This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0294_01C0A4FD.1E6B3F00
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I know this may be long, but I just sent the following letter out to 26 =
representatives. Skip the first part where I am establishing my =
credibility and look at the rest. This should answer the over all =
questions about UCITA.
David
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Dear Representative ???,
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/
------=_NextPart_000_0294_01C0A4FD.1E6B3F00
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4611.1300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I know this may be long, but I just =
sent the=20
following letter out to 26 representatives. Skip the first part where I =
am=20
establishing my credibility and look at the rest. This should answer the =
over=20
all questions about UCITA.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>David</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P>Dear Representative ???,</P>
<P>Let me introduce myself, my name is David Demland. I have been a =
software=20
engineer for almost 14 years. Today I hold the title of Quality =
Assurance, QA,=20
Manager. I am currently working at a software company in Phoenix. Not =
only do I=20
work in the field but I also teach software engineering type courses at =
the=20
university level. To help easy an incredible desire to learn I am also =
pursuing=20
a masters degree in Computer Information Systems, CIS. Not only do I =
consider=20
myself an expert in software development but my peers reinforce this by =
asking=20
me to give presentations and advice to local companies that are trying =
to change=20
the way they produce software and the quality of their products. When it =
comes=20
to software I speak from experience and from an attitude of always =
rasing the=20
bar of quality for software products. With this said I want it to be =
clear that=20
I am addressing you as a very knowledgeable person from the software =
industry,=20
an expert if you would.</P>
<P>The reason for this letter is to address my concerns that HB2041, =
also known=20
as UCITA. I would like to make it clear from the start, this bill is bad =
for the=20
software industry as a whole and it is almost as dreadful for the =
consumer as=20
the depression. I submit the following information as reasons to why =
this bill=20
should die and never be resurrected in the future.</P>
<P>Before we can look at the bill itself we will take a look at how the=20
professional originations stand in regards to UCITA. The Association for =
Computing Machinery, ACM, is an origination that was founded in 1947. It =
was the=20
first educational and scientific computer society in the world (ACM). =
ACM is=20
comprised of over 80,000 members in the computer industry today. They do =
not=20
support UCITA. The Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers, =
IEEE,=20
known for the standards they have produced for the computer industry =
which has=20
lead very high levels of interoperability of systems. IEEE consist of =
366,135=20
members in the computer industry today. They to do not support UCITA =
(IEEE). The=20
America Society for Quality, ASQ, is the quality related side of =
business, does=20
not support UCITA (ASQ). The Software Engineering Institute, SEI, which =
was=20
established by the Department Of Defense, DOD, to help the industry =
improve=20
software development practices does not support UCITA (SEI). Is it =
becoming=20
clear that the professionals in the industry do not support UCITA.</P>
<P>If these are not enough, there are lawyers and law colleges that =
oppose=20
UCITA. The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, has =
published a=20
paper on why UCITA should be opposed (UofA). American Library =
Association, ALA,=20
does not support UCITA (ALA). The American Association of Law Libraries, =
AALL,=20
does not support UCITA (AALL). Cem Kaner, a former software engineer and =
now=20
lawyer, has a wealth of information about UCITA from both a technical =
side and=20
the <FONT face=3DTimes>consumer side</FONT> does not support UCITA =
(Kaner).</P>
<P>Looking at just these oppositions, this bill maybe should not have =
even been=20
introduced. If this bill dealt with the medical profession, and it had =
this kind=20
of opposition, would the opinions of the medical profession originations =
be=20
overlooked, or glazed over? Or would these originations carry weight =
with their=20
opinions? I would hope that these computer and law originations would =
carry some=20
weight when it comes to UCITA. Just remember that Microsoft, Oracle, =
Adobe, and=20
Intel - all of which have worked on and supported UCITA, have one group =
they=20
answer to. That is their shareholders. The <FONT face=3DTimes>consumer, =
at times,=20
is a necessary evil they have to live with, the customer is not who they =
have to=20
server first.</P>
<P>With this said I would like to look at parts of the bill =
directly.</P>
<P>44-7202</P>
<P>Item 19, in this section, can be used to strip freedom of speech when =
it=20
comes to a software product. The terms "contractual use restriction" is =
defined=20
as "an enforceable term that defines or limits the use, disclosure of, =
or access=20
to licensed information or informational rights, including a term that =
defines=20
the scope of a license". In 44-7307 it states "If a license expressly =
limits use=20
of the information or informational rights, use in any other manner is a =
breach=20
of contract". How do you justify to the consumer</FONT> that open and =
honest=20
software product reviews will no longer be allowed after software =
development=20
companies put into their license that no information may be published =
about=20
their software without their approval? I would hope that no one is naive =
enough=20
to think that a software development company would allow bad review of =
their=20
product to be published. Just think what would happen if a company can =
keep=20
someone from publishing a bad report on it’s product. Where does =
this leave the=20
<FONT face=3DTimes>consumer?</P>
<P>44-7265</P>
<P>This section makes it so that no one can filter their E-Mail any =
more. This=20
section says that even if a consumer does not know they have received an =
E-Mail=20
from a publisher they are assumed to have received it. This means that =
if there=20
is any E-Mail filtering to keep junk mail, pornography, and any other =
unwanted=20
E-Mail it will have to be turned off. This is just so a consumer does =
not miss a=20
change in the contract agreement from a software publisher. How do you =
tell=20
parents that their children will have to sort through all this E-Mail =
just so=20
the changes made in the software agreement, after the software has =
purchased, is=20
not missed? Are parents expected to go through all E-Mail or allow =
children to=20
go through pornography E-Mail? What is the choice here?</P>
<P>44-7351</P>
<P>This section will allow post-sale disclaimer to be enforceable. This =
is a=20
novel idea. What about buy a car without being able to test drive it but =
it is=20
sold "as is". I do not know many people who would buy anything without =
seeing it=20
first, but now we are being told that it can happen in software and the =
consumer=20
can not return it for any reason</FONT>. What will be next? Am I the =
only one=20
here to find this a very big problem? Who would have ever thought of =
this as=20
something the <FONT face=3DTimes>consumer needs? It is not just the =
opposite of=20
what needs to be done to protect the consumer?</P>
<P>44-7352</P>
<P>This section allows software development companies to demonstrate a =
differ=20
product than what is shipped to the consumer. Under this section a =
software=20
development company can show a "Demo" version and ship the consumer the =
shipping=20
version that may not have all the features that was shown to the =
consumer. Are=20
we going to make the "Bait and switch" legal now? Where is this in the=20
consumer’s best interest?</P>
<P>44-7403</P>
<P>This section allow software development companies to restrict =
transfer of=20
software. Now this may sound good at first but look at these impacts. =
This goes=20
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=20
section removes that. This means that a when a family is done with an=20
encyclopedia, that is on CD, it can not give it to a school for use. Are =
we=20
saying that schools do not need these gifts any more, or that the state =
will=20
supply them at full cost instead of allowing parents to get involved =
with the=20
school?</P>
<P>An other problem with this is that there will be no way used =
bookstores and=20
record stores can sell used software. How do we tell the used software=20
businesses in Arizona that you will have to close up and do something =
else? I=20
have seen these businesses in Phoenix and Tucson so who will be the one =
to have=20
to tell them that they are going to have to close down? The ones I have =
seen=20
seem to be small family businesses. Do we really want to say to these=20
businesses, and the world, that Arizona will support only big business =
and=20
forget the small business that we have been built on? Are we ready to =
say that=20
part of the American dream is dead?</P>
<P>44-7501</P>
<P>This section will allow a material breach of contract to be =
determined by a=20
software development company. Do I have to go to far here? Who will =
protect the=20
consumer? Are we saying that software development companies are going to =
be fair=20
to the consumer when it come to this subject? Again I ask: who is the =
software=20
development company held accounted to?</P>
<P>44-7565 and 44-7566</P>
<P>These sections allow a software publisher to place a "back door" into =
their=20
software that may be used to disable the software remotely. I know this =
may not=20
sound to bad at first but lets put it into a little different terms. =
What if you=20
bough a car for $18,000.00 and two years later the manufacture did not =
want to=20
support it any longer and the manufacture disabled the car from running =
and the=20
only thing you could do is to buy the newer model that now is =
$22,000.00. The=20
car manufacture’s job became easy because they no longer have to =
have long=20
warranties, nor would they have to have extend time periods of making =
parts or=20
many other things. Why should a consumer be required to upgrade a piece =
of=20
software that meets their needs just because the development company no =
longer=20
wants to support that software and wants the consumer to pay more money =
just to=20
benefit the development company? What is the difference?</P>
<P>The second issue here is security. Just this past week it was =
reported that=20
"hacker" had stolen top secret U.S. Space code. This is from a very high =
secured=20
computer system. What happens to security on a desktop computer when =
these back=20
doors are put into every piece of software? How does the consumer</FONT> =
protect=20
themselves from a security problem just because an irate engineer leaves =
a=20
company and wants to get even? What if the engineer worked on Microsoft =
Money=20
and used this back door to get personal information? It has been =
reported on the=20
news that with just a Social Security Number, address, and a credit card =
number=20
someone’s identity may be stolen. How do we protect the =
public’s privacy?</P>
<P>Just in closing I would like to make it clear, UCITA is just plain =
bad law.=20
With the number of professional originations that are against UCITA it =
would=20
seem that the practitioners are say stop before we do something really =
stupid.=20
Now is the time to act. Kill UCITA before it has a chance to hurt the =
<FONT=20
face=3DTimes>consumer</FONT>. We will all live better without it. I =
would also=20
like you to ask yourself the next time someone says that UCITA is good, =
ask who=20
are they accountable to a company or the <FONT =
face=3DTimes>consumer.</P>
<P>Thank You,</P>
<P>David Demland</P>
<P>3506 E. Glenrosa</P>
<P>Phoenix, AZ 85018</P>
<P>(602) 955-3248</P>
<P>References</P>
<P>ACM - Association for Computing Machinery [On-line] Available:=20
http://info.acm.org</P>
<P>IEEE - Electrical and Electronic Engineers [On-line] Available:=20
http://www.ieeeusa.org/forum/ POSITIONS/ucita.html</P>
<P>ASQ - America Society for Quality [On-line] Available:=20
http://sqp.asq.org/vol1_issue4/ sqp_v1i4_kaner.html</P>
<P>SEI - Software Engineering Institute [On-line] Available:=20
http://www.badsoftware.com/sei.htm</P>
<P>UofA - University of Arizona [On-line] Available:=20
http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/ braucher.html</P>
<P>ALA - American Library Association [On-line] Available:=20
http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/</P>
<P>AALL - American Association of Law Libraries [On-line] Available: =
http://=20
www.ll.georgetown.edu/aallwash/so101399.html</P>
<P>Cem Kaner - Bad software [On-line] Available:=20
http://www.badsoftware.com/</P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0294_01C0A4FD.1E6B3F00--
(text/plain)