Jump to content

Offspring of Echelon?


XenoZohar
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Grayfox

i thought i was the only one... my mind is really to simple to understand legal mumbo jumbo.

layman's translation if you please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem. From what I can tell, it means three things:

1. It essentially makes it illegal to build your own computer.

2. Makes it illegal to upgrade certain parts(like motherboard and hard disc) of so-called "secure" systems.

3. Allows the government to essentially control the Internet, since this law would apply to net servers, as well.

Comon, we need some of the political thinkers of the board to read this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Section 101:

Any interactive digital device (laymans term: electronics) that doesn't have or use certified security technologies that follow current standards (section 104) are illegal to manufacture, import, provide, etc. except if they were sold or owned before the effective date of those standards or regulations or whatnot.

Section 102:

A computer service is going to keep all security measures associated with copyright stuff or other protected stuff under security, and those measures will be "transmitted with integrity".

Section 103:

You can't (1) remove or alter any security technology in any electronics or (2) transmit or otherwise make available to the public any copyrighted material or other protected stuff where a security measure was removed or altered.

"[summary: Personal TV/cable/satellite time-shifting copies normally must be allowed by certified security technologies]"

(laymans terms: I also guess that this could be considered under the said section, because this is what I interpret from it: "Crack"-ing a copyrighted software program or any piece of hardware is illegal and so is releasing it.... But I'm not a lawyer.)

Section 104:

Undefined--"The private sector has 12 months to agree on a (security) standard, or the Secretary of Commerce will step in."

108 is foggy to me, because I don't really know 1201 or 1202 of title 17 is. Penalties might be something to look at:

quote:

Penalties summarized (by Declan):

Criminal penalties apply to violations of sec. 102 or 103(a)(2). That includes the "interactive computer service shall store and transmit" without removal section, and the distribute "any copyrighted material or other protected content where the security measure associated with a certified security technology has been removed or altered."

The
are: "(1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and (2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense." Only someone who violates the law "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" can be convicted.

Civil penalties apply to violations of sec. 101 or 103(a)(1). That includes the section talking about how it's unlawful to make systems without security measures, and how nobody may "remove or alter any certified security technology in an interactive digital device."

The
include injunctions in federal court, actual damages, and statutory damages.

Naturally existing civil and criminal penalties would continue to apply. The No Electronic Theft Act, enacted in December 1997, makes not-for-profit copyright infringement (reaching a certain value) a federal crime.

I don't really see much bad here. Sure, businesses might suffer, but it'll take a big bite out of the black market of the modern age. Not very good at interpreting law and political crap, though, but this is how I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by XenoZohar:

No problem. From what I can tell, it means three things:

1. It essentially makes it illegal to build your own computer.

2. Makes it illegal to upgrade certain parts(like motherboard and hard disc) of so-called "secure" systems.

3. Allows the government to essentially control the Internet, since this law would apply to net servers, as well.

Comon, we need some of the political thinkers of the board to read this!

I don't know about how you're looking at this. I don't see how you wouldn't be able to build your own computer even with this implemented.

All that's going to change is what goes into the motherboard/cpu/hard drive/memory/whatnot. If those already have their security measures up to par, then all should be well.

If you juggle around different interpretations of 103(a-1), and see that it just says "remove or alter" those security techs from that device, then you can still upgrade hardware. You're replacing a device with security measures with a different one with the same measures.

I also don't see anything that hints at the government controlling the internet. I'd like to hear your interpretation.

(Sidenote, I'm horrible at reading legal crap..... )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the section to worry about is 104. The "private sector" has to come up with the standards, or the Secretary of Commerce would step in. Who knows what kind of whacked out standards would be in place with big names like Microsoft and Intel pushing people around. Might be something like limiting the amount of bandwidth that network cards can use, or even limiting the processing power of consumer PC's. See what I mean now? Heck, it might even make it so that Windows would be the only OS one could use, as it would be the most "secure"(laugh with me ). The term technology doesn't just apply to hardware, you know.

Edit: One more thing. The standard might be that only major manufacturers can buy these secure devices, and that WOULD make it illegal to build you own computer.

The controlling the internet part...um...well, I think I did post this really late last night, after playing Deus Ex.

[ 03-06-2002, 16:12: Message edited by: XenoZohar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok what i get out of it is, no one can remove or alter security devices from servers used by ISPs or company intranets. also tampering with public computers that allow access to the net is also prohibited (i.e. schools and libraries)

->According to 47 U.S.C. 230(f), an "interactive computer service" means "any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions."

->The term "interactive digital device" means "any machine, device, product, software, or technology, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine, device, product, software, or technology, that is designed, marketed or used for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving, or copying information in digital form."

with that the Sec. 101 means you cant use any interactive digital device that doesnt have security or alters security on a machine unless its upgrading it. also you wont be able to burn CDs, download mp3, or anything like that

of course if this is set effect, and the ppl dont make the standard, it gives the govt control of the standard which doesnt always mean a good thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try and make something understandable of all that. Do you know that your P3 chips have an ID # that you can inable/disable in BIOS? and that when you cruise around the internet you have an IP # and also if that ID # is inabled then it can be displayed too. Well, what that means that all new electronics will have some kind of tracking ID but this time it will be illegal to disable them. So in other words your actions will be monitored/recorded.

As for building your own PC. Don't worry, you would be able to do it, but with approved parts, that have the security devices build into them, and it will be illegal for you to deactivate those devices (right now you can go into your bios and turn off/on your serial # for your p3 chip, if those proposals become regulations then you wouldn't be able to do that on the new computers, the old ones would still be fine, UNLESS, read that part about how that regulation can be tailored afterwards, well, that means that later on they can even say that your old computer will have to have some kind of security device build into it and acitvated)

I think that's what it says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another link for you. The word appears to be spreading like wildfire accross the net, from what I've seen at some other boards.

Edit: A verbatim quote from the above link, to get some to read the entire thing.

quote:

The SSSCA's scope is breathtakingly broad, forcing technology companies to add support for copy and use restrictions into virtually all future digital technology. This would include not only all software, PCs, hard drives, CD-Rs and other computer peripherals, but also many non-PC technologies like cellular phones, TiVos, set-top boxes, video game consoles, digital watches, CD players, MP3 players, GPS receivers, ATM machines, digital cameras, digital photocopiers, and fax machines. Although existing devices are grandfathered under the statute, all future models of these devices would have to be revised to incorporate federally-mandated technology intended to help Hollywood control how its content may be used by consumers. The SSSCA also applies to anyone who sells or distributes these digital technologies, and to anyone who bypasses or modifies any DRM systems in them. Those who violate the SSSCA would face civil fines and criminal penalties.

And who gets to define the particulars of the DRM systems? According to the SSSCA, Congress will rely on technology companies and content companies to select DRM systems based on criteria set by Congress. If the industries are unable to agree, federal bureaucrats will choose. The public is not invited to participate, nor do the criteria set out in the SSSCA require the preservation or protection of fair use, first sale, the public domain, or any of the other rights reserved for the public by copyright law.


[ 03-06-2002, 18:46: Message edited by: XenoZohar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by XenoZohar:

I think the section to worry about is 104. The "private sector" has to come up with the standards, or the Secretary of Commerce would step in. Who knows what kind of whacked out standards would be in place with big names like Microsoft and Intel pushing people around. Might be something like limiting the amount of bandwidth that network cards can use, or even limiting the processing power of consumer PC's. See what I mean now? Heck, it might even make it so that Windows would be the only OS one could use, as it would be the most "secure"(laugh with me ).

What you're talking about would be a monopoly. The private sector would never do that as a whole. Even if they did, it'd probably be rejected by the Sec. of Commerce.

Personally, I would like to see more security measures enacted. I really would. And that manufacturers did all the main implementing would be nice, so I wouldn't have to handle the trouble of that myself.

quote:

with that the Sec. 101 means you cant use any interactive digital device that doesnt have security or alters security on a machine unless its upgrading it. also you wont be able to burn CDs, download mp3, or anything like that

No it doesn't. MP3/WMA can already contain copyright information and stuff. Some CD Burners and/or MP3 players also have some of that anti-copyright theft stuff. DVD players and VCRs also have that kind of thing.

I hate the idea of Big Brother. But tell me--is someone actually going to care when they find out you go to 3000ad.com three times a day? And if they do care about something you do (like "conspire" with competitors), they can't do a sh** about it.

In my point of view, I doubt that they'll actually ever utilize any ID tracking systems a la Pentium 3. Too many people would cry invasion of privacy. My big stake here is copyright protection of all kinds.

And has anyone actually looked at "the scene" (warez) lately? Safedisk is one of the most attacked protection schemes on the market. It works--until someone finds a way to remove it. (aka "crack" it)

Our best bet if this kind of thing is passed, is to try to sway the "private sector voice" toward lenient schemes. Warez must go, MP3 must stay, "Big Brother" must never come to be, and our freedom to grow and expand should not be hampered. I think that's the general idea out there, and if this thing passes, that's the kind of regulation I'd like to have. The software's already here, and it's getting to the point where it should be commonplace.

This snippet is from Title 2 of that proposal:

quote:

Creates 25-member federal "Computer Security Partnership Council." Funds NIST computer security program at $50 million starting in FY2001, increasing by $10 million a year through FY2006. Funds computer security training program starting at $15 million in FY2001. Creates federal "computer security awards." Requires NIST to encourage P3P and similar privacy standards

P3P is already here. It's already working. Making it common would be nice.

And finally, making security measures like that (or making existing tech better) for other technologies like CD software would be nice.

*choke*

*gasp for air*

*whew*

So, long post..... In conclusion (not really):

I've had enough of the controversy of security policies already... Wouldn't it be great if it was still just "nerds" and AOL users on the internet? It'd make the net soooo much easier.

Looonng post. I think this is one of my longest... Pretty good political post on my end, too.

(Not bad for a 14 year, 364 day old optimistic naive guy with minimal legal knowledge. )

[ 03-06-2002, 21:14: Message edited by: Cmdr Nova ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, no matter what this thing does, it probably won't get anywhere for the sheer fact that it emits Big Brother no matter how you look at it.

I'm probably about to show my ignorance again, but a line in the proposal says, "...and an antitrust exemption is included." If I read that right, then if there were a monopoly-like standard worked out, it wouldn't be challenged...or something. Also, the standards could be agreed on AFTER the bill was passed, so that exemption would still apply, even if those that passed the bill don't like it...or something....I need to stop now. I'm just making myself look more ignorant, probably.

HEY! You political thinkers of the board! Where are you? Where's $iLk and aramike, etc.? Nova and I are probably really screwing up the meaning of this thing! (no offence, Nova. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Wouldn't it be great if it was still just "nerds" and AOL users on the internet? It'd make the net soooo much easier.


Hey, it's still that way! It just has nerds with cd burners and a will to do illegal things...and AOL users? They haven't changed that much over the years. (Trust me, I was one, long ago.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Hellbinder[CE]

You guys just dont get it do you....

This is a bad thing. The reason why freedom is dying in this country is because MOST you dont value it. To think that all the lives Americans gave over the last 200 years are all for nothing. Most of you dont even care and worst yet, you WANT big brother Government to run your Lives. Trust me This is intended to fail in the private sector and have the FED take over. Total loss of freedom of information. You may not see it in the print, but THAT is the intention.

I am trying to figure out at what point the entire world turned into socialistic communists.

[ 03-06-2002, 23:16: Message edited by: Hellbinder ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a 100 years it's going to be just like in one of those sci-fi movies. One world governmet with "ants" working for it and a couple of "terrorist" cells fighting for freedom. I am just glad I won't live to see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy 'Binder,

like Nova said he's only 15,he's been sheltered.( no offense intended, Nova ).By the time he's out here in the real world, and realize just how bad these things are,It'll probably be to late. Once a freedom is lost, It is rarely ever recovered.

When looking at legislature like this you must look at not only what they tell you it's gonna be used for,but also what other broader powers it gives them in utilizing this information, technology, and enforcement powers.

It's not ANYONES business where I surf on the internet or what I look at....period.To do so most certainly violates my right to privacy.

To think that law enforcement wil not abuse this if given the oppotunity is folly.

And will this really protect anybody from the people who are most are most likely to disregard these new laws? I doubt it.like anything else the people who really know what they are doing will find a way around these safeguards.

I saw on the news tonight that Movie attendance was up in 2001,......higher than it has been in 35 years.....so WTF?....who are they protecting?

How many of you are gonna be standin' in line waiting for that "personal" chip to be implanted that's gonna be able to tell exactly where you are , keep track of your finances and everything else,....just because it's "KEWL"?

those days are coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sigh of relief* I thought I was the only one who thought this after reading Nova's posts.

quote:

A person is smart. People are stupid. --Tommy Lee Jones, Men in Black

People are cattle. Pure and simple. Many stray from the herd, but the majority of the herd is led by the herders (aka, the government, popular opinion, etc.), because it's ingrained into the system of life in this country. It's the nature of popularity. Nobody admits it, but everyone is affected by the herders, even those of us who can SEE that it's happening. We just choose to resist it. Yet we are ridiculed and critisized for it because it's "uNkEwL", as Stormshadow said. There's also an odd double standard about it too. Things that are popular are seen as good, but things that are good aren't always popular. Then again, just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's bad. However, I don't believe hope is completely lost. Enough people are smart enough, I think, to kill this thing before it reaches the point where bad things can happen and Echelon is reborn.

You know, I'm tired, and I just depressed myself.

Anyway, I'm glad someone piped up about what is bad about this thing. Thanks HB and SS. NEXT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What this is talking about is encryption/decryption devices to protect copyrights. What it implies is something much more sinister.

On the surface, this is the swatter for the Napster fly. They are talking about either some kind of dongle or a built-in device that has firmware on it to decode legal copies of digital copyrighted materials (MP3, CD-ROM, etc.) You would probably have to provide a key to unlock the content, but without the device you can't unscramble anything that you download (if the device is a PC -- it can be a CD-player in your car, at home, etc). No more dubbing machines. Imagine having to buy separate copies of CDs for your car and home because of different "security devices" in them.

On the more sinister level, they are talking about requiring a device in a computer that would be illegal to remove on your own. All inbound and outbound traffic will funnel through this device. If you can't remove it, and you can't build a device that doesn't have it, then the government (who will control the keys) will be able to monitor all traffic to and from your computers, and ultimately, control the internet.

Eventually, it will become the V-Chip for the PC, with the government controlling the switch. They will be able to shut down any site by disconnecting the keys at your computer. The clause about older devices not subject to the act is irrelevant -- machines will become obsolete so quickly that people will be turning over the old equipment without giving it a second thought. In 3 to 5 years after enactment, you'll want a new PC anyway with the latest stuff.

It's a brave new world out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

In a 100 years it's going to be just like in one of those sci-fi movies. One world governmet with "ants" working for it and a couple of "terrorist" cells fighting for freedom. I am just glad I won't live to see that.

100 yrs? id say sooner, like 2050 or less, cause the needs of the ppl arent getting met, i think civil war might ensue, and then with every nation america has f***ed over or beaten (pretty much the whole world), jumpin in tryin to get a peace

Nova may only be 15, but the younger eyes might see what older ppl might not see, i myself am 19, been in the US Army basic combat training (ELSed to take care of mother) and still belive america isnt as good as is made up to be. we technically have no freedom, if more of an illuson of freedom (watch me have FBI at my door, damn Echelon)

hellbinder, i feel what u said

and XenoZohar the public isnt cattle, they are sheeple

i think iv said enough in this post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, that kind of things always make me think about the DeusEx story/context....

quote:

A person is smart. People are stupid. --Tommy Lee Jones, Men in Black

Can't be more true than that... that's how stupid politicians get elected year after year...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Fox__Trot

I read about 1/4th of the posts and have to say WTF standards on the net? ok i posted a sentince and used another to say I posted a sentince need to get 5k posts later folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...