Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Technology Your Rights Online

House Committee Passes "Informed P2P User Act" 235

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the is-this-really-the-most-pressing-issue dept.
An anonymous reader writes "This week the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the 'Informed P2P User Act' and has sent it along to the full House for consideration. The bill, which appears to have heavy support on both sides of the political fence, simply states that P2P software must not install extra software or prevent users from removing it, in addition to being 'clear and conspicuous' about which files are being shared and getting user consent to share them. 'Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the powerful committee chairman, opened the markup session by warning about "the danger of inadvertent sharing of sensitive information through the use, or misuse, of certain file sharing programs. Tax returns, medical files, and even classified government documents have been found on these networks. The purpose of H.R. 1319 is to reduce inadvertent disclosures of sensitive information by making the users of this software more aware of the risks involved."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

House Committee Passes "Informed P2P User Act"

Comments Filter:
  • Why P2P (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AnotherBlackHat (265897) on Friday October 02, 2009 @12:15PM (#29618707) Homepage

    Why is this limited to P2P software?

    • Mod parent up (Score:2, Interesting)

      by argent (18001)

      Yeh, that's the important point. Why not just ban spyware, period?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ajs (35943)

        Yeh, that's the important point. Why not just ban spyware, period?

        Spyware violates electronic privacy laws that already exist.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          So is spyware is already "banned" by privacy laws, why do we need this separate P2P legislation? Sorry I can't help being skeptical. The Patriot Act included things nobody knew about, and discovered later after passage, and I'm wondering if this P2P bill has similar "gotchas" hidden inside of it. Like:

          - "We caught you P2Ping the latest Linux distro. Per U.S. law we are required to suspend your account until you agree not to use P2P." - MSN

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by MBGMorden (803437)

            Notice that this didn't ONLY ban spyware. It had stipulations that state that when a P2P app is installed it clearly indicates what is being shared. This will just prevent Joe Sixpack from installed AwesomeShareItAll v3.1 where it just shares out your entire hard drive without indicating it.

            Personally, I just don't see too much evil in this bill.

          • While the intent seems to be noble (prevent data leaks/security breaches), the impression that I get from TFA is that this is applicable to all P2P software and not just the use of P2P software by the federal government - and that's where I have a problem with this.

            First, it requires P2P software vendors to provide "clear and conspicuous" notice about the files being shared by the software and then obtain user consent for sharing them

            While I see the thought process behind this - make sure the user know
      • Mod Parent Down (Score:3, Insightful)

        by geekoid (135745)

        People should not be modded up for not reading the article.

        • What is this "article" you speak of? "reading?" What's the point of this thread? Where am I? Why aren't I wearing pants? Where is the porn?

          Why am I being modded down rather than up?

          • Why aren't I wearing pants? Where is the porn?

            I don't understand. If you don't know where the porn is, why are you not wearing any pants?

            Dude, you are seriously messed up.

            Find the porn, THEN lose the pants. Otherwise your mom is going to walk in on you, pantsless (you, not your mom, I hope) and reading slashdot. NOT a pretty sight (or site, for that matter, but we love slashdot BECAUS of its foibles, not in spite of them).

        • The article explains "how" they limited it to P2P software, but not *why*. After all, there's no goddamn reason ANY software should be allowed to install backdoors and dead-man switches and rootkits and other malicious components on your computer.

          Sony, Valve, and others... including arguably Microsoft and Apple, include or have included in their software components that are indistinguishable from certain kinds of Spyware except for the fact that they're installed by a program that "needs" to install them.

          I

    • Re:Why P2P (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ZekoMal (1404259) on Friday October 02, 2009 @12:21PM (#29618795)
      Because then companies like Sony couldn't screw with us.
    • Re:Why P2P (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ajs (35943) <ajs AT ajs DOT com> on Friday October 02, 2009 @12:28PM (#29618919) Homepage Journal

      Why is this limited to P2P software?

      Because almost every other type of unintentional sharing of files (if not all) are already covered by electronic privacy laws.

      However, in the case of applications which are designed to share files, there's a legal gray area, where the author can claim that they have no obligation to have disclosed which files were being shared, and that the user consented to sharing their files by installing file sharing software.

      This bill would close that loophole.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        And open a new one where the FBI (or RIAA investigators) can simply "ask" the program, "What files were shared?", get a convenient generated list, and find all the evidence they need to make your day in court miserable.

        • Re:Why P2P (Score:4, Insightful)

          by girlintraining (1395911) on Friday October 02, 2009 @12:49PM (#29619187)

          And open a new one where the FBI (or RIAA investigators) can simply "ask" the program, "What files were shared?", get a convenient generated list, and find all the evidence they need to make your day in court miserable.

          And if my computer lies? Nobody said my computer has to be programmed to tell the truth.

          • by Jaysyn (203771)

            Great point. If you code something that in fact does just that, I hope you share it :D

        • It isn't obvious(though it seems that most anything could happen when it lands in the lap of some judge who can just about handle touch-tone phone era technology) that the program would need to keep a permanent list, or even a list of files at all.(or, rather, no more than simple technical necessity dictates today)

          Already, most any P2P program will have a list of files to be shared, either explicit or "all files in directories X, Y, Z" stored in a config file so that the user doesn't have to reenter that
          • Those config files get erased over time. For example there's no remaining record that I downloaded Star Wars Episode 2 five years ago using Azureus, since both the movie and *.torrent were deleted..... but maybe this new law will require Azureus to keep that information indefinitely. "Ahhh I see this guy downloaded SW2 on 11/05/2004. Got him."

          • Re:Why P2P (Score:5, Insightful)

            by gnieboer (1272482) on Friday October 02, 2009 @02:08PM (#29620103)

            True, all P2P apps have to know what files they are sharing. But here's where I see bill's raison d'etre...

            "being 'clear and conspicuous' about which files are being shared and getting user consent to share them"

            NOW, when the RIAA sues everyone:
            The software maker is free and clear ("We added the consent to share box as mandated by law")
            And the person sharing Rocky 17 CAN'T say "I had no idea that file was being shared", which has been a defense in the past.

            So (IMHO) when we talk about big lobbying groups, the RIAA would like it, and the software makers are willing to put up with the other provisions because now they are off the hook from the big P2P lawsuit.

        • How is this different than having to give up a DNA sample when you are a suspect of a murder?

          How about this... don't share files you have no legal right to share.
        • by MrMista_B (891430)

          Why would they need to do that when they can just invent a list, and you have no way of proving otherwise?

      • by MobyDisk (75490)

        Because almost every other type of unintentional sharing of files (if not all) are already covered by electronic privacy laws.

        Incorrect. The correct answer is "Because legislators are morons and follow zeitgeist instead of reason."

        There are 2 ways to share files: P2P, and client-server. Those are technical terms. If this legislation says that it only applies to P2P, then it just flat-out won't work. Common examples: Backup software or remove diagnostics software.

      • by Thaelon (250687)

        How about, instead, we inject some personal responsibility into the mix? If you work on a computer with sensitive information on it, you're responsible for any and all software you install on it.

        It's amazing how much personal responsibility can make up for "gaps" in "policy".

  • Spill the beans (Score:5, Interesting)

    by oldhack (1037484) on Friday October 02, 2009 @12:15PM (#29618719)
    Ok, so who funded this bill and why?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mcgrew (92797) *

      I'd like to know why an "informed P2P users act" doesn't do anything to inform the downloader if the material is ok to download. There are literally hundreds of songs named Scatterbrain. Some are RIAA-label copyrighted, some are indie copyrighted and you have permission to share, some are GPL, and some have been put in the public domain. Of the three kinds of songs only one is illegal to share. So if I ask for "scatterbrain" and it returns five hundred instances of "scatterbrain.mp3", I should have the righ

      • Make the record companies stop pretending to "sell" music and go back to selling physical objects: CDs with cover art and liner notes with a higher sound quality than MP3s.

        They could do that now if they thought it was a viable business model. Maybe they don't because they are too heavily invested in the current model's infrastructure, I don't claim to know.

        I do know that judging from the audio equipment you see dominating shelves, the masses aren't too picky about sound quality. Decent cover art and liner notes might be something worth returning to, but digital distributors will almost certainly be able to outdo them there (with the exception of providing a physical copy). It

      • by westlake (615356)
        So if I ask for "scatterbrain" and it returns five hundred instances of "scatterbrain.mp3", I should have the right to know which 3 out of 4 files is OK to download.

        If this worries you, why aren't you downloading directly from the artist's or label's site? The torrent from an unknown and untrusted source is inherently more dangerous.

    • Re:Spill the beans (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ajs (35943) <ajs AT ajs DOT com> on Friday October 02, 2009 @12:30PM (#29618965) Homepage Journal

      Ok, so who funded this bill and why?

      Almost certainly groups like the RIAA and the MPAA.

      Their goal is in ratchet up the personal liability of the users who use these systems. By forcing applications to be much more explicit about what's being shared, they reduce the number of cases they lose against file sharers on the grounds that they didn't know what they were sharing.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Smegly (1607157)

      One possible reason: Makes services like Freenet illegal. For example donating disk space and bandwidth [freenetproject.org] to encrypted files where the user-node does not actually know what they are helping to deliver sounds like it would violate being "'clear and conspicuous' about which files are being shared and getting user consent to share them".

      No "Common Carrier" [wikipedia.org] status for P2P nodes here...

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by CastrTroy (595695)
        As long as you make it clear and consice that anything and everything can be shared, and that the user agrees to this, I see no problem with programs like these operating. What it's really designed to stop is P2P applications getting installed that don't tell the user they are sharing the whole C: drive by default. As long as you tell the user exactly what is happening, and they agree to it, there is no problem.
      • >>>Makes services like Freenet illegal.

        Ahhh smack! Yes I think you've finally discovered the hidden agenda behind this bill. The U.S. government has systematically been stripping-away the right of anonymity, and Freenet's entire purpose is to keep files anonymous and out-of-government's prying eyes. This bill effectively kills the project by making Freenet illegal.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Freenet could, barring a truly weird judicial interpretation, comply pretty easily.

        The only "shared folder" is the folder, of user allocated size, where freenet stores its encrypted chunks. Each of those chunks is one of the shared files. All freenet would have to do is say "When you install freenet, all files in folder X will be shared with other freenet nodes, as well as any files you explicitly upload". The fact that the user does not and cannot figure out what exactly the encrypted chunks are is neit
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SeaFox (739806)

      Isn't it sad that now whenever any piece of legislation is crafted we automatically assume someone "bought" it and has ulterior motives to it's existence than what the bill would have you believe.

  • by davidwr (791652) on Friday October 02, 2009 @12:16PM (#29618733) Homepage Journal

    Do sftpd and Windows File Sharing count? The bill better be carefully worded or the law of unintended consequences and vendors screaming "waitaminuteididn'tknowmyproductqualified" will be the end result.

    • I think most laws are written to effect twice the number of people it looks like they are targeting. Then you never use it so that people don't fight it. In the end you are left with the ability to sue or charge any one into oblivion at any point in time.

      I can almost guarantee I'm violating a half dozen laws as I type this. I'm sure over the next month if a team of well read lawyers tracked my every movement and inspected my house they could charge me with a few hundred offenses. A society of criminals is
  • Unwanted software (Score:4, Insightful)

    by conureman (748753) on Friday October 02, 2009 @12:17PM (#29618747)

    I'd like to see criminal penalties for bundling undisclosed and unwanted software with any application. See if that gets past the lobbyists.

    • by geekoid (135745)

      How many aplication can't be considered P2P? Not many.

    • by MBGMorden (803437)

      Who is to judge what's unwanted though? Some people actually want the Google Toolbar that gets included with so many other programs. Many others do not. In a less spyware-ish sounding example, my first copy of AviSynth came bundled with another program, and I must say I am happy it did because it has become a mainstay in my video toolbox.

      And who is to judge what constitutes separate software? When I go into the "Custom" screen of an installation program there's a LOT of little checkboxes to look over.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dog-Cow (21281)

        You are an idiot.

        Upon installation, disclose to the user that additional programs are included and ensure there is a way to opt out of the installation of those other programs.

        In other words: the user.

        • by MBGMorden (803437)

          99% of all installers do this already. If that's all that was wanted then the status qou is pretty good. The GP specifically said BUNDLING of programs. Irfanview comes bundled with Google Toolbar. Yes you can opt out of it but that doesn't change the fact that it comes bundled, which by the GP's suggestion would possibly become illegal under such a law.

  • Stupid old men. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lord Kano (13027) on Friday October 02, 2009 @12:18PM (#29618759) Homepage Journal

    How do they expect to enforce this law on companies that produce software outside of the US?

    Apparently they still don't understand how this internet thing works.

    LK

    • by Eudial (590661)

      How do they expect to enforce this law on companies that produce software outside of the US?

      Apparently they still don't understand how this internet thing works.

      LK

      Yeah. The Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes.

    • by conureman (748753)

      Track down their IPs. We still have ICBMs.

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      Simple, if you don't like US law, then don't distribute your wares inside the US. Make sure your download site has a disclaimer "This software contains crap you don't want and can't remove, so US residents need not apply. By clicking 'I agree' I hereby affirm that I am not a US citizen or within US borders. Any of the world's other citizens can feel free to be pwned."

      • Uhh if I live in Sweden I'm expected to know vague laws in the US and abide by them hahaha no. Just ignore the law and nothing will happen, I mean no one even sells p2p software anyways and they rarely even have a defacto owner of the product.
    • Apparently they still don't understand how this internet thing works.

      Add it to the list which includes: the economy, foreign policy, and Major League Baseball.

  • Ummmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MikeRT (947531) on Friday October 02, 2009 @12:18PM (#29618761) Homepage

    even classified government documents have been found on these networks

    If they're finding classified documents on the public internet, that means that they have a bigger problem like government employees disregarding security guidelines by putting them on unclassified networks.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kevinNCSU (1531307)
      Yea, I get the feeling that's just a sensationalist flag the media likes to wave to make the story more interesting. I think the real reason here is kids installing p2p software without the parents knowledge and the sharing the my documents folder or the whole C: drive including all the parents tax returns and other personal information.
      • by blueZ3 (744446)

        And I really don't see how this new law is going to prevent that. You can't legislate against ignorance/stupidity. If little Johnny Rotten is using P2P software and it asks him which directory to share and he says c:, I don't think that this law is going to help John Sr. get his SSN back in the bottle.

        I'm tempted to wonder if there isn't some ulterior motive here... like since you can't prevent this kind of stupidity, maybe it's a stealth move to outlaw all P2P? Of course, you should never attribute to mali

    • by geekoid (135745)

      Actually, most those leaks come from private contractors.

      However, this bill specifically address the bigger problem you imply.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kjella (173770)

      Just because you have multiple problems, doesn't mean you have to tackle them one at a time. Several of the early file sharing apps were intentionally vague, because they figured more content == popularity so they tried to let users share as much as possible with as little effort as possible, hidden away in defaulted checkboxes or EULAs. As usual the legislation is very late though, this might have been useful around napster, kazaa and edonkey but these days most tools are a lot more serious. Not to mention

    • FWIW I've only seen reports of documents marked as high as "confidential" found floating around. That classification is used for disclosures that result in little damage to national secrets.

  • by thewils (463314) on Friday October 02, 2009 @12:21PM (#29618801) Journal

    Just like the Theft act prevents Theft.

  • by bbsguru (586178) on Friday October 02, 2009 @12:23PM (#29618825) Homepage Journal
    ... the installation of viruses and worms on computers you don't won is now illegal. Massive layoffs are expected in the BotNet industry...
  • Waste of time (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shagg (99693) on Friday October 02, 2009 @12:23PM (#29618833)

    The same users that are dumb/ignorant enough to share their tax and medical records are the same ones that won't bother to read any "clear and conspicuous" warnings. They'll either not understand it or hit "OK" without reading it. You can't write laws that eliminate stupidity.

  • I guess the bill shows the fundamental lack of understanding of who makes these programs... But since we're making a wishlist, I think they should consider amending the bill to also:

    Outlaw neighbor's kids on your lawn
    Calling of mean names during recess
    Impose regulations on which kids may be beat up on the bus, replacing the current "smallest kid" freemarket system.
    Legalize marijuana and outlaw Light Beer.
    Outlaw poverty, unhappiness, debt, bad driving and excessively loud cheering at football games.
    • by FooAtWFU (699187)

      Outlaw debt? This is the government we're talking about! Get real!

      Clearly we should instead establish a federal monopoly on "owing money". Then patriotic government bonds won't have competition from the silly private sector. ;P

    • What's wrong with decriminalizing marijuana? It's my body and if I want to kill myself using weed (or alcohol or tobacco or overeating), that MY business, not yours.

      • What if I don't want health insurance? Why can't that be my business, and not yours?

        And what about strange things that people do while on drugs that quite possibly endanger others? Lawyers can already plead "temporary insanity" and get their clients to be treated differently - as though an insane person that likes to kill people is ok and not too dangerous, as opposed to a sane person - I'd hate to see what lawyers do when they start claiming "temporary loss of mental control due to substance contaminatio

        • >>>And what about strange things that people do while on drugs that quite possibly endanger others?

          We already have laws to imprison those persons. Just because marijuana is decriminalized, doesn't mean it's okay to DUI or physically assault your neighbors. In fact if marijuana ever is decriminalized (like in California) it will be strictly regulated as a prescription drug, along with other dangerous drugs like vicodin, prozac, and morphine.

          >>>What if I don't want health insurance? Why ca

        • by WilyCoder (736280)

          "Sure, maybe it's your body and life and you want to kill yourself using weed... but I don't particularly want to get killed by people, say, on LSD that think they're traveling through a wormhole when in fact they are actually driving a tractor through my house."

          That can happen regardless of the legality of LSD. Outlawing drugs does nothing to prevent their usage. We are 40 years and a trillion dollars in the red over this war on drugs, and drugs are more available and used than ever before.

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      did I miss anything?

      Your Haldol, maybe?

  • We need a law for this?

    Wait a minute, it's not funny anymore.

  • Ulterior motive? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Steve Cox (207680) on Friday October 02, 2009 @12:28PM (#29618915)

    It could be that this bill is being passed simply to remove a set of excuses people might use when caught using P2P for sharing copyrighted material - hence the name of the bill.

    If the software plainly states that it will be sharing a file with other people, then you cannot say 'I didn't know I was sharing it'. Likewise, you cannot say that it installed without your knowledge nor can you say it installed but you couldn't uninstall it.

    This is of course, only possible if the writers of P2P software actually give two hoots about the bill.....

    Steve.

    • by Shagg (99693)

      This is of course, only possible if the writers of P2P software actually give two hoots about the bill.....

      Bingo!

      As we all know, the authors of P2P software are generally very conscientious about following the law. Not to mention the fact that they all fall under US jurisdiction.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      This is of course, only possible if the writers of P2P software actually give two hoots about the bill.....

      Yeah, it's like expecting a terrorist to care his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces.

      • Well, in the terrorist's defense, getting a parking ticket right before his final suicide bombing could lower his karma enough to drop the count down to 71 virgins....or something...
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by westlake (615356)

      This is of course, only possible if the writers of P2P software actually give two hoots about the bill.....

      The author might not care. But the distributor will.

      No downloads from CNET - and - quite possibly - no downloads through Sourceforge or your favorite Linux repository either.

      The distributor is exposed and he is likely to have a legally and financially significant presence in the U.S.

      He can be reached and he can be hurt.

  • This will push the scenario that the application should be knowing which files are which, and what is considered sensitive materials,
    and will eventually fall upon the program and its creators to block or not block, and unintentionally also legallities associated to
    sharing such files.
    The creators are not supposed to limit what files are being shared, and definitely not be held accountable if someone uses the app for their own evil purpose, else the creator of the nuclear bomb should be imprisoned for all the

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      else the creator of the nuclear bomb should be imprisoned for all the deaths in Hiroshima!

      Is it Monday already? Where are all these brain-dead comments coming from? It is not illegal to kill the enemy your country is at war with. You would execute Texas' hangmen? WTF?

      What grade are you in, son?

  • Liar, Liar. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Friday October 02, 2009 @12:30PM (#29618953)

    The purpose of H.R. 1319 is to reduce inadvertent disclosures of sensitive information by making the users of this software more aware of the risks involved.

    Sure it is. Now, how about taking a closer look;

    the term "peer-to-peer file sharing program" means[...]
    to designate files available for transmission to another computer
    to transmit files directly to another computer; and
    to request the transmission of files from another computer.

    Well, that's basically "using the internet". And using the definition of "protected computer", if you can add a tcp/ip stack to your toaster, it's a protected computer. So what will it be illegal to do using anything with a microprocessor and can communicate with the outside world? Also, "authorized user" -- I suspect a lot of EULAs are going to be updated so that every company that has a piece of networkable software installed on your system is now also an authorized user. Unintended consequences are a bitch, aren't they? Your system is now legally required to be insecure and full of backdoors. ...prevent the reasonable efforts of an owner or authorized user from blocking the installation [of a] program or function thereof

    So installing is now okay. 'Using' not available for comment. So we can still f*ck with it at the operating system level, or neuter it in memory -- messing with the code after installation or during runtime isn't covered. Oops.

    to fail to provide a reasonable and effective means to disable or remove from the protected computer...[excessive legalese deleted]

    Translation: Installers should come with uninstallers. We need a law for this? And without a definition of what "reasonable and effective" constitutes -- well, need I say more? Anyone try uninstalling Norton Antivirus lately? It's quicker just to nuke the drive from orbit, and it's the only way to be sure you got everything. Can I expect federal pound me in the ass prison time for all the Norton executives? No? Why -- oh, right... they're rich. But you there, little open source developer -- we know you're evil. I mean, you don't even have a brand identity!

    Yeah... this ends well.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mcgrew (92797) *

      Translation: Installers should come with uninstallers. We need a law for this?

      Since installers DO need uninstallers and many software houses either don't provide an uninstaller, or provide one that doesn't work, I'd say HELL YES. The law should not protect me from myself, but it SHOULD protect me from YOU.

      Anyone try uninstalling Norton Antivirus lately?

      I think a lot of folks would love to see their CEO and board in jail. If a law mandating effective uninstallers were passed, you'd see an easily removable N

  • Surely all internet hosts are peers. So this applies to anything that communicates. Not that that's a bad thing : people should understand (and be informed enough to understand) what their software is sharing.
  • If they use a P2P program to distribute an update to it, does that mean it would become illegal as an unforeseen effect? Their EULA would be as valid as the EULA for a P2P program for which the bill was targeted.
    • They don't use a P2P program to update Warden, they primarily update it via the launcher and/or at client connection time. They have pushed a warden update via their patching process once, but the EULA and ToU that you agreed to state that they are allowed to do so.

      Second, Warden shares nothing with Blizzard aside from a single byte: is this user currently running blacklisted software, or not. People get their panties in a twist because it read (..and then hashed, and the compared hashes..) window titles
      • by Lehk228 (705449)
        no, they got their panties twisted because they were busted using WoWGlider, the rest were just excuses to distract from their cheating and make it look like blissard was the bad guy. kind of like a teenager yelling that his parents violated his privacy when they grounded him for having a bag of pot and a bong hidden in his room.
  • Relevant Quote (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kindgott (165758) <soulwound@g o d i s d e a d.com> on Friday October 02, 2009 @12:39PM (#29619077) Journal

    "Anyone who says that the solution is to educate the users hasn't ever met an actual user."
    -- Bruce Schneier

  • Simply scaring people about P2P may be one goal. But I doubt it. Scare them, pass legislation, then more regulation to ensure the bugaboo, largely made up to begin with, does not happen. It is a wedge to allow the government more control of software. And, considering the source, thoroughly in the interest of the movie and record industry. It also makes the control-freaks unhappy about anything that gives any real power to the "consumer" happy. It is worded so that oppose seem to be in favor of insec

  • Aimed at Freenet? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by acid06 (917409) on Friday October 02, 2009 @01:42PM (#29619843)
    Apparently, this bill is actually aimed at things such as the Freenet Project [freenetproject.org].
    On Freenet, you actually don't know what is stored on your own computer (and thus, what you're sharing) as everything is encrypted.
    Apparently, this effectively outlaws Freenet.

The world is no nursery. - Sigmund Freud

Working...