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."

Comments

Actually anti-spam/botnet?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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.

Re:Actually anti-spam/botnet?

[Monkeedude1212]

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?

Happens at work all the time. The users are not authorized to install P2P Software, but it happens. Managers get administrative rights to the computers under their controls, they get lazy with permissions and give their underlings local admins... And before you know it we get a few hundred calls to ISOHunt.

Then we drop in a couple canisters of Tear Gas, have the exits swarmed with armed IT Technicians, and shove the offenders into the back of our Van. Hellz yeah. ...

Sigh... Do you fantasize about your job?

Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se

[Bagels]

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.

Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se

[BhaKi]

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.

Why limit it to P2P programs?

[Dr_Barnowl]

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....

Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se

[Anonymous Coward]

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?