A Moral Dilemma: Open letter to Gnutella community
Dan Porter
starting this fall and early next year; prompted by the recent
congressional report commissioned by Rep. Henry Waxman (D) of
California and Rep. Steve Largent (R) of Oklahoma. According to the
report, new P2P file-sharing programs are increasingly being used to
exchange pornography and bypass filters set up by parents. Thousands
of pornography videos and photographs, which include child
pornography, bestiality, and graphic scenes of brutality and rape, are
readily available to children with these programs. All of the content
is free, credit cards are not needed, and no attempt is made to
exclude minors from accessing it.
The Gnutella network will certainly be front-and-center when hearings
occur.
The issue is greatly magnified because pornography rides obtrusively
and openly on the coattails of young people’s searches for
popular music. A simple search for the name of any popular music star
produces a list of songs as well as a large number of often-unrelated
pornography videos and photographs. The descriptions of some of these
videos and photographs are vivid and lurid by the standards of many
people. Make no mistake about it: searching for and downloading music
is a popular Internet activity among school-aged children. Make no
mistake about it: children are confronted with the worst possible
pornography when doing so.
Gnutella's "dirty little secret" is that home computers, school
computers, library computers, and business computers are actively
being used -- often without the owner's knowledge or consent -- in the
dissemination of child pornography. Though it is not a secret to
technically savvy users, the public at large is not aware that when
people access pornography with file-sharing programs -- a child may do
so out of curiosity -- they become active participants in its
distribution. Once a file has been downloaded the file automatically
becomes available for redistribution from the recipient's hard drive.
The recipient thus becomes a distributor, or to be more technically
correct, a sharer. Even when young people are only looking for music,
the file-swapping programs running on home, school and business
computers are being actively used to assist others find pornography.
By using one of the popular file-sharing programs, a user implicitly
agrees to cooperate with any and all searches by anyone regardless of
the nature of the search.
When my company announced that it would provide a free filter to help
curb the problem, we hoped for a more positive response from those
companies that have a vested interest in the Gnutella network.
Instead, we received mostly hostile responses. It was suggested that
our filter would disrupt the network, impose unwanted moral standards
on others, and defeat the free exchange of ideas and content. In our
opinion that is a narrow sighted view. Many users of Gnutella agreed
with us. The filter, installed by a parent, school or business, gives
the computer's owner three options: 1) block all Gnutella activity, 2)
hide inappropriate content, or 3) not participate in the propagation
of inappropriate searches (but only inappropriate searches). It is
this last option that has raised the ire of some people. Others,
however, have recognized that non-propagation of pornography queries
may very well improve the value and performance of the network by
reducing a large amount of unwanted traffic.
To not filter, optionally, could very well lead dire consequences for
Gnutella and other P2P networks. It won't be long before members of
congress receive live demonstrations of Gnutella. (I am already
invited to be in Washington in September and October to conduct
demonstrations). I can imagine a public hearing: A computer is placed
on the desk before one of the committee members. He or she is asked to
imagine himself or herself as a twelve-year old child; then asked to
type in something like "Pokemon" or "Mariah Carey" and finally asked
to read aloud, before television cameras, the descriptions of the
files that appear on the screen. Quick action to curb Gnutella and P2P
will likely ensue unless the P2P industry can demonstrate what it is
doing to solve the problem.
There are, among P2P users, those who staunchly defend their rights to
exchange any and all information freely. They argue that legislative
and enforcement action cannot succeed at interfering with their
rights. Technology, they insist, will find ways to protect anonymity
and unconstrained distribution of content. Perhaps so; but until then,
expect the companies that produce Gnutella software to be targeted or
at least inconvenienced with costly legal action. So, too, Internet
Service Providers (ISPs), who provide essential connectivity to those
who share files, may be targeted. Reports are that it is already
happening, to some slight degree.
An argument can be made -- and should be seriously considered -- that
unconstrained pornography will hurt the sharing of copyrighted music.
Though the recording industry has money, clout, and court victories
against Napster; they have failed to garner significant and widespread
public support for their protests of copyright infringement. Public
support to curb P2P pornography, however, and particularly support to
curb child pornography, will not be hard to generate. The recording
industry certainly realizes that they can be effective by lending
support to anti-pornography lobbyists. Expect it.
Proposed legislation to hold ISPs responsible if they allow "worst
kind" pornography to flow from "client" machines they service with
essential connectivity is likely not far off. Arguments for some
measure of control are fortified by the fact that a computer in one's
home or in a school may be used, without obvious knowledge or consent,
to share such material. It also may not be long before federal
prosecutors and some states' attorneys general test the power to
prosecute not just those who are direct providers and hosting
facilitators of child pornography. With Gnutella and P2P, originating
sources can remain highly anonymous. Thus, Gnutella software companies
and ISPs may be targeted. Though they may be able to defend themselves
under current law (I think so), they may not want to face protracted
and costly legal action. Small software firms may simply shut down.
ISPs may voluntarily block Gnutella and other P2P protocols; either
outright, or selectively for certain types of files. If ISPs impose
selective blocking rather than full blocking, MP3s may well be
targeted because of copyright issues. Winning may simply be too
costly. ISPs may well be advised to consider early action before
Gnutella grows much more, thus lessening customer dissatisfaction
issues and avoiding possible legal action.
I believe that filters, written as responsibly as possible, will help
stave off legislative action, legal action, and even ISP action.
Gnutella software developers and others who have a financial stake in
the network need to recognize this and for the good of open networking
endorse and promote filtering.
The moral issue about pornography is murky to some people. So too, it
seems, is the moral issue about sharing copyrighted music. But the
moral issue about one's right to protect children and not actively
participate in the dissemination of and searching for pornography,
particularly child pornography, is not at all murky. Some will argue
that if you use the Gnutella network you have a moral obligation to
propagate queries just as your have a moral obligation to share. I
understand that, but I respectfully disagree. Gnutella, by design, is
uncontrolled and public. Thus a user can participate by degree so long
as he or she does not act to hurt others. Not propagating queries for
pornography through a privately owned computer is not immoral.
History should teach us that when a problem gains public prominence,
one of three possible courses of corrective action takes place: 1) an
industry takes initiative to remedy the problem, 2) an industry
voluntarily responds to pressure, or 3) the government acts. For some
people these possibilities are hard to accept. I understand. There is,
among many Internet users, an anti-establishment spirit that feels
threatened by the interests of "big business" and "big brother." There
is an inclination among some to want to fight technological "freedom"
wars, which will only lead to escalation, make an open and public
network into a proprietary closed network, and obviate the opportunity
to take a positive initiative. Big business (e.g. Microsoft) will then
simply move in and own the open network – with private controls
and commercial content.
The problem of sharing copyrighted music is like the speeding problem
on an open, public roadway. Most everybody speeds. It is accepted. No
one thinks about the moral dilemma of breaking the law by going 65
miles per hour in a 55 MPH limit. Though police have the legal right
to set speed traps and give tickets -- which they do -- mostly, they
enforce the law with a very small percentage of drivers by targeting
the worst offenders. However, on the open, public roads drunk driving
is not acceptable, at all. On the public, open Gnutella net, child
pornography is never acceptable. Worst kind pornography, allowed to
continue at current unconstrained levels, may well end the music.
Users of Gnutella should applaud any of the Gnutella companies that
encourage the implementation and use of robust filters. Those
companies have the best interest of an open network at heart. Frankly,
our company, which has other work-in-progress designed to benefit
Gnutella users (and make us some money through software sales), is
planning on Gnutella's growth and success as a free, open network.
You have a promise from me: our company will listen to the concerns
and suggestions from Gnutella users. We already have. We will also
work with other Gnutella companies to help ensure the growth of the
network as an open, public network. We are also working to filter
existing proprietary P2P networks. We'll make some mistakes along the
way. I'm sure of that. But we'll correct them as we go, with your
help.
Yours truly,
Daniel R. Porter, President and CEO
InnoVal Systems Solutions, Inc.
http://innoval.com/rifilter
Jeff Hardy
exchange pornography and bypass filters set up by parents"
This is no so.... There IS third party software avalible to keep unwanted
material from being downloaded off the Gnutella network.
"Dan Porter" <por...@innoval.com> wrote in message
news:3a31b87c.01082...@posting.google.com...
Dan Porter
investigation, starting this fall and early next year; prompted by the
recent congressional report commissioned by Rep. Henry Waxman (D) of
California and Rep. Steve Largent (R) of Oklahoma. According to the
report, new P2P file-sharing programs are increasingly being used to
exchange pornography and bypass filters set up by parents. Thousands
of pornography videos and photographs, which include child
pornography, bestiality, and graphic scenes of brutality and rape, are
readily available to children with these programs. All of the content
is free, credit cards are not needed, and no attempt is made to
exclude minors from accessing it.
The Gnutella network will certainly be front-and-center when hearings
occur.
The issue is greatly magnified because pornography rides obtrusively
and openly on the coattails of young people’s searches for
popular music. A simple search for the name of any popular music star
produces a list of songs as well as a large number of often-unrelated
pornography videos and photographs. The descriptions of some of these
videos and photographs are vivid and lurid by the standards of many
people. Make no mistake about it: searching for and downloading music
is a popular Internet activity among school-aged children. Make no
mistake about it: children are confronted with the worst possible
pornography when doing so.
Gnutella’s “dirty little secret” is that home
computers, school computers, library computers, and business computers
are actively being used – often without the owner’s
knowledge or consent – in the dissemination of child
pornography. Though it is not a secret to technically savvy users, the
public at large is not aware that when people access pornography with
file-sharing programs -- a child may do so out of curiosity –
they become active participants in its distribution. Once a file has
been downloaded the file automatically becomes available for
redistribution from the recipient’s hard drive. The recipient
thus becomes a distributor, or to be more technically correct, a
sharer. Even when young people are only looking for music, the
file-swapping programs running on home, school and business computers
are being actively used to assist others find pornography. By using
one of the popular file-sharing programs, a user implicitly agrees to
cooperate with any and all searches by anyone regardless of the nature
of the search.
When my company announced that it would provide a free filter to help
curb the problem, we hoped for a more positive response from those
companies that have a vested interest in the Gnutella network.
Instead, we received mostly hostile responses. It was suggested that
our filter would disrupt the network, impose unwanted moral standards
on others, and defeat the free exchange of ideas and content. In our
opinion that is a narrow sighted view. Many users of Gnutella agreed
with us. The filter, installed by a parent, school or business, gives
the computer’s owner three options: 1) block all Gnutella
activity, 2) hide inappropriate content, or 3) not participate in the
propagation of inappropriate searches (but only inappropriate
searches). It is this last option that has raised the ire of some
people. Others, however, have recognized that non-propagation of
pornography queries may very well improve the value and performance of
the network by reducing a large amount of unwanted traffic.
To not filter, optionally, could very well lead dire consequences for
Gnutella and other P2P networks. It won’t be long before members
of congress receive live demonstrations of Gnutella. (I am already
invited to be in Washington in September and October to conduct
demonstrations). I can imagine a public hearing: A computer is placed
on the desk before one of the committee members. He or she is asked to
imagine himself or herself as a twelve-year old child; then asked to
type in something like “Pokemon” or “Mariah
Carey;” and finally asked to read aloud, before television
cameras, the descriptions of the files that appear on the screen.
Quick action to curb Gnutella and P2P will likely ensue unless the P2P
industry can demonstrate what it is doing to solve the problem.
There are, among P2P users, those who staunchly defend their rights to
exchange any and all information freely. They argue that legislative
and enforcement action cannot succeed at interfering with their
rights. Technology, they insist, will find ways to protect anonymity
and unconstrained distribution of content. Perhaps so; but until then,
expect the companies that produce Gnutella software to be targeted or
at least inconvenienced with costly legal action. So, too, Internet
Service Providers (ISPs), who provide essential connectivity to those
who share files, may be targeted. Reports are that it is already
happening, to some slight degree.
An argument can be made – and should be seriously considered --
that unconstrained pornography will hurt the sharing of copyrighted
music. Though the recording industry has money, clout, and court
victories against Napster; they have failed to garner significant and
widespread public support for their protests of copyright
infringement. Public support to curb P2P pornography, however, and
particularly support to curb child pornography, will not be hard to
generate. The recording industry certainly realizes that they can be
effective by lending support to anti-pornography lobbyists. Expect it.
Proposed legislation to hold ISPs responsible if they allow
“worst kind” pornography to flow from “client”
machines they service with essential connectivity is likely not far
off. Arguments for some measure of control are fortified by the fact
that a computer in one’s home or in a school may be used,
without obvious knowledge or consent, to share such material. It also
may not be long before federal prosecutors and some states’
attorneys general test the power to prosecute not just those who are
direct providers and hosting facilitators of child pornography. With
Gnutella and P2P, originating sources can remain highly anonymous.
Thus, Gnutella software companies and ISPs may be targeted. Though
they may be able to defend themselves under current law (I think so),
they may not want to face protracted and costly legal action. Small
software firms may simply shut down. ISPs may voluntarily block
Gnutella and other P2P protocols; either outright, or selectively for
certain types of files. If ISPs impose selective blocking rather than
full blocking, MP3s may well be targeted because of copyright issues.
Winning may simply be too costly. ISPs may well be advised to consider
early action before Gnutella grows much more, thus lessening customer
dissatisfaction issues and avoiding possible legal action.
I believe that filters, written as responsibly as possible, will help
stave off legislative action, legal action, and even ISP action.
Gnutella software developers and others who have a financial stake in
the network need to recognize this and for the good of open networking
endorse and promote filtering.
The moral issue about pornography is murky to some people. So too, it
seems, is the moral issue about sharing copyrighted music. But the
moral issue about one’ s right to protect children and not
actively participate in the dissemination of and searching for
pornography, particularly child pornography, is not at all murky. Some
will argue that if you use the Gnutella network you have a moral
obligation to propagate queries just as your have a moral obligation
to share. I understand that, but I respectfully disagree. Gnutella, by
design, is uncontrolled and public. Thus a user can participate by
degree so long as he or she does not act to hurt others. Not
propagating queries for pornography through a privately owned computer
is not immoral.
History should teach us that when a problem gains public prominence,
one of three possible courses of corrective action takes place: 1) an
industry takes initiative to remedy the problem, 2) an industry
voluntarily responds to pressure, or 3) the government acts. For some
people these possibilities are hard to accept. I understand. There is,
among many Internet users, an anti-establishment spirit that feels
threatened by the interests of “big business” and
“big brother.” There is an inclination among some to want
to fight technological “freedom” wars, which will only
lead to escalation, make an open and public network into a proprietary
closed network, and obviate the opportunity to take a positive
initiative. Big business (e.g. Microsoft) will then simply move in and
own the open network – with private controls and commercial
content.
The problem of sharing copyrighted music is like the speeding problem
on an open, public roadway. Most everybody speeds. It is accepted. No
one thinks about the moral dilemma of breaking the law by going 65
miles per hour in a 55 MPH limit. Though police have the legal right
to set speed traps and give tickets -- which they do – mostly,
they enforce the law with a very small percentage of drivers by
targeting the worst offenders. However, on the open, public roads
drunk driving is not acceptable, at all. On the public, open Gnutella
net, child pornography is never acceptable. Worst kind pornography,
allowed to continue at current unconstrained levels, may well end the
music.
Users of Gnutella should applaud any of the Gnutella companies that
encourage the implementation and use of robust filters. Those
companies have the best interest of an open network at heart. Frankly,
our company, which has other work-in-progress designed to benefit
Gnutella users (and make us some money through software sales), is
planning on Gnutella’s growth and success as a free, open
network.
You have a promise from me: our company will listen to the concerns
and suggestions from Gnutella users. We already have. We will also
work with other Gnutella companies to help ensure the growth of the
network as an open, public network. We are also working to filter
existing proprietary P2P networks. We’ll make some mistakes
along the way. I’m sure of that. But we’ll correct them as
Toni Oliva
I'm looking for sofware like that before giving the use of gnutella to
my children.
Jeff Hardy a écrit :
MARK ANDREW GIDDENS
But the solution his company- 'Inno Val Systems Solutions, Inc' has a very
serious flaw to it, and with sinister overtones, it is one which his
companys 'sponsors' (who remain anonymous) insist on: The blocking of search
requests.
The contents of search requests cannot be illegal in themselves, so why the
insistance? This kind of behavior would cause massive damage to the network,
and contavenes the gnutella protocol. The network would experience massive
fragmentation.
Trying to route arround the filtering nodes could easily be scuppered
because it would be a trivial matter to return 'spoof' blank responces. So
the 'damaged' nodes could hide themselves from detection.
The issues of protecting children from pornography should be taken very
seriously; for the sake of inocent developing individuals, and also for the
future of this inocent developing network protocol.
Child frendly clients should be developed which protect the inocent whilst
maintaining the integrity of the network by blocking the downloading of the
actual material in question, not the search requests. (The monitor window
would also have to be disabled in the presence of minors, as it is often a
tirade of obscenities!).
The issue of 'Gnutella's dirty little secret' must be addressed quickly and
decisively. But the Gnutella comunity must resist attempts by Inno Vals
mysterious 'sponsors' to dammage to the Gnutella network.
Please read the discussion of on BearWears site at
http://bearshare.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3810. It is essential
reading on this topic.
Rhonda J.
Go back to AOL and warn people about the CMOS viruses.
Dan Porter <por...@innoval.com> wrote in message
news:3a31b87c.01082...@posting.google.com...
Rhonda J.
reliable? Bullshitter.
Dan Porter <por...@innoval.com> wrote in message
news:3a31b87c.01082...@posting.google.com...
Rhonda J.
BULLSHIT
PART 2
These people just get off pasing rumors around - it makes them feel Internet
savvy to have the latest "word". He says he's told "reliably". That means
some kid sent an email to this guy's AOL account warniing him about the
hearings and the CMOS stealing virus threat. What the hell else could it
mean? Does he know some senator or other politician? Does he have a friend
who's a mole at the FCC? Does he know a gypsy fortune teller? Ask him what's
his reliable source. I think he's been watching too much CNN or the
premieres of this seasons new crime shows. These people who bitch about
things like Tella and p2p are assholes.
Tell this guy to get off his ass and do something about any threat to any
part of the Net. I saw a news broadcast that damaged the credibility of the
Net. Now that threat is real. Here's a letter I recently wrote to a local
news station. I also set out a dozen or so copies to pertinent individuals -
(INCLUDING TWO STATE SENATORS). :
To: various people
Subject: Internet Bashing Is Back!
Cc: various people
Hi,
I saw on WJZ News tonight, here in Baltimore, that yet another innocent
family was shocked to find pornography on the Internet. These people who
bash and blame the Internet are of the same mind-set as those who were
shocked by the September 11th events. They are two completely different
situations, not literally comparable by any stretch of the imagination. But
the thinking of most Americans is exactly the same.
Just as we were "aware" of the terrorist threat and many officials and
experts claim they "knew" it existed, and that the reality of a massive
attack was imminent, that we had plenty of time to make preparations, all
America knows there is pornography on the Net. Yet it's not until a child is
supposedly inadvertently exposed to some of it that anyone takes the well
known "threat" of their child finding it seriously. They wait until it is
too late to do anything about it. Then, even though it was not stated in the
news broadcast I mention, many Americans jump the gun and want to censor the
Internet, or somehow govern its use or even attempt to shut it down
completely. These are the people who were screaming on that September
morning, "Nuke all the bastards and let God sort them out"; typical
thinking - throw something heavy at it and it'll be fixed.
These parents, a Mr. and Mrs. Kiessling and their daughter, (the child
allegedly "exposed" to unwanted pornography), know that pornography exists -
especially of all places on the Net. The parents, when asked what could be
done, responded in part by saying that parents must watch their children's
use of the Internet closely. Excuse me, but as a parent, unless you've lived
in a dark cave, cut off from all outside contact, you know there is
pornography out there on the Net. You also know there are terrorist manuals
and manifestos, nuclear bomb building instructions, books about how to
murder people and get away with it, and plans on how to concoct biological
warfare agents. Why have you not watched your children's use closely until
now?
I'm sorry, but just because your daughter (as far as I'm concerned) happened
to get caught trying (successfully, I might add) to find porn on the
Internet, is no reason to broadcast yet another news segment basically
condemning the Internet. And I say condemning, because they never bother to
tack on some of the positives about the Net in these broadcasts. The news
reporter left it sounding as if this poor, innocent, pimple-faced, young
virgin was searching for harmless music files when due to her computer being
taken over by malicious virus infected code she was riveted to her chair
while giant pictures of hairy naked men were flashed in front of her face.
This "child", helpless as she may try to act in the presence of her parents
and the news cameras, did not accidentally find this pornography, trust me.
Her father demonstrated how she did it by recreating the events himself, and
I am very familiar with the type of interface that was shown on the computer
screen. (INSERT: It was a Gnutella Type interface) Her father did a search
for files (using keywords) named something with "Brittney Spears" in the
filename. He got back a great many hits. Most were legitimate music files,
which is what the girl was supposedly searching for. Some were pornography.
My point here is that when the software reported its findings, it was
completely obvious which files it "found" were music and which ones were
porn. The porn files were named "Brittney Nude, Brittney naked, Brittney
"something related to pornography"". The music files were named as song
titles and followed by mp3 or wav file extensions. In reality, the child had
to manually (either knowingly or arbitrarily) pull the porn files down to
her computer - otherwise, she'd have never seen the contents of the files.
The girl had done a search with the word "Year" in it. When she got back a
list of files, and she saw files named "14 year old naked girl" and "12 year
old nude sex" (as the report stated), why did she download them? At the end
of the broadcast, the anchor I think it was, stated that to download these
child porn files was against the law. They failed to mention the copyright
laws she was breaking by downloading music files in the first place. Do you
think the reporter might have been so biased as to have missed that point?
In reality, the young daughter was breaking the law!
No one can tell me that if she was savvy enough to be using this type of
software and she was looking for a music file named after a song with the
word "Year" in it, then she came across a file named "12 year old sex.gif",
she didn't have any idea what was in that file. No one, no how, no way.
You're a fool if you believe so. And no one mentioned that she actually had
to know how to download these files and she had to go through the trouble of
doing so. In other words, the files did not magically or automatically find
their way on to her computer's drive and eventually to her screen. I think
that in reality, Dad, Mom, or someone with the know-how did a scan of the
system just to see who was doing what. At that point, the girl's actions
were uncovered.
Anyway, I've learned never to write when I'm angry, and this made me angry.
But I wanted to write you while I still had all of this fresh in my mind.
And hopefully you might work the topic into your show on Friday for a few
moments. I was hoping you might weed out the pertinent points in my letter
here and paraphrase my side of the story. If you can, I'd appreciate it. if
not, I understand.
Thanks again for listening,
(Signature)
P.S. I'm actually wondering why more people haven't blamed the Net for the
recent terrorist acts. The Internet was mentioned a few times in regard to
their using it for email and for other communications. Perhaps that subject
fell between the cracks. Good, I think we should leave the Net alone, it's
the last untamed frontier. Policing should start with the children and, to
an extremely limited degree, responsible Internet service providers, not the
Internet itself.