Lawmakers Caught Again By File-Sharing Software

An anonymous reader writes "A document, apparently a 'confidential House ethics committee report,' was recently leaked through file-sharing software to the Washington Post. According to the article, 'The committee's review of investigations became available on file-sharing networks because of a junior staff member's use of the software while working from home.' Of course, P2P software is entirely at fault for this incident. If you begin seeing more interest in DRM from Congress, you now know why." Reader GranTuring points out that the RIAA took the opportunity to make a ridiculous statement of their own. They said, "the disclosure was evidence of a need for controls on peer-to-peer software to block the improper or illegal exchange of music."

Keep leak mechanics quiet.

[NoYob]

I wish the mechanics of the leaks: how, software, etc... would be kept quiet. That way, they can keep happening - meaning, I want these leaks to occur because that's the only way to get honest information about our Government. It's not like the media is doing a good job. If it weren't for this leak, would we know anything about this? I dont' think so. Those politicians* would keep doing business as usual.

Now that the politicians know how it's happening, they'll plug this leak. Our only hope is another one opens up.

* - I think "politician" is the most derogatory name you can call someone.

Re:Connections

[nomadic]

So long as two computers can communicate with each other, so you will have P2P.

Luckily, we have politicians who's only education is in English, law, history, politics, art. So it's easy to push any techno-babble on them because they are dangerously uneducated fools.

The committee released a statement on the issue, saying "[o]ur initial review suggests that this unlawful access to confidential information involved the use of peer-to-peer file sharing software on the personal computer of a junior staffer, who is no longer employed by the Committee, while working from home."

Please tell me what technical error or incorrect terminology she used, because I can't see it.

Re:Connections

[nomadic]

They're dangerous because they are unaware of what they don't know, so they feel qualified (authorized) to make decisions about what they do not really understand.

In my experience, politicans are a lot more likely to seek out expert advice in an area outside their realm than techie are.

Re:No.

[nomadic]

Yet the lying scum want to blame anything and everything except the buffoon that screwed up.

And considering they fired the staffer responsible for the leak, how on earth can you say they're not blaming the person? I really don't understand your interpretation of the events.

Twenty years ago, they'd have been blaming the Xerox machine instead of the person that accidentally left copies at Kinkos after making unauthorized copies on an unsecured Xerox machine.

The committee released a statement explaining how the document was leaked. They didn't "blame" P2P, they simply detailed how the document got where it is. If they had said that someone smuggled the document outside in their briefcase, would you interpret it as them attacking briefcases?

Re:The sadest part of this is..

[lawpoop]

Then why does congress get this kind of protection when private citizens suspected of a crime do not?

This is not a crime per se, but a house ethics violation. It's an internal, private matter, as if your company was investigating you, not for a crime, but going against company policy. Congress policing itself, basically.

Re:Connections

[Indefinite, Ephemera]

Are they more likely to take it when they get it...? [bbc.co.uk]

More Please

[Bob9113]

a 'confidential House ethics committee report,' was recently leaked through file-sharing software to the Washington Post.

Hi Government,

I like when the government tells me, even unintentionally, about things that it is doing to investigate allegations of wrongdoing. I would like you to do more investigations and to loop us (your employers) in on the details of the process and the outcomes. Some people will misinterpret such investigations in both directions. That is not cause to shield us from the information, it is cause to shed more daylight on the process so we, your employers, can understand what you are up to each day. This is much like my boss asking me to keep him in the loop on the projects I work on, and is commonly referred to as "accountability."

In short: More disclosures, please -- accidental, intentional, and malicious alike.

Sincerely,

Your Boss

Why is this wrong?

[njfuzzy]

I don't think it's crazy to say that a piece of software that 90% of people think of as being for downloading, but that also shares your files automagically in a non-transparent way, is a bad idea. Any file-sharing should be opt-in, not automatically and quietly sharing an unspecified are of your drive.

Re:So...

[cbiltcliffe]

"I crashed my car because I was texting while driving. #*%?@! car...! "

Most accident reports I've ever read are worded more like:

"The driver was injured when his car left the road and hit a tree."

So, yes, it usually is worded in such a way as to mean "#*%?@! car...!". :-\

Re:Connections

[cbiltcliffe]

I'm not just talking about this P2P incident.

I mean ones where contracts are awarded without tenders, or advertising flyers go out with completely tasteless and possibly illegal slams against the opposing parties, or any other political BS that you can think of.

It's never the people at the top that are the problem. It's always some staff flunkie.

That means one of two things to me:

- the big shots lie about not being responsible.
- the big shots never actually _do_ anything at all, so what do we pay them for?

Re:So...

[dissy]

the obvious solution is to ban pills

or ban children