Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cyber Sleuths vs. Secret Networks

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the call-your-ten,-and-raise-you-ten-more dept.

amnfinch writes "I saw this article on BBC news and frankly, I was blown away. Just another example of the relentless campaign to treat file swappers as criminals when their 'crime' is murky at best." Sir Haxalot provides an article on the flip-side: "CNN has a story on 'exclusive' Peer to Peer networks, that require 'knowing the right people and having a wealth of content on your hard disk to get into the clique.'"

3 of 640 comments (clear)

  1. let's fight back by Gnaythan1 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    according to this http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/techwrapper .jsp?PID=1051-250&CID=1051-072903B

    quote:
    "Recently, Republican Senator Sam Brownback offered an amendment to an FTC reauthorization bill that would force "owners of digital media products to file an actual case in a court of law in order to obtain the identifying information of an ISP subscriber" rather than the current standard where the subpoena power is virtually unchecked."


    Sounds like Sam Brownback has the right idea, and I want to give him some encouragement...

    It seems that money is the only thing these people seem to care about, so I think I will take what I would have spent on a music CD (about 20 bucks) and send a money order to this guys campaign fund instead. I think I will add a nice little note on why I did that. Too bad I can't vote for him directly...

    I think I'll send a note to my senator as well, along with a copy of the Brownback note, explaining why I'm not sending HIM any money.

    Twenty bucks isn't much.... but what happens if just one percent of the people who read this do the same thing? Hell I might make this an ongoing project, and send twenty bucks a month to whatever congress-critter seems to deserve it the most at the moment.

  2. Re:Bluffing? by Lazar+Dobrescu · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The RIAA are indeed 'acting tough'. Their tactic is simple: Scare people away from P2P. Once it is clear that P2P is illegal, and that people are either going to jail or get fined big bucks for it, they assume that most 'ordinary' people will stop downloading files from P2P networks.

    Of course, that might or might not happen, as we know the public to be easily scared and all. On the other hand, it is very possible that it will not work, like things do not work for, say, marijuana. Of course, the penalties the RIAA wants to impose on file-sharers are orders of magnitude worst than the penalty for simple possession of marijuana, but it is my opinion that these penalties will not hold for long once they start applying it to too many people.

    As for the smaller, encrypted P2P networks, I don't think the RIAA is after them for now, as they don't really cause them that much trouble. Just as music-sharing before the era of P2P, a P2P network of 30 people does not make as much noise as one of millions of users, and arguably, in the eyes of the RIAA at least, not as many missed sales.

    In the end, the first people who get caught in RIAA scare tactics and decide to fight back(there shouldn't be too many of them) will be the ones who will decide of big P2P network's future. If they manage to win their case, or even bring the penalty to something affordable and acceptable for a 'normal' person, there will no longer be any way for the RIAA to scare people. On the other hand, if they end up having to pay 1000$ a month or worse for the rest of their lives, you can expect that a lot of users will shy away from the network, making them less and less efficient...

  3. 6 degrees of separation by jemenake · · Score: 5, Interesting
    CNN has a story on 'exclusive' Peer to Peer networks, that require 'knowing the right people and having a wealth of content on your hard disk to get into the clique
    Over the last several months, I've begun to conclude that something like this is the only way that file swapping can really endure. Basically, my idea was that each person's file swapping client would only make/accept connections to/from people that you trust: friends, family, etc.

    The twist would be that the system would allow relaying of searches and of actual files. In other words, if I request a file that is on my friend's friend's computer, then the file has to come through the computer of our mutual friend. The whole idea is to keep things as encapsulated as possible... kinda like how terrorist cells work.

    Now, I know that this increases network traffic... adds a lot of opportunities for a "weaker link" in the chain (imagine if one of the people in the relay chain is using a 56k modem)... decreases the "connectedness" of the whole sharing network, etc. However, I think this is the only real way to keep the RIAA from just being able to download a song and, *pow*, have the IP of someone to sue.

    Also, some of these problems mentioned might be assuaged by the fact that people might feel more comfortable leaving their stuff shared. I, for one, have gobs and gobs of stuff that I could share, but I don't... because I have way too much to lose. However, if I knew that the only people who could connect to me would be people that I know... I'd have tons of stuff up and shared... 24/7.

    The strange thing is that it seems to me that this was Aimster's plan, but they got shut down for some reason. But I don't know why.