Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Censorship Government The Courts United States News

States Threaten P2P Companies 690

Posted by michael from the they-do-it-for-the-children dept.
The Importance of writes "C|Net News reports that 46 state attorneys general are warning P2P companies of dire, unnamed consequences for continuing to exist, 'At present, P2P software has too many times been hijacked by those who use it for illegal purposes to which the vast majority of our consumers do not wish to be exposed.' Read the letter here (pdf) [PDF], or the annotated text version."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

States Threaten P2P Companies More

States Threaten P2P Companies

Comments Filter:

  • (censored) idiots... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JamesTRexx ( 675890 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:02AM (#9898859) Journal
    So I guess they think it's worse to do something illegal with P2P software than with a gun!?
    Geez, I can't even start thinking about how stupid this sort of thing is.

    • Re:(censored) idiots... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Uh, rtfa. The article only states that P2P software should inform useres that downloading certain things could be illegal, warn users about sharing files, not include spyware with there software, and to make better (user-controlled) porno filters. How is this bad? The last line reads: 'It is only by taking such steps that P2P networks will be able to realize their innovative potential as a 21st century virtual collaboration and project management tool for regional or nationwide academic, business, home, and

  • This makes as much sense... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Keltan ( 800326 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:02AM (#9898860)
    ...as charging gun manufacturers with murder when a gun is used to kill someone. Just because vehicles are used as "get-away cars" in bank robberies should we outlaw automobiles? How something is USED, and what something IS, are two completely different things. Guns can be used for good or evil, cars can be used for good or evil, p2p can be used for good or evil.

    • P2P leaves the political coercers powerless (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Morgaine ( 4316 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @11:03AM (#9899651)
      How something is USED, and what something IS, are two completely different things.

      You're using logic. :-) You should know that logic is irrelevant here when it comes to politicians trying to justify something. They use rhetoric for effect, not to conveny logical reasoning. (And AG's are politicians, possibly the most dangerous kind owing to their long-term power and elevated status.)

      When you're a politician, you're in the power game, the power to regulate and to dictate what others do. You're a coercer, in every bone in your body.

      Now consider P2P networks. They bypass every possible point of control, totally undermining the ability of coercers to impose their will. The idea that P2P can be allowed to exist is utter anathema to them. And they can see that it could get much worse, with P2P traffic becoming practically invisible in addition to being effectively anonymous. This is beyond the pale. They have not worked their way up the tree of political power for 30-40 years only to be undermined like this.

      If you can imagine a bunch of people totally freaking out, you've got the right picture. Don't expect logic.

  • Would this include... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EpsCylonB ( 307640 ) <.moc.bnolycspe. .ta. .spe.> on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:02AM (#9898866) Homepage
    bittorrent ?

    from the article...

    Marty Lafferty, chief executive of the Distributed Computing Industry Association, another peer-to-peer group, said he has seen what appeared to be a draft of the current letter and that it contained substantial mischaracterizations of the technology and the file-swapping networks.

    I don't think BT is company anyway but surely they can see that p2p apps do have some legitimate uses ?.

    • Exactly!

      You need to have a criminal entity in order to press charges or present a civil suit. If the software is public domain or collaborativewave like sourceforge stuff, then there's no one to go after. It doesn't even matter that the software is deemed "illegal", you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

      I think the internet has become the biggest thorn in the side of those who would control us(government and large corporations).

      Napster was the first scrificial lamb, then came Kazaa, now we have bi

    • I don't think BT is company anyway but surely they can see that p2p apps do have some legitimate uses ?.

      So does marijuana, and that's illegal.

      I don't think it matters whether or not there's a legitimate use any more. The MPAA/RIAA/etc. have dug their fingers so deep into the US government, and has influence strong enough over it, that they'll get their way eventually and make criminals out of anyone that uses or develops a P2P app.

      All anyone can do at this point is write their relevant elected offic

  • Corporate puppets (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:02AM (#9898867)
    If this quote from the letter doesn't tell you state reps are being manipulated by the entertainment industry, nothing will:

    "At present, P2P software has too many times been hijacked by those who use it for illegal purposes, to which the vast majority of our consumers do not wish to be exposed."

    So we, the citizens, are the attorney general's office's "consumers" now?? Either it's a revealing slip of the tongue from the AGs, or more likely the letter was originally drafted by the RIAA/MPAA...
    • I think it's pretty obvious that "Our Consumers" is meant to mean in the consumers in thier jurisdiction. Take off your tinfoil hat.
      • I think you need a little more tinfoil in your diet, the statement is a little fishy and, given the company that a few senators keep (e.g. Orrin Hatch) its really not that farfetched.
      • I think it's pretty obvious that "Our Consumers" is meant to mean in the consumers in thier jurisdiction. Take off your tinfoil hat.

        Iwouldn't call the distinction trivial. Voters are not consumers, how can you consume democracy ? (you either vote or you don't, it's binary, you can't load up on lots of democracy).

        Doesn't orrin hatch had links with media and music companies ?. Maybe he is a little too close if he is throwing the word consumer around when trying to persuade people to back legislation.
      • Yes, but if "their consumers" don't want to be exposed to "stuff" on p2p networks, then why are they using them?

        This is just another misdirection by the entertainment industry because they know whats good for us and thats paying them money.

      • Re:Corporate puppets (Score:2, Interesting)

        by v01d ( 122215 )
        If that's the case the letter is a pretty blatant lie. Since when does the vast majority people wish to be protected from free downloads of popular music?

        "Our Consumers" in this context can only refer to recording labels. So it's almost official, the constituents of state attorney generals are businesses not people.
      • That's exactly what it means; the point is that the term "consumer" coming from the Attorneys General is inappropriate at best. "Constituents" would be a more proper term.

      • Re:Corporate puppets (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SCHecklerX ( 229973 ) <greg@gksnetworks.com> on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:17AM (#9899119) Homepage
        I'm not a consumer. I'm a %$@#! citizen.
        • karma be damned:

          I'm sure you've never taken an economics class but let me break it down for you.

          Consumer(s) = individual(s) of a large/small demographic who buys good. i.e. they consume. // we're all consumers

          Customer = said specific consumer of which is more personal, human, than the aforementioned generalization.

          (this next part is oblig. b/c of some nut jobs)
          citizen = member of a country, society; consumer, customer, human being etc etc.

          What everyone fails to acknowledge here is that the market-droid

    • Re:Corporate puppets (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Karzz1 ( 306015 )
      If that quote isn't evidence enough, perhaps this one is:

      "The state attorneys general have been looking at this issue for much of the year and have been consulting entertainment groups, including the Motion Picture Association of America."

    • More creepy stuff:

      We believe that it is in no one's interest for P2P technology to be used in order to promote unlawful or deceptive activities. Rather, we believe that concrete and meaningful steps can and should be taken to address the problems we have raised in this letter. It is only by taking such steps that P2P networks will be able to realize their innovative potential as a 21st century virtual collaboration and project management tool for regional or nationwide academic, business, home, and governm

    • Re:Corporate puppets (Score:4, Informative)

      by enforcer999 ( 733591 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:28AM (#9899276) Journal
      FYI- All of the states Attorneys General have a "Consumer Protection Unit." They are charged with protecting consumers from fraudulent activity. That is why you as citizens are considered consumers in the letter.

      • Re:Corporate puppets (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:34AM (#9899352)
        FYI- All of the states Attorneys General have a "Consumer Protection Unit." They are charged with protecting consumers from fraudulent activity. That is why you as citizens are considered consumers in the letter.

        Protecting people from child pornography has nothing to do with consumer protection. That is why the expression "our consumers" is misplaced, and therefore suspicious, in the letter.

    • "Consumers" (Score:5, Informative)

      by mrscott ( 548097 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:56AM (#9899590)
      It was interesting to find this letter on Slashdot since I worked for the National Association of Attorneys General up until April of this year as the IT Director.

      As for your concern about the word "consumer", you are correct in your assumption that the AGs consider you their consumer. However, the word consumer in this sense is defined as "citizens that are under our jurisdiction", not as "our customer".

  • This is not wise. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Exmet Paff Daxx ( 535601 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:02AM (#9898868) Homepage Journal
    The most popular P2P software vendor is AOL, maker of "AOL Instant Messenger" which allows for direct file transfers between users of the service. It's important to keep in mind that the chairman of the FCC, Mike Powell, has a huge number of shares of AOL stock. So when you go after American P2P companies, you're going after Mike Powell's pocket, and in turn that means you're going to be invoking the wrath of Colin Powell.

    Like I said, not smart.

    By the way, did anyone know that Colin Powell and George Bush are related? They share a common ancestor who actually happens to be quite famous. Name the ancestor and explicitly name how the two are related for a free Gmail invite (I just can't seem to give them away, *sigh).

  • what happened to 'citizens'? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Saeger ( 456549 ) <farrellj@nOSPam.gmail.com> on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:02AM (#9898872) Homepage
    ...the vast majority of our consumers do not wish to be exposed.

    At what point did state governments start to unabashedly refer to its citizens as consumers? (Don't answer that.)

    --

    • Bugger citizens, what about Customers.

      consumers circa 1998. Corportate slang for not coprorate customers(people).

    • Re:what happened to 'citizens'? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tenebrious1 ( 530949 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:17AM (#9899105) Homepage
      ...the vast majority of our consumers do not wish to be exposed.
      At what point did state governments start to unabashedly refer to its citizens as consumers? (Don't answer that.)

      This is brought up by the Attorney's General... which are the advocates for consumer rights in the state. They do not speak for all the "citizens", thus "consumer" is the proper term, since not all "citizens" are "consumers".

      Anyway, reading the document, this is what I got out of it:
      "Please P2P makers, our consumers are complete idiots who don't know enough to run virus protection, to run personal firewalls, or to check MD5s. We're not allowed to tell our consumers they're fucking morons and to get a clue, since they pay for our salaries... please please please stop writing P2P software so these idiots will stop complaining about it. Since there's nothing we can do legally about your software, we're asking nicely that you voluntarily stop producing it. Thanks, the atty's generals."

  • Typo (Score:2)

    by z0ink ( 572154 )
    The article needs to be loaded up into VI ...

    :%s/consumers/Corporate Overlords/

  • Double Standard (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lildogie ( 54998 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:03AM (#9898881)
    'At present, ___________ has too many times been hijacked by those who use it for illegal purposes to which the vast majority of our consumers do not wish to be exposed.'

    Fill in the blank with something else than 'P2P Software'. Try 'firearms,' 'painkillers,' 'penises.'

    Points up the difference between what a tool is designed for vs. what it's used for. That's a key element in whether you make it illegal.
  • Dont you dare EXPOSE me to anything that I could actually USE! I love paying $20 dollars for a CD with one good song, and you have NO RIGHT to stop me!

    • Wow. Thank you. I didn't realize it was possible to get so dumb so quick, but you are the first person to post a comment suggestive of the position that, perhaps, you should be legally capable of using p2p systems to rip off companies just because you're too dumb to vote with your wallet or use the system for a legitimate purpose.

      Take a good long look in the mirror, my friend. It's the unchecked arrogance and rampant stupidity of people like you that cause stupid shit like this.

  • Clueless sabre-rattling (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:03AM (#9898885)
    Hey Attorney Generals - how about you let me decide if P2P is 'dangerous' or not?

    This letter is ridiculous. They talk about things like: the way P2P allows people to raid your files when your computer is off.. It would be really funny if it wasn't coming from one of the higher US legal forces.... which makes it kind of scary.

    I am especially amused by this whole tone of 'you P2P companies need to educate your users' while displaying only the most tenuous grasp of the Internet within the letter itself. They list P2P as an Internet 'alternative;. Riiiight.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:guns.. (Score:3, Funny)

      by rokzy ( 687636 )
      yeah, why not just take the generalisation one step further and be done with accuracy altogether:

      "$thing is used to perform acts, including criminal acts"
    • Wow, I wonder if they ever sent out such letters to the gun industry..

      Suits against gun manufacturers have been tried on many occasions (google on: gun lawsuit), without much success.

      Hell, even McDonald's has been sued by some dorks who couldn't figure out that lots of Big Macs might make them fat, and wanted to blame McDonald's for their stupidity. That didn't work [cnn.com], either. So there is some justice.

  • They can't help that they have no soul.

  • Good old Mr Wasden.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by boogy nightmare ( 207669 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:03AM (#9898889) Homepage
    Where the holy hell is IDADHO....

    As a member of the UK am i missing something or is this just simple stupidity on a very stupid letter ??

  • Ridiculous statement (Score:5, Insightful)

    by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:03AM (#9898890) Journal
    'At present, P2P software has too many times been hijacked by those who use it for illegal purposes to which the vast majority of our consumers do not wish to be exposed.'

    Replace the words 'P2P software' with any of the following (feel free to add your own) to see how ridiculous that statement is:

    • cars
    • baseball bats
    • steak knives
    • telephones
    • computers
    • screwdrivers
    • intenet providers

    Let's be honest, there are a ton of illegal goings on on the various P2P clients/networks. That doesn't mean that P2P doesn't have its legitimate uses.

    It's the people they should be going after, not the service.

    • The worst part is they measure how 'evil' P2P is by how many songs etc are traded every month. But they're not even trying to estimate how many of those are legit. Yeah, I know, making it available's not legit. But how 'evil' is it really if I download an Mp3 of a song I already have on CD because I'm too lazy to rip it?

    • The reason they do not want to go after the people is because, in reality, the vast majority of their constituents actually want to use it for these illegal purposes, and rather than change the law, they would rather try to destroy the people who make stuff that help them do it. It's the drug wars writ on an even larger canvas.

  • 'At present, P2P software has too many times been hijacked by those who use it for illegal purposes to which the vast majority of our consumers do not wish to be exposed.'

    It is rediculouse to say this about P2P, when there are tons of other examples, such as Guns, where their argument applies a 100 times more, but they don't do anything about it there!

    • of course they don't, gun ownership is so important it's in the Second ammendment, that's ammendment number 2, the second most important thing they could think of in the whole wide world, whereas free speech is clearly a far less important issue because that's not even mentioned until... um... oh.

  • Huh??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hadesan ( 664029 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:03AM (#9898895)
    At present, {word} has too many times been hijacked by those who use it for illegal purposes to which the vast majority of our consumers do not wish to be exposed.'

    {word} suggestions:

    1. Alcohol - get people drunk to make them do stupid things
    2. Drugs - the abuse of things designed to help you
    3. Planes, Trains, Automobiles - can kill people as a result of items 1 and 2 or terrorism
    4. Microsoft OS - used to trojan peopls machines to send SPAM to everyone
    5. Islam - bastard terrorists who pervert this religion
    6. Christianity - priests and children
    You could go on and on. You could put any word in there and come up with soemthing that fits that statement. The method of making the producer of a product responsible for a user's action with that product is assinine.

    Bullets kill people. Guns only mediate.

  • eDonkey (Score:5, Informative)

    by PktLoss ( 647983 ) * on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:04AM (#9898898) Homepage Journal
    I work for MetaMachine, authors of eDonkey. I find it rather funny that we don't have a copy of this letter...
  • Oh hang on, this is america...

  • Thank you!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by iantri ( 687643 ) <iantri@gmxSTRAW.net minus berry> on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:04AM (#9898913) Homepage
    Oh, thank you, State Attorney Generals for protecting me from an unwanted deluge of free music, movies, and software to which I do not wish to be exposed!

    After all, it isn't like you have to intentionally download P2P software, or anything, to get it, right?

  • Politically crafted letter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fname ( 199759 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:04AM (#9898915) Journal
    I read the letter (and Corante's a little-too-flip play-by-play), and one thing is clear: any sort of threat was removed in order that they could get the signatures of as many state AGs as possible. Some of their statements are downright silly, given that Apache could be considered P2P software. OTOH, some of the P2P behaviors they reference are clearly sleezy (stealth spyware installations, default sharing of all files), and should be stopped.

    The fact that child porn is available on the P2P networks (as the AGs claim) is unfortunate, but we have existing laws to go after those creeps-- and that's what the AGs should be doing. However, none of that is a good reason to ban any of this software. The P2P companies would probably be smart to engage in some customer education, if only to cover their butts. Using a strict opt-in policy for sharing files would be nice, as would the ability to easily turn off file sharing (such as when "quitting" the program).

    Let's not kid ourselves: some of these P2P software makers are scum. But that doesn't mean the AGs should be able to go after guys producing great software like Limewire. My advice to the AGs: back off the rhetoric, find the creeps sharing child porn (which is flat-out illegal), and go after the P2P companies who actively try to deceive customers.

  • Anyone surprised that AGs are clueless about P2P? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ronald Dumsfeld ( 723277 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:04AM (#9898917)
    You've gotta love the bit in the letter where your computer supposedly gets on the Internet and fileshares with the power off...
    Furthermore, P2p file-sharing technology can allow its users to access the files of others, even when the computer is "off" if the computer itself is connected to the Internet via broadband.
    Cretins.

    Now, what I really want to see is the letter(s) the RIAA and MPAA sent to the AGs to prompt this action.
  • Line, meet toes.

  • How long until Beta is overturned? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by linuxtelephony ( 141049 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:05AM (#9898929) Homepage
    It seems we are getting closer and closer to the point where the pivotal beta case will likely be overturned.

    Wasn't it the beta ruling that included language about not preventing technology that could be used for illegal purposes if there were clear legal purposes it could be used for? That the mere ability for something to be used illegally is not reason enough to ban it or prevent its manufacture, sale, and use?

    P2P does have other uses besides piracy. How many ISOs of legally distributable linux operating systems are distributed using systems like bittorrent? Unfortunately, the piracy makes all the headlines, and the piracy is what people hear about. Never mind the legal uses that P2P networks may be used for.

    Isn't the Tor system a type of P2P system that is being developed with backing from the Navy?

    Next, cars will be banned, because they can be used as getaway vehicles for bank robberies.
  • if its the game you dont like.

    p2p is a file sharing technology. Dont blame the technology, if its the "sharing" you dont want people to do.

  • There was a time where I wanted everyone to understand computers and how they could use them to make their lives better. I wanted people to understand what technology can do for them; the vast possibilities of it.

    Every time I read something like this letter I die a little more when I realize how far from any hope of having a clue the vast majority of people are. The fact that all of AG's had a meeting and what they came up with was that uninformed piece is very, very sad. It shows a blatant lack of care about the real issues at hand.

  • The letter makes some technical claims that are difficult, if not impossible, to support, including a claim that a computer that is "off" can continue swapping files over a broadband connection.

    This is one of two examples of the fundamental ignorance that politicians possess when it comes to technology. The other misunderstanding is the notion that a P2P company can actually filter out all the child porn on a P2P system. How does one do that? Require detailed metadata in XML associated with each file?

  • 'At present, P2P software has too many times been hijacked by those who use it for illegal purposes to which the vast majority of our consumers do not wish to be exposed.'

    Swap "P2P" for "Microsoft". Doesn't that make more sense? :P Maybe those forty-seven AGs need to rethink who they go after.

  • Hmm? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PktLoss ( 647983 ) * on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:07AM (#9898953) Homepage Journal
    One of the foot notes in the letter (which I can now read via PDF) states that the big issue is that by default file sharing programs share the entire hard drive of the user.

    I am not aware of any P2P United client doing that, eDonkey [edonkey.com] in particular shares only files you have downloaded from the network by default.
  • Encarta on the History of Motion Pictures [msn.com] (emphasis added):

    Spurred by The Great Train Robbery and subsequent story films, film exhibition greatly expanded in the United States around 1905. One phenomenon was the proliferation of nickelodeon theaters, converted storefronts in industrial cities that charged 5 cents for admission and attracted working-class audiences. Demand from these theaters increased the volume of film production and the profits for producers, but it also brought forth criticism from refo

  • Maybe it's time to boycott RIAA and MPAA products in favor of independent labels and films. Personally, I'd like to see a united subscription service for musicians and filmmakers who don't wish to be part of the RIAA and MPAA bandwagon. The RIAA is just shooting itself in the foot, and a new market is opening up for people to bypass record companies altogether to distribute music. Music can easily be produced without record companies now. Films, however are another matter. Not that far off, though, consider

  • P2P file-sharing technology can allow its users to access the files of other users,

    even when the computer is "off" if the computer itself is connected to the Internet via broadband.

    So they actually sent this to P2P software makers in hopes of swaying them? I'm gonna send a letter to the oil industry, asking them to lower prices, because expensive gasoline causes my car to rape children. Once they see how right I am, they'll drop prices for sure! Who's with me?!

  • Major problems with that quote. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bludstone ( 103539 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:11AM (#9899017)
    'At present, P2P software has too many times been hijacked by those who use it for illegal purposes to which the vast majority of our consumers do not wish to be exposed.'

    1) p2p has not been "hijacked," its being used to share things that are popular.
    2) We are not "your consumers," we are "citizens." I had hoped that at least state attourny generals would get this. I guess I was wrong.
    3) We are not being unwillingly exposed to anything. You have to voulentarily search for things.
    4) The reason p2p is so popular is not because the people dont wish to be exposed to it, but because THE PEOPLE LIKE IT. Why wont they just ADMIT IT?!
    5) Copyright infringement is a civil crime, not a criminal one. The gvt has no case in trying someone under criminal law for copyright infringement.

    I am both angered and annoyed.

    Remember, these are people that think free access to every bit of music ever made in human history to every single person is a BAD THING. Grar. Maybe I wouldnt be so annoyed if the public domain still existed. Well, since they decided to eliminate it, the people found another way to FORCE it to exist.

    • Remember, these are people that think free access to every bit of music ever made in human history to every single person is a BAD THING.

      Whoa, buddy. Let's not get too crazy. Free access to every bit of music is a bad thing. Lots of us disagree with the way the record labels have long tried to unfairly force the market beyond the laws of supply and demand....but anybody who says Bob Dylan should never have gotten a paycheck is an asshole.

      I think that's all I'm going to add to this thread.

  • The large corporations, the top levels of government, and the "elite" media have had a chokehold on American workers the last 30-50 years, THey have been able to determine the direction of the political debate in America, and even disenfranchise and alienate the voters so that the political machine is largely in the hands of the upper classes and a few interest groups.

    They have been able to do this by control of the mass media. Such is the status quo in America. And it is not a conspiracy; it is just powe

  • Seems to me, they should be warning Microsoft. After all, 90% of people who run Microsoft products end up being infected with many, many varieties of spyware, viruses, worms, and other sorts of Malware. Clearly, Microsoft platforms are the hosts of a wide variety of ills to which consumers would prefer not to be exposed.

  • I just can't get enough of this, I love this part in particular: We take seriously our responsibility to protect our citizens from misleading or deceptive
    practices, and to ensure that our citizens are given the information necessary to making an
    informed decision.

    Why don't you protect your citizens from CDs that won't play in their car stereo? Why don't you protect your citizens fair use rights to make a copy of a DVD for personal use? Why don't you protect your citizens from being mislead into beleiving t

  • And in other news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:13AM (#9899052)
    All 50 States' AG Warn Automakers: Your products are too dangerous!

    We are writing to encourage your companies to take concrete and meaningful steps to address the serious risks posed to the consumers of our States by your company's personal transportation products("PtP"). By addressing such problems today as the use of these PtPs as getaway vehicles for bank robberies, perform drive-by shootings, not to mention the 40,000+ fatalities, hundreds of thousands of crippling injuries, and untold billions in lost wages and productivity, PtPs may one day realize their potential as a means for facilitating a wide range of transportation, recreation, sporting, and educational activities. At present, PtPs have too many times been hijacked by those who use it for illegal purposes to which the vast majority of our consumers do not wish to be exposed.

    If you can't or won't fix your products voluntarily, we will.
  • From the linked letter [corante.com]:

    We view with equal alarm reports that at least some P2P file-sharing services are adding encryption features to those services. The addition of such encryption features will make it more difficult, if not impossible, for law enforcement to police users of P2P technology in order to prosecute crimes such as child pornography. Encryption only reinforces the perception that P2P technology is being used primarily for illegal ends. Accordingly, we would ask you to refrain from making desi


  • 'At present, P2P software has too many times been hijacked by those who use it for illegal purposes to which the vast majority of our consumers do not wish to be exposed.'

    hmmm. public telephone service, cities, the legal system, federal highways; heck, even the federal government have all been used for illegal purposes too. as a consumer i don't really want to be exposed to this misuse either. maybe we should shut down all these services..?
  • It would seem that the emphasis on music/software has changed somewhat. Again, our buddies in Congress are attacking music; only in a much different way:

    Several years ago, the emphasis was placed on the fact that all [new] music was bad. You had Senators attempting to pass legislation banning rap, punk, skateboarding (since people listened to music while skateboarding), and video games.

    Now, they paint the recording companies as the poor kid who's getting beaten for his lunch money. You should purchase

  • Tell them no. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:18AM (#9899132)
    "At present, P2P software has too many times been hijacked by those who use it for illegal purposes, to which the vast majority of our consumers do not wish to be exposed."

    Well, supposedly the majority of P2P is used for "illegal" purposes. It's then easy to extrapolate from there to say that the vast majority does wish to be exposed to "illegal" offerings.

    Although there is little evidence that child pornography or other criminal activities unrelated to copyright issues are any more prevalent on peer-to-peer networks than elsewhere on the Internet, entertainment companies and some policymakers have increasingly pointed to these issues as reason to impose new regulations on the networks and technology.

    Yes, that is called FUD. What they fail to mention is that this is a vicious attack. The "we need to protect our children" bullshit. It apparently works for FoxNews why not laws?

    In Washington, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is sponsoring a bill that would hold file-sharing companies liable for the illegal actions of their users, a measure that could push the existing commercial networks out of business.

    I want to hold Orrin responsible for wasting Utah's tax dollars on fucking horseshit. There are much more important evils in Utah to deal with than P2P disrupting the conservative way of life out there.

    The letter specifically asks that file-sharing companies stop encrypting network transmissions in ways that make it difficult for law enforcement to investigate and enforce the law.

    Fuck them. I ask specifically that they keep their snooping eyes out of my business. Are they going to start asking that SSH tunnels be regulated because it may harbor criminals? We should all be required to run plaintext everything so that our information is out there for all eyes to see.

    The EFF needs to write a letter back that simply says, "In the best interests of our children we have to say, 'No.'" It might be too simple for them to understand without all that legal mumbo-jumbo but it would certainly be easier than fighting with them over what is obviously a bunch of uneducated nonsense.

  • This tells me that they can't do a thing... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Yaa 101 ( 664725 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:18AM (#9899135) Journal
    More and more you see the inablity our governments face when it comes to catch individual criminals...
    Mainly because the corperate and governmental is so closely linked to the largest criminal acts on this planet...

    1 example:
    Do you know how many Congolese and Ruandese people died for the Coltan that is needed to build your cell phone?

    Only by criminalizing everybody else and imposing stricter laws they can get away with their criminal acts.
    Also hyjacking every bad news situation as excuse to impose these tougher laws.

    This story says that in principle you can either obey these laws or not as it makes no difference if you do, when it's your turn to get nailed you get nailed anyway...
  • If they want your vote, they will have to stop signing letters like this.

    Find your AGs contact info here [naag.org].

    And for good measure, copy, paste, and submit your letter to the National Association of Attorneys General here [naag.org].

    And if the AG in your state is not independently elected, send a copy to your governor [nga.org] as well.

  • "Pornography?" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by NineNine ( 235196 )
    By addressing such problems today as the use of P2P networks to disseminate pornography,...

    Last I checked, in the People's Republic of the US, pornography wasn't illegal. But I guess it's just a matter of time before anything deemed by the Old, White, Male, Jesus-Freaks that run this country to be "harmful" will be illegal. Jesus H Christ... I think it's time to move the movie Brazil [imdb.com] from the "Fiction" section of the video store to the "Documentary" section. I think it's also time that I move out of t

  • Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chill ( 34294 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:21AM (#9899168) Journal
    Okay, how about this. Since file sharing companies would be liable for their users actions under Sen. Hatch's proposed law, how about extending that to other markets.

    Roads come to mind. I want the owners of the roads held liable everytime they are used for criminal purposes. If someone drives drugs from Miami up I-95, I think the owners of I-95 should be liable! The same goes for roads used during robbery get-a-ways and the like.

    Networks are INFRASTRUCTURE, like the road system. They are not enclosed locations like retail stores or private businesses or buildings.

    Where's a cluebat when you need one.

  • Right. (Score:4, Funny)

    by AugstWest ( 79042 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:22AM (#9899196)
    What's next, FTP?

    "Our research people have also discovered that large numbers of pirated files are being transferred over something called 'FTP.' Our lawyers have advised us that we should immediately sue everyone who uses FTP software."

  • Classic ignorance... (Score:4, Informative)

    by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:29AM (#9899293) Homepage Journal

    From the article:

    Furthermore, P2P file-sharing technology can allow its users to access the files of other users, even when the computer is "off" if the computer itself is connected to the Internet via broadband.

    Because, as everyone knows, a broadband connection is so powerful, it can steal bits from a stopped hard drive!? I'm sorry, but this is sheer ignorance:

    • In the first place, a PC has to be on to serve files, and cannot be remotely turned on, except for:
    • Those rare cases in which computer users are sophisticated enough to enable wake-on-LAN in their bios and remember to put the machine into sleep mode, rather than powering it down with the switch. Even then, it's still anyone's guess as to whether an incoming P2P request would wake the machine.
    • The likelihood that the above users would be sharing files without their knowledge is between slim and none. I'd posit that the overwhelming majority of "I didn't know I was sharing my whole hard drive..." types believe that a firewall sits adjacent the fireplace and AOL is "the Internet".

  • Evil computers that are OFF (Score:4, Funny)

    by Vicegrip ( 82853 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:32AM (#9899317) Journal
    Furthermore, P2P file-sharing technology can allow its users to access the files of other users, even when the computer is "off" if the computer itself is connected to the Internet via broadband.

    Nice to know these are some of the watchdogs keeping us safe from Microsoft's excesses. It's amazing 46 AGs read this and actually signed it. Yes, ladies and gentlement, even when your kid's computer is off it is being used to traffic porn.

    Apparently the demonic forces in Doom3 are also possessing the computers of a lot of silly lawyers.
  • 46 state attorneys general are warning P2P companies of dire, unnamed consequences for continuing to exist, 'At present, P2P software has too many times been hijacked by those who use it for illegal purposes to which the vast majority of our consumers do not wish to be exposed.'

    Of course 'the vast majority of our consumers' agree with them - the consumers he is talking about are their consumers, ie those who use state attorney general services.

    Read it again. Why talk about consumers? Why doesn't he instead mention the public interest? Because he's not conerned about the public interest (which he is supposed to protect). He's concerned about the interests of those who consume his services - in this case copyright holders.

    Also notice how they are carefully going against service providers. They are simply going to settle with the ability to tap or access any information they want or need on these services without writing new laws or having to get court orders.

    That's fine. I don't use these services anyway, and I'd use a non-centralized service long before I use a commercial or centralized service.

    But let's not be blind. There are those who use these networks for terrorist activities and other activities which many (if not most) on this board would disagree with. It is worthwhile spending time to weed out the bad uses of these technologies so that we can still use the technology for good uses, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Wet and soapy flying babies are very hard to catch in midair.

    -Adam

  • The crux of the problem... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @10:50AM (#9899519) Homepage Journal

    From the article:

    We view with equal alarm reports that at least some P2P file-sharing services are adding encryption features to those services.... Encryption only reinforces the perception that P2P technology is being used primarily for illegal ends. Accordingly, we would ask you to refrain from making design changes to your software that prevent law enforcement in our States from investigating and enforcing the law.

    I find the notion that encryption implies criminal activity particularly troublesome, especially considering:

    1. Millions of workers every day are able to work from home thanks to VPN. Without encryption, the possibility of divulging sensitive information would keep these workers in their cubicles, rather than caring for children or staying home sick.
    2. Industrial espionage is contingent on the absence of encrypted communications. On more than one occasion, the lack of encryption in communication facilities has inadvertently disclosed trade secrets. In at least one instance, the entire source tree for a popular software product was divulged.
    3. Without encryption, the proceedings of supposedly "secret" court proceedings - those involving children, or sexual abuse - may be inadvertently disclosed to associates of the accused, enabling revenge on the victims.
    4. Without encryption, e-commerce would cease to exist - who would send their credit card info over the internet unencrypted?
    5. Without encryption, political dissidents in terrorist controlled countries could not organize a resistance movement for the sake of furthering democracy. Saddam Hussein successfully thwarted overthrow for more than 10 years partly because he effectively outlawed encryption.
    6. More often than not, criminals and terrorists do not use encryption - the 9/11 hijackers didn't, nor did Timothy McVeigh.
    7. A recent FBI report concluded that during the last 5 years, not one case was stymied by an inability to decrypt communications between suspects. In fact, of all federal cases, less than 4% involved the use of encryption, and even then it didn't help the suspects.

    The problem with the "only criminals use encryption..." mantra is that it just isn't true. Encryption is used far more often for legal, productive activities than illegal ones.

Slashdot Top Deals

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]

Close