Forwarded from: Richard Forno <rfornoat_private> Not only is SSSCA the latest piece of looney-land legislation, but it's practically unenforceable, IMO. Besides that, two things stand out in my mind: Sec 104(b)(1)(a) doesn't make it clear who can be considered a "copyright owner" - but given that it is mentioned with "device manufacturers" it implies only the big guns of copyright ownership such as software, movie, publishing and music entities that rake in the billions of dollars a year. > (1) IN GENERAL. -- The Secretary shall make a determination, nor > more than 12 months after the date of enactment of the Act, as to > whether -- (A) representatives of interactive digital device > manufacturers and representatives of copyright owners have reached > agreement on security system standards for use in interactive > digital devices; and I write articles and have 2 books out, one of which I own the copyright to and determine how/when it will be released. Does that mean I am excluded from being a "representative of copyright owners" in this law? Incidentially, as a copyright holder and author, we have a September statement regarding this general issue on our website, particularly involving DRM and why we've released our E-book the way we have. (http://www.infowarrior.org/dmca.html) Not to mention, Sec. 202 is nothing more than creating yet ANOTHER IT security related council within the bueaucracy. We have the CIAO, Bush's new Cybersecurity Council, this proposed one, and the slew of other traditional INFOSEC organizations at GSA, NIST, DoD, NIPC, DOE, and more. Did anyone else notice that Title I is the contoversial part, while Title II is a rather benign, feel-good government program part? I bet it will be submitted with the caeat "if you approve Title II you must approve Title I" to get it passed in the Senate. > SEC. 202. COMPUTER SECURITY PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL. > > (a) ESTABLISHMENT. -- The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation > with the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee > established by Executive Order No. 13035 of February 11, 1997 (62 > F.R. 7231), shall establish a 25-member Computer Security > Partnership Council the membership of which shall be drawn from > Federal, State, and local governments, universities, and > businesses. > > (b) PURPOSES. -- The purpose of the Council is to collect and > share information about, and to increase public awareness of, > information security practices and programs, threats to > information security, and responses to those threats. > > (c) STUDY. -- Within 12 months after the date of enactment of the > Act, the Council shall publish a report which evaluates and > describes areas of computer security research and development that > are not adequately developed or funded. > Yet another proposal (Title II) that means well but will most likely be as ineffective as previous ideas. Folks are much more computer savvy and interested in this stuff than they were in the 90s....it's going to be much more difficult ( I hope!) for such a proposal to be passed. Rick Forno infowarrior.org - ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org To unsubscribe email majordomoat_private with 'unsubscribe isn' in the BODY of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Sep 11 2001 - 01:58:08 PDT