Fw: HB2041 - UCTIA
Carl Parrish
cparrish@home.com
Fri, 09 Mar 2001 09:55:45 -0700
I'll get started on my letter today.
Carl P.
David Demland wrote:
> I just got home and found this E-Mail. We have at least one person for us.
>
> David Demland
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:*Gabrielle Giffords <mailto:ggifford@azleg.state.az.us>
>
> *To:*'David Demland' <mailto:demland@home.com>
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 08, 2001 3:10 PM
>
> *Subject:* RE: HB2041 - UCTIA
>
>
> Dear David,
>
> I have been working on trying to kill UCITA. Thanks for your message.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gabrielle Giffords
>
> State Representative District 13
>
> 1700 W. Washington
>
> Phoenix, AZ 85007-2844
>
> (602) 542-5108
>
> ggifford@azleg.state.az.us <mailto:ggifford@azleg.state.az.us>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* David Demland [mailto:demland@home.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 04, 2001 10:43 PM
> *To:* ggifford@azleg.state.az.us
> *Subject:* HB2041 - UCTIA
>
> Dear Representative Giffords,
>
> Let me introduce myself, my name is David Demland. I have been a
> software engineer for almost 14 years. Today I hold the title of
> Quality Assurance, QA, Manager. I am currently working at a
> software company in Phoenix. Not only do I work in the field but I
> also teach software engineering type courses at the university
> level. To help easy an incredible desire to learn I am also
> pursuing a masters degree in Computer Information Systems, CIS.
> Not only do I consider myself an expert in software development
> but my peers reinforce this by asking me to give presentations and
> advice to local companies that are trying to change the way they
> produce software and the quality of their products. When it comes
> to software I speak from experience and from an attitude of always
> rasing the bar of quality for software products. With this said I
> want it to be clear that I am addressing you as a very
> knowledgeable person from the software industry, an expert if you
> would.
>
> The reason for this letter is to address my concerns that HB2041,
> also known as UCITA. I would like to make it clear from the start,
> this bill is bad for the software industry as a whole and it is
> almost as dreadful for the consumer as the depression. I submit
> the following information as reasons to why this bill should die
> and never be resurrected in the future.
>
> Before we can look at the bill itself we will take a look at how
> the professional originations stand in regards to UCITA. The
> Association for Computing Machinery, ACM, is an origination that
> was founded in 1947. It was the first educational and scientific
> computer society in the world (ACM). ACM is comprised of over
> 80,000 members in the computer industry today. They do not support
> UCITA. The Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers,
> IEEE, known for the standards they have produced for the computer
> industry which has lead very high levels of interoperability of
> systems. IEEE consist of 366,135 members in the computer industry
> today. They to do not support UCITA (IEEE). The America Society
> for Quality, ASQ, is the quality related side of business, does
> not support UCITA (ASQ). The Software Engineering Institute, SEI,
> which was established by the Department Of Defense, DOD, to help
> the industry improve software development practices does not
> support UCITA (SEI). Is it becoming clear that the professionals
> in the industry do not support UCITA.
>
> If these are not enough, there are lawyers and law colleges that
> oppose UCITA. The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of
> Law, has published a paper on why UCITA should be opposed (UofA).
> American Library Association, ALA, does not support UCITA (ALA).
> The American Association of Law Libraries, AALL, does not support
> UCITA (AALL). Cem Kaner, a former software engineer and now
> lawyer, has a wealth of information about UCITA from both a
> technical side and the consumer side does not support UCITA (Kaner).
>
> Looking at just these oppositions, this bill maybe should not have
> even been introduced. If this bill dealt with the medical
> profession, and it had this kind of opposition, would the opinions
> of the medical profession originations be overlooked, or glazed
> over? Or would these originations carry weight with their
> opinions? I would hope that these computer and law originations
> would carry some weight when it comes to UCITA. Just remember that
> Microsoft, Oracle, Adobe, and Intel - all of which have worked on
> and supported UCITA, have one group they answer to. That is their
> shareholders. The consumer, at times, is a necessary evil they
> have to live with, the customer is not who they have to server first.
>
> With this said I would like to look at parts of the bill directly.
>
> 44-7202
>
> Item 19, in this section, can be used to strip freedom of speech
> when it comes to a software product. The terms "contractual use
> restriction" is defined as "an enforceable term that defines or
> limits the use, disclosure of, or access to licensed information
> or informational rights, including a term that defines the scope
> of a license". In 44-7307 it states "If a license expressly limits
> use of the information or informational rights, use in any other
> manner is a breach of contract". How do you justify to the
> consumer that open and honest software product reviews will no
> longer be allowed after software development companies put into
> their license that no information may be published about their
> software without their approval? I would hope that no one is naive
> enough to think that a software development company would allow
> bad review of their product to be published. Just think what would
> happen if a company can keep someone from publishing a bad report
> on it's product. Where does this leave the consumer?
>
> 44-7265
>
> This section makes it so that no one can filter their E-Mail any
> more. This section says that even if a consumer does not know they
> have received an E-Mail from a publisher they are assumed to have
> received it. This means that if there is any E-Mail filtering to
> keep junk mail, pornography, and any other unwanted E-Mail it will
> have to be turned off. This is just so a consumer does not miss a
> change in the contract agreement from a software publisher. How do
> you tell parents that their children will have to sort through all
> this E-Mail just so the changes made in the software agreement,
> after the software has purchased, is not missed? Are parents
> expected to go through all E-Mail or allow children to go through
> pornography E-Mail? What is the choice here?
>
> 44-7351
>
> This section will allow post-sale disclaimer to be enforceable.
> This is a novel idea. What about buy a car without being able to
> test drive it but it is sold "as is". I do not know many people
> who would buy anything without seeing it first, but now we are
> being told that it can happen in software and the consumer can not
> return it for any reason. What will be next? Am I the only one
> here to find this a very big problem? Who would have ever thought
> of this as something the consumer needs? It is not just the
> opposite of what needs to be done to protect the consumer?
>
> 44-7352
>
> This section allows software development companies to demonstrate
> a differ product than what is shipped to the consumer. Under this
> section a software development company can show a "Demo" version
> and ship the consumer the shipping version that may not have all
> the features that was shown to the consumer. Are we going to make
> the "Bait and switch" legal now? Where is this in the consumer's
> best interest?
>
> 44-7403
>
> This section allow software development companies to restrict
> transfer of software. Now this may sound good at first but look at
> these impacts. This goes far beyond copyright law. Under current
> conditions if a user removes the software from their computer they
> may give the software to someone else. This section removes that.
> This means that a when a family is done with an encyclopedia, that
> is on CD, it can not give it to a school for use. Are we saying
> that schools do not need these gifts any more, or that the state
> will supply them at full cost instead of allowing parents to get
> involved with the school?
>
> An other problem with this is that there will be no way used
> bookstores and record stores can sell used software. How do we
> tell the used software businesses in Arizona that you will have to
> close up and do something else? I have seen these businesses in
> Phoenix and Tucson so who will be the one to have to tell them
> that they are going to have to close down? The ones I have seen
> seem to be small family businesses. Do we really want to say to
> these businesses, and the world, that Arizona will support only
> big business and forget the small business that we have been built
> on? Are we ready to say that part of the American dream is dead?
>
> 44-7501
>
> This section will allow a material breach of contract to be
> determined by a software development company. Do I have to go to
> far here? Who will protect the consumer? Are we saying that
> software development companies are going to be fair to the
> consumer when it come to this subject? Again I ask: who is the
> software development company held accounted to?
>
> 44-7565 and 44-7566
>
> These sections allow a software publisher to place a "back door"
> into their software that may be used to disable the software
> remotely. I know this may not sound to bad at first but lets put
> it into a little different terms. What if you bough a car for
> $18,000.00 and two years later the manufacture did not want to
> support it any longer and the manufacture disabled the car from
> running and the only thing you could do is to buy the newer model
> that now is $22,000.00. The car manufacture's job became easy
> because they no longer have to have long warranties, nor would
> they have to have extend time periods of making parts or many
> other things. Why should a consumer be required to upgrade a piece
> of software that meets their needs just because the development
> company no longer wants to support that software and wants the
> consumer to pay more money just to benefit the development
> company? What is the difference?
>
> The second issue here is security. Just this past week it was
> reported that "hacker" had stolen top secret U.S. Space code. This
> is from a very high secured computer system. What happens to
> security on a desktop computer when these back doors are put into
> every piece of software? How does the consumer protect themselves
> from a security problem just because an irate engineer leaves a
> company and wants to get even? What if the engineer worked on
> Microsoft Money and used this back door to get personal
> information? It has been reported on the news that with just a
> Social Security Number, address, and a credit card number
> someone's identity may be stolen. How do we protect the public's
> privacy?
>
> Just in closing I would like to make it clear, UCITA is just plain
> bad law. With the number of professional originations that are
> against UCITA it would seem that the practitioners are say stop
> before we do something really stupid. Now is the time to act. Kill
> UCITA before it has a chance to hurt the consumer. We will all
> live better without it. I would also like you to ask yourself the
> next time someone says that UCITA is good, ask who are they
> accountable to a company or the consumer.
>
> Thank You,
>
> David Demland
>
> 3506 E. Glenrosa
>
> Phoenix, AZ 85018
>
> (602) 955-3248
>
> References
>
> ACM - Association for Computing Machinery [On-line] Available:
> http://info.acm.org
>
> IEEE - Electrical and Electronic Engineers [On-line] Available:
> http://www.ieeeusa.org/forum/ POSITIONS/ucita.html
>
> ASQ - America Society for Quality [On-line] Available:
> http://sqp.asq.org/vol1_issue4/ sqp_v1i4_kaner.html
>
> SEI - Software Engineering Institute [On-line] Available:
> http://www.badsoftware.com/sei.htm
>
> UofA - University of Arizona [On-line] Available:
> http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/ braucher.html
>
> ALA - American Library Association [On-line] Available:
> http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/
>
> AALL - American Association of Law Libraries [On-line] Available:
> http:// www.ll.georgetown.edu/aallwash/so101399.html
>
> Cem Kaner - Bad software [On-line] Available:
> http://www.badsoftware.com/
>