SSSCA Editorials

idiotnot writes: "This editorial from the New York Times, by Jonathan L. Zittrain, a professor at Harvard Law School, urges legislators to exercise caution in regulating the PC. Eisner, et. al. want to limit the PC's capability, which will limit what PC users are allowed to do. See this earlier story about Eisner's testimony to Congress. '[W]e should beware the haste with which some would sacrifice flexibility for control.'" Other readers submitted a story in Hardware Central and an AP article. Seems like the ruckus over the SSSCA is finally reaching the mainstream press.

Comments

So that's what he meant

[Henry V .009]

Absolutely. In January Bill Gates sent a memo to all Microsoft employees declaring a new, overarching, even revolutionary mandate: Software must be reliable and "trustworthy." This new focus is both welcome and worrisome, because the very steps needed to secure our computers and networks can be the steps that will deaden them to continued innovation and creative uses -- while opening them to more intrusive monitoring by mainstream technology manufacturers and content providers.

Mr. Gates and the co-captains of his industry are producing blueprints for so-called "trusted" PC's. They will employ digital gatekeepers that act like the bouncers outside a nightclub, ensuring that only software that looks or behaves a certain way is allowed in. The result will be more reliable computing -- and more control over the machine by the manufacturer or operating system maker, which essentially gives the bouncer her guest list.

Oh God. Gates was serious after all.

joe sixpack

[Alien54]

The average joe will hopefully wake up before he figurtes out that the things he wants are now illegal.

unfortunately, the tactic used in the poast has been to ust gradually reduce the feature set of the products gradually so that he never notices.

hopefully the best hope on this is the quandary seen in companies like sony. Sony music, I believe, grosses 4 billion dollars a year, while Sony Electronics, makers of mp3 players, etc grosses 40 billion dollars. In this case, I wonder which part of the company will win out, given the conflict of interest inside the company.

there are plenty such issues messing up the priorities.

Are we now so blind to the Constitution

[Scareduck]

that Congress feels obliged to ignore the part about

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Those of you who still think FDR's "living document" idea of the Constitution (i.e., it means whatever is politically expedient), please justify your position in light of Disney-bought Senators.

RIP Linux - '1984' achieved through stealth

[heretic108]

This SSSCA is laying the infrastructure for mass control, not only of software, but also expression.

I can forsee that the SSSCA will be applied so that ISPs are forbidden from accepting connections from non-'trusted' client computers.
'Trusted' computers would contain hardware-based digital certificates, so it would be easy for the ISP to determine if an open-source computer is trying to connect.
That's Linux gone in one fell swoop.

Next, the SSSCA will wipe out all independent software developers - 'trusted' OSs simply won't run software that doesn't have a digital license.
Digital licenses will only be available to approved companies, after passing a thorough security examination, and paying a fortune.

On trusted computers, programming tools will only be available to security-certified corporations. Any software written will have to pass an expensive security audit at source-level before being granted a release certificate (which would allow it to run on other people's PCs).

Media creation tools, such as desktop publishers, audio/video editors etc will produce secure media files that will only be able to play on the computer on which they were created - or, for an extra license fee, up to 5 other designated computers. Licenses to create media for mass distribution will cost a mint, and require security clearance.

Websites are next. Web browsers will only be able to access certified websites. Webmaster security certification will cost a fortune.

Email too - email clients will vet outgoing email messages through an 'Intellectual Property Clearance Server', which will scan the message's text against a huge database of copyrighted texts. So if an email contains more than a few words that happen to appear in the IP database, it won't get sent. The 'IP Clearance Servers' will also scan for phrases which are too controversial.

This is WAR, folks!!!!!

The most significant event in US history since the Declaration of Independence and the Civil War.

Time for everyone to kick up the biggest fuss the country has ever seen.

Or else!

"He loved Big Brother"
-- last words of '1984' by George Orwell

Re:RIP Linux - '1984' achieved through stealth

[kiwipeso]

Courtney Love on Piracy has a lot relevant to this Disney dream of 'content control'
*I can forsee that the SSSCA will be applied so that ISPs are forbidden from accepting connections from non-'trusted' client computers.
Why not, China is leading the way with Red Flag Linux designed to tie into the Great Firewall of China...
*'Trusted' computers would contain hardware-based digital certificates, so it would be easy for the ISP to determine if an open-source computer is trying to connect.
no, if the certificate is hardware based, there is no stopping the open system from using the hardware certificate.
*That's Linux gone in one fell swoop. Next, the SSSCA will wipe out all independent software developers - 'trusted' OSs simply won't run software that doesn't have a digital license.
This would be like windows Xp not running Java, it would make use of alerts and other FUD that can be put into the OS.
*Digital licenses will only be available to approved companies, after passing a thorough security examination, and paying a fortune.
Trouble is the licenses would be generated by US export grade crypto, it can be cracked easily and quickly. This will increase trojan apps doing weird stuff.
*On trusted computers, programming tools will only be available to security-certified corporations. Any software written will have to pass an expensive security audit at source-level before being granted a release certificate (which would allow it to run on other people's PCs).
This sounds like MCSE or Sun Java certificates, basically it's a tax that says you're ok. These certificates aren't worth WIPOing your bottom on.
*Media creation tools, such as desktop publishers, audio/video editors etc will produce secure media files that will only be able to play on the computer on which they were created - or, for an extra license fee, up to 5 other designated computers. Licenses to create media for mass distribution will cost a mint, and require security clearance.
We all know about apple delaying quicktime 6 until MPEG 4 gets rid of the restrictive royalties, no publisher or editor will pay a tax to produce content.
What was the First Amendment of the US constitution? Something about a free press? Licenses to publish is a communist idea anyway...
*Websites are next. Web browsers will only be able to access certified websites. Webmaster security certification will cost a fortune.
Again, the right to a free press makes this proposal unconstitutional. There is no need to register with the government or corporations to publish information in constitutional law.
*Email too - email clients will vet outgoing email messages through an 'Intellectual Property Clearance Server', which will scan the message's text against a huge database of copyrighted texts. So if an email contains more than a few words that happen to appear in the IP database, it won't get sent. The 'IP Clearance Servers' will also scan for phrases which are too controversial.
There was a 1982 hugo award short story that had this scenario in it, in the end Senator Bob Dole (well over 120) decided he wanted copyrights to finish after a few decades.
The problem of the story was that artists had to check everything for clearance from a century ago, new art was dying.

"He loved Big Brother" -- last words of '1984' by George Orwell
"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4, when that is granted all else follows." 1984

I've opted out of moderation to bring you this.

[Associate]

First, let me state that I do NOT agree with this bill or any restictive legislation like it. BUT, what would happen if it did pass? I see something akin to prohabition. Restrictive bill gets passed. Restrictive bill is repealed. Noone brings it up again. Roe vs Wade is an almost similar case. The bill's that never get passed never seem to go away.
Not that I can hack or mod or even as this bill would imply, CRACK, but I would if I could just for the sake of it. So they block the internet to 'unsafe' computers. Does that mean pirate net wouldn't happen. I figure that once the MPAA and RIAA see that the technology is as hard to control as the people they'll give up. This about who ended up running the show after prohabition. The son of a boot-legger. (JFK) We might actually need this BS to pass so we can all point our collective fingers at Hollywood and laugh at their failures. You never know, we might end up with a leader who knows what a boot-loader is.

Dear Congressperson:

[kcbrown]

ASOIDHFH82379GH8IHJFOWEJ98FHG23G8
298UGH3892HOEWIGH98H2UIEWHG89HGEE
298UH3G92H392RSIDHGHU98UWHEFE9239
23HFUSHHFHOIWE90G9UGHUIHG98UFQOIE
UI2OHG290239URJJHSUIHGEUIHG90EUFH

----

Can't read the above? That's because your SSSCA-compliant computer refuses to decode my SSSCA-compliant message, because you haven't paid Microsoft $1,000,000 for the right to legally decode messages sent to you by your constituents. That you got the above at all was only because I paid Microsoft $10,000 for a license to send messages to Congress.

----

Of course, the above hasn't happened yet. But it will, if the SSSCA passes. Because the SSSCA will give COMPLETE and ABSOLUTE control over what you are allowed to do and not do to only those corporations that are given the privilege to write the operating system and other software for SSSCA-compliant computers.

Some in Congress might actually regard it as a good thing that constituents are no longer able to communicate with Congress, especially by computer. If you are one of those, then I will make it my mission in life to make sure that you never get elected to any public office ever again.

Thank you for your time.

These propsed controls are so dangerous.

[jamej]

I do my best to avoid politics and stay focused on technology. This issue just gets me fired up. What these greedy people are proposing is anti-constitutional. It is more than a simple minded attack on the 1st amendment. It is trying to force censorship into our personal belongings and all to appease a dying industry. Artists just neeed to find a new model for releasing their work. Just like those who created GPL or OSDN etc.. Linus didn't charge anything and he seems to be doing alright. When your the best money takes care of itself. This proposal is, at best, temp help for losers and a gross infringment on everybody's rights. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

simple copy protection:

[zdburke]

What i've never understood is, if the RIAA or MPAA folks don't want people to make copies of digital works, why do they keep releasing digital works? If there's no CD available, then i can't copy it.

Piracy is a social problem, not a technical one, yet the recording industry keeps insisting on technical solutions. They released products into the market place which people realised they could use in new and interesting ways which hadn't occurred to the industry folks. So now the RIAA is stomping around shouting, "Wait! Wait! That's not what I meant!" Well, that doesn't mean we need to legislate the rights of the consumer. It means the recording industry should be smarter next time.

You shouldn't get federal legal protection for making stupid business decisions, you should get the opportunity to learn from your mistakes. It seems like we're going about this whole problem bass-ackward.

Re:simple copy protection:

[tricorn]

It means the recording industry should be smarter next time.

They are getting smarter. They're adding encryption and getting laws passed to make it illegal to bypass that encryption (not that they need the encryption once they have the laws - Macrovision is trivial to defeat, but all VCRs are now required to detect it - might as well have been a simple bit that says "don't copy me" - oh wait, they did that in CDs).

The problem is that the distributors want to have their cake and eat it too. If they want the benefits of a mass market, they have to accept the drawbacks of a mass market. If they were willing to negotiate with each consumer and get a signed contract specifying exactly what could and could not be done with a copy, I wouldn't have a problem with anything they did. That would simply be a matter for contract law. But to expect us to pay for the government to enforce copyright beyond what the Constitution allows for (that is, along with patents, "to promote the Arts and Sciences") is simply unreasonable.

They're getting the advantage of a mass market, and the enforcement of (limited) Copy Rights, if they can't make money on that, the "free market" (as much as it is) will find companies that can make money under those conditions. The only excuse for copyright is if it makes MORE content FREELY available to the public over time; we're exchanging a short-term scarcity for long-term plenty. That's the "Copyright Bargain".

Trade secrets are the only "natural property rights" that should be accorded to "intellectual property"; it follows the rule that "if you don't want someone to have access to it, keep it to yourself." Once you publish something, it has become public.

Ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any way that we can convey to these
critters, the totally amused contempt in which
anywone whose ever heard of a Turing machine holds
for them? Is there any way to get across to them
that if it can't copy and transform information
in any possible way then it isn't a computer?

You'd think that anyone who trades in credibility would run from such idiocy like
a cat from water.

The reality is very plainly and simply that
the universe isn't built the way the entertainment
industry would like. Their "product" is ephemeral
and insignificant in the economics of time-space-matter-and-energy. Trying to make computers enforce copyright is identical to trying to build a machine to make Pi = e = 3. Sorry, but the Truth is that God doesn't believe in copyright.

Re:Mainstream Press Coverage

[Anonymous Coward]

and what remains is solely a concern with the freedom to make money.

No... it's the "freedom to take money", and that's only given to large corporations who can afford to bribe government officials.