Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media The Internet United States

New P2P Battle is Heating Up 376

Posted by CowboyNeal from the lobbying-for-tyranny dept.
Digital Dharma writes "News.com has an article about a new P2P war just getting underway in congress. With Senator Hollings retiring, the RIAA and MPAA have found suitable replacement hosts in three key members of the House of Representatives. Lamar Smith, R-Texas; Howard Berman, D-Calif; and John Conyers, D-Mich are taking up arms against P2P networks with a bizarre new bill that would require companies that create certain types of software such as web browsers, instant messaging clients and e-mail utilities to add a warning that it 'could create a security and privacy risk.' How this would deter P2P activity is a bit of a mystery. The article also talks about putting software company executives in jail for failing to correctly label said software, empowering the FBI to release anti-P2P propaganda and other typical RIAA/MPAA sponsored oddities." A network application can create a security risk? Best firewall off every port!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New P2P Battle is Heating Up More

New P2P Battle is Heating Up

Comments Filter:

  • Come on! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Bendebecker ( 633126 )
    Whose going to buy Interent Explorer when it becomes correctly labeled. Woudl you buy an application labled as "utter shit"?

    • Re:Come on! (Score:2, Funny)

      by trompete ( 651953 )
      The joke's on all of you who BOUGHT Internet Explorer. I just turned on my machine, and it was the default for everything...all for FREE. :)

  • p2p is the future (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tarzan353 ( 246515 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @10:54AM (#7281487)
    I believe p2p is the future. Copyright issues aside, I doubt I'm the only one that's noticed that there are some downloads that are getting extremely large. Maybe it's a game demo, a movie trailer, or a software upgrade. How often has it happened that some thing comes out like, say, a Matrix trailer or a new game mod and people swamp the main server and mirrors alike to download it? Why else would recent Slashdot articles on popular downloads be linking .torrent files?

    The problem is further escalated by the fact that the ranks of broadband users are growning every day. I hear that Verizon is wanting to dump somewhere around 11 billion dollars into their network to ensure that all of their customers are able to get DSL, and they have lowered their prices across the board...You can now get 1.5 down/128 up for a flat $30/mo, similar to what SBC's been offering. With all this broadband around, popular web sites will not be able to keep up, expecially if they have downloadable goodies. The answer is distributed computing. p2p represents the infancy of the inevitibility of distributed storage, processing, and bandwidth.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @11:03AM (#7281599)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Maybe not P2P...

      But I wouldn't be surprised to see larger broadband service providers providing their own "P2P"-like products that might distribute the load for popular files to their own servers while at the same time monitoring those files (for copyright or to cover their asses). Perhaps something like my current binary usenet setup: BNR2 configured to pull binaries from my broadband host (free/blindingly fast) and pull missing parts from another news host (paid for/still fast/better completion and rete

    • "I believe p2p is the future."

      Yes, but it's more fashionably known as grid computing. ;o)

  • AHHHHH! SoM3On3 H4lp ME! (Score:5, Funny)

    by slothbait ( 2922 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @10:55AM (#7281505)
    I Am Currently Broadcasting An Internet IP Address!

    /me shoots computer

    • Re:AHHHHH! SoM3On3 H4lp ME! (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      <@Mike> OMG
      <@Mike> I just got a security alert
      <@Mike> MY COMPUTER IS BROADCASTING AN IP ADDRESS!!!!!!!
      <@Mike> OMFG
      <@Mike> what do I do?????????
      * @Mike clicks the helpful lil message
      <@Mike> oooh look. A purple monkey wants to sell me a firewall

      http://www.bash.org/?71953

  • Damn them... (Score:5, Funny)

    by drblunt ( 606487 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @10:55AM (#7281508)
    Leave it to the government to pass a bill that has very little to do with the thing they're trying to stop.
    "People are violating copyright on the internet?"
    "Pass a law banning Collies and Yorkshire Terriers from public areas!"

    Stupid gits.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @10:56AM (#7281515)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Sounds similar to how half the things you buy have a warning on it that says "this has
      been found by the State of California to be a carcinogen" or something like that. Once everything that you use is classified as carcinogenic you really start to ignore it.
      • It's better than the really stupid warnings, like 'Cigarettes contain Carbon Monoxide', which has to be the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

        I mean, carbon monoxide is probably the least dangeous thing in cigarette smoke. You'd have to be pretty damn stupid to die from carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke.

  • People in (government) power usually have very little idea as to what there doing when they make legislature about technology. For example, most slashdotters could have told them the DMCA was a bad idea, especially the way it was written. But the legislatures only listened to what the big corporations wanted.

  • What are they going to do... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Robber Baron ( 112304 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @10:57AM (#7281525) Homepage
    ...firewall off the entire United States, like they've done with Red China? I live outside the US and the odds of my complying with this asinine request are about...zero!

    America we hardly new ye!

  • And here are the Bribe numbers ! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by i_want_you_to_throw_ ( 559379 ) * on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @10:59AM (#7281552) Journal
    Wow! Stop the presses, this is a big shock. In 2004 here's the synopsis on how much milk each of these candidates sucked from the Entertainment titty. (They open in a new window).

    Lamar Smith received a little over $21,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004 [opensecrets.org]
    In 2002 he received almost $25,000 [opensecrets.org]

    Howard Berman received a little over $4,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004 [opensecrets.org]
    In 2002 he received almost (can you believe this?) $223,000! [opensecrets.org]

    John Conyers received almost $5,000 from the TV/Music/Music lobbies in 2004 [opensecrets.org]
    In 2002 he received almost $50,000! [opensecrets.org]

    The ROI on congressional payoffs is insanely high..

  • A firewall in every port (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lysium ( 644252 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @11:00AM (#7281553)
    A network application can create a security risk? Best firewall off every port!

    Don't laugh -- many incompetent managers think this way. I am sitting behind a firewall that blocks all outbound traffic, with the exception of ports 80 and 21. This, I am told, will help prevent viruses from entering the network. Moreso, I might add, than any kind of coherent patching strategy.

    ============

    • And you know what? It will. Blocking unused outgoing ports is a good thing. Most attacks on systems result in the attacker useing an outgoing port for somthing like FTP or reverse telnet. All systems I administer have outgoing ports blocked, this gets rid of many potential attacks.
  • How about forcing companies to add this warning to, say, ANY software that could, you know, create a security and privacy risk?

    No, that's just crazy talk.
  • Heh, is this some kind of guerilla warfare?

  • priorities (Score:3, Interesting)

    by seriv ( 698799 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @11:00AM (#7281566)
    maybe the congress should fine Darpa for funding the creation of TCP/IP too.
    These kind of laws are showing how the government has always treated citizens, with mistrust. They are doing more for copyright protection then they are for things like healthcare, it really shows their prorities.
    -Seriv

  • P2P is here to stay (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chmod_localhost ( 718125 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @11:01AM (#7281575) Journal
    p2p filesharing wont die - its the killer app for broadband. Not many people have seemed to grasp this fact yet but, theres not much use for ever-faster connections unless you have something to download. Websites are not going to increase in size that much, streaming video isnt really what gets people going (its just another tv channel) and games have their limit in bandwidth usage.

    Now, give people free content without restrictions and you have something that everyone wants. Why are search engines the most popular websites? because the user types in what they want and gets it. From a users point of view, kazaa is the same as google except you can get everything that you cant get on google - its like the too hot for google channel. Are you seriously telling me that people dont want to be able to download all the music, films, porn, software, games, books and southpark they want for free!?!?! get real!

    The only things that might kill p2p filesharing as we know it are:
    • Legislation and heavy enforcement (at the moment RIAA lawsuits and sen. Friz Hollings are restricted to the US only)
    • Networks collapsing thru abuse, free-loading, or (taking the law into their own hands) sabotage (they seem to be pretty resistant)


    Governments (well in the UK anyway) are pushing broadband for all sorts of PHB reasons like "education" and obviously the ISPs - AOL etc are gonna try and sell it. Sen. Hollings is even for it. The absolute irony here is that the very same people who are pushing broadband so they can sell content are the same ones who will be fucked out of their money by filesharing! its brilliant, serves them right for their evil DRM plans.
  • ...and John Conyers...

    Have you seen this boy?

  • Phone (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Talanthas ( 689473 )
    It's a good thing the senate doesn't apply this warning to every piece of technology. Pretty soon we might wind up putting warning stickers on telephones and whatnot

  • A network application can create a security risk? Best firewall off every port!


    That'll help, what do you think a firewall is?
    I'd think that firewall's would fall into this same category.
  • The way it would create a security and privacy risk is that you would be at risk because your privacy would be interrupted by Ashcroft's stormtroopers weilding the DMCA in their hand. They would put your personal security at risk by opening a can of Patriot Act whoop ass. That's how.

  • The logic reminds me of.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by frodo from middle ea ( 602941 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @11:04AM (#7281616) Homepage
    The logic of limiting technology and thereby curbing copyright infringment reminds me of ...

    And what else floats on water ?
    A Duck..."A DUCK!"
    "Exactly! Soooo . . . "
    " . . . If she weighs . . . as much as . . . a duck . . . "
    "Yes?"
    "Then she's made out of wood . . . "
    "And therefore . . . ?"
    " . . . . A WITCH!"
    "A WITCH!"
    "BURN THE WITCH!"
    "BURN HER!"
    "To the scales!"

    • Re:The logic reminds me of.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @11:12AM (#7281689)
      Funny you should mention ducks after this quote from SunnComm CEO Peter Jacobs

      "It wasn't about the Shift key...It had nothing to do with that. It had to do with reviewing a rabbit when we invented the duck and saying the rabbit didn't work right."

      God knows what he was talking about, never mind how he got to be CEO with nuggets of insight like that.
    • From the testimony [house.gov] for 2517 (also available as a RealVideo stream [streamos.com]):

      Mr. KELLER. Okay. Let me walk you through a hypothetical and ask how the FBI would be involved. Next week, for example, a major movie called ''Sea Biscuit'' is going to be opening up by Universal, I think. Let's say that today it was posted on the Internet somehow, that an advance copy got out similar to what happened with ''The Hulk'' movie, and that the folks down at Universal Studios in Orlando, Florida in my district found out about it

  • Warnings already there (Score:5, Informative)

    by Florian Weimer ( 88405 ) <fw@deneb.enyo.de> on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @11:05AM (#7281618) Homepage
    Most software already comes with various warnings attached, so I don't see the fundamental problem of showing them more prominently. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that a web browser (or any network-related software for consumers) exists for which this warning is unjustified.

    (Obviously, there is no P2P connection at all. That is just Slashdot spinning.)

  • Jail music industry executives... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @11:05AM (#7281620)
    ... that fail to label "copy protected" CD's properly. It's simple fraud (you're not buying a "CD" per se), plus, with some schemes, it's outright vandalism.

  • I believe (Score:2, Funny)

    by Sir Haxalot ( 693401 )
    I believe it is our fate to be here. It is our destiny. I believe this night holds for each and every one of use, the very meaning of our lives. This is a war and we are soldiers. What if the Prophecy is true? What if tomorrow the war could be over, isn't that worth fighting for? Isn't that worth dying for?

  • Fear (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tsanth ( 619234 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @11:05AM (#7281624)
    Since this measure would apply to all developer-provided software dealing with network traffic, I'd be less likely to write my own network-enabled (read: internet-enabled) software.

    Perhaps this is the point of the bill: to keep software writing in the hands of those rich enough to hire a group of lawyers who can keep away other lawyers.

  • The Almighty Label (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Trent Polack ( 622919 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @11:06AM (#7281628) Homepage
    Please, do keep in mind that this IS America. You know, that place that has safety labels on laundry detergent that say "Not for oral consumption."

    Of course, then again, we all know that thousands of people still die every year from a nice warm class of bleach. Don't quite see how Internet Explorer can cause people to die. Well, on second thought...

  • Glad to see it (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ducomputergeek ( 595742 )
    This actually makes a little sense. Such programs are a security and liablity risk. At our offices, I have the OpenBSD firewall configured to block limewire and other sharing ports because that increases risks of employees downloading virus loaded files. Its not as big a risk as we run exclusively OS X on our desktops and I am the only one with administrator access to install programs on the machines.

    Same goes for IM. THe only port they can connect on is through the secure port 443. Of course none of

    • Perhaps software should be required to carry warning labels when it has the potential to result in monetary loss; much like other products are required to carry warning labels when they can result in injury or death.

      However, throwing those responsible in jail doesn't seem fit to me. A crime like this should be punished with injunctions and fines. We don't put people in jail who make unsafe children's toys so long as they recall them and rectify the problem. Even if something does happen to a child, the
    • Emphasis mine
      Same goes for IM. THe only port they can connect on is through the secure port 443. Of course none of the employees have quite figured this out so I am the only one that can IM with outside people. Rendevous only works on the internal network so they can only chat with other employees.

      Plus we're not paying people to chat with friends. Funny how project completion times went up after I disabled the port.

      Except for you that seems. I'd have little respect for sysadmin that does not honor his

    • Re:Glad to see it (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gatekeep ( 122108 )
      From your site Frank C. Bailey and Kirk A. Fickert founded this company in October 2003.

      Wow, your policies must really have stood the test of time. I mean you've been around for how long now, 22 days?
    • You may choose to use whatever protocols you want in your business. Please allow me the freedom to do likewise.
    • Here's what I think.
      I don't think you have a company at all. I think your webpage was made as a highschool project. I find it absolutely insane that you list "Proof Re ading" as one of your services, considering the shear number of spelling mistake in your website. To make mistakes in a slashdot post is one thing, but on your "company's" website is going to make you look unprofessional, which you obviously are. And what's this with project completion time going up after you disabled ports. As far as I can t
    • Uh, just because you are communicating over 443 does not mean that your data is encrypted or secure in any way. You can set up a telnet server on 443, and it is no more secure than using the default port 23)

      If you are running an unencrypted IM client over 443, then you will be running an unencrypted IM client over 443. There's nothing secure about it. You are a dumbass and a retarded admin.

      Somebody mod the parent down, he ain't interesting or informative...

    • Re:Glad to see it (Score:4, Informative)

      by Theatetus ( 521747 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @01:02PM (#7282590) Journal
      He only port they can connect on is through the secure port 443.

      GAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!

      Somebody above pointed this out, and I know you're just a parody, but I can't let this slip by:

      PORT 443 IS NOT MAGICALLY ENCRYPTED JUST BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER 443!!!!

      A port is an integer, nothing more. It's just a number that a client and a server agree to associate with a given connection so that they can keep track (ok, it's not quite that simple since most clients and servers have multiple connections running that are notionally but not actually using the same port).

      Associating the number "443" does not magically cause your data to be sent encrypted. Similarly, port 80 (or 21, or 110, or what have you) does not magically prevent you from sending encrypted data: if I set my server to receive https connections over port 80, and you set your client to send https connections over port 80, we will have a secure connection over port 80. If I set my server to listen for a plaintext connection over port 443, and you set your client to send a plaintext connection over port 443, we will have an unsecure connection over port 443. (This is importante because your IM client is almost certainly not encrypting your chats).

      OK, like I said above, it's impossible that you actually run a business (and kudos on a brilliant late-90's "do-nothing" firm parody), I just couldn't leave any lurkers with the mistaken belief that something about the number 443 mysteriously encrypts communications.

      IHBT IHL IWHAND

  • I've got a bill to propose myself (Score:5, Funny)

    by Loki_1929 ( 550940 ) * on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @11:10AM (#7281667) Journal
    It would set 1,000-year mandatory jail sentences for members of congress who become pawns for multi-national mega-corps, spouting out ignorant and inflamatory propaganda to please their campaign-financing Masters.

    Anyone care to sponsor?

    • Sure. Anyone who accepts a dollar from a lobby can no longer run or hold office. You want to lobby, send em brochures and meet with em, but don't give him/her bundles of cash.
      • That's close to what we have now. But there are tons of ways around that. Want to 'meet' with an official? Sure, invite him out to your private vacation house in the Bahamas. Wine and dine him. Give him unlimited use of your 'maid' service. Oops! Is that a suitcase filled with $20 bills? It sure is, why don't you just keep that. And these earrings are for your wife. Son needs a job? Why didn't you say so, we have a lucrative opening for a daydreamer that starts at $130K/year. Anytime you need to

  • It's no mystery at all! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @11:12AM (#7281697)

    ...a bizarre new bill that would require companies that create certain types of software such as web browsers, instant messaging clients and e-mail utilities to add a warning that it 'could create a security and privacy risk.' How this would deter P2P activity is a bit of a mystery.

    Not a mystery to me!

    By saying that this product that you're willfully installing has a "privacy risk", you're saying you don't mind if the product compromises your privacy.

    It's a legal loophole that could allow the RIAA/MPAA to install plugins that will monitor you at your machine. After all - you agreed to it when you installed the software. You said you didn't mind if your privacy was compromised.

    This one is very sneaky. I'd never install anything that told me it might compromise my privacy.

    Weaselmancer

  • Mystery? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by symbolic ( 11752 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @11:13AM (#7281703)

    How this would deter P2P activity is a bit of a mystery.

    Is it any more of a mystery than the belief that spying on every American citizen will deter terrorism?

  • When Smith, Berman, and Conyers are up for re-election, ballots papers should give a warning against them:

    "This candidate could create a stupidity risk"

  • Flash back to.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by plopez ( 54068 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @11:19AM (#7281765) Journal
    Reefer Madness! Stop the P2P insanity before your children become godless open source socialists! FIrst free music, then free love. Then, before you know it, they will be rejecting the corporate values that make our society great! The values of profit and greed! Anything for a buck, reality is what I say it is and to hell with the rest of the world! Just like God intended!

    (for those of you a little slow today and before I get accused of being flame bait, this is sort of a 'toungue in cheek' rant).
  • Now if we can just give P2P software the equivalent of Canadian cigarette warning labels [cnn.com] everyone will understand what a terrible thing copyright infringement is.
  • From the Article

    Mitch Glazier, the RIAA's senior vice president and lobbyist, says "notice is a good idea, and quite frankly, P2P services ought to be doing it voluntarily...So, we support the chairman, we like the concept--but agree that it is overly broad in its current form."

    How bad does it have to be for the RIAA to think it's too broad? That's like Rush Limbaugh saying [insert name here] is too conservative.
  • If we would simply produce a P2P app. that was easy to use and popular, then this would be a non-issue. This would ensure our privacy and rights. Additionally, how could P2P be regulated if no-one knew the content of transfers? Without entrapment or illegal snooping it couldn't. It's time for a good encrypted P2P client so we can maintain our privacy.
  • 'could create a security and privacy risk.'

    In other words, don't be surprised when someone (read: RIAA) has been snooping on your activities in said program.

  • Congress Critters (Score:3, Funny)

    by tds67 ( 670584 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @11:30AM (#7281878)
    Lamar Smith, R-Texas; Howard Berman, D-Calif; and John Conyers, D-Mich are taking up arms against P2P networks with a bizarre new bill that would require (software) companies...to add a warning that (their software) 'could create a security and privacy risk.'

    Let's post a similar warning in front of Capitol Hill.

  • Having just finished yet another clean up of the spyware, malware & obnoware installed by Kazaa, I agree that end users should be warned that installing P2P software is indeed likely to create security & privacy risks.

    As far as file sharing, I have no problem with my household teenage unit enjoying free music. Given the typical bitrate of the tunes she's downloading, there's very little difference between P2P music & taping off the FM radio. OTOH, all that garbage that her favorite P2P softwar

  • Not bizarre at all.. this is what it means: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by desau ( 539417 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @11:37AM (#7281952)
    The key word here is not "security", it's "privacy". Here's what this bill really means:

    In the current 9 year-old suing world of the RIAA, victims are found by firing up Kazaa (or Grokster or [insert your favorite gnutella-like p2p client here]) and seeing who is sharing and who is downloading. The "who" is given by the IP address of the P2P client computer. Now.. that doesn't really do the RIAA any good because they cannot sue an IP address. So they bully smaller, weaker ISP's into giving out their private customer information. Thus an IP address leads to a name.

    Here comes the problem. Some ISP's aren't buying it. Some are saying "our customer privacy is more important than your rampage". This bill makes it so that the clients have "agreed" that they are not annonymous, and that the federal government has the right to grab your personal information and hand it over to the RIAA as they see fit (or just allow the RIAA to grab the now-non-private personal information directly from the ISP). What's more, you cannot counter-sue for privacy infringment because you've agreed to this (since you're using this software that has these statements embedded, and it's all part of the EULA).
  • At least two of them make sense...

    Howard Berman, D-Calif; = Movie Industry Lackey
    John Conyers, D-Mich = Recording Industry Lackey

    But who's paying for this guy?
    Lamar Smith, R-Texas;
  • Many people here are angry that our Congress can enact legislation such as this when it is completely outside of its power to do so. They are angry that "big business" is controlling politics, but what these slashdotters don't see is that they are just as responsible for this tilt in the balance of power as "big business."

    First of all, when you ask government to intervene in any issue, you will have to expect unintended consequences of that action. Most of the time those consequences happen years if not

  • The Bill Offers RIAA Protection for Reprisal? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by syntap ( 242090 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @11:44AM (#7282018)
    a bizarre new bill that would require companies that create certain types of software such as web browsers, instant messaging clients and e-mail utilities to add a warning that it 'could create a security and privacy risk.' How this would deter P2P activity is a bit of a mystery.

    It is possible that this is meant in part to help RIAA attack users' machines through the P2P medium... if everyone accepts the risk, the RIAA could claim that this is a sort of consent to allow projected electronic damage by those running the software, or at least an acknowledgement that it may happen. I know it is a stretch, but why else would the RIAA push for this?
  • Isn't MS's Groove a P2p app? do they really want to risk loosing MS lobby money?
  • From the language of the article this seems like an odd bill. Basically they are forcing you to give a warning that things may be insecure, while allocating large amounts of funding for advertisements to make you afraid of things that "may be insecure."

    It's easy to see how this could be used as a tool against unpopular sites much in the same way that the DMCA's takedown notices are used now. Even if you have a warning you could always be attacked for not warning someone "enough."

    What intrigues me more a
  • For those of you who's network admins disallow P2P software or who just like the smell of fresh ink on a CD insert, try this [office-exchange.com]. It's a web site that lets you create an office-wide music, movie, and book library. It keeps track of who owns what and who borrows what. We've been using it at my work for awhile now, mostly for technical books, DVDs, and PS2 games.

  • Many current apps ARE security risks (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EvilAlien ( 133134 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @12:02PM (#7282161) Journal
    taking up arms against P2P networks with a bizarre new bill that would require companies that create certain types of software such as web browsers, instant messaging clients and e-mail utilities to add a warning that it 'could create a security and privacy risk.'

    *snip*

    A network application can create a security risk? Best firewall off every port!

    Agreed, firewall off every port. I'm sick of all the worms that crawl through irresponsibly managed computers. Apps with security holes are setting up PCs on broadband as spam relays, DoS drones, and other blended threat tools.

    Many current P2P, email, and instant messaging apps are security risks, and cause problems for naive Internet users (i.e., the vaste majority). Those insecure apps, quite simply, pose a risk to network security, privacy of the end-user, etc. They should be behind firewalls. I find no rational reason to disagree with those stated intentions for the bill, aside from FUD relating to the RIAA's intentions and long-term goals for their puppets.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close