Slashdot Mirror
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."
These guys are not as stupid as we would like to believe they are. It is very VERY likely that the beginning forms of this bill were so restrictive that no one in their right mind would pass it. The second and third phases as it is scaled back and becomes only slightly more palatable are the ones that we really have to look out for. They may end up making "compromises" that are still unacceptable to the public but are the exact effect they were after all along.
Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
Excellent news... looks like :)
a) the big boys (corps) have come in and had a word in their ear, or
b) all your letters and lobbying of representatives has worked... I'm with the former
I would add another possibility:
c) All the librarians through the ALA have, as always, raised their common voices against a law that offends Freedom of Speech and the Right to Knowledge..
Yes, librarians are a long-time deffenders of our rights. Just check who is against DMCA, filters in internet access (CIPA) and other pitifull, rights-basher laws.
So next time you go to a library to check p0rn from a free computer, please be quiet. That lady with funny glasses that "Shssss!"'s you all the time is on your side. on the Freedom side.
From the SSSCA:
Sec. 104: Adoption of Security System Standards
[Summary: The private sector has 12 months to agree on a standard, or the Secretary of Commerce will step in. Industry groups that can participate: "representatives of interactive digital device manufacturers and representatives of copyright owners." If industry can agree, the secretary will turn their standard into a regulation; if not, normal government processes apply and NTIA takes the lead.
So what happens if the industry agrees on a standard "nothing"?
Does that refer to the thousands of /.ers who've spent the last weeks emailing and faxing their representatives, or to "IBM, Intel, Microsoft and others" though? WIAFLW suggests the latter (unfortunately). Forget the /. lobbying group that people have been proposing - what about a /. charity to donate campaign funds to representatives who promise to vote sensibly... :-)
Now, the rules vary from state to state, but in most cases, you have to be a PE to design any facility, structure, or whatever that is larger than a small room, in where there may be possible issues with the public safety. Thus, you'd obviously want bridges done by mech e's, chemical plants by chem e's, etc. The idea is that the PE certification of the design ensures that the public safety has been met to a certain degree.
While this idea is great and all , there are currently major problems due to the state-by-state nature of it. For example, just like with bar tests, you need to be recertified in a new state if you move. Another problem is that because of how some aspects are designed, there's a lot of overlap of displines, and some state rules force the weaker displine to have more effect. In CA for example, in designing a chemical plant, you'll typically have a Mech E., Chem E., and Civil E. all working together on the design. However, current law states that only a Mech E's can certify the plant design; thus, the mech E can add, say, a hugh vat of sulfuric acid (a highly toxic safety hazard) for no reason, and yet could get the plans certified by him with no input from the Chem. E. In effect, the PE certification of chemical engineers is worthless in CA. There's a large number of industrial Chem E's fighting these types of rules to make it better.
Will Computer Engineers need to be certified? I would that those that are designing systems that pose potental harm to the public good, such as air traffic control systems, medical systems, water and power plans controls, should have some sort of certification, but in conjunction with those that would normally work on those projects as well. However, for the end-user's casual programs, including Windows, office software, browsering, servers, etc, it's unnecessary because those items pose very little *direct* harm to the public. (Do note that even Microsoft signs off on libilities for malfunctions of their software, and says that it shouldn't even been used in critical situations as listed above).
Of course, the other question is that where do you draw the line at what 'programming' is. Is writing a Visual Basic script programming? Is JavaScript programming? These are all tools that cannot be easily controlled as too many users use them already. So trying to limit all programming is near impossible. But certainly regulating and certifying programs that run the public infrastructure and those that write them is a good step.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
The second and third phases as it is scaled back and becomes only slightly more palatable are the ones that we really have to look out for.
Exactly. The coming discussions are the more important ones. Now is the time to step up the pressure. With the outrageous bill seemingly out of the way, it is time to focus on the one that has a chance of passing.
If we start to relax because "well, at least the SSSCA isn't going to pass," we're going to get stuck with something almost as bad.
Write your senator! Keep up the pressure! Defeat the SSSCA and its bastard children!
OK, so who's my senator anyway?
-- If any of the above made sense, I assure it was purely by accident.