[ale] SSSCA rears its (ugly) head once more

[Adrin]

Wooohooo    All the more reason to keep that 40meg Drive
now.   I can get my $100.00 bucks back

Adrin


-----Original Message-----
From: Greg [mailto:runman at telocity.com]
To: ale at ale.org
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 11:23 AM
To: mgm at atsga.com; ttlchaos at randomc.com; ALE
Subject: RE: [ale] SSSCA rears its (ugly) head once more

Why not out-source it to MS and make it a new "feature" of
.NET ?  Besides,
what's to copy ? Since music CD's now cannot be copied ?...
well, there was
that pesky lady in LA (Louisiana , not Los Angeles or Lower
Alabama) who
sued Target and won for selling here one of those
new-fangled anti-copy
CD's. oops, I just recalled that someone told me the new MS
Media Player
won't do copying..... dang, late again on the great ideas...

As for the idea of Mr. Millson's ... will there be a
grandfather clause for
all of the old hard drives ?... it might just cause a run on
them...people
paying more for a 500 MG hard drive than a 40 GB.... If so I
guess then I
need to brush up on my MAOD...Massive Array of Old Drives
technology... I
guess then my office will have stacks of drives piled up and
connected like
those pictures of the old submarines (circa 1930's)  with
the batteries
connected - <apologies to RAID types>...


Greg Canter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Millson [mailto:mgm at atsga.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 7:04 AM
> To: ttlchaos at randomc.com; ALE
> Subject: RE: [ale] SSSCA rears its (ugly) head once more
>
>
> Maybe they will set up those huts like they have for
vehicle emmissions
> testing. We could load up our computers and drive to one
of those huts to
> have our hard drives tested. Then we could mail in the
certificate we get
> from the hut and get a decal that we can afix to the case
of our
> computer so
> people will know we are law abiding citizens. Probably
they will
> simplify it
> by only requiring it on an odd/even year basis depending
on when the hard
> drive was manufactured.
>
> Mike ;-)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Webb [mailto:ttlchaos at randomc.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 6:54 PM
> To: ale at ale.org
> Subject: Re: [ale] SSSCA rears its (ugly) head once more
>
>
> On Friday 01 March 2002 01:51 pm, you wrote:
> > If you haven't heard of it, the SSSCA (Security Systems
Standards
> > Certification Act) would mandate that all new hard
drives contain an
> > as-yet-undecided copy-protection scheme. Buying or
selling a new drive
> > which was not so crippled would be a crime.  It  would
also be a crime
> > to tamper with the copy-protection hardware or software
on a disk drive.
> > Up to a half-million dollar fine or five years in jail
for the first
> > offfense. This ain't law yet, but the time to act is
now.
>
> Who the hell is going to know if you tamper with it, or is
there also some
> kind of provision for monitoring my hard drive...?  Will
there be required
> yearly testings to verify that your hard drive is still
> untampered?  How can
> they expect to enforce such stupidity?
>
>
> -E.
>
> ---
> This message has been sent through the ALE general
discussion list.
> See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info.
> Problems should be
> sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
>
>
>
> ---
> This message has been sent through the ALE general
discussion list.
> See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info.
> Problems should be
> sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
>
>
>


---
This message has been sent through the ALE general
discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info.
Problems should be
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.


---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.