I poked around and my host does provide SNI, which means I can config my sites to resolve over https with a big "THIS SITE IS LYING TO YOU" warning message. I'll have to look into the free certs to get rid of that.
I don't want to make anyone else's communications less secure, but it still seems like using certified mail when I just want to send a "wish you were here" postcard. Postcards are still a thing, right?
What about the sites that aren't businesses? I have around 10 domains I run as basic informational resources, some as placeholders for my nieces and nephews when they come of age. They're served as plaintext because that's what they are, not web 2.0, no interaction, just read what you see. Are my domain costs now going to double because you decided that my publicly available photos need to be transmitted securely?
I agree we're splitting hairs, though I think it's a useful conversation to have. Mostly because a lot of people are resigned to the fact that DRM comes packaged into so many things they "buy" these days. I'd posit that it may be reasonable to accept reasonable DRM in software or media (debatable I know), it's never reasonable to include a rights management scheme in a physical purchase like this.
I guess that's why calling them the same thing troubles me; spreading access control into new frontiers should be met with resistance. Maybe if I thought people avoided any DRM like the plague I wouldn't mind, but I worry most people won't care and these shenanigans will spread.
Hmm interesting, the "rights" in your interpretation of DRM is different than how I normally use it. I envision that digital "rights management" applies to exercise of rights by a copyright holder; specifically their right to exercise a limited monopoly of a fixed expression.
Hang on now, people were pirating in the analog age as well. To be truly effective we'd need to ban expressing things in permanent form; you know, anything that would be copyright-able.
It's the right thing to do, for too long the copyright industry has been destroying the business model of live theater, orchestral recitals, and living statues. Being unable to record and pass on the wealth of human knowledge is a small price to pay.
While the title of this bill seems to imply it, I don't think there's a provision that legalizes altering firmware on a device you own. This seems to be focused solely on being able to resell your property along with whatever original manufacturer's programming is included to make it work.
We'd still need specific exemptions to the DMCA from the Librarian of Congress to mod a game console, thermostat, refrigerator, etc. Or we'd need another law that generally allows decoupling the provided firmware from the device.
In a country where citizens can be arrested when an officer reasonably believes there is a law preventing some action, the decision makers at these agencies should be waiting in jail cells to make 'cute' rationalizations. It sure seems like they're breaking a law; and if they're not they've broken its spirit.