Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: SSSCA

  1. April 21st, 2002, 07:50 PM #1
    rcgreen
    rcgreen is offline
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716

    Thumbs up SSSCA

    (a) IN GENERAL.--It is unlawful to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any interactive digital device that does not include and utilize certified security technologies that adhere to the security systems standards adopted under section 104.

    This is a short quote from the much-discussed
    proposed legislation apparently being considered
    by Senator Hollings.
    I found an intelligent letter by tech author
    Rod Smith, sent to Sen. Hollings.

    Rod Smiths letter to Sen. Hollings on SSSCA

    It pays to know the details of these controversies
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
  2. April 21st, 2002, 09:54 PM #2
    Tedob1
    Tedob1 is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,785
    Nice post!

    how many ways are they going to try and pass this legislation?

    I sure hope someones keeping a database on the un-american activities of our so called 'representatives'. It would be nice to look it over at election time.

    So they want each and every one of us to pay more for every electronic item we buy along with paying more taxes to support the larger government that will be necessary to give this ‘free’ protection to the obscene profits of the entertainment industry.

    From hollings home page:

    Senator Hollings has long been recognized as one of Washington's most committed and vocal deficit hawks. He has argued for over two decades that the federal government must balance its budget and reduce the national debt.

    Maybe Ted Stevens recognizes this in fritz, but I fail to see it

    From Stevens home page:

    Senator Ted Stevens supported the first round of NATO expansion. Contact the Senator and let him know that his continued support is needed.

    Uuuhhh! Excuse me. Isn’t the purpose of nato to protect north atlantic countries from the soviet union. Has Anyone told this dim bulb there is no soviet union.

    NATO currently costs American taxpayers more than $90 billion annually.

    This man has no regard for the American taxpayer


    from lp.org:
    the federal government may have a legitimate role in protecting copyrighted material, that role does not extend to acting as a technology rent-a-cop to protect the profits of huge entertainment corporations like Disney, Sony, and DreamWorks
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Forum Rules