Comments on: White House objects to plan for .gov P2P security

Democrats want to require federal agencies to develop plans for managing peer-to-peer file-sharing "risks," but federal CIO says "technology-neutral" approach is best.

[CmdrRickHunter]

Smoke and Mirrors

The real purpose of this bill is to draw attention away from everything else. Yee standard corporate firewall blocks all but HTTP/HTTPS these days, so you can't even P2P out. I doubt the gov is any different.

Stop trying to legistlate technology. Its been proven time and time again technology should not be ruled over by a commitee who have proven technoilliterate. And while your at it, could you give me back my tubes?

[ev61]

Hmmmm...

First step: force P2P to tell users how "unsafe" the system is.
Second step: force P2P to monitor what users are accessing.
Third step: force P2P to give information to the government.
Fourth step: continue to do the work of the RIAA for them.

Thanks Bush Administration for stopping a rediculous attempt at attacking the end user.

[gerrrg]

Don't need this law.

All they need to do is restrict access rights to install software on all computers.

Or they can simply outlaw the use of P2P software on government computers, punishable by $10,000 fine and 6 months in federal prison.

[Imalittleteapot]

Or

The admin could disable software install for user accounts, and then actually check the machines once in a while for malicious software. That might work.

[Vlad_the_Impaler]

Almost...

Sorry, but you still have the problem of incorrectly configured user shares that can be accessed by a peer-to-peer file sharing program called Windows Explorer/SAMBA...

Technology Neutral <<is>> the way to go. (and yes, the rest of your solution is fine.)

Vlad

[krosavcheg]

Hilarious!

Karen Evans said that it's undesirable to single out a specific technology? The same Karen Evans whose name is at the top of this memo whose subject includes "'File Sharing' Technology". So one shouldn't single out a specific technology in the context of security, but singling out that same technology in the context of limitations on personal use is fine. Good joke, except it's not a joke.