Slashdot Mirror
Senator Proposes to Monitor All P2P Traffic for Illegal Files
mytrip writes "Senator Joe Biden (D-Del) has proposed an ambitious plan, costing on the order of $1 billion, aimed at curtailing illegal activities via P2P networks. His plan involves utilizing new software to monitor peer-to-peer traffic on an ongoing basis. 'At an afternoon Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing about child exploitation on the Internet, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) said he was under the impression it's "pretty easy to pick out the person engaged in either transmitting or downloading violent scenes of rape, molestation" simply by looking at file names. He urged use of those techniques by investigators to help nab the most egregious offenders."
Fuck them. Fuck them both.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I've never seen a better use for the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag in my life.
There is a war going on for your mind.
I understand how these politicians can't get a handle on terrorism, crime, drugs etc.
They think the people that deal in them are as stupid as they themselves are.
What light through yonder window breaks? Tis the clarity of seeing people for what they truely are: idiots.
He wants the filtering done on file names?? Is he serious? That would be one of the easiest filters to get around.
Even though at first glance it might seem filenames aren't that important, it's actually a pretty good heuristic method to gauge what a file might contain.
This is because people are hardwired to organising their stuff. A filename by the name of "rapeMe" is far easier to find when you need id than the same file, but named "rU2:s" don't you think?
Now, since people are also lazy they forget to rename these files before transmiting them.
Sure, the method is not perfect and yes sooner or later filenames will be randomly generated when transmiting by P2P clients themselves, but until then the method provides a good guess as to who needs further inspection.
If encryption is used, you can't do it.
If monitoring is heavy-handed AND encryption isn't illegal, it will be used.
The net effect: Wasted CPU time for encryption/decryption.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Real issues: economy, environment, crime, international relations
Distraction issues: file sharing, gay marriage, abortion, drugs, bosnian snipers
He's the senator from MBNA and Citibank.
Totally different.
I propose we monitor all government communication for evidence of corruption.
Don't believe me? Google for US federal deficit charts...
You are exactly right in your suspicions, get ready for darknet p2p programs to start popping up all around us. When Mr. Biden asks what a darknet is, I hope he is summarily ejected from public office. Subsequent to this law, the information on the internet made available to share via darknets will in turn make its way to those who would share materials that are illegal, so the end result is nearly zero. Some idiots will always get caught, but they are just as likely to get caught without this law.
Anyone with his position should have enough intelligence to seek out smart people and see what can be done sensibly. Of course, all his intelligence is in his wallet; which is (un)fortunately under his ass most of the time.
It really is time to get rid of big business lobbyists. Their damage to the US is unfathomably huge. Time for open lobbying, not dissimilar to having to post your lobbying requests on the legislator's wiki site for all to see.
We need a LOT more transparency in the influences on legislators. Clearly.
This legislation is being promoted without clear evidence that it is needed. Where is the supporting evidence to show that this legislation will stop what it is intended to stop? How will it stop those from posting to the Internet from countries where the material is not illegal? There is no evidence to support it. If there is, the law is not needed. They can use the evidence they already have to arrest those guilty of the supposed crimes. Fucking idiots.
What an asshat. Yes, your child can click on the 'download britany spears' link and get childporn. Those filenames are ALWAYS accurate. Damn, even the **AA were using wrong filenames to spoil P2P sharing.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Dems always suck on IP issues and censorship. That's been the case for decades. They think of the children waaaay too much.
On the other hand, republicans also suck for censorship (dems hate violence, repubs hate boobies), and they are far more likely to get "decency-style" laws passed, than infringe on individual liberty...If you can't buy booze on a Sunday in your state, somewhere, there is a Republican to thank.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
which is totally what she said
How the fuck do you expect voting for one of two parties is going to represent the majority of your views? I live in the UK, and I'm fed up of random slashdotters flaming republican this, democrat that, can you please explain what the actual difference is? I've seen more than one person point out that there is none, and I wouldn't find that hard to believe. I think as far as democracy is concerned, people should be able to vote on invidual laws and such (if they consider that law important) rather than vote one party every few years and expect to have things go the way they're wanting them to. Does it really matter whether this guy is Republican or Democrat? I'm sure there are plenty of idiots in both parties..
Apologies for the slightly trollish nature of my post, but it's really pissing me off seeing this inane republican vs democrat stuff, it's like racism or something, except the fairly arbitrary divide being which set of self-important morons you vote for instead of place of birth/skin colour. Admittedly you do have a choice who to vote for, but in the end there are always gonna be problems no matter who you vote for, under the current system at least.
which is totally what she said
So a senator said something stupid about a subject outside of his domain of expertise. Every slashdotter, if elected to the senate, would say stupid things about SOMETHING. This is not a proposal for a law, or Iâ(TM)d be seeing it on my opencongress.org feed. Just kindly wite to the man and inform him that within a week of any such law coming into play, P2P programs would be randomizing the filenames.
One billion dollars! (puts pinky to lower lip) I see the tip of an ice berg, but ok since ... "It's for the children"!
Ah! The rest of the iceberg! Now how will we pay for it?
No matter that it cannot possibly work, it is for the children you see. So naturally if it's not working, we'll simply need to provide a bit more funding in this year's budget, and the next, and the next...
What you want would just result in tyranny by the largest plurality.
Well, the US, and most other "democracies" are representative democracies. Voting on individual laws is a terrible idea. Just look at Athens. Regardless of that though, citizens of the US (in some states) actually do get to vote on individual laws, through "Issues" polls, or on state consitutional amendments. That's how some states get ridiculous "anti-gay marriage" laws passed that a representative body would probably avoid.
The US is not, by law, a 2 party system; it has just developed that way. Democrats and Republicans do not always vote in one big block either. There are "blue dog" Democrats who will occasionally side with Republicans on some things, for example. Middle of the road representatives sometimes team up to challenge their parties. So, in the end, there actually is reasonable representaton.
The problem is that most Americans don't really understand how they are represented. Many don't vote, or only do so when their vote counts the least, the presidential election. The Senators represent smaller areas, and Representatives represent even smaller areas than those, and that's just the FEDERAL government. Most of the stuff that actually affects your life is decided by your State/County/Local/City representatives. Hardly anyone votes for them, or can keep track of them. Which makes those votes the most powerful you can cast.
So, to somehow be on topic, for this issue it doesn't matter at all if they are Republican or Democrat. Pretty much all the federal reps are "it's a series of tubes!" boneheads for technical issues.
Clovis
^ Clovis, look! It's that guy you are!
Could this be anymore disingenuous? Could this be anymore bullshit?
So is is about violence? Take a look at TV. I don't see him concerned about that.
SO this is about porn? I think not as P2P is one of many ways to obtain porn and has nothing to do with the production of it.
So this is really about lobbyists and big business buying support for an assinine policy that goes against the interests of the people this man is supposed to serve.
Now let's look at the technical side. Doe he even know what he is talking about? Obviously not. MAC addresses and IP addresses can be spoofed; neither of them can definitively ID a person.
Does he even understand general technology concepts? Obviously not, because if he did he would realize that the second one technological avenue is closed, the tech community will create a new one. Innovation cannot be stopped by repressive minded politicos who are in the pocket of consortiums.
This is an important issue - one that could be used to basically take away the privacy you have on your computer and internet connection. When this government uses things like this they will take advantage of them to the hilt.
Did you bother to read TFA? File sharing? DRM circumvention? hollywood/music industry??
The only thing that the FA mentions is child pornography, molestation, rape, abuse, etc. Not once do they speak about any of the illegal things you've mentioned.
I'll admit that I've a fear of a legitimate child-porn-tracking system being used to combat other activities, esp. for people in no way involved in such horrific fetishes, but that isn't the point of the system (as stated) that Biden wants.
Whenever law enforcement at any level says of a tactic or system or program, "Don't worry -- we're only going to use it to go after [insert category of criminals here]," always assume an unspoken "NOT" between "we're" and "only." Hello??? Patriot Act, anyone? Warrantless wiretaps? National Security Letters?
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer