Freedom to Tinker – January 23, 2006:

The bill would require almost all analog video devices to implement two technologies called CGMS-A and VEIL. CGMS-A is reasonably well known, but the VEIL content protection technology is relatively new. I wanted to learn more about it.

So I emailed the company that sells VEIL and asked for a copy of the specification. I figured I would be able to get it. After all, the bill would make compliance with the VEIL spec mandatory — the spec would in effect be part of the law. Surely, I thought, they’re not proposing passing a secret law. Surely they’re not going to say that the citizenry isn’t allowed to know what’s in the law that Congress is considering. We’re talking about television here, not national security.

After some discussion, the company helpfully explained that I could get the spec, if I first signed their license agreement. The agreement requires me (a) to pay them $10,000, and (b) to promise not to talk to anybody about what is in the spec.

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?



  1. garym says:

    another case of our lawmakers in the pockets of corporate America.

    Vote the bums out!

  2. Improbus says:

    I have said it before and I will say it again. We have the best politicians money and buy. The best we can hope for is that the terra-ists nuke D.C during the state of the union address. Take out the politico’s AND the lobbyists. Sorry to sound so harsh but I really can’t stand politicians anymore.

  3. gquaglia says:

    “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?”

    Why would a congressman be interested in such details. The only thing he or she cares about is how much payola are getting to vote for it. And that goes for Republicans and Democrates, because I’m sure some idolog will chime in and say this is because of Republicans only.

  4. Smith says:

    I have very little trust in our elected politicians when it comes to representing OUR interests vs RIAA’s or MPAA’s. But …

    … I can find absolutely no reference to this bill on Sensenbrenner’s website. Sorry, but I require a bit more proof than some blogger’s comments before I start blasting away. I prefer to direct my anger at actions, not fabrications. Now if someone can point me to more substantial proof, then I would be more than happy to vent my spleen.

  5. Mister Mustard says:

    >>I can find absolutely no reference to this bill on Sensenbrenner’s
    >>website.

    Heh heh heh. If I were Sensenbrenner, I wouldn’t put any references to this abomination on my web site either. You don’t think those guys got where they are by being HONEST, do you??

  6. Smith says:

    Thanks, Steve. The reference you provided included the bill number, which was completely absent in the original article and the linked PDF file.

    Words fail me. Chastize me if you want, but I find this much more disturbing than NSA wiretaps. Wiretaps are more of an intellectual or philosophical issue for everyone posting here; after all, none of us actually expect our phones to tapped, and if they were, none of us are involved in terrorist activity.

    But this– this takes an activity we all took for granted and makes it illegal. It makes us criminals for converting our VHS tapes onto DVDs . It cripples our hardware and software. It makes our computers instruments of the state.

    Damn, why don’t they just cut to the chase and install video cameras on every monitor with a direct feed to the local police office, Homeland Security, RIAA, and MPAA?

  7. Kevin says:

    I’m just a bill
    yes I’m only a bill
    And I’m sitting here on capital hill….

  8. Pat says:

    I tried reading through the “Digital Transition Content Security Act” yesterday. I couldn’t understand much except that if you own an analog TV, VCR, or other device, you may only use a digital converter that conforms to certain standards. Or go to jail. Unless you didn’t know better, in which case the judge may let you off with a stern warning.

    I think that means you may not build your own digital / analog converter to translate digital TV signals to your soon to be antique analog TV. Or something like that.

    Darn that was a hard read.

  9. Janey James says:

    The letters VEIL rearranged make EVIL..

  10. GregAllen says:

    I’m curious… how much money this company donate to congressmen and which ones?

    These kind of sweetheart deals never come out of no where, do they?

  11. BL says:

    We all watch too much TV, and we’d be better off if the government made it more difficult to watch any TV. At a minimum, we’d all gain 25 IQ points.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 9326 access attempts in the last 7 days.