[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: Sen. Hollings plans to introduce DMCA sequel: The SSSCA



On Sun, 9 Sep 2001 12:47:27 EDT, Jeffrey Altman wrote:

>Is this meant to be an add-on to the DCMA to make it easier for
>commercial copyright holders to limit the types of devices that can be
>built, sold, and used?  This could be done by having the laws specify
>the use of standards requiring licensing of technologies that are only
>available on a fee per instance basis.  (This would exclude the use of
>any open source operating system.)
>
>Is this meant to ensure that appropriate technologies are in all
>personal devices (PCs, phones, PDAs, set top boxes, ...) to unsure the
>privacy of the data sent and received by their users?  A worthy goal
>although I doubt I want the government regulating which protocols and
>security standards I can use.

Your typo tells it--to unsure privacy.

>In either case, it seems unrealistic to assume that the government can
>regulate this effectively.  Will the government create their own
>security standard for each protocol, service, application, computing
>architecture, ... or will it simply order the use of standards
>recognized by a group such as the IETF?  If the IETF (or a similar
>group) where will the funding come from?  I'm sure the IETF does not
>want to become a line item in the U.S. budget.

No. They are inviting the biggest fish to build their own aquarium.
The architects will be MS, Intel, IBM, Sony, Toshiba, Disney, AOL, and
so on far from the oversight of standards organizations.

>I asked a computer science freshman to look at this proposed bill and
>here was his reaction"
>
>  "well from a short look, I like the idea behind it.  I think it would
>  be very good if everyone knew when they sent information of any sort
>  that it would be secure.  There are two problems I have with it
>  though.  One, is that I'm trying to think about the real world
>  implications of this bill.  I'm trying to think if it will cause a lot
>  of problems integrating these security measures.  Second, I don't know
>  if it's a good idea to use one standard for security.  It seems to me
>  that once a security standard is made, a few years later, people find
>  out a flaw in it, or processing power is good enough to break it.
>  Having one standard makes it the target to try and break, whereas if
>  there are many different standards, it's less of a risk."
>
>I think that the concerns about end user privacy and identity theft
>will lead the vast majority of the public at large to support bills
>similar to this even if the end result would be a sharp reduction in
>their rights.  Of course, my student also understands that there are
>serious implications that have to be considered.

This is not for end-user privacy, but for the exact opposite. I'd be
surprised if users are allowed anywhere near any apps that will
address the hardware add-ons. These applications will certainly be
licensed through and through for large media organizations only.

They need to maintain a professional/consumer distinction lest they
have to pay the creators what *they* want.

This is for data security against end-users. DRM is all about ending
privacy once and for all. Anonymous reading, viewing, or listening
will be a thing of the past. Read "Licensed to Bill" in the current
Wired mag.

The only good news is the Y2K-like economic bounce when the US has to
upgrade its entire computing infrastructure in--say 2015? 2025?....?


        __________NO-∞-DO__________