July 24, 2007 3:09 PM PDT
Congress: P2P networks harm national security
- Related Stories
-
Congress to legislate file swapping?
September 28, 2005 -
Congress threatens P2P networks on porn
July 28, 2005 -
FTC spotlights proposals on P2P risks
December 7, 2004 -
Anti-P2P bill may slip past legislative rush
November 18, 2004 -
Congress mulls new P2P porn restrictions
March 13, 2003 -
Congress targets P2P piracy on campus
February 26, 2003
(continued from previous page)
Some politicians nonetheless lashed out at the sole representative from a peer-to-peer software company at Tuesday's hearing: Lime Wire's Gorton, who is also CEO of parent company Lime Group.
The most scathing criticism came from Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), who launched into a lengthy monologue in which he deemed Gorton "one of the most naive chairmen and CEOs I've ever run across," and accused his company of making the "skeleton keys" that grant access to material harmful to U.S. national security.
"I'd feel more than a shade of guilt at this point, having made the laptop a dangerous weapon against the security of the United States," Cooper said. "Mr. Gorton, you seem to lack imagination about how your product can be deliberately misused by evildoers against this country." (Cooper also, at one point, claimed that Gorton's own home computer was probably leaking sensitive documents.)
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) warned Gorton that Lime Wire's practices may open the company up to serious legal liability.
"Would it surprise you if you have a string of lawsuits for inherent defect in your product if people like Charlie Mueller of Missouri finds out he's lost his IRS filings and feels he's been damaged?" Issa asked.
Gorton repeatedly defended his company's practices and said he wasn't aware of the extent to which national security information was being accessed through his network.
Lime Wire strives to make its product easier to understand and is working on a new version even more tailored to the "neophyte" user, Gorton said. The software incorporates a number of warnings intended to stave off inadvertent file sharing, he added. For instance, pop-up messages appear when users attempt to share folders, such as the all-encompassing "My Documents" folder and the root directory, which are considered likely to contain sensitive information.
"A lot of the information that gets out there now is because people accidentally share directories that they wouldn't mean to share clearly," Gorton said. "Those warnings are not enough, at least in a handful of cases."
That assertion drew sharp disagreement from Thomas Sydnor, an attorney-advisor in the Patent Office's copyright group. He said peer-to-peer users are being tricked into sharing files they don't intend to make public and claimed that LimeWire's warnings to that effect don't always appear as they should.
In research for a report released in March, the Patent Office found it "stunning to see features that are incredibly easy to misuse," Sydnor said. "You can go to an interface in these programs that looks like you're doing nothing except choosing a place to store files, and you end up sharing recursively all the folders on your computer. It's very easy to make a catastrophic mistake."
Earlier this year, the Department of Transportation experienced an incident in which an employee's daughter installed LimeWire on the home computer that her mother occasionally uses for telework--and misconfigured it in such a way that documents from the department and the National Archives were open to others using the network--including a Fox News reporter. Forensic analysis determined that some of those documents were already publicly accessible and that none of the DOT documents contained sensitive personally identifiable information about anyone other than the employee herself.
The agency's chief information officer, Daniel Mintz, told the committee that his agency already has sufficient authority to combat "inadvertent" file sharing and that it already is required to take such activity into account in its annual information security reports to Congress.
The key to preventing additional incidents like that one, Mintz told the politicians, is for his agency to step up oversight and "to make sure we're really pushing the policy," which requires written authorization for installation of P2P programs on government machines. That also means beefing up training for its employees and making sure that they're aware of what the limits are, he added.
General Wesley Clark, who now serves on the board of a small company called Tiversa that makes applications designed to monitor peer-to-peer file-sharing activity, called for "some pretty hard-nosed policies by business and government contractors that prevent people from doing government work on computers that have anything to do with the peer-to-peer networks."
"Even when people...are sophisticated with computers, they can still make a mistake, and all that material can be gone in an instant," the former Democratic presidential candidate told the committee.
CNET News.com's Declan McCullagh contributed to this report.
See more CNET content tagged:
national security, P2P, chairman, copyright law, politician
156 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
computer and storing sensitive data in the shared folder......Then
whose fault is that?
Wow, stereotype much?
Waxman is just ******* for the MPAA and software manufacturers. It's absurdly transparent. Vote the rotten bum out.
You're right, what idiots!
By the way, very simple stop to it, on the network firewall block the common ports used for point to point sharing. WOW hard thing that national security stuff!
data, etc., were handled, computers containing such were not
allowed onto a network at all, at least where I worked. It sounds
like that's not the case anymore.
So I will do my best to make this as simple as possible for someone like a US Senator or a congressman.
The government should not hire people that install file sharing on the same machines that they have classified information on. This would be equivalent of having someone taking home a bunch of classified documents they printed out and stuffed in a backpack with a broken zipper.
Congress, would this mean that backpacks with broken zippers are a threat to national security? I honestly think it is our hiring and electing process, but I could be wrong, of course I doubt it.
I think efficient open distribution protocols like bittorent are the least of their problems. As they say, "Look within."
Typed in Ubuntu/Firefox/Colemak.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure no one has an interest in "government secrets". Most of them seem to involve people like John Lennon anyhow.
a classified computer to leave the classified info repository without
being shredded.
[i]Deep in NSA headquarters, it was 4am in the Mother NOC. All was quiet as data by the petabyte slipped quietly along Teh Intawebs...
Suddenly, an operative leaps from his desk and rushes to the General's desk, sweat puring from his brow and his breath coming in short pants. He wasn't tired... he was scared.
The General tried to calm him, but the operative shoved a piece of paper under the General's nose in reply.
As the Gray-haired officer began reading the missive, his eyes began to show fear. Fear he hadn't experienced since 'Nam. Fear that grabs a fistful of intestine and yanks downwards... hard.
And on the paper, there was but a simple note, with a source header that pointed to somewhere in China:"
[b]"LOLz Im in UR Intarwebz downl04d1nG y3r tR4nzf0rm3rz m00v33!"[/b]
- sheyah - what the frig ever.
Thanks Mr. Reid, for proving that the Democrat Party can be just as drop-stupid, brain-dead, and tech-ignorant as the rest of the friggin' political spectrums' respective ruling classes.
Idiot.
/P
The IT guys should have only the software on the machines that these 'government employees' need and lock down the machine.
Oh, and the reason that the IT for the government can be frustrating.. check out the pay scale for them! they're only slightly better paid than normal GS-grade pay scale! Oh, and dont' go blaming everything on internal IT, you'd be veeerry surprised to know how much IT and software coding is outsourced to companies in the US (not overseas, it's illegal to outsource any Federal Government work outside of the US).
Firing a federal employee is nearly impossible. There's also a "rule" floating around that in order to understand a government buraucracy, assume it is run by it's worst enemy. The people in charge gain status by having more subordinates, so inefficient subordinates are cherished, so long as they do not draw anyone's attention.
P.S. Gas is three bucks a gallon here and it's putting people out of business. Can you fix that? Or fix my nearly worthless health insurance and our delapidated rural school system? Iraq????
still in office. No indication of increased intelligence detectable.
Yes, P2P is one way, but there are QOS tools to disallow P2P traffic.
What is next? Going after cars because they are murder weapons?
Why didn't we ban airplanes? They are a weapon of mass destruction.
installing software on their computers without the systems
administrator's permission (which I seriously doubt they are
allowed to do in the first place). In other words some moron is
trying to use 911 as an excuse to limit piracy online.
they need to stop exploiting such national tragedy.
Waxman has been Subpoena-ing the sh*t out of the Bush Administration for Lying about the evidence to go to War.
None of the data breaches discussed in the hearing took place on government agencies' enterprise networks. Waxman discussed legislation to do exactly what you just proposed, except extend it to PRIVATE contractors and vendors who handle government data.
Do you really agree with CNET that everyone should just ignore this problem and hope it goes away?
This is nothing more than a ridiculous excuse for the power-mad (who have, quite frankly, illegally seized-control within the United States) to further tighten the screws... and, even further, bury any shred of lingering freedom.
This is about, effectively, criminalizing "unregulated" and un-controlled Internet-use. In fact, this is actually about extending absolute Government, and special-interest, CONTROL over virtually ANY private-technology.
Anyone who has actually been following such legislative-actions... so-called, "private" computer-security initiatives, such as, "Trusted Computing"... and the endless scare-tactics used by "our" Government ("The War on drugs", "The War on crime", and now, "The War on Terrorism"), to cow the citizens into giving up their most basic-rights... has known that this was coming, for years.
It is so, painfully, obvious what... and, WHO, is actually behind this... Which is why I cannot believe that ANYONE could actually still fall for these, perennial "...security", "safety", and "...terrorism", lines of COMPLETE-BS, anymore.
But, then, what do you expect in a country that compliantly-abandoned its freedom, and no longer has any semblance of a legitimate government (the Federal-Government lost ALL claims to legitimacy when they effectively, permanently suspended the U.S. Constitution, Habeas Corpus, the Rule-Of-Law, began illegally spying on Americans, ...and, especially, when the "Executive-Branch", flat-out, declared itself above the "...will of the people", and utterly beyond the reach of ANY LAW... what-so-ever... in ANY matter that it arbitrarily chooses.
Oh, but... We are at "WAR"...
Oh, and, "enemies" are just everywhere...
And, we just have to do whatever "the Government" ORDERS us to do... Dont we..?
Well...
Welcome to ABSOLUTE TYRANNY...
I'm sorry to say I see my government (I'm dutch) taking the same route...
They need to talk to S JOBS and EMI and just maybe they have a model that actually may work!
I sickens me that either:
a. The government feels we are too incompentant to manage employees who abuse their workplace, have no work ethics, etc.
OR
b. Thinks we are stupid enough to believe this is a technology problem. Why not just take the computers away. That's the true source of the risk anyway. All it takes is an employee browsing the wrong web site on an unpatched browser and say bye-bye to anything private on your computer. Now where is P2P in that picture?
Any rep or senator from my state that speaks for or votes for any such legislation is definintly NOT getting my vote.
I wonder who's contributing to Waxman's coffers...
Hollywood. MPAA.
Did they ban NFS because of it?
/P
I think any system containing such sensitive information should not even be connected to the Internet.
So why is that the peer-to-peer software maker's problem?
If you want to really tighten security on the network then use Linux or buy a Mac.
Both parties are nothing more than greed and graft.
This is beside that point that has been brought up by so many previous forum members, that end users should not, under any circumstances, have the access permissions to install this software. In any environment where that is the case, IT Management and any Data Security structure that may be in place are solely to blame.
Nowhere in the article did I see anybody mention that P2P should be illegal... so most of these angry posts are just people flying off the handle... quite ridiculous, really. Information MUST be protected for the security of our country, and laws can, and do, help.
Seems to me that a law stating security protocols for any network connected computer or device that handles classified material in any context would be very reasonable and would accomplish the intended goal.
Passing laws to regulate P2P doesn't have to mean that those laws are going to infringe on our rights as citizens... too many people here are angry activists.. but... they really do help fund CNet with all their furious and ignorant posts... more comments = more pages = more advertising.