Slashdot Mirror
US Lawmakers Set Sights On P2P Programs
After the FTC sent letters to 100 organizations warning them that their data is being leaked on P2P networks — and now has requested detailed operational data from at least a subset of those organizations — it was pretty likely that anti-P2P legislation would get proposed. Two senators have introduced the P2P Cyber Protection and Informed User Act, which "...would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user. The legislation would also prohibit P2P software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program and/or disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program. Software developers would be required to clearly inform users when their files are made available to other peer-to-peer users under legislation introduced Feb. 24 by Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and John Thune, R-S.D."
"...would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user. The legislation would also prohibit P2P software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program and/or disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program.
They speak English on What?
Sent from your iPad.
Most well-known P2P software is deliberately installed. And users are told where their shared files will be.
So how would P2P software be installed without consent? Perhaps spambots and other nefarious malware?
That makes this less "P2P-related" and more anti-spam. And that's a good thing, I think.
I had to read it a couple times too. They're basically trying to prevent "hidden" p2p software.
Is it bad that given the text presented here, I see little to nothing wrong with the proposed law? I haven't read the full text of the proposed bill, but having it say 'Don't install your software without permission' seems like a good thing to me. This could be twisted around to give legal recourse for some malware out there. "I didn't want that file with my information sent to anyone!"
Because it's worked so well in the past, when some idiot is breaking the rules to install some sort of software that they're already not allowed to install...
What's next, are we going to legislate against games being installed on workplace computers?
This is not a legal problem. Laws are not going to fix it, but will make it only harder to deal with it.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Doesn't, at first glance, see that all of these files aren't being placed there willy-nilly. Their computers are being targeted with simple malware,
and the fine folks behind the malware find all of these fun and neat files and place them online for the rest of the world to see.
Also, making illegal the "non-user aware placement of software" ?? doesn't really need yet another law to do what is already illegal.
They just want the P2P buzzword, which does nothing.
Computer experts really need to get the message and the learning out that P2P is a misnomer, and that they need to take responsibility for the security
of their own computes.
Oh, wait, personal responsibility? That's un-mer'can.
Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
Basically, it sounds like there's two things here. Blocking P2P software that interferes with other P2P software in a malware-esque fashion, and enforcing clear notifications that shared files are, well, shared. Seems dumb, but a lot of folks out there don't realize that if they share "My Documents," everything from their tax records to their secret porn stash is going to be on the web for all and sundry to download. This hits home particularly hard for gov't employees, considering some of the sensitive stuff that's leaked through LimeWire and the like over the years.
--- Bwah?
Did the tagger even bother to read the summary? They are not prohibiting P2P software, they are trying to govern its behavior. The realistic side of me says this is pointless, but the idealist in me hopes that P2P writers do change their behavior. Greater information and control on the part of the user can't be a bad thing.
Apparently not, especially when they don't understand the subject. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the US already have laws to prevent unauthorised access?
Simple, mate. It just means you'll no longer be able to say "OMG! I had no idea that my computer was sharing that movie" in court.
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
No, they are legislators. Legislators rarely speak any recognizable language when discussing the law. The longer an individual is in the legislature the worse this becomes.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Blizzard installer has a peer to peer component and you have to choices: Download from their servers alone (slow) or download from other users and main server (fast). This legistlation would just for such programs to tell users about the P2P component and let them opt-out.
As far as I'm concerned they should extend it further. It seems like a
good set of principles, why limit it to programs that communicate across
a network?
It should be prohibited to install ANY program on a computer without the
informed consent of the user. And programs that remove other programs,
or block the operation of other programs, without the user being informed,
should also be illegal.
Of course, this would cover some of the DRM techniques that block
disk image emulation, and probably a few other DRM techniques.
And yes, any program that serves your files up to the internet shouldn't
do it without your consent. Until recently, that would have included
Windows file sharing....
The headline doesn't seem to match the summary, and I haven't even gotten to TFA. It sounds to like they aren't trying to prevent P2P, but rather trying to prevent malware that has P2P functions. The only real benefit I see is the stablishment of law to be tested in prosecution of malware developers.
Is there a reason this requires the term p2p and can't just say:
Programs that are installed on a computer without user consent are illegal.
Programs that send information from the user's machine must make it clear exactly what information is being sent.
Heck, I could get behind this kind of legislation.
If it was the underhand, self-installing, not-notifying, law-ignoring kind of P2P software you could still claim ignorance.
"It was them evil HACKERS guv'. I had no idea! You should lock them up, not me."
We should send them all home! http://www.reelectnone.org
You should be P2P at home.
Drug laws, nope. Gun laws, nope. Embezzlement laws, nope. Terrorism laws, nope. Child porn laws, nope. Stupid politicians can't run for reelection laws, I'll get right on that one.
I wonder if this is intended more to target spyware and data-mining applications from installing themselves than to regulate P2P software like uTorrent.
If that's the case than this is a great thing.
I'm sure they'll find some way to fuck it up though.
First of all, I find it hard to believe that it isn't already illegal to surreptitiously install software on someone's computer. And even more illegal to install software that steals data.
Second, if that's not already illegal, why are they making a law that only targets one specific type of software?
Either the entire plan is utterly ignorant or this is a "foot in the door" to outlaw P2P. Either way, I think our government has more important issues to deal with right now.
Yeah, that's a total mind-fuck of a paragraph. My attempt at parsing it:
would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs
{
from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user
}
and
{
that would prevent the authorized user from
{
blocking the installation of a P2P file-sharing program
}
and/or
{
disabling or removing any P2P file-sharing program.
}
}
Especially if you're a constituent of one of the sponsors, it's your duty to let them know what the technical community thinks of their shenanigans. They can read what real-world people think, and if they can argue their way out of it then fine pass the bill. but I bet they can't.
What's the point of posting an opinion here if you don't also send it to your representative?
Congress proposes bad bill
Everyone in the world points out how stupid it is
Congress doesn't read the internet or newspapers
Bill passes, there's a law now.
Everyone asks, how could this possibly have been passed? Did they not understand all of the stuff we said behind their backs?
Government doesn't listen, why bother.
The cycle repeats. It's your responsibility to at least register opposition.
So we're looking at a law that requries P2P software to inform about what P2P means and demand explicit consent from the user (which everyone will doubtlessly click away as readily as we dismiss EULAs, i.e. as soon as we've found the right button).
To me it looks like a cheap and easy way of making it look like you're solving a problem. Doesn't say anything about the severity of that problem or the efficiency of the solution, but you can't get everything I suppose.
Bittorrent is an awesome protocol. It's a leap technologically from the old server/client download model, and really ought to be embraced and developed by people instead of seen as a disease on the internet. You can't go mole whacking stuff any time it hurts the wallet of some big company. Sucks to be you, guy... learn to move forward and adapt.
That's how I read this too. However, the devil is in the details, which we don't have.
Given that a: usually a bill is introduced with opposite meaning to the statement of the bill if it's done by a bad politician and that b: it could be about the above but introduce some other issues, I'll hold my breath. I also can't find this act anywhere, other than it being mentioned as "to be introduced".
This is a type of bill that could easily be subverted by bad interests depending on who influences it.
Good to know that calling myself retarded is worthy of a troll mod. Good stuff, I feel a heightened sense of self-worth already. ;-P
Seriously, the language of the proposed bill was horrible. it isn't trolling to point that out, Mr Mod.
Sent from your iPad.
it outsources the cost. It's then up to you to pay for enforcement. Not them...
Deleted
Because:
(a) Someone installed a P2P file-sharing program (deliberately)
(b) They accidently (or ignorantly) selected a folder to share that contained company data or they didn't specify which folders to share, so everything got shared by default
Just do a quick Google search and you can find all sorts of stuff that people have exposed to the Internet -- and you don't even have to secretly install any evil P2P software
If you remove 'p2p' from this, it almost makes sense. Not allowing software to stealth-install or block uninstallation? Why isn't that already a law?
I dislike the government as much as anyone, particularly their views on "piracy"...but I don't really see what is wrong with this law. It prohibits P2P software from being installed without your consent, and forces that P2P software to tell you what it is sharing with other people. How are these bad?
I had to read it a couple times too. They're basically trying to prevent "hidden" p2p software.
Exactly, or drive by installed P2P software that shares your entire disk just because you wanted a torrent of the latest OpenSUSE distro.
While this in itself would be commendable, these things end up being a gloss of what really gets implemented in regulation. What starts out looking like protection for the consumer is really a ploy to remove plausible deniablity as a defense.
Further, such a bill would do nothing when Little Billy, who is an authorized user of Mom's machine, gives away the family tax returns while trying to get the next level of Wonder Rabbit to download by clicking thru that popup warning.
There are already laws prohibiting unauthorized used of a computer, and the government already knows exactly who the bot masters and spam masters are, yet they walk around untouched while the "real criminals" are sued into poverty for sharing a song. Do we really need more unenforceable laws prohibiting what is already prohibited?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Inept sharing is different from unauthorized access. Inept sharing means that other do have authorization to access the documents.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
thank you very much
Being a /.er I, of course, only read the summary--but that makes it sound like they are preventing anyone from installing software on your computer that you don't approve of.
Am I misreading it?
Pretty soon in the dismal not so distant future, this will be you tools as Atlas Shrugs and sits on your dumbass geek neck you button pushing dopes.
Not only are you killing the economic model that has enabled you to attain what you have thus far, but your are killing your own market idiots even as the worlds 2 largest populations, markets, come online to modernity, you have enabled them to not only "share" the fruits of your labor for free but soon your jobs.
Be it P2P or FOSS
It all spells doom for you and now as your jobs are being outsourced to china and india, its the begining of the end for you all and you dont even fucking know it because your selfish cheap little pricks who think your entitled
Your entitled to go off and starve and thats what your gonna learn to do, sooner than you think morons!
Well we do peer to peer communications over roads, and telephones and the mail. And illegal activity happens over all of those. They would not shut these down. Make laws to make certain practices illegal yes but shut them down no. Why not? Because they are used by everyone, especially the law makers. If someone found a way to get these system more integrated into society then they would have the same protections by lawmakers. Just ask an NRA Senator if anyone should take away his/her gun?
You got it wrong after "and". It is the software that is prohibited from blocking other software installs, not the user.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
This is legislation basically saying a company has to conform to points 1, 2 and 3 if they want to install software X of a particular variant (in this case, P2P) on your machine.
This is not really much different from telling a contractor that they're free to install a bathroom into your home, but that they will have to abide by laws 1, 2 and 3 regarding things like the electrical wiring.
( although that's based on UK and NL law - I suppose maybe in the U.S. every contractor is free to install an outlet into the side of their client's bathtub if they so desire? )
Is that over-legislation in the case of P2P? probably. But mostly because it's a bit odd to target P2P specifically - it could apply to just about any program. Security programs would be an issue, though*
The points themselves -seem- sound enough, though...
no stealthy installs - I'm all for that. I'm looking at you, Apple with iTunes and Safari, and you MS for MSN's final installation screen suggesting IE should be my default browser and MSN be set my homepage, and a crapload of other apps that suggest that installing a Yahoo! toolbar is vital to the operation of the principle software.. give me a donate button instead, I'll happily part with some dosh if I'm using your app, more than you're getting from Yahoo for the toolbar install I'd imagine.
So, bittorrent isn't allowed to block my installation of, say, utorrent, nor is would it be allowed to prevent me from uninstalling itself (or others).
* just to get back to that security programs bit - obviously a security program -should- be allowed to block other software from being installed if that other software is malware. So that's where broader legislation could have problems.
Given the "I didn't know!" defense-craptaculaire proferred by some people, I think that's sane, too. Heck, disable sharing by default, and if the user wants to share files warn them of the ramifications, and always make it clear -which- files you're sharing.. not via a configuration dialog that merely specifies the path - offer a screen where you can get an -actual list- of the files.
Better yet would be not allowing the sharing of a directory 'as is' at all. Have the user confirm that any files added to a specified share folder should be shared - keep a simple database (flat text file would do) of the files the user actually wanted to share.
That way you can't have business users dropping a random document(s) into the share folder, forgetting that they had it shared, and auto-sharing that/those document(s) with the world -unless- they also go to their P2P app to confirm that they want the added file(s) shared.
The thing -I- worry about is that IANAL. Moreover, IANAS(neaky)L - so I don't know just how these definitions (which I suspect are loosely phrased around the actual suggested legislation anyway) can be worked around, or twisted for abuse, etc.
Senator: Im shocked...SHOCKED theres p2p sharing going on
Senator's Son: Hey dad I just finished updating your music collection
Senator: Great!
This is like a law against blocking or spoofing your caller ID. The people who do it get away with it because there's no way to track them down. This is just a sad attempt to make a "pile on" law in the rare instance that they do catch someone.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The people who are too dumb to understand which folder's contents are being shared aren't using bittorrent, they are using something like LimeWire. Inadvertent sharing isn't really a problem with torrents, but it can be with older protocols like Gnutella.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
Or any other program that sends/receives data without the user's explicit consent? (Those unenforceable EULA's don't count!)
Such information may not be a "file" per se, but definition of a 'file' loses it's meaning when it is being transmitted.
This is not censorship. It is attempting to make illegal the uninvited installation of P2P and related technologies, such as with malware. As a nice side effect, it would also make it illegal for idiot users to install P2P clients on their work machines without permission from the IT staff. This is a VERY FUCKING GOOD THING and it does not in any way infringe on anybody's rights nor is it censorship of any sort. You are still free to install and use P2P technologies on your own machines.
Inept sharing is different from unauthorized access. Inept sharing means that other do have authorization to access the documents.
Yes, and with this law, we would finally make it illegal to be inept! Problem solved.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
But why have a law restricted to p2p software? Wouldn't it make more sense to prohibit this sort of hidden installation of any software?
Blizzard installer *mumble, mumble* tell users about the P2P component and let them opt-out.
They do, and you can. Move along.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Seems to me like this just does two things:
The first seems like common sense for all software, not just P2P (if it already existed, this provision would be redundant). If the law also clearly defined the difference between an "update" and "new software," it might prevent Microsoft from pushing out WGA as an automatic update. It could also provide legal provision against a specific hacker activity, installing malware, rather than the blanket DMCA provision against unauthorized computer access (which could be playful and/or harmless, whereas silently installing software almost never is).
As for the second one, I once installed Shareaza, and found eventually that it had downloaded a lot of high profile pirated software, presumably to share on the network and increase download speeds for other users. The program itself showed no indication of where these files came from, or how to remove them or stop sharing them. In the process, it implicated my as a copyright infringer without my intent, or even any benefit from the usage of the pirated software. Obviously there are more problems with technically illiterate people, but even a technical person could be bamboozled by the right program into sharing sensitive documents or participating in illegal activities. Again, these are actions most used by nefarious hackers.
So, it's a law that should, in effect, provide real, useful provisions against hackers. It is not banning P2P as a technology, nor is it even targeting the sharing of copyrighted materials AFAIK.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Altough it seems a reasonable, positive, even obvious law, it might also be the first step to make it easier to sue people from sharing. If some dumb user does unawarely install something in his/her machine, not bothering to read some comprehensive, law-enforced EULA, and share some DMCA-protected content without knowing, seems to me that RIAA lawyers will have a much stronger case against them - that might be the motive they are being specific about P2P programs, and not every junk people put on their machines. IANAL, but it seems to me that "I didn't know these files were being shared" kind of defenses will hold much less under these new provisions, and it's possible this might be the hidden objective of this law. I hope some lawyer here in /., proves me wrong on this.
Anti-P2P? I do not think that word means what you think it does. If anything, this is arguably pro-P2P legislation, because the legal restriction of various nefarious practices will give compliant P2P software an air of legitimacy which it often lacks now. "We comply with all government regulations and mandates..."
First, has anyone actually read the language in the proposal? Do you think that the actual legislation is going to fit so nicely into the way its being described or do you realize that other law makers are going to add their own language and objectives when the law is passed? In the language of government what constitutes a P2P file sharing application?
If I'm a researcher, student or small, open source or independent developer that creates a new P2P "file sharing" protocol or prototype does that mean unless I specifically include notification or a feature the government feels complies with their regulations, that I become a criminal?
I guess my main concern is that the more we go forward with these "protection laws" the more, we as developers are becoming limited and I worry going forward am I going to need a background in law to write code?
The RIAA is clapping for a reason friends.
Shouldn't they really consider ANTI-Internet legislation? I have a hard time believing p2p is the cause of the leaks... More like the internet is the cause...even then.. without the internet, I would still burn discs and pass them to friends and family, who also pass it on... Its going to happen..
you know you can fry stuff putting things into things that dont like the things you put into it...
A proper defense can now make use of this argument simply because this has been brought to public attention (and even before... I had a friend in college who had a number of interviews with the FBI because his computer had been used as a zombie for some terrorist group... it was worse for him than for others because he also happened to be a Muslim right after 9/11)... at least on a limited basis... all of the comments now make me want to go and see if my torrent program has been downloading stuff for me without me knowing it (a la the shareaza comment above).
It sounds to me like they're specifically trying to target corporate and government agencies. This part:
would prohibit peer-to-peer file-sharing programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user.
Sounds like they're making it illegal for an employee to install P2P without permission from the boss (the computer owner). It sounds like they are trying to clamp down on corporate and government files being unknowingly shared because a user wanted to download some music (or whatever else). That seems to be in line with the FTC sending notices to companies warning them that their data is being leaked. They probably concluded that the reason for that was because some of their users had installed P2P software to do one thing, and instead unknowingly started sharing their documents.
Basically, this sounds like a legal requirement to educate users of P2P software, and they're putting that requirement on the makers of P2P software. It doesn't really sound like a bad idea to me, and I'm a bit confused why this is filed under censorship.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Oh, I see. Well that should work, since after all everyone using P2P is in the United States, and all the P2P software is written in the United States, and certainly there is nobody in the United States who would ever ignore one of our 47 billion laws against everything from chewing gum to brandishing a lint brush.
is what this law tries to ensure. No more users complaining ignorance of what their programs are "making available"... Definitely a boon for *AA organizations....
A file is a sequence of bits carrying information.
A packet is a sequence of bits carrying information.
Should this legislation not logically apply to the installation of all software that transmits data packets from my computer to some other computer?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
I once installed Shareaza, and found eventually that it had downloaded a lot of high profile pirated software, presumably to share on the network and increase download speeds for other users.
The real open source Shareaza or the fake Discordia client ?
I find it a bit hard to believe; are you sure that it was _it_ and not _you_ who downloaded the files (possibly with different/fake names) ?
I am almost certain that Shareaza doesn't do anything illegal although it can be (just as FTP or HTTP) used for illegal purposes.
We should just keep passing pointless laws until our system is flooded with nothing but pointless laws and nothing useful can get done.
While I agree that software should tell the user what their files are being shared, only programs that are already illegal fail to do that. You know, malware, viruses, etc. This doesn't actually protect anyone from anything, even their own stupidity.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Basically, it sounds like there's two things here. Blocking P2P software that interferes with other P2P software in a malware-esque fashion, and enforcing clear notifications that shared files are, well, shared. Seems dumb, but a lot of folks out there don't realize that if they share "My Documents," everything from their tax records to their secret porn stash is going to be on the web for all and sundry to download. This hits home particularly hard for gov't employees, considering some of the sensitive stuff that's leaked through LimeWire and the like over the years.
If this is spurred by information being unintentionally shared by organisations (gov't offices, companies), then I don't really see how a legislated solution is at all appropriate. Organisations deploy an IT infrastructure, directly or through a 3rd party outsourcing, and have, in the same manner, been in charge of it's operation and integrity.
Like any software a person installs with access to the Internet, one has to understand the software and, to some extent, trust it. If people are installing P2P software and letting it "Look for files to share" or just share "My Documents", then it's really the users' mistake. If corporate or gov't data is being leaked as a result, it's really the organisations' mistake, whether it be lack of IT training or security.
I'm automatically suspicious of legislation like this, since I know there's all too often that "not understanding what's being shared" didn't actually come as a result of "not being clearly told what's going to be shared". Many users leaking data through a P2P shared home directory most likely gave informed consent, but just clicked right past that screen as part of the install. Installer steps are important; they often help understand and customise how software is going to run. Not paying heed and regretting it after the fact is a mistake, not something that needs legal subsidy (i.e. protection against incompetence).
"...would prohibit programs from being installed without the informed consent of the authorized computer user. The legislation would also prohibit software that would prevent the authorized user from blocking the installation of programs and/or disabling or removing any program. Software developers would be required to clearly inform users when their files are made available to anyone.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Some part of me thinks if these senators understood how it worked, the Internet wouldn't exist.
This would outlaw Internet Explorer - you actually can use it to share files with other computers. And it is installed without the owner's consent - by Microsoft, as a part of the OS.
Maybe this isn't a bad law after all.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Much P2P software makes it the users choice whether or not to share files so that they can say: 'The user chose to share the files, it wasn't us, so don't sue', while intentionally using defaults that share as much as possible, and making it an error prone process to limit sharing to something sane so that there will be alot of content shared online. More content being shared makes your P2P network more popular.
Users may even be able to use 'it was an honest mistake' as a defense though probably not. A judge may be inclined tobe lenient if they thought it really was an honest mistake.
...
They speak English on What?
No, if they did, anyone could understand what is going on. They speak legalese, the language crafted to assure that everyone is guilty of something... If I can find you guilty of something, there a pretty good chance you'll shut up and go away rather than risk drawing attention to yourself by meddling with my plans.
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Glad to see they are spending their time on such important and pressing issues. Because clearly right now, p2p software installation is such a problem in our country. Clearly the best way for the republicans to make our government smaller and less wasteful is by passing this bill and creating a whole branch of jobs for themselves to enforce, research, and investigate complaints of this.
Seriously, wtf. If either of these politicians were representing me, I'd be asking what the heck they are doing, and how this is more important than real issues, such as ones they campaigned about, and how this aligns with their platform. Really this is more important than solving issues with government spending, jobs.
For the life of my I don't understand why any of this is specific to p2p apps. Sounds more like general licensing to me. Application licenses and sales of software should be required to allow you to install and remove them cleanly, should tell you what is being installed and required to run them, and shouldn't be able to share your personal data without your consent and knowledge period. I don't care if its peer to peer or client server, which I can clearly see someone using as an end around.
Problem is most of this "malware" is distributed for free, and good luck telling someone what they can and can't give away for free in terms of software.
But ultimately this is why people who are utterly inept in understanding technology should stop running around pretending to be competent, pretending to know what they are talking about, and submitting laws and opinions about them as if they were experts. This law is beyond stupid, and is pretty much going to be unenforcible just like everything else until they actually do something important....
Like investigating the legality of EULA's and the legality of making invalid, and incorrect statement in them; such as telling someone that they must give up a right that you can not make them give up... And cracking down on corporations that try to tell you that fair use is illegal (NFL copyright statement anyone)
Not well written, I agree, but I guess the verbal logic course I took in college paid off. It says that it's illegal to install P2P software on someone's computer withiout their consent. I have no problem with that, and it doesn't go far enough. I would like to see it illegal to install ANY software on my computer without my consent.
It also says it bans software that prevents someone from stopping its installation or removal, and again, if this applied to all software, not just P2P, it would be a good law. It would stop a lot of spyware shenanigans, or at least, make them illegal.
But to just point to P2P is stupid. P2P is the best way to get indie music, FOSS, and a lot of other free and legal goodies, which is why the entertainment industry is so afraid of it. Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning must have Hollywood shaking in its boots. The indies have already terrified the RIAA, and I imagine Linux has caused a few MS execs some sleepless nights.
OTOH, Bonzai Buddy and other shitware that I DON'T want anybody installing isn't covered under this retarded law.
The entertainment industry sure has a lot of bribe money to spread around. It's sickening. I guess we have the best legislators money can buy.
Free Martian Whores!
Are you reading English or what?
The legislation makes 100% sense. It is not about all P2P software. It is about software that installs itself stealthily and begins to share stuff automatically.
For example, if you install P2P software, even some bittorent stuff, this legislation would require such software to NOT SHARE your shit by default. I hope that is in sufficiently plain English?
The entire legislation is to make it against the law to distribute software that shares anything from user's computer as a default installation. Therefore, if this legislation passes (and it should), either of the following entities become liable for distribution of any questionable material,
1. the software manufacturer - if they do not adhere to the legislation and inform the user what is shared, or,
2. the user
The bottom line if software adheres to the legislation and the user is still shares something, the user is 100% responsible for that distribution. On the other hand, this legislation spells out the minimum requirements on user consent for software manufacturers of P2P capable software. No more underhanded installation of software that automatically shares C:\Movies or whatever.
A very interesting question is regarding these automatically installed software updaters. The will probably require explicit authorization to install.
Ubuntu installs a Bittorrent client by default.
This bill in and of itself doesn't seem so bad? Pretty stock, kinda blah, a bit silly that such a thing is being seen as requiring a law?
But there's two potential paths.
1. This could be used to add more charges to spammers once they get caught. Stacking the offenses, so to speak, which is fine by me, really?
2. This is a "gimme" bill, one that's sure to pass because it's so simple and palatable. At least until they start tacking on riders, anyway? Now you've got a mild bill that has a few dozen rabid hyenas stapled to it, that nobody wants to try and kill. "Think of the Children" bills are notorious for this.
[End Of Line]
MS would block that law.
Change P2P to any other application, and the idea is just as good.
I was going to try out D&D online when it went free a couple of months ago but didn't because it's installer is apparently a P2P client and as far as I can see there is no option to download the whole thing instead from a single source. Why should I use my bandwidth to help them install their software on other people's computers?
A bittorrent client is typically harmless. It's malware writers who silently install P2P software on your computer and use your bandwidth without your knowledge that is a problem.
Now, if Ubuntu installed a Bittorrent tracker on your computer and it was enabled by default at bootup, that would be a much larger problem that this legislation is designed to avoid.
After reading this, I understand it's an underhanded attempt to remove plausible deniability as a defense in court, but it's surprisingly evenhanded and well written considering it's from Amy Klobuchar, the bad senator from my state.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
That's the thing, how does one legislate that? Is a dialog box that says "Guess what?!? When you share everything in 'My Documents', that means EVERYTHING in 'My Documents'" sufficient or must you say "You shared My Documents so hgfqtjqwd.txt which is in My Documents is now shared! DUUUUUUUhhhhhH!" for each file found there? How about for files added to 'My Documents' after the software is installed?
As for being able to block installation, are they also going to legislate that the admins on the government LANs that ALREADY HAVE THAT CAPABILITY must now realize it? When their pointy haired bosses insist that they make an exception, can they have them shipped to Gitmo?
Perhaps they will require that each time the software is started, the user must read a disclaimer that the purpose of file sharing software is to share files and so they may be sharing some files now by running the file sharing software. then enter the 32nd word on page 28 of the manual to continue so they can't just mindlessly click OK like they do for all the other warnings (both useful and stupid) that pop up?
But why have a law restricted to p2p software? Wouldn't it make more sense to prohibit this sort of hidden installation of any software?
Sony would lobby against that type of law. :)
You are not allowed to install p2p software without the consent of the authorised computer user.
You are not allowed to prevent the authorised computer user from blocking installation of p2p software.
You are not allowed to prevent the authorised computer user from disabling or removing p2p software.
Or, in English. Don't install p2p progs without the computer owner's permission. Don't try to stop the computer owner from removing or disabling any p2p progs on his computer.
Seems pretty reasonable to me, and isn't going to stop you from installing emule or bittorrent on your own computer.
You won't be able to install it on your work computer without your employer's permission, but you need that already.
we need to talk about bad electrons not bits ... ... maybe in a twin-tower?
and since you cannot destroy charge, who knows
were the electron that carried that 20 year jail-term-BIT will end up
This is not really much different from telling a contractor that they're free to install a bathroom into your home, but that they will have to abide by laws 1, 2 and 3 regarding things like the electrical wiring.
Where 1 is that they must tell you that flushing will remove the contents of the toilet bowl from the room, 2 is that they must tell you that if you decide you don't want a toilet you can hit it with a sledge hammer (after turning the water off) and 3 is that they must warn you that if you turn the lights off at night, it might get dark. And, of course, 4, if you pee on the floor, flushing won't clean it up.
To complete the analogy though, the law would also have to forbid sneaking in while the homeowner is on vacation and adding a bathroom without their permission (while for some reason saying nothing about adding a new kitchen).
Why the focus on P2P?
Surely it would be better to target all malware writers who silently install ANY software on your computer and use your bandwidth without your knowledge.
Is it really better if it's an FTP server the malware installs rather than a bittorrent client?
Just so. The proposed law makes it illegal for software to share without your permission, but it hardly makes it impossible. People could perhaps claim that they were unaware that their software was distributing anything at all, then point at this law and claim the software was supposed to have warned them of this fact but failed to do so. Not that they would necessarily succeed with such a defence... IANAL.
This may seem like a somewhat innocuous or beneficial act, but I think it's kind of like the abortion cases, but with muck less attention. If a law can be passed that says a fetus can be harmed or killed in the womb because it is alive and has the same rights as any other individual, then elective abortion becomes illegal. Slow down, this isn't about abortion; I'm using it as an example of a slippery slope. Some simple "restrictive" laws about P2P software and next thing you know legislation only lets us send email w/o media attachments and web traffic will be 1% residential upload and the RIAA/MPAA is temporarily happy.
I don't see what the problem is.
People are stupid if they don't bother to check what the program does that they are installing. No amount of legislative action is going to change that.
P2P isn't the problem, shit for brains users are.
I have a buddy that doesn't pay attention when he installs stuff, so he ends up with toolbars and other crap installed on his computer that I end up fixing. Or he'll download some game and can't get it working, when all he had to do was read the nfo file. I'm like wtf, and I get sort of short with him, because he's an idiot, he's been using the computer long enough to know better, but doesn't.
People need to start thinking for themselves, take it upon themselves to actually read what the programs do, go thru the settings to see if you need to change anything, and quit being lazy.
Everyone that has their info being shared, deserves it.
and don't give me crappy excuses like, "someone else installed the program on my machine". ya, so? it's your machine, show some control over it. If you got kids or roommates that use it, give them their own account on it.
Seriously, peeps need to start using their brains with computers, since the computers aren't doing any thinking for them.
Be seeing you...
It's quite simple.
If you can't read English, here's the audio version.
Agreed, but the privacy implications for subversive P2P programs are significant. It's also likely easier to single out a buzzword like P2P than it is a concept like FTP or HTTP protocols.
I think the reasons for singling out P2P explicitly are due to the secondary effect of the law - closing the plausible deniability avenue for those defending themselves of copyright infringement.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. It prohibits p2p software that: is installed without informed consent; tries to prevent the user from blocking installation; tries to prevent the user from disabling/removing once installed.
It certainly is not prohibiting the user from uninstalling p2p software. :P
The enemies of Democracy are
Can you give examples of this?
Superficially this is just yet more legislation that demonstrates how little our legislators actually understand the issue or the tech involved.
My guess is that this is actually a well-reasoned step by the music & movie industries to make non-technical people (including legislators) incorrectly beleive that P2P itself (which is just an internet protocol) is somehow intrinsically bad. It makes their next step, trying to convince lawmakers to make any/all P2P illegal, easier if they are misled first.
It always *sounds* good, until you get to the fine print.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Except there's a distinction between informed consent and just consent. One is where any random idiot just agrees to whatever, the other is where the person knows what they are agreeing on.
Essentially, the majority of users would (luckily) be legally banned from using P2P because they're fucking stupid.
Good thing, too, most of those idiots just crud up the place with 64kbit/s MP3s that lack properly-formatted ID3 tags.
On another note, I hate it when idiots mis-tag songs. "Stone Temple Pilots" is "Stone Temple Pilots", not "stone temple pilots" or "Stone temple pilots" or "stone tempul pilot" or whatever idiots will come up with.
Worse is when idiots do not know the name of the song, and they merely assume that the first few words of the chorus is the name of the song. "Have you heard that new Korn song called God Pains Me?" "Uhh. no, how does it go?" "Well, they keep singing 'got the life' at the end over and over". "The song is called Got The Life." "No, it's God Pains Me! That's the first few words of the chrous!" Durr, fucking idiots.
Because you are otherwise not paying for it. The bandwidth doesn't cost you (usually, but then again, you could be on a 3G connection...), but big companies are billed per GB or whatever. If the game is free for you, this is merely a way you can pay for the game without offering cash.
That's so oldnews! The Lobbies have long set sights on P2P Programs!
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Ubuntu installs a Bittorrent client by default.
So does World of Warcraft. They use it to help with patches.
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
They're basically trying to prevent "hidden" p2p software.
Like trojans and botnets?
Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
Since it can be argued, that technically EVERYTHING that connects to another computer, sending and receiving data (even if it’s just one bit), is a file sharing program, and since the computers are peers, is p2p file sharing, this means that we would have to shut down the whole Internet. All of it.
And yet another epic fail of combined greed and incompetency. (And laziness / being cattle, of the population.)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
it was worse for him than for others because he also happened to be a Muslim right after 9/11
What was he before 9/11?
Ubuntu pretty clearly identifies itself as a Linux distribution. As such, I expect it will install [...] a desktop environment
What should and should not go into "a desktop environment" is open to debate, as I explained in my other comment. Some components of "a desktop environment" would likely trigger this legislation, as they allow sharing a folder of files between users.
I haven't read the text of the bill, but wouldn't this apply to worms as well? They pass data from victim to victim (peer to peer) without authorization. I wouldn't want to be liable for violating this law just because my computer was infected with a worm.
Also I wonder if folding@home and similar programs would also be prohibited from being installed on computers without authorization.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
I once installed Shareaza, and found eventually that it had downloaded a lot of high profile pirated software
I have looked into the sources of Shareaza and I am now certain that you were either a forgetful pirate, or a virus did that to you or you are producing worse than FUD libel.
Choose one that pleases you.
Shareaza doesn't download anything for you. Your comment is not insightful; it is either overrated or trollish.
Excellent point. If they applied this law to ALL software, there's no way they could get it passed with big companies like Adobe, Microsoft, et all with huge stakes in the software market. The language would have to be extremely clear, precise, and constitutional. Otherwise it would fail. Instead of grandstanding like typical politicians, they would look like complete morons and people would wonder how they got elected.
As usual, they're playing divide and conquer. Can't ban guns? Then ban guns just for blacks and mexicans... er, I mean, gangbangers. The white minutemen won't care. Hell, they'll probably even support it. Before long, there's nobody left to speak for me.
The Distributed Computing Industry Association (DCIA) supports the statement made by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on Monday, not only with words but also with its actions. The Inadvertent Sharing Protection Working Group (ISPG) is a DCIA-sponsored industry-wide program introduced in July 2008 that has been working with the private sector and FTC staff to address the issues Chairman Leibowitz spoke about in his statement.
Compliance reports began to be compiled and submitted one year ago from top brands representing implementations of P2P technologies ranging from downloading to live-streaming, from open consumer file-sharing environments to secure corporate intranet deployments, and from user-generated to professionally produced content.
Representative examples of these are BitTorrent and LimeWire. In the case of BitTorrent and software programs that use BitTorrent, it is unlikely that a user can inadvertently share data because of the multiple intentional steps involved in converting a file to a .torrent format, uploading it to a tracker, etc. In the case of LimeWire, the company literally rebuilt its software to protect users from accidentally sharing their personal or sensitive data.
The distributed computing industry takes the safety of consumers very seriously. Once this concern was recognized, it responded proactively.
The fact remains, however, that the amount of confidential data that is in distribution on the Internet is cumulative. Material that was accidentally disclosed years ago is still floating around. And more recently leaked data is also accessible. The entire focus of ISPG so far has been to shore up the sources of such unintended file uploads in the first place. Removing items that are already in circulation on the web is a problem of a different order of magnitude and one that this group is just starting to investigate.
The ISPG's best advice now - to parents and children alike - is similar to that given by other Internet software distributors: PLEASE UPGRADE TO THE LATEST VERSION FOR THE BEST PERFORMANCE AND THE SAFEST EXPERIENCE.
For public and private sector institutions that require workers to handle classified information: PLEASE DISCONNECT YOUR COMPUTER FROM THE INTERNET WHILE WORKING ON HIGH-SECURITY PROJECTS AND REMOVE SENSITIVE DATA FROM YOUR DEVICE BEFORE RECONNECTING.
Also, along with actively participating in this program, summarized here, the DCIA encourages file-sharing software distributors to direct users to the Onguard Online website pages dedicated to File-Sharing Safety.
The DCIA was less enthusiastic about news that Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and John Thune (R-SD) misguidedly introduced legislation on Wednesday "to inform Internet users of the privacy and security risks associated with file-sharing software programs."
Such measures tend to be technologically outdated before they can be finalized and signed into law, result in unintended consequences that stifle commercial innovation, and prove to be unenforceable given that the Internet is a global medium.
The industry has moved to address inadvertent uploading of sensitive data by shoring up the entry points in file-sharing software.
This issue has moved now to institutional policies for managing data securely and to the removal of confidential data already in circulation. Nevertheless, the DCIA will engage with Senate staff to minimize collateral damage.
No, there business model is micro payments. I'm not donating my bandwidth to them.
No, there business model is micro payments. I'm not donating my bandwidth to them.
Why? Do you have to pay more for your bandwidth? Secondly, you're not just paying lip-service to the gave developer; you're also helping out your fellow gamer.
This kinda (sorta) reminds me of a song. I highlighted the important phrases.
I've been caught stealing;
once when I was 5...
I enjoy stealing,
It's just as simple as that.
Well, it's just a simple fact,
When I want something,
I don't want to pay for it.
I walk right through the door,
Walk right through the door.
Hey, all right, If I get by, it's mine,
Mine, all mine!
But why have a law restricted to p2p software? Wouldn't it make more sense to prohibit this sort of hidden installation of any software?
But that would make most DRM systems illegal.
Yes, I pay my cable company every month for bandwidth and fuck my "fellow gamer", they are not my problem. And this isn't wanting something for nothing, because I simply don't want it under these terms.
I haven't used much P2P lately, but I'm thinking of Limewire a while back. If I remember right it wanted to share everything you downloaded and did so silently by default. You had to go into a config screen that most people installing likely didn't know about and unselect 'Share everything I download' and then select share only these filetypes ( I don't think there was a Don't Share button ). The edit box that listed the filetypes was full. You could drag the mouse to select everything visible, and then click delete, but then you had to remember to scroll left to get all the filetypes that were not visible in the limited space of the edit box. I distinctly remember thinking 'Oh tricky..' when I'd carefully cleared the box so as to leach, and then just double checked that there weren't more types by scrolling sideways and finding zillions more. I can't remember if CTRL-A then delete then worked to clear ALL they types from the list, or not, maybe I had to use the arrow keys to scroll left and right to find hidden shared filetypes. I think I thought to check because mp3 was not listed on the first editbox full of filetypes, which made ME suspicious, but might not raise most eyebrows.
And Limewire may be the least spamsleazy of the popular P2P clients with the exception of Bittorrent which ( at least the version I've used most recently ) shares whatever you've downloaded without the option to do otherwise. Bittorrent is the best way to download anything really big like a linux cd, which is all I use that for.
Anyway, I figured that the RIAA couldn't examine my shared stuff to see what I'd downloaded if I didn't share anything, and if I inadvertantly downloaded a music file from an RIAA run server, I could say: well THEY SHARED IT which is tantamount to giving it away for free themselves.
I don't even have a music collection anymore. I just never cared about it that much, and won't now that I can watch whatever I want by finding a youtube video of it for free. Youtube was the use P2P to steal mp3s killer for me. I don't care about having MP3s in a player. I'd rather listen to the radio and hopefully be introduced to something I've never heard before rather than listening to stuff I already know about. That, or NPR news.
...
he was as well - but being a member of that religion seemed to have a more negative impact on one's freedom relative to everybody else immediately after 9/11