Re: [dvd-discuss] SSSCA Hearing on Oct. 25

["D. C. Sessions" <dcs(at)lumbercartel.com>]

On Monday 22 October 2001 12:57, you wrote:

> like most of the recent demands of the copyright industry this is also
> impossible.  It violates the first law of computer security.
> 
> "There is no security if there is not physical security."
> 
> They want to require security in the CPE (customer premise equipment) --
> but this (as the cable box cracks show) is clearly impossible.  If we
> allows laws to enforce the uncrackability of all CPE (not just
> first-access/first-sale CPE, again cable boxes), the enforcement issue
> will be untenably large, and the need to invasion of privacy, and
> restrictions on speech intolerable.
> 
> After that comes the the backlash, and this will make Napster look like
> nothing...

If this sneaks into law without the electronics industry noticing (and
that's quite possible) you ain't seen nothing yet.  Read the law
carefully and think in terms of its applicability to DRAM, flash, CPU,
and even low-level logic chips.  ("transmits, stores, retrieves, ... digital
... components ...")

This sucker applies not only to systems but to any part of a system.
Which means that it applies to the freaking pacemaker control chip
in a patient's chest, the brakelight controller in your car, etc.  Now
try to imagine a DRAM with DRM built in.

Yesterday I gave the chairman of JEDEC a head's-up on this, along
with representatives from all of the major DRAM manufacturers, Intel,
AMD, and a few other companies nobody has ever heard of.  What
will probably remain after all of the loopholes are built in will be so
leaky that it will be completely useless for Hollywierd's purposes, but
quite possibly a major PITA anyway.

Y'all have fun.


-- 
| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+