Subject: Re: SSSCA - Analysis (Q&D)
From: D V Henkel-Wallace <gumby@henkel-wallace.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 04:03:25 -0700

At 14:58 +0900 2001-09-11, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>  >>>>> "kms" == Karsten M Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>     kms> on Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 09:03:24PM -0700, D V Henkel-Wallace
>     kms> (gumby@henkel-wallace.org) wrote:
>
>     >> to authenticate in the same way.  And you can't read kmem, or
>     >> construct your own pointers, so debuggers are verboten without
>     >> a license.
>
>Examples?  OK:
>
>There goes computer science education....  That's an immediate
>contradiction you can get them on: if kids need a clearance to go to
>college and major in CS (or to enter the labs, anyway), how are we
>going to attract (let alone qualify) them in the numbers required to
>deal with the "dire shortage" of technically trained personnel?
>
>And don't limit yourself to software.  Anything that can be used to
>access physical bits at some point in the hardware pipeline would also
>be prohibited.  You need permission from the Secretary of Commerce to
>own an oscilliscope or a soldering iron.

I dunno; you can make cross debuggers that develop for embededd chips 
and virtual machines.  Most current digital systems generally run too 
fast for in circuit emulators and 'scopes anyway.  But as you said, 
FUD.

I presume this crud will pass, it will be gutted by development 
overseas, but it will stay on the books and be selectively enforced.