FTC To Take a Second Look at P2P

BlueMerle writes to mention that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has asked the FTC to take another look into the world of peer-to-peer file sharing. This time around however the inquiry has nothing to do with copyright. "But a USPTO report earlier this year stirred up the issue again by claiming that P2P installs could adversely affect national security when they made confidential government information available. This has already happened several times, as the Oversight Committee learned in July when it held hearings on the USPTO report and its findings. At that hearing, representatives were also shown real-time P2P search data. While most of the searches were for porn, movies, and music, the committee noted a surprisingly number of searches for private financial information."

Comments

Re:Why is P2P always to blame?

[iminplaya]

It's about changing the internet from its present P2P nature where anybody can run a server into centrally controlled repository of "authorized" servers where uploading, like present day broadcasting, will require a license. Chances are the public will fall for it and go along. And the ISPs are already doing their part by restricting upload speeds and volume.

p2p is too democratic, a danger to the US

[br00tus]

I've done various work with p2p for a while, including writing my own Gnutella application. Peer to peer technology is much too democratic and egalitarian to be allowed free reign. For example, currently if I wanted to publish a 30 minute video online, I would have to pay a lot of money to host it. Nowadays, I could send it to sites like Youtube if I was willing to accept it being surrounded by advertising (or possibly banned if running afoul of their rules). With peer-to-peer, anyone can publish, and if it's popular enough, the "cost" is really paid for by the consumer. For a society like the US, with most of the media in the hands of a few conglomerates, this is far too much freedom and equality, and I knew it was just a matter of time before they attempted to get their claws on peer-to-peer, at the behest of those conglomerates.

Last year Javed Iqbal, a satellite installer, was thrown in jail. His crime? He allowed people in the US to watch Al-Manar, the television station of Hezbollah. Of course Hezbollah is legally considered to be a terrorist group - if you're a country that is or formerly was a British colony. Or, for some reason, Holland. Outside of Holland and current/former British Dominions, the rest of the world considers Hezbollah to be what it is, a representative of Palestinians pushed into southern Lebanon by the Israelis from 1948 on. But anyhow, the US and UK are at odds with the rest of the world on this as so often they are, Iqbal was thrown in the slammer, and nary a word is heard about it or the supposed First Amendment. Meanwhile, narcissistic attention-seekers like Salman Rushdie are feted and praised year after year. In fact, this is done by the same corporate media propaganda machine which is working to dismantle things like peer-to-peer, all the while of course never reporting on what they are in fact doing, or about many things that are going on in the country of interest but that we'll never know about.

Re:I may not be a bureaucrat ...

[speaker of the truth]

You think you're joking but how is needing a permit to protest much different?