Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Outline Targeted Content Poisoning For P2P Data
Diomidis Spinellis writes "Two USC researchers published a paper in the prestigious IEEE Transactions on Computers that describes a technique for p2p content poisoning targeted exclusively at detected copyright violators. Using identity-based signatures and time-stamped tokens they report a 99.9 percent prevention rate in Gnutella, KaZaA, and Freenet and a 85-98 percent prevention rate on eMule, eDonkey, and Morpheus. Poison-resilient networks based on the BitTorrent protocol are not affected. Also the system can't protect small files, like a single-song MP3. Although the authors don't say so explicitly, my understanding is that the scheme is only useful on commercial p2p distribution systems that adopt the proposed protocol."
Actually, poisoning P2P networks as a commercial venture could be prosecuted as theft-by-deception.
Stealing bandwidth is a crime. Downloading songs isn't, if you aren't profiting form it.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
I was curious as to how they were poisoning Freenet, which should be robust against this with its Forward Error Correcting.
According to the paper, Freenet falls under the category of the "Gnutella family" (p.2). The Freenet Project that I know is in no way related to Gnutella.
Are they referring to a different file sharing program by the name of Freenet, or is this statement of theirs just plain inaccurate?
The paper won't download here, so I'm asking without RTFA, but how can this work against Freenet? Do they discuss Freenet in the paper at all? Freenet does chunk-level hashing, and the network enforces that the data matches the hash at all steps. Nodes returning invalid data will rapidly get dropped by their peers. Attacks like this are something that Freenet is explicitly designed to prevent. Also, the anonymity guarantees that Freenet makes would make it hard (potentially very hard) for them to identify a single user, let alone "collusion".
I'm forced to wonder whether the researchers mention Freenet at all, or if the poster is simply lumping Freenet in with other p2p apps that it has very little in common with. (Bittorrent and Freenet should be similar in some ways to their resistance against this attack, but Freenet's strong anonymity guarantees should make it more resistant. The fact that a node engaged in widespread poisoning will have trouble even staying connected makes Freenet even more resistant.)
So what's wrong by buying a boat, forking out money enough to have people work months and feed their families?
I find this mentality a bit shortsighted: if I would have a pile of money in excess (yes, excess) and would "invest it" (say buy an appartmentblock, cash rent and take from people in that way for my "wellbeing") people don't say a thing.
But when someone aqcuires something, which creates work (luxury items need to be made, people make them, and they're expensive because they're not massproduced, right?) you stimulate an economy and economical activity (people can go to work, do something with their time and get paid) yet that is "wrong" because you can't take a boattrip?
As much I would enjoy excessive luxury as well, spending money stimulates an economy. If you have alot of money, the best thing to "make things happen", and give value is to spend it.
I'm working with banks and wealthmanagement software, I don't have such an abdunce of money as I see passing through our software, yet it creates cashflow and because of that cashflow +100 people here are able to work and drive nice company cars. They are happy. Clients are happy. And those who the people who are happy and comfortable (not excessively) pay to get value from are happy as they can make a business. (80% of the people here order their lunch in a small business who deliver to our office. This means they can bill each day for about 320 to run their business.)
While the economic attitude has proven flawed (growth instead of sustainability and stability). Our economy and wellbeing of those in and around it (you and I buddy) depends on the spending.
I do agree on the point the RIAA is a bunch of greedy bastards. And the value demanded for that music or whatever is not align with the perceived and experienced value delivered. But that is another issue.
Instead of looking down on someone with such a badass boat, ask him you can take a ride, chances are it's a very lonely person misguided trying to acquire wealth sacrificing alot you wouldn't sacrifice. Chances are you get your free ride. I've seen that alot.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
The luxury industry has been linked with reducing the size of the middle class, since it tends to greater a broader disparity between those providing goods and services and those consuming them. You are certainly correct, of course, that spending money will 'stimulate the economy' regardless if it comes from the rich or the poor. The question is the type of economy you want to stimulate. Luxury spending tends to stimulate the segment of industry that sees little return back at the lower end of the wage pools. They reap higher profits, and provide fewer goods and services, thus tending towards increasing the divide in wealth. Spending in the lower end 'consumer grade' market tends to stimulate an industry that will increase growth where more goods and services are produced.
Henry Ford famously paid his employees enough so they could buy the cars they were building. Imagine what might have happened to the auto industry if he had catered only to the rich? Compare also to Walmart, who also wants to pay their employees enough to buy their products.
A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.