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

[Scott A Crosby <crosby(at)qwes.math.cmu.edu>]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Richard Hartman wrote:

> If I buy a new answering machine and it doesn't offer
> me the full security that is require by law, I should
> have standing.  As should anybody else who buys that
> new answering machine.  It would be a class-action suit
> based upon non-compliance with the law, depriving me
> (and others) of the security to which I am entitled by law.
>

Define 'full security that is required by law', cause it seems to be
unstated in the law as given.. And there's probably a lot of wiggle room.

For example, the 'secret security code' (a 2 digit number) on an answering
machine (20 codes max) might be declared to be sufficient security to
protect your messages. (And as a bonus, you could sue anyone who did
'break' this scheme under the DMCA for violating your copyrighted memo's
to yourself!)

At the same time, any computer running linux is defined to be 'insecure',
cause it ain't subject to digital controls. Equivalently, any computer not
running trusted windows on trusted PC hardware is defined to be insecure,
cause, though it will be subject to viruses and worms, it won't be subject
to having the built-in digital control bypassed.

So much wiggle room.. Most likely lawsuits to try for 'full enforcement'
to show the stupidity would be laughed at and ignored for silliness, yet
the real dangerous parts, the digital control parts, would be upheld.

Maybe something along the lines that DVD-RAM burners are 'insecure' cause
they don't let you make your own 'secure' [CSS-encoded] DVD-RAM's, and
they *have to* sell DVD-RAM blanks that can be CSS-encoded? :)

Get the people going for the law instead go against the law.


Scott