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.

Comments

It's True

[eldavojohn]

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.

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 ... and then seed it as top secret documents on Bittorrent.

Re:It's True

[B'Trey]

The CNN article commenting on the proposed bill says:

Another example: Web browsers could also be regulated and subject to Federal Trade Commission enforcement action unless "informed consent" is obtained each time the desktop icon is double-clicked. (Every Web browser allows the user to "designate" files to be uploaded--ever post a photo?--and request that files be downloaded.)

This appears to be covering things like uploading a photo or downloading a program to install. That doesn't even cover the half of it. What happens when you visit a web page? Your browser sends a GET request and downloads the file - it copies a file from the server to your computer. If the page is not static, of course, the file is generated on the fly by scripts. But if that isn't covered, then I'll simply code my P2P app to ROT13 all files. When you download it, a script reads it and generates the stream that's transferred to you. I'm no longer copying a file, so the law doesn't apply to me.

What happens when you visit many, many websites? They read your cookies. The cookie is a file on your computer. It's transferred from your computer to their server. What happens when you download your email, particularly if you're accessing a 'Nix based mail server where mail is stored in mbox or mailbox format? What happens when you open a file with your Word processor on a remote share? In short, what happens almost any time you do anything on a networked computer? Is every application you run going to have to nag you to death every time you open it?

This is so ludicrous that not even Congress could pass it.

Re:It's True

[Hurricane78]

And it absolutely does not matter that it is ludicrous. Because the person who gains from this will not care for all the things you mention. It could even be the very point of installing that system.

Never think you politicians were stupid, when someone can obviously gain something from in. ^^

Re:It's True

[Anonymous Coward]

You know whats funny about the whole situation is if they didn't want them on the internet they wouldn't make it there if they had a good security team in place.

Re:It's True

[mrops]

This is so ludicrous that not even Congress could pass it.

I think you are putting way too much trust in Congress.

Re:It's True

[morcego]

Actually, it is the ethernal problem of politicians thinking they can fix stupidity with new laws.

I hereby propose that all computers should have an IQ test as part of their POST. If the person fails at the test, the computer will present an unrecoverable error (Eg: "Keyboard not found, press any key to continue"), and refuse to boot.

YAY!

[reidiq]

More government control over our lives!!!!!

Re:YAY!

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Perhaps you missed the fact that the Representative who introduced this bill is a Republican? Kind of hard to pin this particular piece of idiocy on Obama.

Time to get (overly?) skeptical...

[VinylRecords]

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?

Re:Time to get (overly?) skeptical...

[internerdj]

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?
The annoying thing is by making those documents available on p2p, the worker was already breaking countless laws and regulations. There are existing protections in place for this type of thing but rather than rely on the fact that he could be fined/fired/arrested/barred from future government work and if he was a contractor his company was also fined/penalized against future contract bids, the solution is to make yet another law standing in the way of legitimate use of p2p.

Re:Time to get (overly?) skeptical...

[HTH NE1]

The leaking of a government file is only the excuse. The real goal is to eliminate ignorance by the user of what the software does for purposes of prosecution of the user for sharing copyrighted works.

I.e. this is meant to inform all users of P2P software of their overt actions in making available files so that the RIAA has a stronger case.

Re:Time to get (overly?) skeptical...

[HTH NE1]

But is there a precedent for "illegal software"?

Not that it is pertinent to the discussion, but the original DeCSS software was made illegal to possess or even publish a link to, electronically or by press and, because 2600 Magazine declined to appeal their case to the Supreme Court, it remains so (case law interpreting the DMCA).

Legally deficient software, I don't know.

I guess my problem is that I don't see how this is possible going to get enforced, other than on cases that are already in court.

It can't apply to cases already in court. No ex post facto laws: you can't prosecute someone for something that wasn't illegal at the time. But it could apply to new cases after it is enacted into law, i.e. when the RIAA "resumes" prosecuting people they could use this against the individual sharer or against the software maker.

Of course, they'll have to amend this bill to make it illegal to continue using file sharing software deficient under this legislation. The software isn't illegal, but its use is; the author isn't liable, but the end user is. But then they'll have to deal with the commercial software lobbyists who may or may not want to issue recalls or patches of software they still publish to comply with this overly broad legislation.

Why does it seem

[Anonymous Coward]

That under the old admin everybody was screaming in fear about 1984... And now with the new admin... it still feels the same

ZOMG!!!

[zappepcs]

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.

Re:ZOMG!!!

[eldavojohn]

ZOMG, they use television too.

It's true. Both sides use CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, etc heavily. And yet there is no new laws proposed to regulate CNN. Probably because it's less anonymous but also because it's considered "the press" and the phrase "government regulating the press" in America is worse than insulting your favorite sports team.

You know, it would be an interesting strategy to turn the bittorrent protocol into a means of disseminating news and blogs as well as large files. I mean they're just smaller files but could have huge legal implications for regulations of it. It would be nice to see (and make sense bandwidth wise) CNN distributing their video content with embedded advertisements in torrents. How popular would they be? I'm not sure. But it would give P2P advocates a case to cry foul when the government tries to regulate the software & protocol.

I guess "Now I can't share DVDs" just doesn't sound as patriotic as "The government is controlling and censoring a new press outlet and must be stopped."

Re:ZOMG!!!

[maxume]

I propose new laws to regulate Fox all of the time.

P2P is not the problem.

[fahrbot-bot]

It doesn't help the P2P cause that the technology continues to pop up in bad practices.

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.

Re:P2P is not the problem.

[Chabil Ha']

The real issue is simply "Ethics", which I fear some are lacking.

It does reveal (in some aspects) the childishness of our society. We have to be so explicit in the "dos and don'ts" and aren't left to our own to think what our actions might really entail. We are left with a "Four legs good, Two legs bad" impression of our world without the understanding of what that really means.

I would try education before legislation.

Re:P2P is not the problem.

[sumdumass]

I wouldn't agree that it is childish. It's the way our society was created and is the halmark of freedom and liberty. You see, we operate under the assumption of we can until something with authority says we can't. Now morals, like this impressed by religions, fraternity groups (eagles, elks, boy scouts) civil societies (bar associations, trade groups/unions) and so on are all relative instead of absolute now.

It used to be a system of absolute morality in which it was a given of what was expected and how we treated each other as well as expected to be treated. but in out enlighten society, it's all about relative morality now. This took us from a solid how will my actions effect others to a how will my actions effect me. With that shift has come a shift the stuff that you seem to think makes us childish now.

I would try education before legislation too but without a shift back to absolute morality to some degree, it will be more or less an exercise in futility.

The typical outcome of regulation is

[Phizzle]

the punishment of those who obey the laws and prosperity of those who do not.

Intent good, impossible to legislate

[frith01]

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.)

After Looking at the CNET article

[robkill]

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:

Bono's Informed P2P User Act says that it will be "unlawful" for P2P software to cause files to be made available unless two rules are followed. First, the utility's installation process must provide "clear and conspicuous notice" of its features and obtain the user's "informed consent." Second, the program must step through that notice-and-consent process every time it runs.

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.

Re:After Looking at the CNET article

[blueg3]

Hey, someone who actually read an article and figured out it's (a) not much of a regulation and (b) about software, not networks.

Whether or not you need to be warned each time depends on the interpretation of "initial activation" in "immediately prior to initial activation of a file sharing function of such program..."

Otherwise, yes. For already-sane P2P clients, this adds minor annoyance, and nothing else. It does, as someone pointed out, seriously injure the "I didn't know I was sharing it" defense for child pornography and copyright infringement.

Not the fault of P2P per se

[nine-times]

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.

Re:Not the fault of P2P per se

[nine-times]

For a peer-to-peer system, it has a lot of heirarchical order.

In what way? Maybe DNS has some hierarchy to it, but ultimately the internet is peer-to-peer. It's certainly not a broadcast network.

The FTP servers on the Internet constitute P2P file sharing. Same with web servers. You can install apache on your computer and I can install it on mine, and then we be peers who have access to share each others' files. Google's search engine is the tool that most of us use to indicate what files are available, as well as to find them-- but really, Google is just another peer on the network.

But now, watch out, if you use a protocol other than HTTP and a search engine that's not Google (and maybe decentralized), suddenly you're everyone assumes you're doing something illegal. They want to make peer-to-peer communications illegal, but they're failing to understand that there's no meaningful technical distinction between that "suspicious P2P file sharing" and "normal legitimate Internet traffic."

Ban Element 8!

[number6x]

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>

Re:Ban Element 8!

[The Grim Reefer2]

It sounds a lot like Dihydrogen Monoxide.

The Invisible Killer

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

Dihydrogen monoxide:

        * is also known as hydroxyl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
        * contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
        * may cause severe burns.
        * contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
        * accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
        * may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
        * has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Contamination Is Reaching Epidemic Proportions!

Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

        * as an industrial solvent and coolant.
        * in nuclear power plants.
        * in the production of styrofoam.
        * as a fire retardant.
        * in many forms of cruel animal research.
        * in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
        * as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!

The Horror Must Be Stopped!

The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.

Re:Ban Element 8!

[Nyvhek]

Yeah, that's what happens when you accidentally combine Element 8 with hydrogen instead of carbon.

The Internet is the P2P system

[presidenteloco]

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.

Re:Intent good, impossible to legislate

[Sir_Lewk]

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?

Another dumf*ck law brought to you by..

[Paracelcus]

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.

17 18 19 20

[roguetrick]

This shit ain't that funny.

Re:Elections have consequences

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Re:9 A B C

[Thinboy00]

Hex, you idiot.