Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

SSSCA Hearings Postponed Under Heavy Opposition

Posted by Hemos on Fri Oct 26, 2001 07:16 AM
from the get-out-and-write dept.
Government The Courts News
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."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

SSSCA Hearings Postponed Under Heavy Opposition 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • 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.
    • They'll just rename it the "USA is Brave and Proud and the Flag it Purty Act of 2001". It will pass in a week.
    • 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.
      And don't forget to mention: dropping DMCA-2 does not make DMCA-1 any more acceptable. If this message is lost, then the whole operation is still a success for Disney.
    • Keep the pressure high, and email, write, call the idiot senator that indtroduced this thing. Voice eloquently how you are displeased with his attempts to undermine the constitution and remind him that the people voted him in not Disney or Inc - usa.

      WE not only need to pound back the laws but we need to pound back the self serving officials that introduce this unamerican junk.

      Keep it up! keep the pressure on as high as you can set it.
      • The brave new list of Do's and Don'ts regarding writing your congressperson:

        1. Don't write. They don't open their mail for fear of Anthrax.

        2. Don't call. LSD/A>, [nuketown.com] lightning [azstarnet.com], viruses [symantec.com], and many other things make congress fearful of phones, and not likely to answer them.

        3. Don't fax. After all, a fax is really just a glorified phone call. (see #2)

        4. Don't email. They all heard about that Good Times virus, and are really afraid of getting it.

        5. Don't drive there in person. Especially if you drive a white van, and try to park in front of the building.

        In conclusion, the best way to contact your congressperson now seems to be standing on the tallest building near them and yelling. Just don't get too close to them.
        • In conclusion, the best way to contact your congressperson now seems to be standing on the tallest building near them and yelling. Just don't get too close to them.

          Yeah, but who in their right mind would dare to stand on top of a tall building these days? What with all those low-flying planes around?

      • Normally the collective wisdom is that Capitol Hill responds best to direct handwritten snail mail.

        These days, mail has become a problem, at least temporarily. And I assume that congress is still all spammed out in email and fax.

        What is left is phone calls, visiting their office in your local district, while dropping off a hand delivered letter, etc. Or visiting their offices in DC if you are making a trip.

        This is getting to be a headache.

        • while dropping off a hand delivered letter, etc.

          Careful with that if you work in a bakery...or you might get arrested for creating a false security threat!

        • Just send a fax - ideally from a piece of paper so it has your signature at least, which looks more personal than a mass fax mailing.

        • Seriously - how about a postcard?

          Since there is no 'inside' to open, and it can't contain anything, this should still be an acceptable form of mail for them.

  • Difference between the land of the free and USSR ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MosesJones (55544) on Friday October 26 2001, @07:24AM (#2482830) Homepage

    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.
    • with the main difference that in a communist system, you pay taxes to government, which in theory would flow back to the people. in a corporate-run world, taxes go to corporations (=profits), which does not flow back to the public. Obviously, both these scenarios are extremes.. and extremes almost never work.

      //rdj
        • hmm.. I dont agree with you on government being inefficient per se. IMO, the main goal of a corporation is to shift as much money as possible towards said corporation. The money has to come from someone(the proverbial "rest"). So rest gets less money, corporation gets more. Oh well.. you're not leaning to any of the extremes, I guess we could still stand in the same room without bashing eachother's head in ;) We both seem to agree that extremism is bad..

          //rdj
          • Baah!! There is not a finite amount of money in the country!!! ARGH!!!!

            I'd like to beat the shit out of the economics teacher who keeps telling people this.
            You didn't hear it in Economics? Well, that's a relief.

            Companies don't hoard cash. In fact, hoarding cash is STUPID. The goal of a corporation is to be as profitable as possible, and that meaans they have to do something with all those dollars they have in the bank, where they're only earning a shitty 2% or so.

            Like, pay them to more employees as they expand. Or, give them to the R&D dept (Xerox PARC anyone?) so they can come up with cool stuff to sell. Or, reinvest them in the market so they can get a high rate of return, which allows other companies to use the dollars to hire people and make more cool stuff.

            Successful companies create wealth. They make more people wealthier than they were. They don't take money out of the system and fill a pool with it so the board can swandive in hundreds. Economics is NOT a zero-sum game.
            • Companies don't hoard cash. In fact, hoarding cash is STUPID. The goal of a corporation is to be as profitable as possible, and that meaans they have to do something with all those dollars they have in the bank, where they're only earning a shitty 2% or so.
              Indeed. If the system is fair, information and transaction costs are low, and various other tenants of intermediate microeconomics hold true.

              However, if everyone is playing a positive-sum game, and one player plays against everyone else in a zero-sum manner, that one player can capture all the wealth in the system and keep it for himself.

              In business school, the first semester you take intermediate micro. Then starting with the second semester, they say, "OK, now you know how competition works. Here is how you will undermine competition to capture the entire market for yourself."

              I will leave you to fill in the examples.

              sPh

  • Certification (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pieterh (196118) <pieter DOT hintjens AT imatix DOT com> on Friday October 26 2001, @07:29AM (#2482838) Homepage
    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 (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Masem (1171) on Friday October 26 2001, @08:04AM (#2482944)
      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.

      • I realy can not wait for 20 years from now when all the senators will be more tech savy.....your ideas are very good....want to run :-)
        • Ha!

          I've been waiting more than 20 years for people to become more tech savvy. In the last five, people have climbed onto the internet and adopted it as their own. So now what do I see?

          AOL.

          It's like the (alleged) Ancient Chinese Proverb®: Be careful of what you wish for. You may get it.

          John

      • In Georgia, your 5 years of EIT have to be done under the tutelage of a full fledged PE. Also, you have to have a PE working for you if you have the word "Engineering" in your company's name.

        -tim
    • 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.

    • "Why should software developers be treated differently than architects and engineers?"

      Well, umm... maybe because architect's creations can collapse and kill people, and engineers' creations can explode and kill people, where the newest Adventure clone can... umm... it can crash. Or it might not print out my score properly! OH NO!! THE HORROR!!!

      Now if someone's writing software to control an airplane's engine or a dump truck's brakes, then I agree it must have certification. Unfortunately, legislation like what we're seeing will ensure low quality software in these critical systems. No one can reverse-engineer or check up on Microsoft's "DumptruckBrakesXP", so it can be certified and then page fault in traffic. Crunch.

      Just some food for thought.

      -Kasreyn
    • I sincerely hope that programmers never become professionals in the sense of doctors and lawyers.

      As a former lawyer who had to go through law school and pass the bar, I would like to mention one word to any developer who might actually like the idea: malpractice.

      No professional certification, no standards and practices, no malpractice.
      • Bullshit. People are exposed to software against their will every day at their jobs. Most people have no choice of what operating system, office suite, or other programs they run. I am fortunate enough to be able to run Linux at work, but most people are not given that choice.
  • 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.
    • 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?

    • And let's not forget that it's also being used to cover the DMCA's tail. Disney & Co. want to keep the debate focussed on "How much further should we go," instead of "Why the hell did we go as far as the DMCA in the first place?"

  • 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?
    • It's the tech companies that are opposed to this. As I said elsewhere [kuro5hin.org], the tech companies are opposed to this, and the "content" companies support it. It's BSA vs MPAA and RIAA. The people who make software and programming tools could be severely damaged by this bill, the movie/record companies would be helped by it. There's a major battle shaping up here between the two sides. One good thing about the Microsoft antitrust case is that it made the tech industry aware of just how important it was to lobby government.
  • 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.

  • 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... :-)
  • 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.
  • 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 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.

    • 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 [ala.org] have, as always, raised their common voices against a law that offends Freedom of Speech and the Right to Knowledge [ala.org]..

      Yes, librarians are a long-time deffenders of our rights. Just check who is against DMCA, filters in internet access (CIPA) [ala.org] 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.
    • Why, I thought they thought this was their best shot at outlawing Linux?

      This isn't an exactly great bill for microsoft either.

      First off, if they support this, it'll add more fuel to the fire for a harsher sentance in the antitrust lawsuit(Judge: so you agree on government interference, a few months ago you didn't?).

      Then there's the international issue. Do you think a "security enabled" windows is going to sit well with the the EU(they tend to side with the consumer)? So they either have to make another version to disable it(costing lots of money) or risk losing losing european business.

      So, basically this is foresight on the part of microsoft. The minute they agree to, "the government can tell us how to run our business", they open a door they might not be able to close.
      • Then there's the international issue. Do you think a "security enabled" windows is going to sit well with the the EU(they tend to side with the consumer)?
        I wish one could say that they side with the citizen , rather than the consumer . When the public is regarded as a mere herd of consumers , we're already half way to hell. But what you say may hold true to some extent -- see e.g. this piece of news (Thursday):

        Times change. In the past, it is Bill Gates that used to be consulted before tarring the "information highways". Now, it is IBM. In other words, the enemy: indeed Big Blue, as the company is called, has lately taken a malicious pleasure in singing the praises of "free" software, this anti-Microsoft missile (in Bill Gates, one has on the contrary the cult of Copyright). "One of IBM's strategic choices is to support the development of the free software of rights, which interests us because a number of significant applications in electronic administration use this type of solutions", Matignon underlined.

        So the Republic has chosen the "free", and suddenly, Bill Gates is no longer to be seen our ungrateful corridors.

        But the big worry, methinks, is how long it will remain so. The Brussels institutions are still being defined, and I'm sure that many dream of it becoming like Washington, D.C. -- a place to lobby and bargain for legislation.

    • I suspect they objected becuase they want *their* standard of DRM enacted. Since their standard doesn't have overwhelming market share at this point there is a danger that some other scheme will be adopted. Hence, it's objection.

      Also note that the bill doesn't require a single system to be adopted. Therefore, an e-book reader could have a different scheme than a handheld PDA. Since MS doesn't have (AFAIK) multiple protection schemes on the drawing board I suspect that is part of their reasoning behind their opposition.

      In any event I am confident MS would back such a bill if they had a DRM or security system in place that dominated the market. After all, the proposal as intially written exempted monopoly status as a condition of protection.
    • Not too astonishing; MS is Harmful, not Evil.

      They haven't (to date) been nearly as obnoxious about patents as they could have been, and they're generally reasonable about this sort of thing. If they weren't so hypercompetitive and locked-in to the vision of software as a product they'd be quite tolerable.
    • Just avoid the UK... over there you can now be detained for an unlimited amount of time without being charged with a crime.

      And you people think civil liberties are under attack in America!

      You could go to Ireland... wait, no. Refusing to answer police questions is considered an admission of guilt in Ireland. Damnit!

      Maybe America isn't so bad?
    • Silly person. You don't want it discussed in committee, because if it gets pigeonholed, it'll never get to the floor and no one will ever vote on it.

      What the committee wants is for the copyright interests to come up with something that won't get massacred during the hearings, and again before the full Senate. They won't be able to, so basically, this bill is probably gone.

      Yaay!

      Of course, watch closely for a new bill with a different acronym and more obfusticated language to pop up soon.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.