Slashdot Mirror
House Committee Passes "Informed P2P User Act"
An anonymous reader writes "This week the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the 'Informed P2P User Act' and has sent it along to the full House for consideration. The bill, which appears to have heavy support on both sides of the political fence, simply states that P2P software must not install extra software or prevent users from removing it, in addition to being 'clear and conspicuous' about which files are being shared and getting user consent to share them. 'Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the powerful committee chairman, opened the markup session by warning about "the danger of inadvertent sharing of sensitive information through the use, or misuse, of certain file sharing programs. Tax returns, medical files, and even classified government documents have been found on these networks. The purpose of H.R. 1319 is to reduce inadvertent disclosures of sensitive information by making the users of this software more aware of the risks involved."'"
Why is this limited to P2P software?
Ok, so who funded this bill and why?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Do sftpd and Windows File Sharing count? The bill better be carefully worded or the law of unintended consequences and vendors screaming "waitaminuteididn'tknowmyproductqualified" will be the end result.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I'd like to see criminal penalties for bundling undisclosed and unwanted software with any application. See if that gets past the lobbyists.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
How do they expect to enforce this law on companies that produce software outside of the US?
Apparently they still don't understand how this internet thing works.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
If they're finding classified documents on the public internet, that means that they have a bigger problem like government employees disregarding security guidelines by putting them on unclassified networks.
Just like the Theft act prevents Theft.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
... the installation of viruses and worms on computers you don't won is now illegal. Massive layoffs are expected in the BotNet industry...
The same users that are dumb/ignorant enough to share their tax and medical records are the same ones that won't bother to read any "clear and conspicuous" warnings. They'll either not understand it or hit "OK" without reading it. You can't write laws that eliminate stupidity.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
I guess the bill shows the fundamental lack of understanding of who makes these programs... But since we're making a wishlist, I think they should consider amending the bill to also:
Outlaw neighbor's kids on your lawn
Calling of mean names during recess
Impose regulations on which kids may be beat up on the bus, replacing the current "smallest kid" freemarket system.
Legalize marijuana and outlaw Light Beer.
Outlaw poverty, unhappiness, debt, bad driving and excessively loud cheering at football games.
did I miss anything?
It could be that this bill is being passed simply to remove a set of excuses people might use when caught using P2P for sharing copyrighted material - hence the name of the bill.
If the software plainly states that it will be sharing a file with other people, then you cannot say 'I didn't know I was sharing it'. Likewise, you cannot say that it installed without your knowledge nor can you say it installed but you couldn't uninstall it.
This is of course, only possible if the writers of P2P software actually give two hoots about the bill.....
Steve.
Yeh, that's the important point. Why not just ban spyware, period?
Spyware violates electronic privacy laws that already exist.
The purpose of H.R. 1319 is to reduce inadvertent disclosures of sensitive information by making the users of this software more aware of the risks involved.
Sure it is. Now, how about taking a closer look;
the term "peer-to-peer file sharing program" means[...]
to designate files available for transmission to another computer
to transmit files directly to another computer; and
to request the transmission of files from another computer.
Well, that's basically "using the internet". And using the definition of "protected computer", if you can add a tcp/ip stack to your toaster, it's a protected computer. So what will it be illegal to do using anything with a microprocessor and can communicate with the outside world? Also, "authorized user" -- I suspect a lot of EULAs are going to be updated so that every company that has a piece of networkable software installed on your system is now also an authorized user. Unintended consequences are a bitch, aren't they? Your system is now legally required to be insecure and full of backdoors. ...prevent the reasonable efforts of an owner or authorized user from blocking the installation [of a] program or function thereof
So installing is now okay. 'Using' not available for comment. So we can still f*ck with it at the operating system level, or neuter it in memory -- messing with the code after installation or during runtime isn't covered. Oops.
to fail to provide a reasonable and effective means to disable or remove from the protected computer...[excessive legalese deleted]
Translation: Installers should come with uninstallers. We need a law for this? And without a definition of what "reasonable and effective" constitutes -- well, need I say more? Anyone try uninstalling Norton Antivirus lately? It's quicker just to nuke the drive from orbit, and it's the only way to be sure you got everything. Can I expect federal pound me in the ass prison time for all the Norton executives? No? Why -- oh, right... they're rich. But you there, little open source developer -- we know you're evil. I mean, you don't even have a brand identity!
Yeah... this ends well.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
People should not be modded up for not reading the article.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So is spyware is already "banned" by privacy laws, why do we need this separate P2P legislation? Sorry I can't help being skeptical. The Patriot Act included things nobody knew about, and discovered later after passage, and I'm wondering if this P2P bill has similar "gotchas" hidden inside of it. Like:
- "We caught you P2Ping the latest Linux distro. Per U.S. law we are required to suspend your account until you agree not to use P2P." - MSN
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
"Anyone who says that the solution is to educate the users hasn't ever met an actual user."
-- Bruce Schneier
If there's anything more important than my ego around here, I want it caught and shot immediately.
Notice that this didn't ONLY ban spyware. It had stipulations that state that when a P2P app is installed it clearly indicates what is being shared. This will just prevent Joe Sixpack from installed AwesomeShareItAll v3.1 where it just shares out your entire hard drive without indicating it.
Personally, I just don't see too much evil in this bill.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Please explain your position.
How would informing the P2P user about what is being shared on that user's computer prevent the user from using FreeNet and other anonymous sharing networks?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Apparently, this bill is actually aimed at things such as the Freenet Project.
On Freenet, you actually don't know what is stored on your own computer (and thus, what you're sharing) as everything is encrypted.
Apparently, this effectively outlaws Freenet.
IANAL, but I don't think it applies because Freenet isn't a "a program, application, or software that is commercially marketed or distributed to the public."
Furthermore, my understanding is that Freenet stores the shared files in a single, encrypted file. Shared files are not stored within the host filesystem, correct? Then it need only notify the user that the encrypted file it uses will be shared, without necessarily notifying the user of the contents. Uploads to Freenet are accomplished with independent software that requires initiation by the user, and is therefore not covered by this law.
Naah.
Freenet stores its data in encrypted files and refers to them with hashes, right? I mean: It's just files on a filesystem, isn't it? So, all the software has to do to stay in compliance is state which of those files are being shared.
It doesn't state that it must decrypt the files. Or that the content of them must be disclosed. It would just need to report to the user the same stuff that already gets reported to Freenet at large.
Doing so is neither against this bill, nor against the spirit of Freenet, nor in any way any significant technical hurdle to overcome.
(Unless I'm very mistaken, in which case I welcome any corrections.)
Kid-proof tablet..