The important business of the day seems to get swept under the rug when something comes up that is so inane that everyone can agree upon the fact that it really doesn’t need to be adopted – except for the Congress.
A new law, concerning P2P file operations, is coming up in the House, and might proceed to the Senate.
from Ars Technica
Still, the bipartisan dream has not completely died, as proved yesterday in the House Energy and Commerce committee, which marked up the “Informed P2P User Act” (PDF) and sent it on to the full House for a vote.
The bill, which has wide support on both sides of the aisle, does two simple things. 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. Second, it prohibits P2P programs from being exceptionally sneaky; surreptitious installs are forbidden, and the software cannot prevent users from removing it.
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.”
The bill, sponsored by members of both parties, had a rather general first draft. The definition of P2P software, for instance, included all programs that could:
- Designate files available for transmission to another computer;
- Transmit files directly to another computer; and
- Request the transmission of files from another computer.
This sounds like a lot of software, including OS file-sharing and networking tools. During yesterday’s markup, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) wanted to make sure that the definition wasn’t so broad that it unintentionally incorporated other useful software, and he got his wish; the amended version that escaped from the committee contained a much longer and more detailed definition, complete with a set of software explicitly not covered by the bill.
This is the sort of thing that takes up time better used to determine the most expedited way to end the wars overseas, and provide a change in the healthcare system, that the majority of people in this country agree is a mess.
This is one of the problems that occur today for many – on one hand, more laws are the last thing the country needs, and yet those few that might be needed are bypassed by drivel such as this. The bill might as well be something that declares that, to use a computer, a requisite IQ is needed; otherwise, it’s hands off.
When doing something to reverse the problem with information being improperly shared, the trick is to go after the the criminal, not the technology.
§
•
Things like war, which is taking the lives of our people, needlessly, and breast cancer, which strikes many women, go without address, because the RIAA, and the money behind it, is more enticing to those in the government, as an extra payday is involved. (Not that we can regulate away breast cancer, however, we could certainly put more force behind it, if not for things that take away from the focus – such as P2P filesharing.)