Slashdot Mirror
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.
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?
I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
Overall this looks like a nice gift to the big movie and record companies at the cost of consumers fair use and other rights. However, section 103(b) states:
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.
Buy Hex-Rated Stuff, fight the DMCA!
I hope my Senators and representative gets the letter I sent them last week. But given the mail, I doubt they will. Even if they do, one of my Senators, gets money from the Hollywood lobby (#12 on the list) although to be fair, most comes from actors and actresses in the form of personal donations. At least according to Public Radio here. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?C ID=N00004443&cycle=2002
and
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?In d=B02
The computer technology is the one area of our economy where the government has been, for the most part, hands-off. As a result, technology has improved by leaps and bounds while prices have dramatically decreased. A mere $200 today will buy a computer so powerful it would have cost $10,000 just five years ago, while other aspects of the economy--such as health care and energy--where the government meddles for our own good have seen ridiculous amounts of inflation. Legislation in this manner will, IMO, stifle progress and the trend of declining prices.
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.
a digital device?
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...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Now, with the recent threat of getting anthrax through the mail, will congressmen actually read their mail? We already know that they don't actually read email. So, now that snail mail may no longer be acknowledged, is there any way to communicate the people's wishes to congressmen?
I want to start out this comment by saying I am unalterably opposed to this legislation. If passed, this is fragment the technology industry beyond repair by either forcing manufacturers to create multiple versions of hardware, or not release devices in the USA for fear of lawsuits.
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.
Check out my sysadmin blog!
A few weeks ago in my college government class, we were assigned the task of drafting a faux constitutional amendment, and arguing our position for that amendment. I chose "Fair Use" rights and argued for the revocation of any laws drafted which violated them.
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.
Are there any Senators or Representatives that would position themselves against such legislation?
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
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.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes - Juvenal
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.
*cough* DMCA *cough* Skylarov *cough*
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.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
SSSCA is all about the US Congress mandating copy/use restriction systems (*). This *IS* the fight we need to win. If SSSCA passes, systems without copy/use restrictions become illegal.
(*) CPRM is one of these systems. It is "Copy Protection for Removable Media".
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
The problem with this is not that one is making secure devices standard. There is still the problem that all OSS systems face -- getting device drivers written for the propriety systems implementing security. Most of our current drivers today are done by volunteers and not the companies themselves. As a result, we may very well have systems that are compliant, but our favorite OS's are not because we cannot get drivers to use said devices. We have enough problems no getting up to date hardware running because of copyright deadlock.See the use of CSS.DVD is still waiting on getting legal use to that code.
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!
The sad thing is your sarcastic comments have pointed out why windows has won the userbase. Lets compare the percentage of people who are capable of making all the changes at the command line to those that aren't. I sure bet MS will miss that 5%.
On an unrelated note it is not fair to compare the win9x kernal to the nt kernal. They are vastly different beasts and you come off as being rather ignorant for not treating them as such. If you actually had the ability to use Windows 2000 proffessional without having already formed a negitive opinion of it you would realize that MS has developed probably the best desktop OS of this day and age. Of course religious fanatics seldom are capable of looking at alternate views without bias.
Oh, and my copy of Win2k has been running for the past three weeks without significant increase in system resources. Sure it would match the 1600 day uptime record of freebsd but being that it is being used as more then just a server that is of little surprise. Trying installing and running a bunch desktop software on linux and you will be rebooting far more then I.
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.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
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.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Although, what's to say a faximile of this situation will not occur? Why is it implausible to believe that a corporation can't be in such control of it's content? There was a post on slashdot a few days ago sugguesting that the RIAA wanted to have legal access to hack your PC to remove Illegal content. If an absurdity such as that can be legitmatly considered by anyone, then it is plausible that a situation as the one I described could occur.
[insert nifty sounding somthing here]
We have to remember that we elect these people. When we see short-signed, hair-brained, back-ass-wards bills being proposed by them, we should realize that we made a mistake by electing them, and then try not to do it again. Moreover tell your parents, kids, friends, co-workers, and anyone else who will listen not to elect them again either. Of course, the competition come election time is usually pathetic, but that's a different story.
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.
One of the important issues with legislation like this is that it should not be addressed based on its economic impact. While that should be a consideration of the implementation of a bill like this if it passes, the bill should be fought on its legality.
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
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." -Mark Twain
Unfortunately the EU politicians will soon adopt this law for well defined reasons.
1 - Nobody in the EU would buy "approved" appliances and software from the US. Letting that happen would be a bad move that the US gov. wouldn't like.
2 - Worldwide manufacturers should double their production line for any device and software: "approved" here, "unapproved" there, and this leads to high costs.
3 - All governments want to control what their citizen do. The 9/11 disaster and the US govt. decisions offer them the chance to make this move look like less dirty.
4 - When a law is adopted in the USA, often EU politicians accept it blindly. "If it works for them it'll be good for us too."
And as an avid person who hates this kind of legislation, I am deeply concerned that people like you keep provoking and justifying it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
4 years ago, would you have guessed that something like DMCA could pass?
>Our Congress isn't passing laws for the rest of the world. Yet.
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.
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.
Does it sounds like 1984, The movie, for anybody else? Or it's just me?
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
Anybody else struck by the irony that Windows XP is being released the same day as this hearing?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.