Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

SSSCA Hearings Postponed Under Heavy Opposition 219

Posted by Hemos from the get-out-and-write dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SSSCA Hearings Postponed Under Heavy Opposition More

SSSCA Hearings Postponed Under Heavy Opposition

Comments Filter:
  • 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.
    • Actually, the thing that's most likely to impress them is "self regulation." If the open source community produces it's own, open source, rights management software, which is absurd on the face of it but I'll get back to that, we can say "see, no need for legislation, we're being responsible and doing it ourselves, Senator."

      Of course, such software is never going to prevent piracy (someone suggested and ifndef with a strong warning not to change it - do it!) - but the RIAA/MPAA can not make "logical arguments." As soon as logical arguments start being made, their whole deal falls apart. They're waging a legislative war with nonsense and half-truths and we should return in kind. I want my children to grow up in a world more surreal than the one we live in, don't you?
      • > Actually, the thing that's most likely to impress them is "self regulation." If the open source community produces it's own, open source, rights management software, which is absurd on the face of it but I'll get back to that, we can say "see, no need for legislation, we're being responsible and doing it ourselves, Senator."

        /etc/motd: This system uses an open-source DRM technology to ensure compliance with SSSCA. By reading this, you agree not to reproduce copyrighted content in violation of the licenceholder's wishes."

        > As soon as logical arguments start being made, their whole deal falls apart. They're waging a legislative war with nonsense and half-truths and we should return in kind.

        The truth be told, your solution isn't funny, it's viable. Politicians tend not to think logically - the wrapping of illogic in rhetoric is their bread and butter. I've long-suspected that they do so, on such a constant basis, that their ability to think is curtailed.

        I suspect that just as they expect our thought processes to stop (who, after all, could oppose a PATRIOT Act?) when they see a name, their thought processes stop when they see a name that doesn't sound friendly to them.

        For instance, when a conservative sees "Collective", "People's", or "United" in a group's name, they switch off and think "leftist." No doubt there are similar buzzwords that liberals see in "conservative" groups ("Institute" comes to mind.)

        Just look at the names of the organizations who are winning the cultural war - "$INDUSTRY Association of $GEOGRAPHICAL_REGION".

        Now look at our names: "User Group", "User's", "Frontier", "Free". Are these the kinds of names that resonate with politicians? Hardly.

        Assuming the names hasn't already been co-opted by the DMA, RIAA/MPAA or other enemy groups, why not rename "our" groups into kitschy, politician-friendly names like "Privacy Foundation of America", or "Californians for Intellectual Property Rights", "Association of Software Engineers for Self-Regulation", "Digital Rights Political Action Committee".

        It might make all the difference. For the wrong reason, but as long as it makes a difference, it's worth a try.

    • If we do write our senators, will they ever receive it? Are they even in their offices where the mail will be sent, and will they open it.

      I hope our congressmen/women have plans on how to continue communications with their constituants in light of the new security threats.

      Should we call?
      • If we do write our senators, will they ever receive it?

        My guess would be there is a staff of people who open and read the mail and create a report which is then delivered to the Senator. One or two letters aren't likely to make it into this theoretical report. But hundreds or thousands would.
      • 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!

        • Fax (Score:2)

          by Cato ( 8296 )
          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.

      • Currently mail directed to Congress and other parts of the government is being shipped away from DC. They are planning to irradiate the mail before returning it to DC. I understand that quite a bit of it is headed for Ohio. Not sure where else it might be going, or how long the process will take. It's quite possible that it could take weeks for mail to get to DC.

    • ... that maybe the fact that part of the opposition to this bill comes from other big business [cnet.com] might have been a factor? It's a mistake to assume that "big business" is one entity all of whom have the same agenda.

      There are two factors here:
      1. It will cost hardware and software makers to implement it.
      2. Even if a small percentage of hardware/OSs are bought by people who use it for "bad things" then, particularly in hardware (where margins are thin), a small percentage makes a big difference to the bottom line.

      More like one set of corps winning a victory over another set. Some seem to think that MS should have been in favour of this as it would "outlaw Linux". Not true - it just might outlaw running Linux without the SSSCA code. Anyone with some skills and a sense of adventure would be able to identify and remove the code from Windoze - hardware access aint hard to spot. Maybe a bit more work if you don't have the source, but still practical.
    • 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.
    • Yeah, but it won't do any good.

      They ignore email.
      They won't open snailmail because it has anthrax.

      Guess it's time to drag out that old faxmodem.
  • ..this is the high water mark of dubious copyright legilation and that the tide will now recede.
    • Don't kid yourself. Big business owns you, and your elected representatives, and they have more money than you to spend on these things. The electorate will become more and more apathetic until people just quit paying attention anymore, and then things will get really really bad. That in turn will lead to serfdom, and the next generation will rebel against it. Just my theory.
      • Just one depressing note toslightly edit your statement. Remember people lived with serfdom for centuries . It was only the plague that caused a reduction in the workforce that made it possible for the survivors to work out better terms with their "employers".


    • Yep. All that's left is the "eternal vigilance" part.

      Which is where Americans usually drop the ball.
    • I would like to think that too, but I doubt it. I suspect that this original language was drafted specifically to draw out the opposition that has occured. Now the "compromise" bill, which will contain 87.645% of the provisions of the original, will be rammed through.

      sPh

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

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Friday October 26, 2001 @08:24AM (#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


      • Actually, no, that's wrong.


        In a "corporate-run" world, taxes still go to the govt, who continues to spend the money inefficiently. Lots and lots of those tax dollars come from those corporations. The money that the corporations make does flow back to the public, through wages, dividends on stocks, charitable giving for PR reasons, and, if the corporation gets successfull enough, they even go to massive infrastructure investments (i.e. communications, transportation and power distribution).


        The real difference is: when a corporation gets really big and it is no longer in your best interest to "support" them with your hard earned dollars, you can choose not to. Try that with the government.


        The fact is that neither corporations nor govt is inherently evil. They are both made up of people. Hopefully most of those people are driven by enlightened self interest. It's when the balance falls too much toward either "enlightenment" or self interest that things tend to go all to hell.

        • 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

            • Of course, you could look at it like I do, and if every copy of a CD really is worth 20$, then all the pirates are really wealth creators, just like corps...
              • By that rationale, a perfect copy of a Rembrandt would be worth as much as the original.

                Millions of perfect copies devalue the entire market... that's why RAM prices have steadily and dropped. Were you around when it cost $15 for an individual 256K DRAM chip? now it's +-$25 for 256MB! If RAM was rare and hard to make, it would still be expensive.

                Every copy of a CD ought to cost $9 or so. If you flood the market, however, they end up being worth about $0.

                How the recording industry is still selling CD's is beyond me.
            • " Baah!! There is not a finite amount of money in the country!!! ARGH!!!!"

              Well yes and no.

              No there is not a finite amount of money (they can allways print more right?). Also money can flow in and out of the country.

              The important thing to remember is that the economy grows at the expense of natural resources. In fact economy is nothing more then taking natural resources and turning them into products and services. Even in a pure service model (I get you groceries you pay me $20) natural resources are consumed (I ate, I drove, I wore clothes, I have a house, I shit, I wipe my butt with paper). While some resources are renewable I can think of no resource that is being used at or below the rate of replenishment.

              The so called rising tide argument allways fails to take this simple fact into account. They pretend that money is springing into this universe from some other universe and the economy of the world is growing without consequence. Alas it's not true.

              So on a micro scale it's a zero sum. Since I am not allowed to print my own money I have to convince someone else to give it to me and that someone else now has less money. And on a macro scale it's a zero sum because as the economy grows we have less trees, less oil, less land, less fertile soil, less clean water and less clean air worldwide. Logging, mining etc get shifted around some but worldwide it's an inevitable march downhill.

              There is no such thing as a free lunch.
              • To begin with, this is a complete shift in the discussion, which was: the job of a corp. is to get more money, and the effect of that is that Joe Schmo has less, such that the more money the corps have, the less the people have.

                That, of course, is nonsense.

                Now, onward: You're right! We take out more oil than we put back. Same thing with the other fossil fuels. The solution to this is, of course, to kill enough people that the tide turns back.

                Maybe you have a better solution?

                Natural resources fuel the economy, but they do not equal the economy. Your statement that economic growth has consequences is true, but completely off-point. In fact, that statement has absolutely nothing to do with the 'rising tide' argument. The consequence of a growing economy actually proves the argument FOR the 'rising tide'!
                Yes, you're right. We're burning through resources at quite a rate. That has little to do with whether our economy grows, though , or whether a growing economy creates wealth for all involved. Look at the computer industry. It has created wealth far in excess of the value of the resources it has consumed. It has contributed to the reduction in use of natural resources while increasing the quality of life for those involved and generating new revenue streams for companies that would never have existed. Imagine if Amazon.com were doing its business only in the physical world. Imagine the electric bills alone! Not to mention the waste in wharehoused, unsold books.

                On a micro scale, it's not a zero sum. If you deliver groceries promptly and with skill, I migh trecommend you to others, and because of your demand, you might start charging more for the service. We've just created wealth, i.e. you're using the same resources but getting more money. Maybe if you get popular enough, you might hire me to help! More wealth.

                On a macro scale, it basically works the same way. We're not talking about dollar bills. If you were allowed to print your own money, you'd be decreasing your wealth because the dollar would be worth less. It's not a zero sum game because the economy, while dependant on resources, is not equivalent to them. Your argument, while possibly true, is completely off-point.
                • "Now, onward: You're right! We take out more oil than we put back. Same thing with the other fossil fuels. The solution to this is, of course, to kill enough people that the tide turns back. "

                  Well certainly that's one solution. And in the end it might be the only solution I don't know. Personally I think it won't matter whether we kill the people or the people die out of starvation or whatnot but at the current rate of consumption of natural resources (not just oil but also soil, bacteria etc) you are bound to crash sooner or later.

                  having said that we can certainly try other things first. We could try shrinking the economy and living simpler. I know no american will ever give up their individually wrapped palstic straws or fritos for the long term survival of the planet but maybe if we educate we could convince some people that they can do without them. We could certainly try to be more efficient in our use of materials and of course we could recycle more aggresively. Maybe it won't put us in a positive balance but it would slow the burn rate.

                  Now your examples of groceries and amazon are examples of greater efficiencies (more wealth created with fewer natural resources) and certainly we need to foster those kinds of innovations but those books are still made out of paper and those books still have to be shipped in trucks etc. We should take it to the next step and convert them to pure electronic format and deliver them via the internet. We will never get rid of manufacturing and we probably will never get back to sustainability but like I said we need to slow the burn rate. Eventually we will run out of clean air, clean water, oil, trees, plankton, fish, arable soil or something. Already we are losing fauna and flora at an amazing pace it remains to be seen how long the ecosystem can go on before it crashes catastraphicly.

                  BTW my point is certainly not off-point. My point is exactly this. No discussion of economics is complete without taking the consumption of natural resources into account. Yet I have never ever heard any economist raise these points. They (much like your original post) pretend that money comes into this world from another dimention where there is an infinate amount of it. Everybody can be millionaires whoo hoo!. There is not an infinite amount of it and everybody can't be millionaires. There are not enough natural resources to make everybody a millionaire.
                  • We're consuming bacteria at a faster rate than it's being replenished? Come on, man! Gimme a break here.

                    Your arguments are really flimsy here... giving up Fritos won't help the planet. Ceasing consumption of non-sustenance food items might help a bit, but you're right in that people won't do something that drastic. I don't think you've thought this through very well. What happens to all the people who work in the junkfood industry, and all the people all over the world that get affected by the ripples of its disappearance? Eventually, you bump a whole group of people down into social welfare of some sort, which is hugely wasteful and probably a worse drain on the environment than if they were still working for Frito-Lay (or Frito Shipping, Inc., or 7-11, or its shareholders, including that 80-yr old retired guy who lives off his Frito shares and gets kicked out of his retirement center, or the broker who recommended them before the industry dried up in a matter of months, or all the people who listened to him, etc.). Do you get the point here? As for the straws, I'd rather that than have the guy who just wiped his nose on his hand give me an unwrapped one; poor example selection.

                    If we shrink the economy enough, we could be China! Wait, N. Korea hardly uses any resources at all... there's a perfect model.

                    More efficiency is certainly better, but you can't just do this stuff by fiat. What, should we ban books on paper? Where do you get the money to make sure everyone has an electronic reader? You can't be suggesting that you only get to read if you can afford the proper device... you have to take this stuff out to it's logical end. You have to consider ALL the ramifications, not just the parts that seem to support your opinion.

                    Actually, you're going to have to shift your focus away from the 'environment' altogether; I'll get to that in a second.

                    Run out of plankton? You've got to be joking. Plankton makes up (and this is only a slightly informed guess) like half the biomass on the planet, and a great amount of the total photosynthesis that occurs. If we warm up the oceans, we get MORE plankton, not less. More photosynthesis! More oxygen and less carbon dioxide! There's a downside here?

                    Now, let me skip past eco-catastrophe and come back to that momentarily... I've got to cover the economics thing.

                    If, as you say, efficiency = using fewer resources to achieve the same or better return, than economists talk all the time about consumption of natural resources. Get some economist to talk about International Paper and you'll hear loads of talk about consumption of resources. Talk to any competent Director of Finance in Arizona or south/west Texas or New Mexico or Southern CA and you'll see that water consumption is high on the list of worries.

                    No economist would ever suggest that everyone could be a millionaire. That would make a million effectively the same as zero. No one is saying that there is infinite money, either. What I (and most economists) am saying is that more for me does not necessarily (or even very often) equal less for you. This is why resources!=money. $.03 worth of wood pulp might only be worth slightly more if it's made into toilet paper, but it's worth LOTS more if it's made into a share of eBay stock (BTW, currently at about $53). Resources don't equal money, and consumption of resources doesn't equal economy. You can burn through tons of resources and not be worth much at all (think PG&E) or exactly the opposite (think AOL). Money (and wealth) is a human intellectual construct, and consumption of resources is just a factor, like lots and lots of other factors, and is often not applicable and rarely quantifiable.

                    Now, eco-doom: this planet has already survived a catastrophe humans would be very hard pressed to replicate. There is no danger of the ecosystem disintegrating around us, nor will there ever be unless we decided to nuke the everlasting fuck out of ourselves, and even then it's pretty likely that the planet will straighten out eventually.

                    What you want to be worried about is if people are going to be able to survive. The fact is, we're just organisms like all the rest. We're incredibly successful at adapting and using our surroundings, which is why we aren't stuck on an island somewhere evolving into marsupials to survive. Everything on the planet consumes resources, and usually they consume more than they put back, just like us. People are certainly capable of consuming so much that there isn't enough left to support the population. This is also exactly like other organisms, except that we fill a LOT of ecological niches and we tend to affect the environment across a much much wider range than your average apex predator. Luckily, even basic environmental systems are extremely complex and frequently possessing of a high redundancy level. Really, though, on an environmental level, we aren't too much different from any other apex predator group, and the results of overusing our resources are therefore rather predictable.

                    The thing is, we don't like it when masses of humans start kicking off, because we're possessing of a soul and we're humans and all that. So, we innovate like a motherfucker to keep the race expanding. Incidentally, that's exactly like every other race on the planet. We're just much better at it because we seem to keep coming up with kick-ass solutions, and so we don't have to wait on evolution to save what's left of us.

                    So it's perfectly reasonable to wonder if we're going to expand past our ability to survive, but since we're a lot more like a pride of lions than a hive of bees, we aren't really built to think about 'humanity' on a survival level. It's likely that practically nothing proactive will be done about it on a global scale; we aren't really programmed to care about the pride in Somalia as long as the home range is still bountiful. IMHO, we're going to figure out how to double the lifespan of a human before we start really running out of resources, and THAT is a bigger concern than anything else. Let yourself start projecting what'll happen to the economy if the average worker lives to be 160 and the birthrate stays the same, and you'll REALLY get freaked out.

                    None of this, however, has much of anything to do with the US economy and whether or not +1 for me is -1 for you (which it's not).
                    • " I don't think you've thought this through very well. What happens to all the people who work in the junkfood industry, and all the people all over the world that get affected by the ripples of its disappearance?"

                      I think I have thought it through more then you have. It certainly sounds like I have done more research then you have too. Of course if we shrink the economy more people will be laid off, more people will be poorer thems the breaks. It sucks that we have put ourselves into this situation. Either we keep playing this ponzi game and crash later or we try for a "soft landing" do a control slowing of economic activity. Take for example the individually wrapped plastic straws I talked about. here is a absolutely unneeded bit of stuff. It takes materials to make, ship, store, buy and sell this stuff. For all that the total lifespan of this product is like 10 minutes and then it sits in a dump for the rest of eternity. You tell me why that's a good idea.

                      "Run out of plankton? You've got to be joking. Plankton makes up (and this is only a slightly informed guess) like half the biomass on the planet"

                      I guess you havent read up on the effects of increased ultraviolet radiation on plankton. Also You probably havent read about the changes taking place in the so called "oceanic conveyor belt" and what threat that may pose to the health of the plankton on this planet. I urge you to take some time and study the health of our oceans and atmosphere. As for bacteria what we do our soils destroys healthy bacteria and our soils become lifeless. We then have to mix artificial fertilizers just to make the soild productive, this leads to all kinds of other problems. Again read up on this stuff it's interesting and important.

                      "Now, eco-doom: this planet has already survived a catastrophe humans would be very hard pressed to replicate."

                      Of course this planet has survived many catastrophies. The asteroid that wiped out the dinasours also wiped out most of the life on this planet at the time. But the life itself went on and all that's left of that long period of darkness, cold and silence is three inches of dirt. I am talking about the ability of people to survive.

                      Like you said though we are fairly adaptable we will most likely stay around but in much diminished numbers. As resources get scarce we will first star killing each other to get at them and that will slow the burn rate. As clean water and air become scarce so will a huge number of animals and plants. Food will be extremely expensive and many millions will die from starvation and that will slow the burn rate down. As the the atmosphere and the oceans become unstable many people will die from weather and releated phenomena and that will slow the burn rate.

                      This is exact scenario that I am talking about. Either we slow down now and seek to build a sustainable economic model or we live it up knowing that we will die before we see the final consequences of our actions. I have zero faith in the ability of humans to sacrifice for their great grandchildren let alone sacrifice their plastic straws for some pride of lions or coral (have you read about the coral?). It's matter of ethics really. Greed vs sacrifice. Greed will win out every time.

                      When Freud read the communist manifesto he is rumored to have said "it will never work because people are just not that good". He had great insight into humanity.
        • First of all if you think corporations are efficient it's obvious you have never worked for a big one. Most large corporations I know are horribly inneficient with clueless management.

          "The real difference is: when a corporation gets really big and it is no longer in your best interest to "support" them with your hard earned dollars, you can choose not to."

          Actually maybe you can't. Most corporations have interests in other corporations. So you want to boycott phillip morris but in order to do that you have to stop buying nabisco products too. Who knows all the products that phillip morris has their hands into? Certainly not your average consumer.

          In the end the consumer gets screwed no matter what. All thos charitable contributions, political bribes, dividends etc are all passed on to the consumer. The consumer can't boycott the corporations because the corporation is like the terrorists cells. They are diffuse and spread themselves amongs markets. Look at how many things MS is into? How are you going to boycott MS?
  • 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.
    • 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.

  • Certification (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pieterh ( 196118 ) on Friday October 26, 2001 @08:29AM (#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).
    • O.K. I'll bite, troll.

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

      Because, unlike a bridge, plane, road, or car (for example), the public isn't generally exposed to software against their will, and if they are, can choose to not let it affecf them (i.e. not run it). Software can't fail if it isn't run, and there is nobody forcing you to run a particular piece of software.

      • 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.
    • How bout house builders? Plumbers? Electricians?

    • Re:Certification (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Masem ( 1171 ) on Friday October 26, 2001 @09:04AM (#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

      • "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."

        Isn't recertification for PE's in a new state typically just an administrative exercise, because states have comity arrangements?

        New bar tests are a good idea for lawyers because laws vary from state to state.

        I don't see either situation as a problem at all.
        • New bar tests are a good idea for lawyers because laws vary from state to state

          You need new PE tests because the value of pi changes from state to state, too... Just ask Indiana.

          YES! I KNOW IT'S JUST AN URBAN LEGEND!!!!!
      • 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.

        • They need a sign in Congress that says "Don't feed the lawyers".

        Just as an FYI about 50% of both Congress and Senate are members of the American Bar Association, as were the outgoing President and her husband. Separation of powers, my huge hairy arse.

      • > 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?

        I can already hear the drool from the lips of Rational/Clearcase sales reps from a thousand miles away.

    • "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.
  • 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.
      • > 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.

        Then perhaps we've already won.

        Content companies carry clout because they 0wned Clinton, and politicians like to be seen with movie stars and other celebs as part of their campaign strategies.

        But if you compare the economic impact (both in jobs and and in taxes remitted to the government) from the tech industry with the revenues from the movie industry, you'll realize that the movie and record studios are pretty small fuckin' potatoes.

        Perhaps the money-buys-political-support tradition will work in our favor this time, and crush Rosen and Valenti like the squabbling little insects they are.

    • You think all that "Digital Rights Management" crap is cheap? Of course technology companies don't want this, it's damn expensive! Yes, the costs can be passed on to you, but at the expense of shrinking the market. (Stuff gets costly, less people buy it.)

      It is a big mistake to assume that all of corporate America moves in lockstep. Movie studios don't give a rat's ass how much your computer costs, but HP, Dell, and IBM do.

      SirWired
  • 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.

  • Why, I thought they thought this was their best shot at outlawing Linux?
    • I'd like to see Microsofts comments, and if they are on point I think a letter of thanks to BillG may be in order :-) Nice to see MS on the same side for a change!
      • I can bet you that M$ didn't do this to be a good citizen. If this passed, they would have an ASS load of code to redo to incorperate the new 'standards'. Also, what would happen to them is thair upgraded code failed or some friendly hacker cracked it? Microsoft has had a recored of sh*ty security implmantation.
    • 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.
  • 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.
    • 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.
  • 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"?
    • "So what happens if the industry agrees on a standard "nothing"?"

      That just wouldn't happen. The copyright holders are going to want something while if we're lucky the device manufacturers will be at least partially opposed. The manufacturers won't want to drag their feet to the point where the government steps in and just mandates the copyright holder's position.

      The idea of having a automated copyright enforcement system is just not feasible. Current copyright law is just riddled with exceptions that allow legal copying and other activity even without the copyright holder's permission. Most likely any rights management system will enforce a "get permission for anything" policy backed up by the DMCA which disallows bypassing the system even to exercise otherwise legal rights. Not that Hollings or any of a number of other legislators cares, but all of those exceptions are intended to balance the positions of copyright holders and the rest of the public.

  • 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... :-)
  • 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 !!!
  • Now I have to wait for another bill to pass so I have a legitimate reason (in my parents eyes) to move to Europe.
    • 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?
  • 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!
  • 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.
  • 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
    • Make sure you get word to the Senator that because of his willingness to be a mouthpiece for Disney and friends, you will not be voting for him next term, and that you will do your best to actively lobby against him.

      Then get a bunch of other people to send the same kind of thing to him.
  • 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. :-)

  • 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.

  • 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?)
  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Neutrinos have bad breadth.

Close