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.
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?
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?
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.
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....
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.
}
}
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.
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.
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.
Senator: Im shocked...SHOCKED theres p2p sharing going on
Senator's Son: Hey dad I just finished updating your music collection
Senator: Great!
good luck getting doctors, engineers, or something similar to drop their well payed jobs and go into politics.
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
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?
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.
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....
Bittorrent is an awesome protocol. It's a leap technologically from the old server/client download model
Not really, peer to peer in general and bittorrent in particular is a reaction to a few things
1: upside-down pricing models that make end users upstream essentially free but hosting bandwidth expensive.
2: trying to get central warez hubs off on the technicality that they aren't actually distributing the warez.
3: the lack of multicast on the regular internet.
Technically IMO pushing content unnessaceraly through users very limited upstreams is a majoor step backwards,
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
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.
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?
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.