New P2P Battle is Heating Up

Digital Dharma writes "News.com has an article about a new P2P war just getting underway in congress. With Senator Hollings retiring, the RIAA and MPAA have found suitable replacement hosts in three key members of the House of Representatives. Lamar Smith, R-Texas; Howard Berman, D-Calif; and John Conyers, D-Mich are taking up arms against P2P networks with a bizarre new bill that would require companies that create certain types of software such as web browsers, instant messaging clients and e-mail utilities to add a warning that it 'could create a security and privacy risk.' How this would deter P2P activity is a bit of a mystery. The article also talks about putting software company executives in jail for failing to correctly label said software, empowering the FBI to release anti-P2P propaganda and other typical RIAA/MPAA sponsored oddities." A network application can create a security risk? Best firewall off every port!

Comments

Warnings already there

[Florian Weimer]

Most software already comes with various warnings attached, so I don't see the fundamental problem of showing them more prominently. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that a web browser (or any network-related software for consumers) exists for which this warning is unjustified.

(Obviously, there is no P2P connection at all. That is just Slashdot spinning.)

Re:Glad to see it

[Theatetus]

He only port they can connect on is through the secure port 443.

GAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Somebody above pointed this out, and I know you're just a parody, but I can't let this slip by:

PORT 443 IS NOT MAGICALLY ENCRYPTED JUST BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER 443!!!!

A port is an integer, nothing more. It's just a number that a client and a server agree to associate with a given connection so that they can keep track (ok, it's not quite that simple since most clients and servers have multiple connections running that are notionally but not actually using the same port).

Associating the number "443" does not magically cause your data to be sent encrypted. Similarly, port 80 (or 21, or 110, or what have you) does not magically prevent you from sending encrypted data: if I set my server to receive https connections over port 80, and you set your client to send https connections over port 80, we will have a secure connection over port 80. If I set my server to listen for a plaintext connection over port 443, and you set your client to send a plaintext connection over port 443, we will have an unsecure connection over port 443. (This is importante because your IM client is almost certainly not encrypting your chats).

OK, like I said above, it's impossible that you actually run a business (and kudos on a brilliant late-90's "do-nothing" firm parody), I just couldn't leave any lurkers with the mistaken belief that something about the number 443 mysteriously encrypts communications.

IHBT IHL IWHAND