Re: [dvd-discuss] Text of draft Security Systems Standards andCertification Act

[jerwin(at)gmu.edu]

----- Original Message -----
From: lists@politechbot.com
Date: Friday, September 7, 2001 9:45 pm
Subject: [dvd-discuss] Text of draft Security Systems Standards and 
Certification Act

> 
> ----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> ---
> --
> 
> From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
> Subject: FC: Text of draft Security Systems Standards and 
> Certification Act
> To: politech@politechbot.com
> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 21:24:51 -0400
> 
> Wired News article on SSSCA:
> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46655,00.html
> 
> ---
> 
> http://www.politechbot.com/docs/hollings.090701.html
> 
>    Text of Security Systems Standards and Certification Act
Also known as the closed source subsidation act of 2001... 
My reasoning: with low level (kernel...) access, it is possible to 
extract the "plaintext" of any copyrighted media, thus turning a 
general purpose PC into a piracy machine... (and violating section 102) 
of the act). 
Should Cox, Torvalds, etc agree to change Linux so that certain 
features were not accessible to any hacker with brains, that would 
essentially violate the GPL-- and other informal elements of the hacker 
ethic, as well.
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."
Should certain individuals cut off US contacts-- AC stays in the UK, LT 
goes back to Finland, etc, it will still be a violation of section 101 
to "import" the kernel back into the US.


Jeremy

You have two choices: rebut my logic and assuage unfounded fears, or 
propagate this onto slashdot, and stoke the flames of rebellion.