SSSCA Hearings Postponed Under Heavy Opposition

Concerned Citizen writes "Both the EFF and WIAFLW are reporting that the "Senate Commerce Committee's hearings on the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA or DMCA-2) which had been originally schedule for today (Oct. 25, 2001) have been postponed due to mounting opposition, particularly from those in the tech community." Senator Fritz Hollings has yet to reschedule a hearing (it's likely that he won't), and has also indicated that he would consider modifying the bill."

Comments

Now is the time to write your senator

[akula1]

As above, now is the time to write/call/email your senator. If the pressure is kept up they are much more likely to drop the bill permenantly. This could be a very good thing.

Re:An interesting thought, but it won't happen

[dcavanaugh]

Although Congress will surely talk about things like this, it will not happen for a wide variety of reasons. For starters, there will always be an overwhelming tendency for employers (who rarely understand IT) to cut corners and save money by hiring "uncertified/unlicensed/unofficial" people. If they have to give these people unconventional titles, no problem. "Joe is not a programmer, he's a binary-cyber-document-specialist!"

In ancient times, there were hiring freezes directed specifically at IT departments. As a workaround, the non-IT departments would build their own "renegade" IT capability, using non-IT job titles to keep everything under the radar. The concept of using stealth techniques to avoid corporate policy can be applied to hardware, networks, software, and people. Some of these same techniques would be used to work around whatever dumb laws we might be stuck with.

IT is a very cyclical industry. When the job market is lousy, employers can require a Master's degree for an entry-level programmer and make it stick. When the job market is hot, the same employers will pay premium salaries and resort to door-to-door begging in pursuit of college dropouts.

We treat IT people diffently from architects, engineers (or even electricians), because when engineers make mistakes, people die. When IT people make mistakes, they call it Microsoft.

Any attempt to regulate the software development industry will fail because of...

1. Non-US people who will be unaffected. Linus will go back to Finland, laughing all the way.
2. European or Asian countries who will capitialize on the opportunity we hand them (instead of protecting the people who bought the Disney Congress)
3. The implications of supply and demand on a hot IT job market or the demand for "the latest" software innovation. Right now, the market is lousy for both, but it won't stay that way forever.
4. The "without warranty" nature of the software industry (fear of product liability). If companies won't warranty the code, who is going to warranty the imperfect people who make the code? The logical conclusion of a "regulated" IT industry is "accountability". Does that mean malpractice insurance for programmers and/or their employers? They need a sign in Congress that says "Don't feed the lawyers".
5. Added cost. If employers are willing to import H1B workers, do you think they might be interested in downloading low-cost "uncertified" software from overseas? You bet.

They could try certifying the products instead of the people, but that will fail also. What would they do about the billions of lines of "uncertified" code already out there? Grandfather it? How does anyone know the difference between that code and new, uncertified code?

When Congress talks about regulating the industry, employers who fear higher costs will scream loudly and defeat the legislation. Any initiative that threatens to reduce the supply of cheap programmers or raise the cost of software development will never see the light of day. Not even Sen. Hollings would try a stunt like this.