Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Politics

Lawmakers Caught Again By File-Sharing Software 203

Posted by Soulskill
from the guns-don't-kill-people,-file-sharers-do dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lawmakers Caught Again By File-Sharing Software

Comments Filter:
  • So... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by XPeter (1429763) * on Saturday October 31, 2009 @12:30PM (#29935577) Homepage
    Don't blame the person who actually leaked it, blame the damned software!

    Ahh...I love politics.
    • Re:So... (Score:4, Funny)

      by gyrogeerloose (849181) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @01:14PM (#29935883) Journal
      "I crashed my car because I was texting while driving. #*%?@! car...! "
    • Don't blame the person who actually leaked it, blame the damned software! Ahh...I love politics.

      Trust me ... that particular telecommuter is getting his share of blame. It just won't be public because he probably didn't do anything criminal. Of course, he's still an idiot.

  • Connections (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Wowsers (1151731) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @12:34PM (#29935599) Journal

    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.

    • Re:Connections (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rxmd (205533) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @12:42PM (#29935653) Homepage

      Luckily, we have politicians who's only education is in English...

      By corollary, given that they do seem to have an advantage in that area, a solid grasp of English seems like a good idea if you want to convince them of anything.

      • It wasn't the parent! Spellcheck "fixed" his proper grammar incorrectly. Damn you spellcheck!
      • by couchslug (175151)

        "By corollary, given that they do seem to have an advantage in that area, a solid grasp of English seems like a good idea if you want to convince them of anything."

        Do they really? Being inarticulate is no barrier to being elected President.

    • Re:Connections (Score:5, Insightful)

      by causality (777677) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @12:47PM (#29935689)

      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.

      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.

      When the Oracle at Delphi pronounced Socrates the wisest man in all of Greece, Socrates gave a response beyond reproach. He said, "If I am the wisest man, it is because I alone know that I know nothing."

      • Re:Connections (Score:4, Interesting)

        by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworldNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday October 31, 2009 @01:01PM (#29935767) Homepage
        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.
          • by hitmark (640295)

            not sure if the interest rate example in that article is the best one tho.

            • Re:Connections (Score:5, Insightful)

              by commodore64_love (1445365) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @02:16PM (#29936293) Journal

              Earlier this week, he professor used a lecture at King's College, London, to say that smoking cannabis created only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness and it was actually less harmful than nicotine or alcohol. But on Friday he was forced to quit after receiving a letter from Home Secretary Alan Johnson who said his comments had undermined the scientific independence of the council.

              The professor told the BBC..... "Gordon Brown comes into office and soon after that he starts saying absurd things like cannabis is lethal... it has to be a Class B drug. He has made his mind up. We went back, we looked at the evidence, we said, 'No, no, there is no extra evidence of harm, it's still a Class C drug.' He said, 'Tough, it's going to be Class B.'" Prof Nutt said drug laws should not be influenced "petty party politics" and compared them to interest rates, which are set by the Bank of England not the government.

              Sounds like a perfectly good example to me. It's not about science and what the evidence shows (marijuana is not particularly dangerous), but about what one man named the prime minister BELIEVES and his power to force his belief on others (make marijuana a class B restricted substance). It's not different than a monarchy in that respect.

              Personally this is why I don't think a central government should be making decisions about what citizens can or can not ingest. If I want to smoke marijuana or drink alcohol until I kill myself, and someone finds my rotting body in my home, so be it. That's freedom. It includes not just the right to life, but also the right to end your life, if that's what you choose to do.

              Without that right, you're not liberated. You're a serf..... under somebody else's control.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          In my experience, politicians are a lot more likely to seek out expert advice in an area contributing to their campaign than techie are.

          Fixed that for you.

          • Re:Connections (Score:5, Insightful)

            by TheRaven64 (641858) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @02:06PM (#29936233) Journal
            The problem is more subtle than that. They will talk to someone that they perceive as being an expert. Lobbyists working for the relevant industries are probably the only people who they know who are close to being experts (or able to put them in touch with experts). Political think tanks are another source of expert opinions. The end result is that the politicians get a very skewed view of what experts actually believe. There is no good mechanism in place for politicians to get impartial expert opinions. This ought to be the job of the civil service, but they haven't done it well for a good few decades.
            • Re:Connections (Score:4, Informative)

              by UltraAyla (828879) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @05:47PM (#29937603) Homepage
              You bring up a very good point - Lobbyists are one of the primary sources of information, but it is their job to be biased. While Congress (for us US people) has many agencies to give them expert analyses of important legislation, this analysis comes after a bill is written, and the agencies don't generally make recommendations for how to make changes that are good for the country. Additionally, these agencies are frequently limited by their mandates in how broad their analysis can be, so they are often incomplete or one-sided.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by causality (777677)

          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.

          There's one big problem with that. If they are thinking about, say, a law concerning file-sharing, the expert advice is going to come from someone who works in the IT industry, likely from an ISP. The interests of the ISP can differ from the interests of its users. So once again it's about authority and not knowledge, in this case the authority being credentials gained by having an institution or a company behind you. It's one reason why the law is so often biased in favor of corporations and other larg

          • by hitmark (640295)

            and that's why journalists backed by newspapers gets freedom of the press, while individual bloggers gets court orders and/or sentences...

            • Re:Connections (Score:5, Insightful)

              by causality (777677) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @02:06PM (#29936235)
              That's all too true.

              and that's why journalists backed by newspapers gets freedom of the press, while individual bloggers gets court orders and/or sentences...

              ... by people who have no idea what "the press" was when the 1st Amendment was written. Much of it was not large and institutional. It was often as simple as a concerned citizen distributing pamphlets or starting his own local editorial. The individual bloggers are true to this spirit in a way that the media conglomerates could never hope to be.

              More importantly, it was better understood that when you read such materials, you were reading the perspective of the author. It was not taken as the "final word" the way professional news is too-often regarded.

        • Advice from the RIAA..

          Mitch Bainwol, the group's chairman and chief executive officer, said, "It's now happening (in) Congress' backyard, and that should be a powerful catalyst to enact real reforms to protect consumers."

          protect consumers! Ha!

      • "When the Oracle at Delphi pronounced Socrates the wisest man in all of Greece"

        Oracle at Delphi? Where? When? It's more Borland at Micro Focus, these days.

        In the other hand, knowing Oracle, it probably wouldn't say nothing about Socrates at Greece but would pronounce Ellison wisest man over Sun.

      • Socrates gave a response beyond reproach. He said, "If I am the wisest man, it is because I alone know that I know nothing."

        A self-deprecating remark that not only expressed his own humility, but simultaneously bitchslapped everyone else. Wish I could have been there.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nomadic (141991)
      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
      • Re:Connections (Score:4, Insightful)

        by smoker2 (750216) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @03:31PM (#29936857) Homepage Journal
        The technical error is that they forgot the words "incorrectly configured" before P2P software. If you omit those 2 words, it tars any P2P software ever, with the brush of dangerous. Not to mention that the documents shouldn't have been on a private computer. Would they be concerned that the documents had been contaminated by filth if there had been donkey porn on there too ? Should the main target in a libel case be MS Word 2003 ?
    • by 4D6963 (933028) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @01:10PM (#29935847)

      Luckily, we have politicians who's only education is in English,

      So, very little overlap with your own education I presume? ;-)

      • by lyml (1200795)
        Seeing as politicians are plural you should use the term are instead of is, turning the sentence to:

        we have politician who'res

        Which explains everything.
    • >>>we have politicians who's only education is in English, law, history, politics, art.

      Therefore more of us engineers and programmers need to run for office. At the state level it's fairly easy - you just need to stand by a highway, hold a sign with your name in bold letters, wave and smile. Once we get enough geeks we can start making sane, logical laws regarding technology.

      Alternatively we could bombard our government employees with emails explaining why P2P is not evil. And ultimately even if

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

      So long as two people can communicate with each other, so you will have leaked documents.

    • by MeNeXT (200840)

      Sir your mistake is to assume that they are educated.

  • The government is starting to sound like Britney Spears.
    • by jamstar7 (694492)

      The government is starting to sound like Britney Spears.

      Problem is, we can ignore Britney Spears by refusing to torrent her 'music'. Ignore the government? Not so much...

  • by rjgill (1668367) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @12:37PM (#29935617)
    Why should our government even have ethics documents that are confidential?
    • by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworldNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday October 31, 2009 @12:40PM (#29935637) Homepage
      Why should our government even have ethics documents that are confidential?

      Guess they figure it's unfair to publicly announce someone's being investigated if there are no merits to the claim. Want to run for congress? Get someone to accuse your opponent of something bad, then publicize the resulting investigation.
      • by Compholio (770966) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @12:52PM (#29935709)

        Why should our government even have ethics documents that are confidential?

        Guess they figure it's unfair to publicly announce someone's being investigated if there are no merits to the claim. ...

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

        • by dragonsomnolent (978815) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @01:04PM (#29935803) Homepage
          I concur, if you've ever been accused, or know someone who is accused of a crime, should it be serious enough to report, the media will say allegedly or accused once (so that they can say they said accused and didn't taint a potential jury pool), and then go about reporting the accusations by the police as if it were 100% undisputed fact that the accused did, in fact, commit the crime. Whether the person accused is guilty or not, (in the US at least), there is no hope for them once the press gets their hands on the story (just look at the whole story behind that Duke rape case here while back). Sometimes I think we in the US should adopt the policy they have in England with regards to press coverage of crimes.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by lawpoop (604919)

          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: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by nomadic (141991)
          Then why does congress get this kind of protection when private citizens suspected of a crime do not?

          Wish I knew. I do, however, think the answer is "protect private citizens too," not "take away congress' protection."
        • by danlip (737336) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @01:33PM (#29936025)

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

          Juveniles usually get this protection as well. And since congress usually behaves like a bunch of spoiled children, I guess this makes sense.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Arguendo (931986)

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

          They do. It's called a Grand Jury [wikipedia.org]. Although sometimes the media gets the information anyway, like in this case.

        • by stephanruby (542433) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @05:03PM (#29937369)

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

          It's an internal investigation. I recall one woman was accused of stealing a cell phone at her company. She refused to hand it over when someone saw her with it. The next morning, she had been fired and a notice was posted on every floor saying that she had been fired for theft of corporate property.

          Later on, the woman sued for wrongful dismissal, won, and got some extra award for punitive damages. The cell phone she was using was indeed the exact same make and model the Corporation had purchased, but she had no trouble proving that she had indeed purchased the cell phone herself and been using it for quite a while.

          So if your company starts accusing you of a crime, they're certainly free to tell everyone about it, not just their HR/legal personnel, but they better sure follow a process and be damn sure that you did commit such a crime -- otherwise -- that might get them in trouble otherwise.

      • by jim_v2000 (818799)
        Since these investigations appear to be common, it seems to me that the public would become indifferent to them after awhile.
    • Because there are things that need to remain secret, yet still remain ethical. For example, wiretaps. You don't want your local crimelord/mob boss being able to tell which of his lines are tapped by going down to the ministry and filling out a freedom of information form, do you?
      • You don't want your local crimelord/mob boss being able to tell which of his lines are tapped by going down to the ministry and filling out a freedom of information form, do you?

        Sounds fair enough to me.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by TwilightXaos (860408)

      Why should our government even have ethics documents that are confidential?

      That information is contained in confidential ethics documents.

  • by NoYob (1630681) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @12:38PM (#29935623)
    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.

  • by originalhack (142366) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @12:43PM (#29935659)
    The amazing thing about these "Information Security Awareness Monthly" postings is that they blame P2P and then cite the example of a user using a P2P network to download an executable that contains a trojan. I guess that executables taken from regular webservers are fine, then.
    • by Myrcutio (1006333)
      As if anyone even remotely computer literate uses windows for secure documents. Instead of security awareness, i propose we try to promote "Ignorance Awareness" (hey it's an oxymoron!) month, and hopefully shame the politicians into learning that net neutrality won't eat their babies.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    ...the need for more ethical members of Congress?

  • by wufpak (204617) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @12:59PM (#29935757)

    For months now, some RIAA-influenced Congressmen have been working on a crazily overbroad P2P regulation bill, H.R. 1319: The Informed P2P User Act [loc.gov]. It just passed out of committee [govtrack.us] last month.

    I would expect Congressmen to be falling all over each other to bring this to a vote now. After all, it's they're no longer just doing it for the RIAA/MPAA "campaign contributions." Now, it's personal.

    • by jamstar7 (694492)
      On sheer technicals alone, that bill would outlaw the internet. Viewing a webpage is a peer to peer event involving downloading files (html code, images, javascript, etc) to another computer.
      • I don't think it's a big deal. It just means that a program must tell a user, "Your files you send via this program will be visible to other people." Most P2P programs, and even web browsers, already do this so nothing's going to change.

    • by Renraku (518261) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @02:12PM (#29936267) Homepage

      That bill is there so that someone has to fry.

      No longer can you say, "I didn't know it had installed itself and started downloading all the new movies in music, and then saved them to my 'Movies' folder." and have a reasonable doubt. Now you'll have to prove that the software in question didn't tell you that it was installing, and if it's true, the company will get nailed to the wall for it.

    • That bill you linked to qualifies as "mostly harmless" - the keywords and tricky phrases you should be paying attention to are "owner or authorized user".

      Note that it's all about what people who are NOT the "owner or authorized user" are allowed to inflict upon the "owner or authorized user".

      Note that since you are, presumably, the "owner or authorized user" of your personal computer, nothing in this bill would have any effect whatsoever on what you can do with your own computer.

  • No, I'm not blaming P2P for anything, but rather I am saying this is the exact situation where DRM could be useful. A proper document management system would have prevent an information leak, even if the document itself had leaked.

    • by CSMatt (1175471) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @02:28PM (#29936351)

      Don't confuse DRM with security. DRM exists for stuff that is supposed to be generally available for everyone, but has locks and restrictions on its use, even after the transaction or exchange of money. Security is for confidential stuff that is not designed to be accessed by everyone, even if they can pay. Those who use DRM may still want the public to use their stuff, but only on their terms. This is a case where those who wrote the document did not intend for it to become public at all.

      • DRM stands for Digital Rights Management, which is exactly what we're talking about here. The term has been sullied by the RIAA/MPAA, but ignoring their attempts that's exactly what they should have done with this document; managed rights on the document.

  • by TheSHAD0W (258774) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @01:01PM (#29935769) Homepage

    How unfortunate for the RIAA that their biggest target [bittorrent.com] can't leak information like that.

    • by blueg3 (192743)

      Most of the information leak and inadvertent downloading of malware arguments are appropriate for Gnutella-like networks. As you point out, it's very unlikely to accidentally leak information over BitTorrent. It's also quite unlikely to accidentally download malware when downloading music or movies over BitTorrent.

    • by daveime (1253762)

      Which begs the question, did the person holding the document intentionally create a .torrent file of it, and where exactly did he submit it to, seeing as how piratebay.org seems to be down more than up these days ?

      As you say, it'll be one of those scumware BearShare type things that not only installs all kinds of spyware on your machine, but opens up your entire C: drive to the world unless you stop it.

      I think the government needs an internal IT policy that if you must work on confidential documents and hom

  • Dear RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)

    by seeker_1us (1203072) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @01:03PM (#29935797)

    "the ridiculous statement was evidence of a need for controls on corporate media conglomorates to block the improper or illegal control of distribution channels to maintain a monopoly over content distribution."

    There, fixed that for you.

  • by Usagi_yo (648836) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @01:06PM (#29935821)
    If you seriously think that this was inadvertent, they you should probably read more Machiavelli
    • by PPH (736903)

      Good point. The P2P excuse, "inadvertently" placing sensitive documents in a shared folder is indicative of either a moron for a staffer. Or more likely setting up plausible deniability. There is no provable intent, so there's no criminal liability.

  • by gilesjuk (604902) <giles DOT jones AT zen DOT co DOT uk> on Saturday October 31, 2009 @01:10PM (#29935851)

    The RIAA would love for networks and the Internet to vanish. Sharing information electronically obviously upsets them.

    Which cave did they crawl out of?

    Many files have been copied and accessed due to Windows file sharing mistakenly enabled on a public LAN, should it be banned too?

    • by jamstar7 (694492)

      The RIAA would love for networks and the Internet to vanish. Sharing information electronically obviously upsets them.

      Not quite. They want money out of everything on the Internet. Problem is, they haven't figured out how to pull that off in a way to maximise their own profits. They just want to roll back technology to something they can control and charge out the ass for.

  • The computer and the internet are potent forces for destablization, but they are also potent forces for control. We're fortunate to live in an age where we can watch people grapple over their initial implementation.

  • by presidenteloco (659168) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @01:22PM (#29935935)

    Any time you read "peer to peer software" in a RIAA statement or legal proposal, you should
    substitute "open information networks", because there is no essential difference between those
    concepts.

    So what the RIAA is saying is:
    "the disclosure was evidence of a need for controls on open information networks to block the improper or illegal exchange of music."

    That allows us to frame the debate properly.

  • The problem was the leak, not the subsequent distribution. DRM, applied at the source (the Legislature's offices) would have stopped the leak. Or at least provided a trail to its source. But once information is out there in the wild, its too late.

    From the RIAA's point of view, stopping most of the distribution of copied content is good enough. But for leaks like this, one or two copies forwarded to the right people is sufficient to do damage. For example, the Pentagon papers didn't need widespread distribu

    • by blueg3 (192743)

      They absolutely should be using DRM -- on the secret document. Trying to get everyone to stop using P2P software may be the least efficient way to tackle this problem.

  • We don't need any more file sharing, or file sharing rules. We really need politician sharing! Let's start sharing politicians with the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, and especially with Uranus. Oh - wait - that last would be redundant, wouldn't it?

  • More Please (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bob9113 (14996) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @01:31PM (#29935993) Homepage

    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

    • by Bob9113 (14996)

      And another thing:

      How many column inches did your corporation dedicate to Balloon Boy? If the answer is more than "1", then I submit that your corporation is part of the problem, not part of the solution. That is an example of what is wrong with for-profit journalism, and the very reason that many of us would be happy to see it die its rightful death.

      You want to be a journalist? I applaud you, for we have very few of those left outside of YouTube and the blogosphere (though those media, of course, comprise

  • by cdn-programmer (468978) <terr@terralogic. n e t> on Saturday October 31, 2009 @02:03PM (#29936219)

    This has NOTHING to do with P2P. They might not even be able to show P2P software had anything to do with it. The issue is that ANYONE who is stupid enough to hook a machine dealing with confidential information to the net is a bleeding fool and this includes all my lawyers' secretaries who had their word processing machines on the net - the lawyer who sent me his complete client list, a certain accountant who dropped off at a pawn shop (for $25 bux) all her clients income tax returns along with her DLT7000 (70 GB folks & the tape was in the $3500++ drive!). She used it to backup what ultimately would fit on a couple CD's! She _could_ have simply copied each years tax return to a floppy disk for the specific client! The list also includes a company that had their accounting staff re-input months of work because they picked up a virus in their key machines.

    Computers are so cheap that it makes no sense what so ever to take chances like this.

  • You should had read better our latest memo. Our company proposal targets exactly the source of the current information leaking problem. By using stealth technology, disguising as one of the culprit software, it infiltrate in their networks and kill those pesky PEBCAK softwares that are giving so much headaches lately. Give our company full freedom to act and that problem will be terminated.

    Yours Truly
    John Connor III
    Cyberdyne Systems
  • Why is this wrong? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by njfuzzy (734116) <ian&ian-x,com> on Saturday October 31, 2009 @02:44PM (#29936493) Homepage
    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.
    • by smoker2 (750216) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @03:46PM (#29936949) Homepage Journal
      You must be american. Sharing is usually at least 2 way.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by King_TJ (85913)

      Which P2P sharing program are you referring to? The ones I've seen or tried have always made it fairly clear what they're sharing on your drive. LimeWire for example, displays a big list on your screen of the files it's marking for sharing if you click the "Share" button under "My Library" and try to share all your media. It has filters, as well, to make it easy to only share files with certain extensions (like MP3 or AVI).

      I don't get how someone could overlook the fact it shares their material, even IF

  • by rickb928 (945187) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @02:52PM (#29936539) Homepage Journal

    ....that P2P software would 'used' as a tool of democracy and open government?

    Didn't see that coming.

  • by rnturn (11092) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @11:43PM (#29939463)

    Why the heck isn't someone reaming out the employee/staffer who used his government computer system for personal use? A screw-up like this in the private sector would get him/her fired from many companies for violating company policy regarding the allowed use of the computer system. If that member of congress's office didn't have an acceptable use policy, I'll bet they have one by Monday. It may not be popular to write this on Slashdot but if your employer provides you with a PC for use in your work, it's not really a "personal" computer and you really shouldn't be placing anything on it more personal than, say, a favorite wallpaper.

In seeking the unattainable, simplicity only gets in the way. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982

Working...