The year is 2021; corporations run what was formerly known as the United States of America. Waking up, you log onto your computer terminal and begin your morning read of the newspaper. Browsing through "IBM Times" and "Microsoft Journal," you grow sick of the corporate propaganda riddled throughout the "pages." Wishing to view an opinion different from the standard, you attempt to veer off the normal course. Immediately, you receive a message from the local Microsoft Police Corp informing you that you've violated the law, and have been fined $200 dollars. They warn repeated offenses will have the end result of imprisonment and additional fines. Not surprised, you return to reading the "IBM Times," subjected to the regulation of a corporate controlled government. Now, in the mood to listen to your favorite old music you insert a Compact Disk into the computer, and attempt to load a small program you've written to use this old technology. Unfortunately, this CD will not play, and seconds later you hear a knock at the door.

The agent for the Recording Industry of America standing before you looks like he's done this a million times, but you don't feel so comfortable in the handcuffs he's put on you. "The computer warned you, and you didn't listen," he lectures. A "repeated offense," he continues "is grounds for imprisonment." It is no longer legal to listen to the Brittany Spears or Led Zeppelin CD you purchased 20 years ago. In addition, the mere creation of your CD player is grounds for 5 years in prison, and a $200,000 fine.

The stifling of innovation, a longtime defense by Microsoft in their anti-trust trial, is a major concern of those opposed to the SSSCA. Section 105 of the SSSCA states, "The Secretary shall certify technologies that adhere to the security system standards adopted. . . " Under this direction, all software must be reviewed by the Secretary of Commerce before distribution is allowed. It is at the Secretary's discrescion to determine if an application sufficiently adopts the security standard created by a private industry committee. (Section 104 b) Software often has a rapid development, with some products having new versions released multiple times a day. The requirement of review by the Commerce Department would instantly destroy this rapid release cycle. The purpose of a cycle like this is to quickly stomp out bugs in applications, and allow developers quick feedback about their applications. Unfortunately, feedback will be far from quick and the technological revolution quite visible today will cease to exist, caught up in bureaucratic processes. In addition, the private panel may use the opportunity to create a security policy to legally hinder the advancement of technology in favor of gaining market share.

Not only does the SSSCA allow for corporations to determine the new security policy, it offers them exemption from anti-trust laws in accord with section 107. In the past there have been many attempts at allowing an industry to regulate itself, such as the steel industry in the early 20th Century, and more recently, cable and telephone industries. In all instances, after a period of time, the government has stepped in and taken control of the situation, for fear that monopolistic business tactics being used by the companies involved may have led to unfair completion. In fact, a major court case is still being reviewed after 4 years of court battle. The Microsoft anti-trust case has cost taxpayers millions of dollars in the attempt to punish the company for violating government sanctions. In contrast to the stern stand the US's past stance against anti-business practices, the SSSCA allows for legal exemption from anti-trust laws under the banner of security certification discussion (Section 107 c).

In addition, George W. Bush's recent dismissal of the Microsoft breakup and the ratification of laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have caused a large distrust of the government by programmers across the world and the SSSCA is enhancing that further. This fear of government holds strong in the programming community at large and has caused much concern among its more popular proponents. Reactions to the possibility of the SSSCA's ratification have ranged from vocal protest to boycotts of varying degree. Government funded research groups like those at Fermilab or NASA utilize many free softwares to cut costs and improve the quality of their work. The inability to use these applications due to either programming boycott or massive bureaucratic delay will have disastrous effects on these centers of science. The unwillingness of programmers in response to government action will only further hinder the development cycle of technology. This creates a loop of constant degradation in technology, a complete reversal of the SSSCA's supposed intent. Lower quality technology lessens a programmer's ability to perform his chosen profession. Unfortunately, the proponents of the SSSCA are not concerned with any of this.

There exists a large group of programmers known as the Open Source Community. Releasing their software free of charge, these programmers want to help others and to aid in the dissemination of information. Unfortunately for them, they are not paid and often work on their software solely in their free time. In addition, many are very attached to their products, as to many; a computer program can be a work of art. The SSSCA would require members of this community to adapt their art to the whim of a private-industry panel. To violate standards of their own decree would absolutely disgust the programmers whose goal is to aid others by making quality software. An idea proposed by those in favor of this legislation suggest standard libraries, or routines be developed by the industry-panel and government for use in software projects. While this would put the actual implementation of security in the hands of the government, programmers would still be responsible for using these libraries. Complications related to copyright and interoperability would cause many problems. A disagreement with the government in either could prevent the programmer from using the government routines under a moral or ethical standpoint, violating their right to freely voice their beliefs. Another problem exists for those who work on much smaller projects, where a government-created library might be unavailable due to either its newness or obscurity. Without the ability to use those routines, a developer would be in violation of the SSSCA if she wanted to release her application, or other software (Section 103).

In addition to inhibiting a developer from freely expressing his beliefs through an artistic medium (programming) the SSSCA would also require programmers to further monopolize their own free time and cash flow in order to integrate any certified security implementations. By adhering to the law, they agree to the terms of security set fourth by the government, and must spend their time updating software not to add new features or usability, but rather, implementing federally mandated changes. (Section 102) Although the law offers a grandfather clause to programs currently available, new releases of the software would be required to adhere to certified security standards (Section101 b). In addition to their self designated duty of helping people, open source developers would be forced into the labor of securing software all because they have the desire to help anyone who uses technology. Lastly, those with barely the skills necessary to create an application may not be able to implement security regulation into their programs, due to inexperience or lack of knowledge. This has the potential to limit further, technological advancement.

Overall, the inability of a programmer to implement security features, or the conscious decision not to, can result in numerous felony charges to be filed against him or her. In fact, even improper adherence to the standards whether intentional or accidental meet with the same punishments: monetary fines and imprisonment. With government regulation, programmers will be forced to bend to the will of ever changing standards and those who choose not to follow the regulation will be met with fierce punishment. Like many other recent technology laws, the intent will not matter, only the actions taken. In the world of technology those actions can be the exact same, only one could cause millions of dollars in damages, and the other the realization that a computer has a true security vulnerability. Enforcement of the SSSCA does nothing to protect American citizens, but the implementations of the laws have disastrous effects on most everyone, including anyone who uses technology.

First on the near-never ending list of ways the SSSCA will hurt the American public is the realization that it will cause the creation of inferior software. At first the regulation will bring to a halt the creation of some software, as it's developers will protest the passing and enforcement of the SSSCA. Quick to follow the boycotts, development testing will halt as the bureaucratic delays of the certification process delay software releases. After this, those who do not have the time to add security implementations to their application will halt development. Next, the programmers who wish to comply with the SSSCA will halt the addition of new features to their applications and instead work to comply with security standards. Finally, a halt in the open source community will begin to occur, as corporations with cash are able to bring to market applications faster than the developers who are working for free. Now the rapid, fast moving, and rapidly improving technological change will come to a HALT. Nobody benefits from a stagnant industry. As the number of new features and bug-fixes decrease so will the value of the market, as competition will be lost, and quality slashed. The efforts of open source programmers all over will be broken.

The spirit of open source will not be the only thing broken. Despite the SSSCA's purpose of improving security, a policy such as this will horribly break the security of computers and make them much more vulnerable to hackers. Consider a neighborhood where every house used the same type of lock, a type of lock with its specifications available to the public. It's easy to estimate how quickly every house in the neighborhood would be robbed. As soon as one thief figured out how to pick the lock, it would be simple to figure out the rest. Now put that into computer terms. If everyone used the exact same methods of securing their machines, methods set forth by the government, what would it mean if a vulnerability were found in the security standard. Once one is discovered, as there is no such thing as absolute security, ever machine complying with the SSSCA's provisions would be a house in that neighborhood. Easily broken into. Consider another hypothetical situation. VISA decides it does not want to violate the law so it chooses to implement the SSSCA's certified security standards on all of it's Internet accessible machines, in compliance with section 102. After this is done a vulnerability is found, unbeknownst to the company and a malicious hacker decides to exploit this vulnerability. Now he has the credit card numbers, as well as personal information of every VISA customer. VISA is responsible for the stealing of all that information, because they decided to follow the law.

The imagined world of the "IBM Times" and the "Microsoft Police" is not entirely fictional. As time passes and corporations become more involved in the lobbying of laws towards the inhibition of civil rights, those "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" need to be reminded that the governed do not agree with the legislation being snunk underneath the noses of the populace. One such law, the Software Security Standards and Certification Act is being presented to congress right now. Do not allow corporations take the "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" from us, the true rulers of the United States of America. Do not read the "IBM Times." Do not support the United States of America-Online/Time Warner by remaining silent or allowing others to be ignorant of the travesties being played upon us by the greedy.