the smedley log - suburban scrawl

If it has “security” in the title, it must be important

Via Slashdot I stumbled across a piece on the Digital Content Security Act.

Finally, a law that protects us from dangerous digital content. Oh wait—turns out it’s just another proposal to govern what kind of electronic equipment we can legally purchase.

What about us, the unwitting consumers? (How about a chip for your TV that could automatically turn it off any time you’re about to tune in to a really bad movie?)

Sorry, I just don’t warm up to laws that attempt to curb illegal behavior by prohibiting equipment that has perfectly legitimate uses. And there are all sorts of items you could justify banning if the only qualification was the potential for illegal use.

Stupid, stupid Congress…

oh god, i couldn’t agree more. didn’t i complain and make you read my grokster post awhile ago? i’ve been reading all kinds of steve levy lately- everything he has on drm and its just crazy where everyone’s priorities are right now.

lawyers, judges, courts should get the criminals after the fact- not before. that’s the way our legal system was intended, to presume innocence. legislators think they get around that by writing laws that creatively presume mal intent. it’s disrespectful and antithetical to the founding fathers’ brilliant work.

Smaller governement NOW, PLEASE

It makes this Conservitive heart run cold … and then weep in the arms of the libertarian party.

Absolutely chilling activity in the halls of Congress, where public servants are sworn to uphold the constitution—or am I remembering social studies class incorrectly?

The words “slippery slope” came right into my head as I was writing this. Seriously, think of the direction in which this kind of activity could take us. But I’m sure you’ve both already thought of that.

“stupid congress”
quit repeating yourself.

Sorry—please forgive the redundancy