified in violation of (a) or 103(a).

I believe this grandfather clause covers any current technology already out there.

Good phone number (202)224-6121

[sacrilicious]

The -8503 number (same is listed on Hollings' website) is disconnected. HOWEVER, this number:

(202)224-6121

appears to get one to an answering machine that is directly associated with the senator.

Remember, no foul language.

Re:1984?

[Jonathan]

Does it sounds like 1984

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.

Loophole

[KMSelf]

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.