Re: broadcast encryption

[mccoy@io.com (Jim McCoy)]

> > The US is a signatory to the International Telecommunications Union
> > (ITU) treaties that allocate various parts of the radio spectrum for
> > different uses around the world. One of those treaties (or some part
> > of one; I forget which) prohibits the use of encryption to "obscure
> > meaning." 
> 
> So how is it that the satellite companies are allowed to encrypt their
> signals, while individuals are not?  Another example where
> corporations have greater rights than individuals?

Well, it is a bit complicated and involves a bit of obfuscation, but there 
is a little bit of info regarding this in the August Wired issue (pg 127).
For starters, a treaty that the US may sign is not "law" in the formal
sense of the word, Congress must do a bit of legislative juggling to codify
the treaty into the USC.  So, for the prohibition on encrypting wireless
transmissions we go to the 1934 Communications Act which banned the use of
encryption and scrambling for wireless communications.  Skip forward 50
years to the 1984 Cable Communications Act; this set of laws makes private
communications secure and allows one to encrypt private communications
outside the "hobby" bandwidths.  This bill basically defined satellite
broadcasts as private communications because thier primary purpose (at the
time the bill was written) is to provide a communication channel to the
local cable companies.

Of course, since the time the bill was passed things have changed quite a
bit.  How something like the the direct broadcast satellite tv system will 
fit into this is also unclear.  

jim