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.
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!
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.
During the era of strong-encryption export regulation, I heard the story of CISCO employees working in Europe being legally not allowed to mount drives located in the States.
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.
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
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!
software is not a "device"... and even *if* it were this would have NO effect on software written places other than the USA...
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.
-- "Love is a device invented by bank managers to make us overdrawn." - Arnold Rimmer
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.