[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Text of draft Security Systems Standards and Certification Act
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Text of draft Security Systems Standards and Certification Act
- From: Ron Gustavson <rongusss(at)mediaone.net>
- Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 01:35:23 -0400
- References: <323f753221a7.3221a7323f75@gmu.edu> <20010907234718.A1565@cluebot.com>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 11:35:47PM -0400, jerwin@gmu.edu wrote:
> What you should be worried about is Sec. 101, which definitely does
> cover PCs.
>
> > Should they not implement the features demanded in the bill, that would
> > put Linux in violation of section 101, as new versions of the kernel
> > will almost certainly not be "grandfathered in."
>
> Ah, yes. Just saw this. Agreed. "Interactive digital device" covers
> software, including Linux.
I assume motherboards and/or BIOS would be the first target.
Network Attached Storage and thin servers next. Eventually they
get to telephones, copiers and fax machines.
Anybody want to speculate what this will cost the average office?
The text doesn't specify "consumer." Do you think they will try to
back away from professional equipment ala AHRA?
> > You have two choices: rebut my logic and assuage unfounded fears, or
> > propagate this onto slashdot, and stoke the flames of rebellion.
>
> Somehow, I suspect it's already made its way there.
>
> -Declan
--
________NO-∞-DO________