Analog hole bill implements secret law

Ed Felton has been worrying about the secret laws to be implemented via technical architecture, specifically a proprietary copy protection technology called VEIL.

"If you'?ve been reading here lately, you know that I'?m no fan of the Sensenbrenner/Conyers analog hole bill. The bill would require almost all analog video devices to implement two technologies called CGMS-A and VEIL. CGMS-A is reasonably well known, but the VEIL content protection technology is relatively new. I wanted to learn more about it.

So I emailed the company that sells VEIL and asked for a copy of the specification. I figured I would be able to get it. After all, the bill would make compliance with the VEIL spec mandatory -? the spec would in effect be part of the law. Surely, I thought, they're not proposing passing a secret law. Surely they'?re not going to say that the citizenry isn'?t allowed to know whatÂ?s in the law that Congress is considering. We're talking about television here, not national security.

After some discussion, the company helpfully explained that I could get the spec, if I first signed their license agreement. The agreement requires me (a) to pay them $10,000, and (b) to promise not to talk to anybody about what is in the spec. In other words, I can know the contents of the bill Congress is debating, but only if I pay $10k to a private party, and only if I promise not to tell anybody what is in the bill or engage in public debate about it.

Worse yet, this license covers only half of the technology: the VEIL decoder, which detects VEIL signals. There is no way you or I can find out about the encoder technology that puts VEIL signals into video.

The details of this technology are important for evaluating this bill. How much would the proposed law increase the cost of televisions? How much would it limit the future development of TV technology? How likely is the technology to mistakenly block authorized copying? How adaptable is the technology to the future? All of these questions are important in debating the bill. And none of them can be answered if the technology part of the bill is secret.

Which brings us to the most interesting question of all: Are the members of Congress themselves, and their staffers, allowed to see the spec and talk about it openly? Are they allowed to consult experts for advice? Or are the full contents of this bill secret even from the lawmakers who are considering it?"

It would be comical if it wasn't so serious. Congress want to mandate a secret technology the details of which will only be made known to only those US citizens who will pay $10k to a private party, and only if they promise not to tell anybody what is in the technology or engage in public debate about it. You could call it hardlaw as opposed to hardware I suppose.