Slashdot Mirror
Proposed Peer-To-Peer Law Sparks Animosity
coondoggie writes "The Federal Trade Commission and Distributed Computing Industry Association locked horns over a proposed law that would govern how peer-to-peer networking technology would be used and regulated. Before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, the Federal Trade Commission expressed its doubts about companies protecting sensitive consumer information (PDF) or sensitive data over P2P internet file-sharing networks. It doesn't help the P2P cause that the technology continues to pop up in bad practices. Recently a company that monitors peer-to-peer networks said it found classified information about the systems used onboard the president's helicopter in a shared folder on a computer in Iran, after a file containing the data was accidentally leaked on a peer-to-peer network last summer. Meanwhile the DCIA said any laws would likely be ineffective and stifle the business opportunities P2P can generate."
An article on CNet points out that the wording of the bill would make it apply to just about everything related to communications on the internet.
Recently a company that monitors peer-to-peer networks said it found classified information about the systems used on board the president's helicopter in a shared folder on a computer in Iran, after a file containing the data was accidentally leaked on a peer-to-peer network last summer.
It's true, I saw these files and it appears our nation's most important secrets have been released to one of our most dangerous enemies. They are a move-by-move account of every Freecell game played by Obama. From that, the Iranians have been able to extrapolate his strategy for the Iraq theater and predict his every move, ergo, peer to peer file sharing must be stopped.
... and then seed it as top secret documents on Bittorrent.
Reading this story kind of makes me want to draw up a huge exploded view diagram of Marine One with Hello Kitty on a treadmill in the middle of the cabin powering the main rotor
My work here is dung.
More government control over our lives!!!!!
Sig? No thanks. I don't smoke.
Recently a company that monitors peer-to-peer networks said it found classified information about the systems used onboard the president's helicopter in a shared folder on a computer in Iran, after a file containing the data was accidentally leaked on a peer-to-peer network last summer. Meanwhile the DCIA said any laws would likely be ineffective and stifle the business opportunities P2P can generate."
How do we know that this government employee didn't purposefully 'leak' the documents online or plant them at an Iranian I.P. address so that the government could have an excuse to pass an archaic and oppressive internet law?
An article on CNet points out that the wording of the bill would make it apply to just about everything related to communications on the internet.
One person, a government worker, leaks a document, and now we must all pay.
If a government worker drunk drives should we all lose our licenses and cars?
That under the old admin everybody was screaming in fear about 1984... And now with the new admin... it still feels the same
Those Iranians, Arabs, and Terrorists use P2P networks! Lets regulate or ban them. ZOMG, they use television too. Lets ban TV networks. Oh noes, they use cars and roads too... Well, walking is good for you. Damn, they use elections too. We don't want to be like 'them' so no more elections. How much more ignorant are reporters and politicians going to get?
Oh no, they use television to broadcast government propaganda. No more .... wait, they copied that from us, so that's ok.
I'm waiting for the first idiot legislator to suggest that foreign governments and terrorists are using Linux so it too must be banned.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
It's people, not software that are the problem. Software is a tool and is neither good or bad. The people using it on the other hand...
Not to start anything, but this is why I am generally amused by the term "Computer Ethics". Computers are simply a tool; there might as well be something called "Blender Ethics". The real issue is simply "Ethics", which I fear some are lacking.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The cat is out of the bag so to speak. There isn't any going back now. People have realized the usefulness of P2P - and no piece of legislation anywhere is going to prevent its use. Worst case scenario - rewrite some protocols to encrypt data and make it look like normal traffic. Instead of writing dumb legislation how about a proactive approach (sorry for the management speak). How about some sort of coherent plan for how to deal with emerging technology in a way that makes sense?
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
Problem: classified information leaks to general public.
Solution: regulate the general public.
So if you loose track of your private information, just start a couple of those botnets to monitor the internets... never fails...
This is a joke, right? We don't need yet another association.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
the punishment of those who obey the laws and prosperity of those who do not.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
FTFA ::
# warnings to application users and notices about the number and types of files being shared;
# default settings that limit what is shared upon installation of an application; controls for users to
# stop sharing any file or folder; protections against any user attempt to share sensitive folders or
# file types; and simple means to disable the file-sharing functionality
As always, our good intending congress critters will not understand the over-reaching ramifications of trying to make an application behave legally. It makes good theater for the masses, and a whip to use against any software that is not paying to the "re-election" pac.
The only guidelines that need to be implemented in any secure workplace are to not run filesharing apps on ANY end-user computer. ( torrents, etc. should be done on a machine reserved for that purpose.)
If you had any doubts about the unintended consequences of net neutrality regulation, this should help clarify it for you. The same folks who would be "handed the keys to the Internet" to enforce net neutrality will be the ones regulating shit like this. Rather than get the government involved, we should maintain individual responsibility by boycotting ISPs with bad practices and draconian ToS.
I'm all for using P2P and bashing the US government like the next guy, but all this bill says is:
* Software that is capable of both sharing and downloading files (that is, indicating available files to others, sending those files to others, and recieving files from others) must inform you of this fact upon installation (include it in the EULA).
* Prior to sharing files (parts 1 and 2 above), the software must inform the user of what files are to be shared and recieve their consent.
* You must be able to uninstall and otherwise disable the software.
Any P2P client a sane person would use is no more than a popup and an EULA edit (or an initial popup, for software sans EULA) from already doing this. Web browsers don't qualify (they don't list available files for transmission); nor do FTP clients. FTP and Web servers, which usually start without user interaction, might be an odd situation. They'd have a hard case to make that Apache maliciously configured itself without your consent, though.
Bill is sponsored by Rep. Mary Bono. Big surprise. She was behind the 1998 Sunny Bono Copyright Extension Act and has worked very closely with the RIAA and MPAA in the past.
From the CNET article:
In other words: a "This gun shoots bullets, which may be lethal." notice every time the program is used, made further annoying by a list of all files that would be shared.
Should a user have a way of finding out exactly what the software they are using is doing, and an easy way to configure it correctly? Absolutely. Should it provide a way for me to view the configuration and what it will share? Hopefully, and I'd look for software that does. Does that mean all software should be dumbed down, and force me to go through such a notice every time I use it? Absolutely not. Of course the end result will be no different than what users currently do with EULA notices during software installation.
All in all a law requireing a bad and onerous implementation of what a good program should do anyway, and potentially the thin end of a wedge to add more restrictions to P2P software. The law could be used to go after some forms of spyware, but I'd much rather see a law carefully crafted for that purpose.
DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
You don't make content regulations based on the medium, but on the content.
If you spread information you have no legal right to spread using peer-to-peer, email, web site, private courier, or by shouting it from the mountaintop, it shouldn't matter. The action against you is for distributing information you had no right to distribute, not for using a particular technology to do so.
The only reason medium matters is some media, such as a private courier that doesn't cross state lines, may not be subject to federal law, but state law.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Assuming this is true:
This is a problem for the person or persons responsible for leaking that file and has nothing to do with peer to peer networks.
Question everything
Any security breaches are not the fault of P2P per se. Why was there a computer with classified documents where the user was allowed to install software and connect directly to the Internet? The user could have installed Apache and made the entire hard drive accessible through HTTP at that point.
Ultimately the entire Internet is peer-to-peer. All these "P2P" applications do is make it easier for the peers to find each other.
From the act:
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act--
(1) the term `protected computer' has the meaning given such term in section 1030(e)(2) of title 18, United States Code; and
(2) the term `peer-to-peer file sharing program' means computer software that allows the computer on which such software is installed--
(A) to designate files available for transmission to another computer;
(B) to transmit files directly to another computer; and
(C) to request the transmission of files from another computer.
Since nearly everyone using a P2P program does not "transmit files directly to another computer" this law has very limited application. Those internet routers have saved us!
Its what you do with it that is important.The problem is not about the access of this information, but in what can be done to prevent someone to do something with this information. Thus the problem does not lie in P2P.Or any mode of data transportation for that matter. "Lets kill all pigeon since this network can be used to carry *Gasp* dangerous infos!"
This is a stolen sig.
It is a well established scientific fact that 100% of terrorists use a readily available, totally unregulated oxidizing agent to maintain their very existence here on God's green Earth!
This extremely destructive agent has been used in nuclear missile propulsion systems, high explosive devices, and is a leading cause of infrastructure collapse!
Known as 'Element 8' This substance must be banned! Our wise and benevolent leaders have been combining Element 8 with simple carbon atoms in order to render it harmless and reduce its availability to the terrorists. These valiant efforts are opposed by environmental activists who are merely duped by our socialist enemies!
Write to your Congressman and Senator today and have them join the fight to ban 'Element 8', before it is used to destroy us all!
</sarcasm>
but I guess animosity is close enough...
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
The solution is simple - take away the president's helicopter and do away with royalty.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
This just goes to show you that these guys have absolutely no idea what they are actually talking about. To say we are going to make law about P2P file sharing is like saying, I'm going to make a law that says you can travel from point A to point B, but not in a three wheeled car. Only four wheeled cars. So, I can't use bit-torrent's protocol, so I will just create a similar one and call it something else and use it until you decide to include it in your law also. (a three wheeled car with a training wheel)
I'm sure they will just try to create an very broad law, but then they are really going to have issues actually applying the law since so many protocols already exist and are used in a myriad of ways. Also new protocols come out and they have to be applied and people will just find other ways round it. They will spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to police / patch a flawed law.
Let em have the old P2P, torrents,etc, we'll just invent a new one they can't regulate! When Kazaa went down, it obviously made a certain Mr B. Cohen think!
I disagree...the only p2p apps running should be *approved* ones. I realize that's splitting hairs, but the distinction is an important one. For example, I thought the Groove application from a couple years ago was a great idea & a good business use of p2p. That's the sort of thing that I could see being an approved p2p app. BearShare? not so much.
Just maybe, mind you, they should just teach their employees how a computer works. I imagine that would help a great deal more. Why don't we stop babying everyone and if we REALLY want to do something, teach them how to use the software that they've got in a way that they don't have it scan their entire computer for everything all the time.
I simply cannot fathom this kind of stupidity. Don't tell your P2P software to scan places with sensitive things in it and don't put those sensitive things in your shared folders. You don't see me putting a text file with my credit card numbers in my share folder so why would anyone put anything sensitive anywhere near their shared files? I guess I'll just never be able to completely understand things from the perspective of someone that not only knows nothing about computers but does not actually care to learn. It's beyond my comprehension. Even if you knew nothing...wouldn't you at least be curious to know what the hell your programs are doing?
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
This is yet another piece of misguided legislation authored by politicians who do not have the necessary grasp of the technical issues they're addressing or of the full scope of the ramifications of their proposed bill. Furthermore it's a knee-jerk reaction, and it's being reported in such a way as to foster panic and outrage. What, we're all done with Swine Flu, we've got to have something else to panic everyone over? Really, what is it they're trying to distract us all from, anyway? Enough, already. This proposal isn't going to see the light of day, and if it somehow does, it won't be enforceable nor will it stay in effect for long. Nothing to see here, move along, move along..
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Is not so much that somebody had made a copy of a file containing Presidential Helicopter blueprints, but, that, somehow, we found these blueprints on a server in Iran. Seems to me that we give as good as we get, at least on this one.
This is my sig.
The law is specifically against uploading files without informing the authorized user of the computer. I don't think that's such a bad thing nor is it a bad thing that it applies to all internet communications. It helps to clear up some situations where spyware would otherwise be in a legal grey area. It's also interesting to note that the legislation, as quoted on C-Net, does not make any specific exception for law enforcement to get files from a computer without the user's knowledge. I suppose that's covered by other laws.
Who says everyone here was happy with the prospect of a Democrat in power? Really D/R are two sides of the same coin, just brands the NWO sells us to make us think we have a say.
While we sat around fat and happy, international socialists have subverted governments around the world and sadly now the US will fall to the same.
I am so glad I live in Canada even though the US tries to pressure us to do it the way they see is right. I HOPE WE DON'T FALL TO THE PRESSURE. If you do their maybe a coup in Canada.
It was developped by univertities for military use, and eventually released to the great unwashed masses(TM).
Boy do the powers that are must regret that decision! The genie cannot be put back in the bottle...
The pitiful restraints some ISPs try to impose ("no servers, no this, no that") are a reflection of the big power's fears when the people is allowed to express itself just like the big and powerful.
Right now in France, they are trying nothing less than institute a compulsory monitoring program where the State would have access to all you do on the internet.
Laws are being proposed to equate blogs with weapons of psychological destruction, no doubt with an eventual eye to suppress what annoys the powerful.
if the law passes whats to stop WikiLeaks from facing further scrutiny? Its not that hard to NOT share a folder on your computer, how is regulating the "P2P" as a whole going to solve anything?
Individuals must choose, decide their "essential" nature rather than having it given from some transcendent source.
... whether that beige box under my desk is a client, server, or a peer?
For "peer-to-peer" to have any meaning in law or regulation, some definition of "server" is going to have to be written. It isn't going to be based on protocols or open listening TCP/IP ports. Practically every system I own has processes listening on various ports (Apache, sshd, etc.). So, we're going to need some legal distinction. Are "they" (whomever the infamous "they" is) going to make me apply for a server license? Not very likely, IMHO.
This appears to be 1) an attempt to solve a problem by people who have absolutely no idea how the technology that their proposed regulations targets actually works, or 2) an attempt on behalf of "the industry" to force everyone to work through their $erver$ for the purpose of revenue generation.
Have gnu, will travel.
Of course government computers with classified information should NOT BE RUNNING ANY SOFTWARE THAT IS NOT COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD AND PROPERLY CONFIGURED.
Also, of course, it sucks that a p-p network in Iran is hosting secret information.
How does passing a law regarding p-p in the US have any effect on these problems?
Please remember that the architecture of the Internet makes it the world's first P2P system; albeit with a lousy user interface.
All regulation of P2P systems and what you can do with them or not logically must apply to the Internet as a whole, because there is
no fundamental functional difference between a fancy P2P system and the raw Internet.
This is why all legislation targeted specifically at P2P systems is both misguided and extremely dangerous to the future of the net as a whole.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Uh, the actual *DIFFERENCE* is that even those of us who wanted, supported and voted for Obama are openly critical of some of his policies.
As opposed to the right-wing nut jobs that felt like Bush could do no wrong at anything.
It's called 'big tent' politics, people with varying degrees of agreement on issues, but general agreement overall.
Look how well that 'small tent' purity jihad is working for the GOP...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
i think i'll go eat a sandwich....ixteen!
Who decides what "p2p apps" to ban and which to approve? Furthermore, what criteria do they judge them on?
There is increasingly a separation between the actual applications (the clients), and the protocol itself, case in point: there are dozens of bittorrent clients. Do only sleazy malware clients get banned, or do entire protocols? What exactly makes a protocol "bad"? Why should anyone be in the business of telling me what sort of software I can write and run myself?
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
The FAA should confiscate Air Force One after that idiotic stunt in NYC.
Dear Shill:
As could have been predicted (and indeed, was) by anybody with a brain, your guys fucked it up on a scale so large that it will live forever in infamy. The adults have taken over again and while I don't like everything they do, it sure as hell is the lesser of two evils by many orders of magnitude. Try to be an adult for a change, stop whining, put the megaphone down, get back in your trailer and STFU.
The slackjawed,walleyed, bucktoothed, illiterate, inbreds that brought you "The war on drugs" "gun control" the DMCA and all the draconian shit supposedly to "save the children" and make sex offenders out of teenage boys who make the mistake of screwing teenage girls.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
This shit ain't that funny.
-The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
Should be modded +5 with the accompanying DUH! next to it.
Sig? No thanks. I don't smoke.
Really, how come the only place I hear about the problems with his policies is on slashdot and conservative news and opinion sites?
As for "'small tent' purity jihad" of the GOP, do you remember Joe Lieberman? got drummed out of the party because he had the temerity of thinking that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good idea? The closest you can come to that is Arlen Specter who left because he thought that the Republican voters would vote for the guy running against him in the primary. He didn't have the party apparatus working against him, just the actual voters.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Hex, you idiot.
$ make available
[sigh] Many Democrats in Congress voted for the Iraq war resolution; some of them still think it was a good idea. A majority of Democrats (and these days, independents) believe they were wrong for doing so, but no one's "drummed them out of the party" for it. For that matter, Lieberman hasn't been "drummed out of the party" either ... even though he richly deserves it, not for his support of the war, but for his support of the Republican candidate in the Presidential election. What do you think would have happened to a Republican who supported Kerry or Obama?
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
how come the only place I hear about the problems with his policies is on slashdot and conservative news and opinion sites?
Although I think this is a fair question, I wonder how many progressive outlets or forums you expose yourself to. Jon Stewart, for example, has certainly wasted no time taking shots at some of the dumbass stuff that's happened since the new Administration took office.
In conversations with friends, I certainly don't hold back my criticism, but here I find people on the other side of the fence tend to do enough criticizing (of Obama) for everyone.
[...]Joe Lieberman? got drummed out of the party because he had the temerity of thinking that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good idea[...]
Well that's a dramatic reinterpretation of history. Here's a bit of what the Venerable Wikipedia has to say on the topic of why Joe lost the primary:
"[3]his opposition to affirmative action;[4] his opposition to a Connecticut state law that would require Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims;[5] his membership in the bipartisan Gang of 14;[6] his support of Florida governor Jeb Bush in the Terri Schiavo case;[7] his initial willingness to compromise on Social Security privatization;[8] his alliances with Republicans[9] and attacks on other Democrats;[10][11][12] and Lieberman's rhetoric, which is believed by many Democrats, including Paul Krugman and former John Kerry advisor Ari Melber, to often support Republican talking points."
And here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_primary,_Connecticut_United_States_Senate_election,_2006
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
So, my summary of why he was drummed out of the party was oversimplified. Even going with your list of reasons, he was still drummed out of the party for being insufficiently orthodox according to Democrat Party dogma. Olympia Snow is still a Republican even though she is further from standard Republican positions then Lieberman is from Democrat.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Who decides what "p2p apps" to ban and which to approve?
I think you missed the bit up-thread about a "secure workplace". We aren't talking about Big Brother, we're talking about workplace network nazis.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
ban fire! yes, outlaw all uses of fire without a license - using the same logic:
arsonists use it to burn stuff
smokers use fire to smoke crack, tobacco and marijuana
fat people use fire to light grills and eat food which is unhealthy
oh, sure, there are so-called legitimate uses for fire, like keeping from freezing to death, but it is mostly homeless people who use fire for that.
so see, there is really no good reason not to outlaw fire - when fire is outlawed, only outlaws will have fire. hey - ban sticks - they make fire!
Ask Me About... The 80's!
Theft, kidnapping, torture, murder...
All by the government.
Direct violations of morality and the US Constitution.
Now we got a new clown and his idea of change is just a new set of excuses for the same old criminals.
Don't lecture us about theft until you shut down the Federal Reserve and force the RIAA, MPAA & book publishers to pay the original authors.
I don't know, what would happen?
No way to know for sure, but it would probably go something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_NMZv6Vfh8
See:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1224149&cid=27849677