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."

Now is the time to write your senator

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.

I'd like to think that...

..this is the high water mark of dubious copyright legilation and that the tide will now recede.

Difference between the land of the free and USSR ?

Not looking that much, while this bill has been buried it does appear that where the USSR wanted the state to control everything the US wants large companies to control everything. The end result is similar with the average Joe or Joeski having zero power and rights.

Keep vigalent for your freedoms, or slowly they will disappear.

Corporate America steps up to the plate

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 :)

Al.

Certification

Let's face it. Within a few years the profession of 'programmer' will be protected by law, and any practicing programmer will have to be certified by a recognised educational establishment and/or Microsoft. Programming for fun will be allowed only for personal reasons. Any software intended for commercial use will have to confirm to the appropriate certification act.
If this sounds outlandish, think about how we construct buildings. Why should software developers be treated differently than architects and engineers?
(This is a leading question, but one I think will be asked by parties seeking to regulate the IT domain).

Re:Certification

Most engineering professionals can take what is known as a Professional Engineering exam; this is equivalent to the bar for lawyers or AMA certification for doctors. The test is typically done in two parts, one that you can take right after college, and the other after 5 years of 'practical' experience in the field. The first test is very general, covering all fields of engineering (fluid dynamics, chemistry, physics, mathematics, statistics, statics, etc), but the scores are weighted based on your profession; a mechanical engineer probably doesn't need to know much chemistry or statistics, but better dang well be up to speed on statics and the like. If you pass this test, you are "an Engineer in Training" (thus, this is typcially the EIT test). The second part is much more open ended and typically geared towards your profession. Passing this grants you the Professional Engineer title. (that's why you'll see P.E. after some names).

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.

Kind of like haggling for a car

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.

good for everyone.

with the recent passing of the Anti-Terrorism bill, it's almost suspicious that congress would even think of dropping a bill like this one. Even more suspicious is the fact that it's the CORPORATIONS that are pushing them to drop it!!

Does this seem a little backwards to anyone else?

Modifying the bill?

I have a suggestion, how about burning the bill.

What piffle.

Has it gotten to the point that every cover sheet to every submitted bill or piece of legislation needs to have the Constitution attached?

Seriously, we have warning/information labels on everything else, why not make it mandatory?

A Constitutional EULA of sorts.

Microsoft objected?

Why, I thought they thought this was their best shot at outlawing Linux?

I don't want it delayed

I want it to bve discussed right here right now.

I want it to become clear that this will require considerable investment from all parties for the benefit of the mdeia corporations.

I want someone to point out that the motion picture industry doesn't pay for films, but the consumer does.

I want the law to be ammended such that they are required to actively support software for alternative operating systems, and also to make sure that access control mechanisms only protect their legal rights, not the rights they would liekto have.

Industry sets standards

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"?

those in the tech community

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... :-)

This is great news

Finally our so-called representatives get to hear the full story. They should never underestimate the lobbying power of the free-software community. We are like a sleeping tiger. We do not want to cause trouble, but you should learn not to mess with us !!!

Foiled Again!

Now I have to wait for another bill to pass so I have a legitimate reason (in my parents eyes) to move to Europe.

Lobbying the wrong people

Why do we waste our time writing the government? They have proved time and time again that the vast majority of them don't pay attention to their constituents.

Lets switch our lobbying efforts to Microsoft, Disney, Time Warner, etc! Obviously the people in charge are listening to them very closely!

There seems to be an interesting clause...

Only someone who violates the law "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" can be convicted.

So the solution here is not to do it for profit. It seems to me that open sourced freeware would be excluded from this law. This would include DeCSS since it has no commercial advantage nor private financial gain.

South Carolinian

I'm a South Carolinian, and I wrote him. He never even sent an acknowledgement. Even though I usually vote democrat, I will not vote for him next time unless he does a complete about face. Maybe he should revise his bill to be like the one in the House, which requires the music industry to license their music to other online services, and doesn't force you to have "devices" in your electronic equipment.

-Shade

Our profession has clout!

I tend to agree with those who lay claim to this victory because of individual concern. While corporations like RedHat (undoubtedly StrongHold and many others) probably had something to say, I believe the letter-writers and public forums like this one deserve much of the credit.

For us expatriates (but never ex-patriot) living overseas, and therefore without congressional representation, a heartfelt thanks to all who took the time and effort to express your concern to your congressmen or congresswomen.

I am reinstalling pgp now. :-)

SSSCA is an 'unfunded mandate'

Specify in law that content providers PAY for *all* R&D costs, implementaion costs (think *billions* of instances), legal fees, etc, etc associated with this lame ass idea, and you'll see it die mighty quick.
Since when is Mickey Mouse entitled to a free ride at the expense of the rest of the world?

They actually listen to us?

Wow, no seriously. I thought by the time they start holding "hearings" and such, it's too late to do anything. I guess our goverment isn't completely broken.

And you thought writing to congress was useless...

Please take a moment to learn who your senators and representatives are, figure out how to e-mail them (if you can, otherwise let them know you'd like to), and KEEP IN TOUCH. These people are there to represent YOU. They need to be made aware that issues like this affect you in very negative ways, and many are not technical enough to fully understand the ramifications of certain pieces of legislation. It's up to us to educate them.

I have no doubt in my mind that those of us that did end up writing to congress ended up being most of what this "opposition" was.

I Have A Dream

(Apologies to MLK).

A Digital Media User's Bill of Rights.

A piece of legislation that lays out the rights consumers have with music, ebooks, movies, whatever, and makes it illegal for media producers to utilize any protection scheme which would prevent users from exercising these rights.

We should have the right to make a backup copy. We should have the right to time-shift programming. We should have the right to transfer from one format to another (eg, CD to MP3) for personal use on different devices. And we should be able to exercise these rights without any loss of quality imposed by copy protection. Obviously, we shouldn't be able to make gillions of copies for total strangers available on the internet, but we should probably have the right to make limited copies for friends and family.

Unfortunately, the chances of passing a piece of legislation that gives consumers rights and restricts corporations is just about nil. But if we could pull it off, we'd have won the battle against DMCA and SSSCA permanently.

For real? Hey, go team!

Postponed? Considered modifying? Hell, I'm jazzed! For a long time it just seems that we /.'ers are long on the talk, short on the walk. But this changes everything!

Nice Job guys! Keep up the good work! (whoever the contributers may be...)

My Open Letter re: SSSCA

I posted this open letter to my representatives [halley.cc] on the topic of SSSCA, and included anecdotal review of why DMCA shouldn't have been passed.

It includes Scope, Civil, Business, Technical, and Motivational issues against anything that even smells like SSSCA.

sooner or later....

Copyright is going to have to be overhauled. I suggest a twist on Jessica Litman's idea:

1. Copying for personal use is protected. In ALL FORMS.
2. Copying for commercial purposes is prohibited unless expressly permitted by the copyright holder.
3. If an individual's "personal" copying results in a 1% loss of revenue for the publisher (whoever that may be), then the copier has violated rule #2, and is subject to penalty. The burden of proof is on the publisher, and they HAVE to show that their overall revenues have dropped as a result. Given the way media corporation profits tend to increase, this should be relatively difficult, excepting in cases where someone's REALLY breaking the law (like these overseas firms that'll press a zillion DVD's outside of the right to do so)

Note that this is just a framework, and should be subject to serious tweaking (i.e., the percentage, whether it should be gross revenue or net profit, etc...)

why is this bad?

For the life of me, I can't figure out why I don't like the SSSCA. I pirate information without a second thought, because I think all information is inheritly free, not something to be profited off of (info including music, movies, software, just about anything that can be turned into 1s & 0s.) But, setting aside my own reasoning towards it, the SSSCA is a reasonable way to protect against piracy...(how effective it is in the real world however. . .) So, why is this a bad law?

Stop wondering and go do your part.

I have read many slashdot reader's comments asking how to contact their representatives (and many cynical responses as to why it is okay not to do so), so I will post this to the main message thread.

Go to www.senate.gov [senate.gov] and look for your states senators. Call their offices. Tell them that you want to contact your representative and explain why. Ask them what the best way to contact your senator is, they will tell you. Once they do, use that medium to contact your senator.

Get all the information you can. Quote the sources you use to make your point. Make the points that this bill is contrary to the constitution (personally, I used amendment IV). Make it clear that you voted for them to protect your rights and freedoms, not give them away to Disney, et al.

The most important point is to come across as a well informed constituent. Don't write threatening, uninformed letters like some backwater rube.

If enough people put the pressure on, this bill will not pass (and we will be able to destroy laws like the DMCA)..

The time for thinking someone else will take care of it for you is over. Do your part as a member of the technology community. If every person that is against this bill (and others like the DMCA) write their senators, this bill will fail. Also, if every one of us keeps the pressure on our representatives concerning DMCA, it will also fail..

Unless you do something about this, you have no right to complain when your freedoms are stolen. Also, you can't win unless you fight..

Go write!

Anti-SSSCA petition

Knowing the /. crowd this has probably already been posted, so forgive the redundancy, but for any who are unaware there is an anti-SSSCA petition here [stoppoliceware.org]. It was at about 18,000 signatures when I signed. (wouldn't it be interesting if we could get it slashdotted?)

This is news? Posted several days ago

FYI, I posted this [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] on Tuesday of this week:

Apparently Sen. Hollings was to have a hearing this week on the bill. Well Internet Daily reports that due to all the "general confusion" and some of this opposition, he will delay the hearing and won't introduce until he has "dialog" with affected industries. I have heard from second hand sources that even the BSA (not Boy Scouts) are not keen with this bill. Seems like it could DOA, or even pre arrival. But as always, keep vigilant!

Anybody know Sen. Stevens's position on ANWR, Oil?

Does anybody know Senator Ted Stevens's position on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and oil drilling in general? He's Hollings's co-sponsor on this atrocity of a bill, and the Senator from Alaska. In addition to trashing large chunks of US industry, this blazingly stupid bill would have the effect of blocking or interfering with most oil exploration in Alaska, including the ANWR that Bush wants to drill -- it's not a direct part of the bill, just another side effect of making anything from GPS devices to electronic automobile ignitions to mapping software to modern radio equipment illegal. Down here in the Unfrozen South (Lower 48 except for places like North Dakota, Montana, and the Rockies) we can get by without as much of that equipment, but doing oil exploration by dogsled is pretty limiting.

Whichever position he takes on the bill, it'd be really easy to roast him over the coals for how the bill's blatant cluelessness interferes with it, and since much of Alaska's economy depends on oil, that should get his attention.

Seen this before

This is the oldest trick in the book: propose some heinous piece of legislation that hasn't a hope in hell of passing, get shot down by irate citizens, then craft a "compromise" which is really what you wanted in the first place, plus 10% for chutzpah. That way your whore (read PAC-paid pol) gets to look statesmanlike while your objectives are met.

Meanwhile, no-one (apart from some computer geeks, and who listens to them anyway?) notices the RIAA came close to passing their Data Destruction, er, Copyright Protection Amendment through Congress. The Direct Marketing Association almost got away with a similar shenanigan when they tried piggybacking their pro-spam agenda onto the Anti-Slamming Bill a couple of years ago, after similar successes in state legislatures when they defanged junk email laws via midnight amendments by bought & paid for state pols. It looks like the RIAA took a leaf from their book.

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." The good news is computer people tend to stay up later than lobbyists, so we can (and should) be keeping an eye on these guys.

Francois.

Sigh...This isn't a win...

I apologize for how this looks. Apparently:
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted. So the whitespace is ugly below.

Yay, so now we get to see the version of the bill get watered down to the point that it's "tolerable" and then when those partial controls don't stop piracy, we get to see the pressure racheted up. :P

FrogSoup* Person::make_frog_soup(Stove &stove, Frog *frog)
{
int cooking_time = 0;
FrogSoup *frogsoup;
do
{
frog->placed_into(stove.get_pot());
if (frog->jumps_out())
{
stove.add_temp(-1);
cooking_time = 0;
frog->placed_into(stove.get_pot());
}
else
{
cooking_time++;
stove.add_temp(1);
}
sleep(1);
}
while (cooking_time <2000);
frogsoup = new Frogsoup;
delete frog;
frogsoup->set_broth(stove.get_pot().get_content s());
return frogsoup;
}

An example of polite email to Hollings

Since snail mail sent to Washington DC is probably sanitized with a flame thrower [rusarm.ru] these days, I left a message on Sen. Hollings web site. Dunno if anyone reads these things, but it cannot hurt. At least it will not be burnt in fear of anthrax.

Dear Senator Hollings, I'd like to let you know that as an information technology professional, I am deeply concerned about the SSSCA. In its present wording, this bill would make our job almost impossible. Also, as a consumer, I am concerned about the implications. This bill would mean that all the media I buy would be rendered useless at the whim of the media player manufacturers. Please drop this bill. It is a very bad idea, and it would backfire.

A few thousand like that, and even Disney's soft money will not be enough to convince Hollings that this bill is worth the spanking he'll get at the next election.

Mark Twain wrote that buying a senator back then cost about $30,000. Anyone knows the current price? (And I wish I could insert a smiley here.)

-- SysKoll

a glimmer of hope..

This looks good. Perhaps as Mr. Hollings, (and others) saw our letters of protest pouring in, he figured, hey maybe I'd better not push this thing too hard. Hopefully it will die all together rather than the burning of the constitution that happened with ATA/USA/Patriot.. *bleck* |-P

Re:Make use of your democratic rights

...and they can inform you that there is no such thing as the DCMA.

Pedantic I know, but I suspect that a letter complaining about the DCMA[sic] will hardly come across as a well researched opinion.

Re:For cororate types there's only the suit

Nice to see the Spirit of Superficiality is still alive and kicking in America, isn't it? True to form, he has a problem with the name but he can't quite spell the subject. I think this guy is every suit I know...

Sara T.