[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] SSSCA Hearing on Oct. 25
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] SSSCA Hearing on Oct. 25
- From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs(at)lumbercartel.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 21:29:14 -0700
- In-Reply-To: <200110192052.f9JKqaV20773@zero.monsters.org>
- Organization: ***** SPLORFFF!!! *****
- References: <200110192052.f9JKqaV20773@zero.monsters.org>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Friday 19 October 2001 13:52, you wrote:
> According to NewSorge (www.newforge.com) the Security Systems Standards and
> Certifications bill is going get it's first hearing. Sen. Hollins will testify
> in front os the Senate Commerce Community about his proposed legislation.
>
> For those unfamiliar with the SSSCA. Here is a good quote from slashdot.org to
> summarizes it.
>
> Under the SSSCA, it would be "unlawful to manufacture, import, offer to the
> public, provide or otherwise traffic in any interactive digital device that
> does not include and utilize certified security technologies." And that rules
> out most Free software, right from the start.
Software *might* be safe under the First Amendment.
For real fun, take a look at everything that you see for the next day that
draws electricity and ask yourself if it would be covered.
Now think about the fact that the *components* also be required to
incorporate the chosen technology: as I read the Act, even DRAM chips
would have to.
I'll be bringing this up next week at the JEDEC meeting where we'll be
trying to lock down the specs for DDR III.
--
| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+