Ed Felten has this interesting essay about a technology specified in the Sensenbrenner/Conyers “analog hole” bill. This legislation would require consumer electronics makers to equip devices capable of receiving an analog signal with anti-copying technology.
There are two such technologies specified in the bill, CGMS-A and VEIL. CGMS-A is well-known but Professor Felten wanted to learn a little more about VEIL. So, he contacted the company that sells it and was told that he had to pay $10,000 to get a copy and that he was forbidden to disclose it to anybody.
VEIL is mandatory for gear makers, and Professor Felten (who was instrumental in uncovering the Sony rootkit technology) wants to know more about its impact. But no dice. He raises some very interesting questions about whether the government should be mandating technology that is obscured from expert view.
The details of this technology are important for evaluating this bill. How much would the proposed law increase the cost of televisions? How much would it limit the future development of TV technology? How likely is the technology to mistakenly block authorized copying? How adaptable is the technology to the future? All of these questions are important in debating the bill. And none of them can be answered if the technology part of the bill is secret. Which brings us to the most interesting question of all: Are the members of Congress themselves, and their staffers, allowed to see the spec and talk about it openly? Are they allowed to consult experts for advice? Or are the full contents of this bill secret even from the lawmakers who are considering it?
Cynthia Brumfield at 8:26 AM|Comments(0)
Blogs We Read
