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."'"

Comments

Why P2P

[AnotherBlackHat]

Why is this limited to P2P software?

Re:Why P2P

[kevinNCSU]

Did someone forget to inform this senator that we (the US) no longer own the internets?

Did someone forget to inform you that p2p software generally installs on a machine in a physical location and therefore is subject to the laws and regulations in that location? Just because your machine is able to talk to machines in a different country doesn't mean your machine is somehow above the laws of the country you live in.

Re:Why P2P

[ajs]

Why is this limited to P2P software?

Because almost every other type of unintentional sharing of files (if not all) are already covered by electronic privacy laws.

However, in the case of applications which are designed to share files, there's a legal gray area, where the author can claim that they have no obligation to have disclosed which files were being shared, and that the user consented to sharing their files by installing file sharing software.

This bill would close that loophole.

Re:Why P2P

[gnieboer]

True, all P2P apps have to know what files they are sharing. But here's where I see bill's raison d'etre...

"being 'clear and conspicuous' about which files are being shared and getting user consent to share them"

NOW, when the RIAA sues everyone:
The software maker is free and clear ("We added the consent to share box as mandated by law")
And the person sharing Rocky 17 CAN'T say "I had no idea that file was being shared", which has been a defense in the past.

So (IMHO) when we talk about big lobbying groups, the RIAA would like it, and the software makers are willing to put up with the other provisions because now they are off the hook from the big P2P lawsuit.

Relevant Quote

[Kindgott]

"Anyone who says that the solution is to educate the users hasn't ever met an actual user."
-- Bruce Schneier

Aimed at Freenet?

[acid06]

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.

Re:Mod parent up

[adolf]

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.)