<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with sssca</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/sssca</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'sssca' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2001 05:24:53 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2001 05:24:53 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/13205/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.wired.com/news/mp3/0,1285,49188-2,00.html"&gt;Jack Valenti predicts that Congress will require copy-protection controls in nearly all consumer electronic devices and PCs. &lt;/a&gt; ... Almost laughable if it weren&apos;t for the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA).  On hold until Congress is done with spending measures and work related to Sept. 11, it creates new federal felonies, punishable by five years in prison and fines of up to $500,000. Anyone who distributes copyrighted material with &quot;security measures&quot; disabled or has a network-attached computer that disables copy protection would be covered.  
 </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.13205</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2001 05:24:53 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>jackvalenti</category>
		<category>politics</category>
		<category>riaa</category>
		<category>sssca</category>
		<dc:creator>magullo</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/9973/</link>
		<description> Have you heard about the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46655,00.html&quot; title=&quot;Security Systems Standards and Certification Act&quot;&gt;SSSCA&lt;/a&gt;? It is the sequel to the universally-reviled Digital Millenium Copyright Act and is 1000 times more heinous. It would require that any device even remotely capable of transmitting digital data contain security hardware approved by the US Department of Commerce. I can&apos;t say I have ever heard of anything more ridiculous. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.politechbot.com/docs/hollings.090701.html&quot;&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is a draft of the bill.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.9973</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Sep 2001 22:35:10 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>copyright</category>
		<category>data</category>
		<category>digital</category>
		<category>digitalmilleniumcopyrightact</category>
		<category>sssca</category>
		<dc:creator>donkeymon</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


