US Lawmakers Set Sights On P2P Programs 180
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."
Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no sense (Score:2, Informative)
"...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?
Re:Actually anti-spam/botnet? (Score:3, Informative)
It does. Though you can opt to use the mirror - though they only recommend it if the P2P Services don't work for various reasons.
Re:Either I'm retarded (given) or this makes no se (Score:3, Informative)
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.
}
}
Re:Minus p2p (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Here in the UK, it _almost_ is. The Computer Misuse Act 1990 states:
The only problem is the requirement that you have to know the modification is unauthorised before you can be prosecuted. In practice, this means that people who intentionally install malware on systems can be prosecuted, but malware authors generally can't (unless, of course, they're the same person).
Re:Why limit it to P2P programs? (Score:3, Informative)
Also, among Linux geeks, it is common knowledge that a GNU/Linux system comes with third-party software that most people expect to be present (e.g. Apache, KDE).
You mean like Transmission, a BitTorrent client? Or Samba, a set of tools for sharing files in a way compatible with Windows? Or Ubuntu One, which allows users to back up files to a 2 GB online space (or, in a future version, across the local network) and share some of these backed-up files? All of these are included with the Ubuntu distribution of GNU/Linux, and both are "P2P" software.