Slashdot Mirror
Stanford Researchers Trying to Protect P2P Networks
dirvish writes "New Scientist has a story about efforts from researchers at Stanford to protect peer to peer networks from attacks that could be permitted by the proposed Berman Bill. Neil Daswani and Hector Garcia-Molina of the Database Research Department at Stanford University have mathematically modeled the Gnutella network to discriminate between nodes and supernodes. They then tested the nodes to find which rules could be applied to best avoid a malicious node on the network thus conserving bandwidth."
Maybe the goal of all of these legal machinations is to make it all so much work that it is no longer worth the effort to take the short cut.
Homer: Facts are meaningless, you can use facts to prove anything that's remotely true!
Circumventing attacks technologically is a good thing.
But stopping Congress from passing bad laws is equally as important. Join the Electronic Frontier Foundation and help build a lobbying group that can defend our rights. Her's more info about what your money can do for all of us.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
The riaa/mpaa are going about the whole P2P debacle the wrong way. Havent they learnt the lesson from what happened when they shut down napster? How many P2P services popped up in it's place? and they were even more sophisticated.
You can't cut the head off the p2p snake, you try and at least two or three take it's place.
RIAA/MPAA should be looking at other alternatives rather than going in guns'a blazin'
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
More importantly, Join the ACLU. The EFF has practices that unfortunetly go against practicality. The ACLU is an old and established group that fights for our rights. They do fight for our first amendment rights anywhere, including on the web. Lobbying againt the right wing republicans and ashcroft is a good thing
This technology seems to be a bit limiting from the story, would someone be able to provide more detail? I'm a bit concerned that it would significantly reduce the ability of a normal node to request files indenpendently of everyone else. It seems right now alot of P2P services suffer from "Me too" style networks, where if it is new and popular, everyone has it. But if it is even remotely indie, it seems you're the only one looking.
(as a slightly off-topic aside) Maybe that's just my bad luck, but I've been noticing that trend for awhile now. I wonder if that was the work of the *AAs...plague diverse and robust information exchange systems with a monomeme. Hmmmm....
Zech Harvey, MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
GNU/EFF?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
If you can see it, and you can hear it, somebody will figure out a way to copy it
Any fighting back is simply bad business for the RIAA. They need to embrace the Internet, and include it in their business model in a much larger way. Gone are the days where people spend $20 on a cd, at least most people.
The reason Santa is so jolly is that he knows where all the bad girls live.
I thought Freenet - http://www.freenetproject.org/ - is supposedly designed with DOS attacks etc... in mind.
/. effect after the 0.5 announce, but things are improving.
Yes, it apparently suffered from
Though they are researching ways to prevent attacks on the network, who says they're going to use it to actually protect them?
The chances are good that the researchers are going to want to keep their funding to their college from their corporate masters, and the knowledge is going to be given to the record companies to be used AGAINST the p2p networks.
It's one thing for the Industry to have legal sway to launch attacks... but I wonder if they realize the potential for retaliation that awaits them?
If the RIAA or another group knows more about how p2p works then everyone else they will have an advantage.
If other groups do research at least it will be a fair fight.
Maybe if looking at different types of attacks methods to protect against them will be found. If effective means can be found to validate requests this could go a long way to reducing all types of DOS attacks.
Attacking defending p2p networks is just a special case. This sort of research may be widely applicable.
Naah, tech defences are better. Who gives a shit about US laws? I mean, apart from Americans, and they've hardly been very successful in stopping legal attacks on free speech.
"Land of the free" indeed. You guys need a new slogan.
How about five years in prison for propsing/implementing a copying/p2p technology? Or the threat of a huge $100000 fine?
Strangely mostly people will be put right off. And peer-to-peer requires a peer to peer to...
The man with the lone telephone has no-one to call...
---- The Open Source Record Label : : LOCARECORDS.COM
It seems the most vicious and lawful attacks are the ones that go _noticed. They also come along with large costs and could shut the whole network down. These attacks are from music industry and hollywoood based corporations. Not only that but they probably pay malicious hackers to carry out real attacks.
How to respond: find those loopholes and exploits in the legal system. Patch and re-open with a new and improved legal proof network. Continue the work at Stanford.
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
Nothing will stand inbetween a geek and his porn.
Nothing like earning a Masters/Ph.D that has practical business application.
Tournament Management Online &
Someone needs to come up with a network that has file-rights management that lets you literally *share* your music. Once every device is wireless, even with DRM, you can just own say 25 CDs, and you can allow them to be shared into the network, so long as you lose the right to listen to them as they're being played on someone else's device. Because you (currently) legally own the right to share it (ie, give it away temporarily, as you would a pressed CD), once you've listened to a song, it's released back into the system for someone else to borrow.
Basically, the system will allow you to legally borrow on a song by song basis. This should meet all current legal issues, because you will not be able to listen to a song while someone else is. But, because everyone doesn't listen to the same song at the same time, not everyone has to own every CD.
Even if DRM is implemented, there must be a way to transfer a file from device to device (assumably removing it from one device) This "system" will just facilitate that transfer on a temporary, song-by-song basis, and keep track of who permenently owns an individual song.
Think of it as a "universal library."
I would love to see the record companies try to find some problems with this. I think the supreme court would smack em on their collective asses.
Wireless+"True Sharing"+Lending Distributer = Totally legal way to screw the record companies.
Lobbying againt the right wing republicans and ashcroft is a good thing
That is your opinion, and you have every right to it. It just really bothers me when people say their opinions as facts that everyone else should acknowledge. Personally, I signed a petition showing my support for Ashcroft, which I would sign it again today if it was needed. He agrees with a lot of the things that I agree with. And, Yes, that is my opinion. The ACLU fights for the rights they believe in. Granted, not ever group can defend all of our rights. That is why you should support the group that most aligns with your own ideals. In my case, it would be the EFF, and Ashcroft. The two are made up of- and are people just like you and I. Just as we don't agree, in some cases, they don't either. Such is life.
visit my free wallpaper collection, wp.erasei.com
In the long term, the most that you can say about the proposed bill, and research into protecting p2p, is that it will simply turn into a technological arms-race.
That will continue indefinetly, the real answer is not to allow such a blatantly stupid and damaging bill to be passed, and if it is passed, to get it struck down as soon as possible. Passing the technological edge back and forward in a war between the media monopolies and their p2p opponents, might sound fun to some, but its not the real answer.
Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random numbers is, of course, in a state of sin.-John von Neumann
"which I would sign it again today if it was needed"
No comment required on the above. These are indeed Asscraft's constituents.
The above story describes a classic example of a technical fix for what is essentially a political problem. That congress would even consider a bill legalizing such nefarious activity on the part of a corporate elite speaks volumes about who these people in Washington really are. Though I do believe that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is only a matter of degree, I must say that Asscraft has taken political demagoguery to a level heretofore unknown since the invention of writing.
"Lobbying against the rightwing Republicans and Ashcroft is a good thing."
I would only amend this to say that "lobbying against the rightwing" politicians of whatever party "is a good thing." I would also dare to suggest that lobbying against leftwing politicians who have fallen under the charm of massive corporate campaign contributions to the extent that they support bozo legislation that can only lead to a technological spy-vs-spy series of escalating dirty tricks is a good thing.
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
The RIAA needs to figure out that they can capitalize on the piracy, because whether pirating music is ethical or not, it's going to happen. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the pre-release bootleg copies of The Eminem Show were really part of a stealth marketing campaign or something.
Eagles may soar, but weasles don't get sucked into jet engines...
"The P2P Piracy Prevention Act, proposed by Senator Howard Berman, is currently being redrafted following severe criticism and is not likely to be introduced in any form until January 2003 at the earliest."
So this basically means that it's being rewritten and filled with all sorts of terms that most of the people in the senate aren't familiar with, and that most of them could care less about. It's all about misdirection. People went up in arms about the original bill, because they understood what it was talking about. The redraft, will more than likely be the same identical document. The only difference between the two, is that the second will have 40 pages of filler information that is there to confuse and misdirect those reading it, so that it becomes more of a hassle to read and comprehend it, than to just pass it along. That's just my opinion anyway.
If you're looking here for something insightful or thought provoking, you're probably looking in the wrong place.
I do believe the auto companies would be quite upset if people stopped buying cars
But you are missing the point. If we can now clone cars, there is no need for automobile assembly lines, since we can *all* have a car. What the IP proponents are proposing is that the cloning machine be outlawed in order to keep the auto manufacturers in business because they have some inherent right to exist, even at the expense of the populace at large. NOT COOL.
"But who will design the new cars?" some will ask.
Listen, if we have cloning machines and everyone can clone what they need, there will be a great deal more time for hobbyists who like to design new cars to come up with really fun new designs on their own. And as new designs come out, *everyone* can have one. No artificial limits, and everyone benefits, you see?
This is exactly what happens now in the free software community, so often maligned as idealists and communists and whatever else... but nobody can deny that the software is excellent... and that the programmers who work on it are happy, because they can work on what they like to work on, contribute it to the world, and expect other peoples' excellent contributions in return... it's a wonderful new age. Why kill it to save some company?
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
If the government makes a law that says you can't use missiles to blow up other cars in traffic, then the engineers have to abide by that law, even if they have access to plenty of knowhow and missiles. If the engineers want to blow up traffic with their missiles, they have to lobby legislators.
Explain to me again why similar logic should not apply to these stanford computer scientists?
If they are indeed working on systems to which the law does not apply, then that's one thing. That's scientific progress and appropriate technology policy needs to be formulated. But trying to tell legislators "we know better than you" is immoral.
I had no opinion of Ashcroft until the good people of Missouri, who presumable know him best, voted for a dead man instead of him.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
That your arguments make the (false) assumption that IP is valueless in all instances. Sure, the cost to copy digital information is (virtually) nothing, but that information itself has an inherent cost.
My brother is an independent recording artist. He's not signed to a label, but has a decent following. When he wants to produce a CD, the manufacture of tracks, mixing, engineering those tracks cost money. Hiring and paying engineers and additional musicians is not free. Even if you remove all barriers in distribution (ie distribute digitally; no record company) The actual recorded material has an inherent cost-- and therefore an inherent value.
While you're saying buzzwords like "rethinking the paradigms" perhaps you should be considering more than the distribution method.
While the most extreme of cyber-communists point to the open-source and free-software movements as an example of how "information should be free" They neglect to realize that the media created is a drop in the bucket compared to commercial software-- especially entertainment. Name one open source or free software game that can come close to competing with Grand Theft Auto or Age of Empires or Black and White or Resident Evil. They can't.
So, until the entire world becomes a communist state, where there is no money, and no motivation to work other than the betterment of mankind, (and this includes cleaning the toilets and laying the asphalt) people will be motivated by money, will need to be paid for their work, which will give an inherent value to IP.
Attach it to something that the administration really wants, like the bill that would make the tax cut permanent. Expect Berman to try this; it would be really hard for the Republicans to fail to pass a bill that made the tax cut permanent, and harder for Bush to veto it.
Lobbying againt the right wing republicans and ashcroft is a good thing
I don't think it's the republicans you have to worry about. The democrats have been the ones pushing this legislation. A couple recent examples including the p2p bill in question:
CBDTPA (Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act) - Sponsored by Sen. Hollings (D-SC), co-sponsored by 4 other dems and one republican.
P2P Bill - Sponsered by Rep. Howard Berman (D-Cal)
Also take a look at how the Music/Movie industry spends their money. 17 of the top 20 recipients are Democrat.
TV/Movies/Music: Top 20 Recipients
Now who would you say is in the back pocket of the Movie/Music business?
Or maybe the engineers will just kill the legislators with their missiles and avoid the problem entirely. It's hard to pass laws when you're dead.
But trying to tell legislators "we know better than you" is immoral.
Yes, god forbid we should tell our elected representatives what we want them to do. Who the hell do we think we are? Citizens?
More importantly, Join the ACLU. The EFF has practices that unfortunetly go against practicality. The ACLU is an old and established group that fights for our rights. They do fight for our first amendment rights anywhere, including on the web. Lobbying againt the right wing republicans and ashcroft is a good thing
I belong to both. I first joined the ACLU, but then I noticed that while they do alot of excellent work, they get alot of their money and support from wealthy people in the media industries. It therefore seemed there were certain issues, relating to copyrights and intellectual property, for which the EFF seemed more aligned with my interests.
I think both are excellent organizations.
-- p
It is rather a sad state of affairs when university researchers are actively working to circumvent a (potential) new law. The government should really be wondering if this new law is a good thing, when a major, well-respected university is already fighting it!
Al-Akhwan Jihad Academy,
South Kandahar,
Afghanistan
Salary:
free religious training & Stock Options in Heavenly pleasures (cashable upon death - shaheed)
Special perk: **FREE AK-47**
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
If RIAA attacks P2P networks with the stated intention of protecting their copyright, wouldn't systems for countering that specific threat be in violation of the DMCA?
It would seem defensible if it were framed as an effort to make P2P more robust in general, but to describe it as a hedge against actions of the copyright holders, IMHO, opens them up for some serious deep-pocket litigation.