Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Congress Plans DMCA Sequel: The SSSCA

Posted by michael on Sat Sep 08, 2001 10:00 AM
from the no-turing-devices-for-you dept.
Declan McCullagh writes: "If you thought the DMCA was a nightmare, wait 'til you find out what Congress is planning this fall. The sequel is called the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act," and it requires PCs and consumer electronic devices to support "certified security technologies" to be approved by the Commerce Department. Backers of the SSSCA include Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.), who heads the powerful Senate Commerce committee, and, reportedly, Disney. Wired News has a report, and I've placed the SSSCA draft text (new! more criminal penalties!) online here. D'ya think that maybe Congress doesn't like OSS very much?" This is only a draft, not even introduced as a bill yet, but it sends chills down my spine - this is the big one. If passed, it would require all personal computers to have digital rights management built in, under penalty of law.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Congress Plans DMCA Sequel: The SSSCA | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 934 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 | 3
  • My Letter to Rep. Gonzalez by libre lover (Score:2) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:02AM
    • Re:My Letter to Rep. Gonzalez by openbear (Score:2) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:40AM
    • Re:My Letter to Rep. Gonzalez by takochan (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @11:22AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Demonstrate in the streets! by takochan (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @11:38AM
    • My Letter to Senator McCain (Score:5, Informative)

      by reverius (471142) <reverius42@SLACK ... com minus distro> on Saturday September 08 2001, @02:26PM (#2268484) Homepage Journal
      Here is an e-mail I just wrote to one of my Senators (who almost won the Republican primaries this last presidential election... note that I'm not a Republican...) :)

      Dear Mr. McCain,

      I am a resident of Arizona, and a computer user. I recently read about an act scheduled to be introduced to the Senate entitled the "Security Systems Standards and Certification Act" [216.110.42.179], sponsored by Senator Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina) and Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Under this act, it would be a civil offense to create or sell any kind of computer equipment that "does not include and utilize certified security technologies" approved by the federal government. I politely request, as a citizen of Arizona, that you vote against this Act for the reasons in this letter.

      I see this as a violation of a basic freedom to create, use, or sell anything I want to (including, of course, computer equipment) without government interference.

      It is of course necessary to deny the right to create and sell certain things, such as drugs; these things can be harmful and should not be sold.

      That however, does not apply to computer equipment; there is no way I can harm anyone with my own computer equipment. But this Act denies me the right to create and sell computer equipment without federally approved security technologies.

      The primary purpose for this regulation is the protection of content provided by large media corporations that have lobbied for this Act. Lobbyists from the music and record industry have, and will continue to lobby congress in the hopes of further regulation for consumers and corporations to protect their content.

      In a computer system certified by the federal government, their content would be protected from misuse by consumers. It is an ideal situation for the music and record industry, then, that all computers in legal use would be certified.

      This helps that particular industry, but hurts another. In the computer industry, if this Act is passed, it would be illegal to create and sell anything not certified by the federal government to specifically protect the content of these corporations.

      I would like to create and sell computer equipment that does not "utilize certified security technologies", and I should have the legal right to. I do have that right under the current laws.

      The products of the recording industry should not be protected by laws that regulate other industries, and deny my right to sell my own computer equipment without federal approval.

      I implore you, Senator McCain, to vote against the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act when it comes before the Senate.

      Thank you.

      Sincerely,
      (my name here)

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:My Letter to Rep. Gonzalez by Skweetis (Score:2) Saturday September 08 2001, @06:37PM
    • Re:My Letter to Rep. Gonzalez by libre lover (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:28AM
    • Re:My Letter to Rep. Gonzalez by D Anderson n'Swaart (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:39AM
      • Re:My Letter to Rep. Gonzalez by GlassUser (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @11:36AM
      • Re:My Letter to Rep. Gonzalez (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jchristopher (198929) on Saturday September 08 2001, @11:57AM (#2267833)
        Clearly you didn't read the article. This bill, if passed, would make it a crime to use Linux, since it does not (and probably won't) incorporate the copy protection standards set by the government.

        If you are thinking WHAT THE FUCK after you read the article, then yes, I think you are reading it correctly.

        So one of two things will happen. Let's use Red Hat as an example:

        1. Red Hat will refuse to incorporate this copy protection code, will be sued, and will be branded in the media as existing solely for the purpose of copyright infringment; and end users will suffer the same fate - your ISP will be required by law to report the location of anyone downloading a Linux distribution or accessing their network using a computer running Linux.

        2. The other possiblity is that Red Hat will be bullied into compliance, incorporating this code and these standards into their OS whether they like it or not.

        It WILL happen. The first "Linux is a circumvention device" trial is coming - within 2 years, I bet, and the way they are going to play it will be "why don't the hackers just add our copyright protection code to their OS? Because they only use that OS for PIRACY. Otherwise they would just use Windows" (Copyright Code Compliant, of course.)

        [ Parent ]
        • Re:My Letter to Rep. Gonzalez (Score:4, Interesting)

          by fishbowl (7759) <jmcgill@@@email...arizona...edu> on Saturday September 08 2001, @01:53PM (#2268381)
          >1. Red Hat will refuse to incorporate this copy
          >protection code, will be sued

          It's worse than that. The officers of the company will be threatened with criminal prosecution, federal fines and jail time.
          My biggest problem with DMCA has always been
          that it moves civil matters into the criminal
          realm. There might be case law somewhere that
          amounts to an achilles heel for the DMCA on the
          basis that copyright is a civil matter and should have civil remedies. But, America is
          a police state now. Maybe we need more ugly laws
          to be passed like this, so that more people will realize they live in a police state. Seems that today it's quite possible to live in blissful ignorance of this fact. US law is ultimately enforced by the most technologically advanced military force that the world has ever known.

          >Because they only use that OS for PIRACY.

          It's our own fault that if by then there aren't
          a few heavy players who would rally against that argument. If big companies with a stake in Linux
          or anything else sit on their hands during this,
          the WE DESERVE to be "forced to run windows" or
          even to have computers outlawed.

          Except for the fact that life would be wretched for the forseeable future, I'd really enjoy seeing things get far, far worse so that people would be motivated to put an end to the oppression. But as long as they're well fed, doped up, busy, and think they have something to lose, they'll never take up arms against the lawful authority. There's already a science built around the strategy of determining how far a government can push a populace before they realize they can't take it anymore. USA is nowhere near that point, but the fall of currency would be a good start. Bring on the $360.00/bbl oil! Let's have more abject poverty! (The more poverty the people enjoy, the less taxes the government has to build their war machine to use against their own people. The weaker the war machine gets, the better chances the people have against it.)

          The war for independence was also against the most technologically sophisticated armed force that the world had ever seen. And you can see the same phenomenon in the war between the states.

          We are generally to well taken care of to consider aggression against the lawful authority. We also aren't yet willing to give up our lives, limbs, senses, and minds, because things haven't gotten bad enough yet, we think we have more to lose than that. I do think that many Americans have lost some faith in the democratic process in recent years. Even those who had steadfastly believed it was an infallible institution had a wakeup call last November when even Bush supporters got upset about Florida. If something big like social security fails, the myth that the USA is financially solvent may start to unravel for a lot of folks. If the consumer debt (which dwarfs the national debt) suddenly can't be paid (let's say, 40% unemployment) financial institutions would start to fail. These are the types of incidents that would be stepping stones to urban skirmish, if not outright civil war or revolution. It's hard to see copy control getting people's backs up enough to engender change.

          [ Parent ]
        • Re:My Letter to Rep. Gonzalez by mozumder (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @05:26PM
        • Re:My Letter to Rep. Gonzalez by MrBogus (Score:2) Saturday September 08 2001, @08:17PM
        • Re:My Letter to Rep. Gonzalez by segfault_0 (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @09:15PM
        • Re:My Letter to Rep. Gonzalez by john@iastate.edu (Score:2) Monday September 10 2001, @10:48AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • All rights not specifically listed are by Archfeld (Score:2) Saturday September 08 2001, @11:17AM
    • Re:Send to US Senators... by libre lover (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @11:51AM
    • Re:the government is communist here by Jazu (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @07:39PM
    • 9 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Surely not by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:03AM
    • Re:Surely not by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:09AM
      • Re:Surely not by alexdw (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @01:28PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Surely not by The_Steel_General (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @11:27PM
      • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Don't be naive by proclus (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @11:18AM
    • Re:Surely not by Event_Horizon314 (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @11:41AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Surely not by colmore (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:16PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • The US is not the world (yet). by under_score (Score:2) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:03AM
    • Share and Enjoy by Greyfox (Score:2) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:13AM
    • Re:The US is not the world (yet). by chabotc (Score:2) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:13AM
    • Re:The US is not the world (yet). by dohnut (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:15AM
    • by Canis (9360) on Saturday September 08 2001, @10:51AM (#2267475)
      Except that it covers the sale of such devices, not just their manufacture; so yes, they could be made in Canada (although I'd recommend somewhere further afield; Canada is frequently not far-enough away to escape US law...) and shipped into the US, but they'd have to be smuggled in as contraband and sold on the black market.

      Just what everyone wants, I'm sure: Demand remains high, supply is cut dramatically, prices soar, youths mug people or hold up liquor stores to raise the cash, all the jackals move in to the black-market cash-opportunity they see gathering, and pretty soon gangs are slaughtering each other on the streets over non-Compliant hard drives. Customs officials sieze 400 gigs of Class A disk space (est. street value: $500,000).

      The Government then runs Public Service announcements: "PIRACY KILLS" "MP3: JUST SAY NO" "WINNERS DON'T USE NONCOMPLIANT HARDWARE DEVICES" "FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS COPY MOVIES". They also offer tax rebates and other cash benefits [salon.com] to television shows and movies who include significantly pro-Digital Rights Management plotlines in their work.

      In the summer movie, "Gone at 60kb/s", Nick Cage has to pirate an unprecedented number of other summer movies in one night in order to save his brother's life; in the more thoughtful "TCP/IP Traffic", Michael Douglas finds himself sucked into the seedy world of P2P after his teenage daughter is involved in a DVD-related incident, the story expertly interwoven with that of Open Source programmers working across the border, trying to stay true to their goals despite their lack of Compliance, trying to maintain their idealism in the face of a lead programmer who secretly is working for a reverse-engineering cartel.

      New search-and-seizure laws are drafted to fight the War On Piracy, in order to Clean Up Our Streets And Save Our Children From Evil. All laptop computers are spot-checked at airports and potential employees are asked to undergo a hard-drive scan to ensure they are not "using".

      Caffiene mints, copyleft t-shirts, and any item bearing a penguin logo are banned [emdef.org] from COMDEX and any other gathering of software developers under Cracking House laws [aclu.org]. These things are sure signs [usdoj.gov] of illegal activity.

      Far-fetched? Facetious? A little of both. But the general principles have been shown to hold true in the past, repeatedly.

      Whee!

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:The US is not the world (yet). by FFFish (Score:2) Saturday September 08 2001, @11:36AM
    • Re:The US is not the world (yet). by Rune69 (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @04:18PM
    • Re:The US is not the world (yet). by mimbleton (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @06:05PM
    • Re:The US is not the world (yet). by Squeeze Truck (Score:2) Sunday September 09 2001, @07:51PM
    • Prohibition? by dr_labrat (Score:2) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:16AM
      • Re:Prohibition? by openbear (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:30AM
        • Re:Prohibition? by invenustus (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @12:49PM
        • Re:Prohibition? by Gizzmonic (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @05:32PM
          • Re:Prohibition? by Squeeze Truck (Score:2) Sunday September 09 2001, @08:58PM
    • 6 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Mass exodus by dezwart (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:04AM
  • This is a nessesary measure (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hektor_Troy (262592) on Saturday September 08 2001, @10:12AM (#2267280)
    Think abut it for a second. Why wouldn't you want digital rights management built into your computer equipment? What? Oh - you want to play your DVD's one Linux. Get a decent operating system, one where you have to PAY for your right to use the stuff you buy.

    What? You think, you should be allowed to do what you want, with the stuff that you own? Get real - this is the 21st century - you can't just do stuff, because you want to. What's next? You don't want to pay for using your computer? What are you? Some kind of communist?

    (Yes - that was sarcasm)
  • Do any of the Libertarians out there understand? by under_score (Score:2) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:12AM
  • Armchair Bitching (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mind21_98 (18647) on Saturday September 08 2001, @10:14AM (#2267290) Homepage Journal
    This just seems like another opportunity for Slashdotter to bitch and moan, without actually doing anything to help. If this happens again the law would actually pass, and we'd all be screwed.

    Is Hollings going to be reelected in November? For those living in South Carolina, write him, saying that you will not reelect him if the law passes. A delegation should also go to Congress and show them how digital rights management, especially SDMI, is a pain in the ass (even if you're using Windows and approved software).

    I'm just sick and tired of everyone here being complacent and not doing anything useful to put a stop to stuff like this.
  • Taking bets... NDA? Fees? by Yebyen (Score:2) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:15AM
  • Emigration by Glytch (Score:2) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:16AM
  • by perdida (251676) <thethreatproject&yahoo,com> on Saturday September 08 2001, @10:16AM (#2267300) Homepage Journal
    The Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), scheduled to be introduced by Hollings, backs up this requirement with teeth: It would be a civil offense to create or sell any kind of computer equipment that "does not include and utilize certified security technologies" approved by the federal government.

    It also creates new federal felonies, punishable by five years in prison and fines of up to $500,000. Anyone who distributes copyrighted material with "security measures" disabled or has a network-attached computer that disables copy protection is covered.

    Hollings' draft bill, which Wired News obtained on Friday, represents the next round of the ongoing legal tussle between content holders and their opponents, including librarians, programmers and open-source advocates.


    I guess that the time has come where the computer world will divide into above ground and an underground groupings.

    If you can't sell a computer that's not security equipped, we who want to control our own technology will be like the people in a cyberpunk novel or in the Matrix, who have to cobble together their own technology apart from the mainstream.

    Open Source and Free Spftware communities may come together on this too; I can't see a small group of developers providing the same glossy presentations to Congress describing their security that Windows and its associated companies would.

    It's not a law yet, but it shows the way the law is going.

    And if the law is going this way we have to consider the question reform or revolution; [adequacy.org] are we going to allow the vrey concept of computing to be taken over by a small corporate elite if it will allow computing and the Internet to extend to places where it hasn't reached before?

    Or, do we have to act as free people do under repression - keeping our very names and acts truly secret, building computers and writing in basements instead of at bright stores?

  • It's times like this... by V50 (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:16AM
  • All I can say is... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 08 2001, @10:16AM (#2267308)
    ...when Linux is outlawed, only outlaws will run Linux.
  • I can't think of a subject... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:17AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Jim Crow laws (Score:5, Funny)

    by theCoder (23772) on Saturday September 08 2001, @10:18AM (#2267315) Homepage Journal
    "As far as I know there have been very few complaints from intellectual property holders," [Rep. Howard] Coble, the chief sponsor of the DMCA, said in an interview Tuesday.

    That's like saying there were very few complaints from whites in the south about Jim Crow laws...
    • Re:Jim Crow laws by proclus (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @01:04PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • I doubt this will happen by puck01 (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:18AM
  • Obviously part of DOJ vs Microsoft remedies by dpilot (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:18AM
  • Two words into the draft and . . . (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phantumstranger (310589) on Saturday September 08 2001, @10:19AM (#2267326) Homepage
    i read, "In General -- It is 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 that adhere to the security system standards adopted under section 104." (Emphasis added)

    Isn't this the exact problem with the DMCA, this idea that laws should be more like an umbrella that can cover a great many things than a law that in concise and easily distinguishable from one another?

    I am all for laws that protect people and /or companies from any sort of theft but I do not support the DMCA because of how general it is.

    Of courseI haven't read the rest of the draft as of yet, flame if need be in re: to things stated later, but those two little words raised my ire something fierce.

  • writing to my congressman by kennon42 (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:19AM
  • I've said this before by Kryptonomic (Score:2) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:20AM
  • Ludicrous, but that won't stop it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Roundeye (16278) on Saturday September 08 2001, @10:21AM (#2267335) Homepage
    The draft as it reads in the version posted outlines a ludicrous piece of law. It's not hard to see how this puts a burden on industry, further restricts Fair Use (especially in conjunction with the DMCA) and strengthens the rights of the copyright holders (especially in conjunction with the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension -- aka "Mickey Mouse Copyright" -- Act) at the expense of the public domain. It's easy to see how vague the bill will be and how perilous the law: consider the definition of "interactive digital device" ... "any ... technology ... that is ... used for the primary purpose of storing ..." -- an HP calculator with 2K RAM would qualify; have fun with the myriad valid ways to read that overly-broad definition.

    While that's obvious to us that doesn't mean that the bill won't be ram-rodded through now that the most recent batch of MPAA/RIAA checks have cleared the Senators' banks. The only way to stop this is to raise such a howl that they dare not go forward. If we act now (when the bill is just a draft) we can make it clear to them that we can't even allow them to get past that stage.

    I am going to be writing letters to Senators and will be sending letters and emails to press outlets (using the list of a few hundred addresses scraped from "Mr. Smith Writes ..."). This is regardless of what other /.-ers do.

    The reason I'm posting this is that I'd like to get a little feedback (some ideas, which is what an open forum like this is great at) concerning the people to whom I should send letters to make the biggest impact. Of course the Senators directly involved, and my own Senators/Reps. Who else?

  • You have to wonder... by Gorimek (Score:2) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:22AM
    • The enemy of my enemy? by jjn1056 (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @10:42AM
      • Re:The enemy of my enemy? by proclus (Score:1) Saturday September 08 2001, @11:43AM
        • Re:The enemy of my enemy? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by mikethegeek (257172) <blair AT NOwcmifm DOT comSPAM> on Saturday September 08 2001, @11:57AM (#2267829) Homepage
          "We have to make it clear that that under this regulation, a computer would be a worthless hunk of junk. It would be useless to industry, researchers, and to home users."

          That's the whole point. They WANT computers to cease to exist, at least, as common things "common" inividuals can afford to have. In the world of this law, computers would be replaced with an appliance "information access" device, that would be much like a DVD player in how little "fair use" you have.

          No doubt there will be exceptions allowing the corps, and academia to have computers (which will once again become big huge mainframe things) for their own uses.

          In other words, with a stroke of a pen, the IP cartel plans to turn back the clock to 1960.

          My GOD this is scary stuff! This is nothing