Proposed Peer-To-Peer Law Sparks Animosity 168
coondoggie writes "The Federal Trade Commission and Distributed Computing Industry Association locked horns over a proposed law that would govern how peer-to-peer networking technology would be used and regulated. Before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, the Federal Trade Commission expressed its doubts about companies protecting sensitive consumer information (PDF) or sensitive data over P2P internet file-sharing networks. It doesn't help the P2P cause that the technology continues to pop up in bad practices. Recently a company that monitors peer-to-peer networks said it found classified information about the systems used onboard the president's helicopter in a shared folder on a computer in Iran, after a file containing the data was accidentally leaked on a peer-to-peer network last summer. Meanwhile the DCIA said any laws would likely be ineffective and stifle the business opportunities P2P can generate."
An article on CNet points out that the wording of the bill would make it apply to just about everything related to communications on the internet.
Intent good, impossible to legislate (Score:3, Interesting)
FTFA ::
# warnings to application users and notices about the number and types of files being shared;
# default settings that limit what is shared upon installation of an application; controls for users to
# stop sharing any file or folder; protections against any user attempt to share sensitive folders or
# file types; and simple means to disable the file-sharing functionality
As always, our good intending congress critters will not understand the over-reaching ramifications of trying to make an application behave legally. It makes good theater for the masses, and a whip to use against any software that is not paying to the "re-election" pac.
The only guidelines that need to be implemented in any secure workplace are to not run filesharing apps on ANY end-user computer. ( torrents, etc. should be done on a machine reserved for that purpose.)
Re:It's True (Score:3, Interesting)
The CNN article commenting on the proposed bill says:
Another example: Web browsers could also be regulated and subject to Federal Trade Commission enforcement action unless "informed consent" is obtained each time the desktop icon is double-clicked. (Every Web browser allows the user to "designate" files to be uploaded--ever post a photo?--and request that files be downloaded.)
This appears to be covering things like uploading a photo or downloading a program to install. That doesn't even cover the half of it. What happens when you visit a web page? Your browser sends a GET request and downloads the file - it copies a file from the server to your computer. If the page is not static, of course, the file is generated on the fly by scripts. But if that isn't covered, then I'll simply code my P2P app to ROT13 all files. When you download it, a script reads it and generates the stream that's transferred to you. I'm no longer copying a file, so the law doesn't apply to me.
What happens when you visit many, many websites? They read your cookies. The cookie is a file on your computer. It's transferred from your computer to their server. What happens when you download your email, particularly if you're accessing a 'Nix based mail server where mail is stored in mbox or mailbox format? What happens when you open a file with your Word processor on a remote share? In short, what happens almost any time you do anything on a networked computer? Is every application you run going to have to nag you to death every time you open it?
This is so ludicrous that not even Congress could pass it.
Re:It's True (Score:3, Interesting)
And it absolutely does not matter that it is ludicrous. Because the person who gains from this will not care for all the things you mention. It could even be the very point of installing that system.
Never think you politicians were stupid, when someone can obviously gain something from in. ^^
Re:Elections have consequences (Score:3, Interesting)
As for "'small tent' purity jihad" of the GOP, do you remember Joe Lieberman? got drummed out of the party because he had the temerity of thinking that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good idea? The closest you can come to that is Arlen Specter who left because he thought that the Republican voters would vote for the guy running against him in the primary. He didn't have the party apparatus working against him, just the actual voters.
Re:Time to get (overly?) skeptical... (Score:3, Interesting)
But is there a precedent for "illegal software"?
Not that it is pertinent to the discussion, but the original DeCSS software was made illegal to possess or even publish a link to, electronically or by press and, because 2600 Magazine declined to appeal their case to the Supreme Court, it remains so (case law interpreting the DMCA).
Legally deficient software, I don't know.
I guess my problem is that I don't see how this is possible going to get enforced, other than on cases that are already in court.
It can't apply to cases already in court. No ex post facto laws: you can't prosecute someone for something that wasn't illegal at the time. But it could apply to new cases after it is enacted into law, i.e. when the RIAA "resumes" prosecuting people they could use this against the individual sharer or against the software maker.
Of course, they'll have to amend this bill to make it illegal to continue using file sharing software deficient under this legislation. The software isn't illegal, but its use is; the author isn't liable, but the end user is. But then they'll have to deal with the commercial software lobbyists who may or may not want to issue recalls or patches of software they still publish to comply with this overly broad legislation.