Re: V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets

[tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)]

At 2:07 PM 2/10/96, "A. Padgett Peterson, P.E. Information Security"
<PADGETT@hobbe wrote:
>Tim rites:
>>The viewer sets her preferences: a 5-5-5 would let everything through, etc.
>>The developer of the chip claimed he could mass produce the chip for a buck,
>>and this may be where all those estimates of "$1-2 per set" have come from.
>
>Am in favor of this since it puts the control in the hands of the property
>owner. One question would be "how often is the V-rating code transmitted ?"
>(are the kiddies protected from channel-surfing ?) Do suspect that the $1-$2
>cost could be met *at the manufacturing level*.

This is what I said, that maybe the _chips_ could be made for $1-2, but
integrating them into systems (VCRs, t.v.s,  tuner cards for computes--did
you think we'd let Little Johnny evade the V-Chip by using one of those
tuner cards?) will likely cost 20-40x more, based on the usual cost
factors.

The Canadian V-Chip prototype was shown sending out V-Chip codes
"frequently" (seconds or faster), so Little Johnny might see a flash of
thoughtcrime, but not much more.


>Do also see the need for regulation to put it in. It was required for UHF
>channels else no one would try to build one. I am also thankful that is was

The whole "mandatory UHF" thing was utter nonsense from the gitgo. In
nearly all commercial markets (big cities) there are but a few UHF channels
being used, and in most places none are being used. Meanwhile, unused VHF
spectrum exists.

As someone else posted recently, the "market" solution gave us
"cable-ready" sets and VCRs without government/FCC regulation.

>required for closed-captioning even though my TVs are not new enough (have
>a $99 discount-house box on the TV in the family room. Makes many shows

Well there you have it. Many of the poor clearly are not buying new sets
that have closed-captioning. Meanwhile, we all pay for it when we buy new
sets and VCRs. A hidden tax, that does not benefit those in need. (I'm not
a tax strategist, and consider taxes to be theft, but if I were to design
such a tax, I'd just steal the money "fair and square" and then pay the
$100 or whatever to the deaf--excuse me, "the alternately soundspaced"--to
subsidize an external closed-caption decoder. Of course, this would leave
the broadcasters, and under no circumstances would I insist that they CC
their programs, and thankfully the law does not now require them to.)

ObCypherpunks: A truly surprising number of people on this list are on the
one hand lambasting the government for thievery, incompetence, corruption,
and violation of their rights, while on the other hand explaining why they
think some particular intrusion is justified. We have people arguing for
mandatory V-Chips, for Data Privacy Inspection Services, for
anti-discrimination laws, and for government key signing services.

It's not a far jump from arguing any of these points to talking about the
"legitimate" (their term) needs of the government to ensure that encryption
is not used for criminal purposes, for kidnapping and extortion, for tax
evasion, etc.

People need to think about the powerful implications of strong crypto, and
decide if they are _for_ access to strong crypto by citizens, or _against_
it. All things follow from this decision.

--Tim May

Boycott espionage-enabled software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1  | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."