To understand what's happening here, it's going to be necessary to wade through the acronym swamps. And as this quagmire is even more treacherous than the ones we've trudged through before, I hope you will forgive me if I make a few mistakes on what some of these acronyms stand for. I may have used up all my acronym-deciphering brain cells in dealing with UCITA (Undermine Customers of Information Technology Act) for so long.

Congress dealt the first body blow to fair use, not to mention freedom of speech and the rest of the Bill of Rights, when content owners persuaded it to pass the DMCA (Dictatorial Measures Constitutional Amendment) in 1999. But media corporate lawyers soon grew bored with the powers the DMCA gave them to squelch academic research or jail the occasional Russian programmer, and they began pushing Congress for something more. Willing politicians responded with what last year was called the SSSCA (Some Senators Sellout Cheap Act), a bill that would mandate hardwired copy protection technology in all devices capable of playing different types of content. While that bill was never formally introduced, its sponsors tweaked it a bit and then did formally introduce it this year as the CBDTPA (Completely Ban Digital Technology Progress Act).

The SSSCA and CBDTPA seemed so outrageous that it was hard to take them seriously. Few observers think the CBDTPA has any chance to actually be enacted as law, but it may have served the purpose the movie and music industries intended. It has forced high tech to the bargaining table.

Naturally, computer hardware and software vendors aren't too crazy about the idea of the government forcing technology down their throats, particularly if it's technology designed in Hollywood. This has led to some rather absurd strange-bedfellows phenomena, such as Gateway Computers proclaiming itself the champion of consumer rights in opposing the CBDTPA. Note to Ted Waitt: Until Gateway renounces the Hill vs. Gateway court decision, which allowed Gateway to mislabel the components of computers it sold, it is the last company that can claim to be on the side of consumers.

[ ... ]

"Essentially what Congress has said is you private industries go off into this little room and then come back and tell us what consumers' digital rights are supposed to be," says Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, one of the few valiantly trying to represent consumer interests in the BPDG process. "Last time I looked, that's not the way it's supposed to work."

Slashdot | Your Rights Online - Jumping In On The Lessig / Adkinson Copyright Debate.

An Anonymous Coward writes: --- "LawMeme has an excellent response to William F. Adkinson's critique of Larry Lessig's ideas on copyright reform. What I found most interesting about the article though, was the link to this paper by Ernest Miller (of Yale's Information Society Project) and Joan Feigenbaum (editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cryptography) that says we should take the copy out of copyright."

Yahoo News UK - Media companies demand ID numbers for CDs and DVDs.

Every CD or DVD disc manufactured in the European Union would have to carry a unique code if proposals by media representation groups are adopted in the EU Enforcement Directive.

[ ... ]

To back up their demands, the media groups claim that counterfeiting and piracy of copyrighted works "feeds a growing black economy in which criminal networks use piracy to fund other activities such as drug dealing, arms trading, money laundering and terrorism."

Slashdot | Your Rights Online - Unique ID Codes for CD / DVD Manufacturers.

ACLU - December 4, 2001: Letter to House Urging Opposition to H.R. 3129, "The Customs Border Security Act of 2001". RE: Vote NO on H.R. 3129, "The Customs Border Security Act of 2001"

[ ... ]

Section 144, "Border search authority for certain contraband in outgoing mail," would allow the U.S. Customs Service to open outbound international mail without a warrant if they have reasonable cause to suspect the mail contains certain contraband. Under current law, the Customs Service is empowered to search, without a warrant, inbound mail handled by the United States Postal Service and packages and letters handled by private carriers such as Federal Express and the United Parcel Service.

Section 144 would allow Customs officials to open sealed, outbound international mail without a warrant, without probable cause, and without any judicial review at all. People in the United States have an expectation of privacy in the mail they send to friends, family, or business associates abroad. The Customs Service's interest in confiscating illegal weapons' shipments, drugs or other contraband is adequately protected by its ability to secure a search warrant when it has probable cause. Short of an emergency, postal officials can always hold a package while they wait for a court to issue a warrant.

Conflict News from Wired News - Act Would OK Snail Mail Searches.

Three years later, the Postal Service's lobbyists are fighting for Americans' privacy rights -- and opposing a bill in Congress that would allow U.S. Customs agents to open any internationally-mailed letter or parcel for almost any reason.

So far, the Postal Service has had little luck: On Wednesday, the U.S. House of "Representatives" approved the new surveillance powers by a 327 to 101 vote. The bill, titled the Customs Border Security Act, says that incoming or outgoing mail can be searched at the border "without a search warrant."

[ ... ]

Under current law, it is already legal for Customs agents to open packages they deem to be suspicious.

[ ... ]

Even critics of the Postal Service say the agency has -- at least in this particular legislative tussle -- been sticking up for privacy rights.

"While I have been publicly critical of the U.S. Postal Service for their poor overall record on privacy, I will admit that they have been consistent and resolute in their adherence to our Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless searches," says Brad Jansen, deputy director of the Center for Technology Policy at the Free Congress Foundation.

[ ... ]

Last December, the ACLU sent a letter to Congress saying that: "People in the United States have an expectation of privacy in the mail they send to friends, family or business associates abroad. The Customs Service's interest in confiscating illegal weapons' shipments, drugs or other contraband is adequately protected by its ability to secure a search warrant when it has probable cause."

In the Senate, a similar bill with identical mail-opening language is waiting for a floor vote, which is likely to happen as early as this week.

Democratic senators Jon Corzine (New Jersey) and Dianne Feinstein (California) are expected to introduce amendments to delete the mail-surveillance sections.

Other opposition to the mail-surveillance proposals comes from industry groups. The Direct Marketing Association says "this would be the first time since Ben Franklin created the Postal Service that seizure and searches, without warrants, of outbound international mail would be allowed."