Senator Fritz Hollings (Democrat, South Carolina) attempted to introduce the Security Systems Standards and Certification Act (SSSCA), a superset of the DMCA.  The SSSCA specifies that “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 are approved by the Secretary of Commerce and serve to protect copyright.  The SSSCA defines an “interactive digital device” as “any machine, device, product, software, or technology, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine, device, product, software, or technology, that is designed, marketed or used for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, storing, retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving, or copying information in digital form.” [1].  This means that after the passage of the SSSCA, no one can legally create, distribute or sell items – potentially including amateur radio transceivers [8], answering machines, calculators, cameras, cellular phones, digital thermometers, digital watches, garage openers, palm pilots, and personal computers [13] under some interpretations of the SSSCA – that do not utilize certified security mechanisms and enable copyright protection. 

The implications of the SSSCA are also a superset of those of the DMCA.  First, while the DMCA criminalizes the circumvention of copyright protection technologies, the SSSCA will force consumers to buy only “interactive digital devices” with certified and enabled copyright protection.  Hence, “The SSSCA and existing law work hand in hand to steer the market toward using only computer systems where copy protection is enabled,” reports Wired News [7].  I cannot imagine that consumer rights advocates will take to the idea of buyers being forced to purchase only certain types of digital devices.  Second, unless all digital devices are connected to some sort of network, all digital devices will need to know how to enable copyright protection as a standard, thereby helping pirates focus their efforts [19]; if the mechanisms supporting the standard were to be discovered (a likely possibility), SSSCA’s entire effort would be doomed.  Third, open source software has become prominent; the Linux operating system serves as a prime example.  It is not clear who should be authorized to ensure that open source software conforms to the SSSCA.  One might think that the distributors of open source software is the obvious answer; however distributors are not necessarily the developers and accordingly may not have the expertise to ensure compliance.  Similarly, open source protocols have also become quite prominent, with Gnutella serving as a prime example.   It is not clear whether the SSSCA’s definition of “interactive digital devices” should be interpreted to include open source protocols.  Also, no one owns open source protocols; hence, it is not clear who should be responsible for ensuring compliance of open source protocols to the SSSCA.  Fourth, the SSSCA is going be disastrous for academia and the research community.  Faculty and students alike create devices and write software that are designed or used for “storing retrieving, processing, performing, transmitting, receiving, or copying information in digital form” for academic and educational purposes.   I cannot imagine how the SSSCA will be enforced without shutting down computer science and engineering departments [13].  Finally, the SSSCA is upsetting the balance between a copyright owner’s right with consumer rights and public interest that traditional copyright lawmakers worked so hard to establish.