Interesting People mailing list archives
More on U of Florida P2P policy
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:01:27 -0400
Listbox Delivers From: "b.bum" <bbum () mac com> Subject: [IP] More on U of Florida P2P policy Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 14:47:44 -0700 To: dave () farber net List-ID: <ip () v2 listbox com>This message contains 2 parts. They are: <http://v2.listbox.com/login/archives/#0x94d5fd0>Text; <http://v2.listbox.com/login/archives/#0x94de8cc>Enriched.
Text On Oct 5, 2003, at 12:04 AM, ip () v2 listbox com wrote: Typical knee-jerk reaction.... step back, take a breath, and think this through. First and foremost, consider that the U of Florida dorm networks are a private service offered to the students under a very specific contract associated with living in campus housing. If the student doesn't like it, move. If the student wants service without agreeing to the university's terms of service, the solution is simple: pay for the bandwidth from a provider that has a TOS they agree with! Contrary to public opinion, bandwidth is expensive and so is maintaining a large scale computer network. P2P traffic -- along with the various worms that infect Windows boxes ad nauseum -- consume a huge proportion of that bandwidth. Left unchecked, legitimate users are left with useless connections. During the rise of Napster-- prior to the network admins having the per-port tools necessary to control node consumption-- it was not uncommon for campus networks to be unusable to the point where dial-up access through the local ISP was often a better choice. >> 1) The obvious: OK, so, we have at least some college students >> reduced to such sheep that they are now accepting the notion that >> someone else should be able to *monitor* WHAT PROGRAMS ARE ON THEIR >> MACHINES, with limited complaints? I fear for the future of this >> country. The thought of American technology and resources under the >> direction of a Federal will not constrained by its peoples is highly >> disturbing. They are not installing software on the computer and they are not monitoring the student's computers directly from the computer itself. Instead, the university is monitoring the impact of each student's computer on the campus network. If a particular node starts consuming an unreasonable quantity of network resources, it is cut off. They do monitor which ports the machine is sending and receiving traffic on. This is done more so that various worms and virii can be shut down quickly than to invade privacy. Even if you cut a particular machine from the net, if that machine remains infected it will cause problems as soon as the student plugs it in somewhere else (which often happens). >> 2) This is a clear presumption that ALL P-2-P usage is illicit and >> improper. Nice to see the University presumes guilt over innocence >> with utter impunity. Wrong. It is a clear understanding that technology currently does not exist for differentiating between illicit and legitimate consumption of bandwidth and that the small percentage of users on a campus network that consume most of the bandwidth are almost certainly trading content illicitly. >>> Declan, Dave... presumably legitimate p2p users are being locked out >>> as well. They do exist. -Joe Define "legitimate"? Downloading the latest Linux ISO or trading the latest Phish recording is not exactly a requirement towards the pursuit of most student's academic goals. Even if the student is trading material for which they have the rights to trade -- see etree.org -- that still may fall into the category of abuse of networking services. Last I checked, having the biggest collection of live Phish recordings is not a part of most college's course work. Bottom line: If P2P is being used for any purpose other than to fulfill class or university requirements, then it could legitimately be considered an abuse of resources and appropriate action may be taken. Keep in mind that if a particular student really does not that much bandwidth for a particular project, they can very likely go to their professor and/or the university network services folk and gain the rights to do so. >> 3) The University is clearly opening themselves up to a class-action >> lawsuit here. There are plenty of free-speech implications. The >> University has an excellent Law School. Sooner or later, they are >> going to step on the toes of someone with the capacity to fight this >> and has the will to do so. This sounds like the same argument used by spammers and by the Do-Not-Call people. Free speech does not give anyone the right to consume privately funded communication resources without limit. The university offers the student access to their private network under specific Terms of Service. Violate those terms, you lose the right to use the resource. Simple as that. The university is not preventing the student from participating in P2P networks in any way. If the student wishes to do so, they can certainly buy their own connectivity. >> 4) As per this: >> > Students seemed resigned to abide by the program. >> > "While file sharing is nice, it's not worth >> > risking college or your future," Pavel said. >> HA. Make you a bet -- within 3 years the file sharing at this campus >> is back at or close (likely in excess), of current levels, as >> students find ways around Icarus and the more talented ones create >> tools which obscure the actual activity of the computer from such >> "Bigbrotherware". I would be surprised to find that there are not >> already some such tools in existence, but that they are not >> widespread knowledge yet -- after all, it takes time for "newbies" to >> get stuff like this, since, as newbies, they don't expect it to be >> out there. I would venture to suspect that Ms. Dean did not seek out >> the technological literati for their take on this whole thing. If >> they haven't defeated it already then they are working on ways to do >> so. Wrong again. The university can trivially monitor per-port bandwidth usage and set limits appropriately. There is no technology in the world that can hide the consumption of bandwidth of a particular port. Nor does the university have to scan the traffic going to/from the individual's port/machine. Exceed the limit, you are cut off, simple as that. This may sound draconian, but compare the bandwidth required to get a good grade in college versus the bandwidth used by your average P2P app. b.bum ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ Enriched On Oct 5, 2003, at 12:04 AM, ip () v2 listbox com wrote: Typical knee-jerk reaction.... step back, take a breath, and think this through. First and foremost, consider that the U of Florida dorm networks are a <italic>private service offered to the students under a very specific contract associated with living in campus housing.</italic> If the student doesn't like it, move. If the student wants service without agreeing to the university's terms of service, the solution is simple: pay for the bandwidth from a provider that has a TOS they agree with! Contrary to public opinion, bandwidth is expensive and so is maintaining a large scale computer network. P2P traffic -- along with the various worms that infect Windows boxes ad nauseum -- consume a huge proportion of that bandwidth. Left unchecked, legitimate users are left with useless connections. During the rise of Napster-- prior to the network admins having the per-port tools necessary to control node consumption-- it was not uncommon for campus networks to be unusable to the point where dial-up access through the local ISP was often a better choice. <excerpt><excerpt>1) The obvious: OK, so, we have at least some college students reduced to such sheep that they are now accepting the notion that someone else should be able to *monitor* WHAT PROGRAMS ARE ON THEIR MACHINES, with limited complaints? I fear for the future of this country. The thought of American technology and resources under the direction of a Federal will not constrained by its peoples is highly disturbing. </excerpt></excerpt> They are not installing software on the computer and they are not monitoring the student's computers directly from the computer itself. Instead, the university is monitoring the impact of each student's computer on the campus network. If a particular node starts consuming an unreasonable quantity of network resources, it is cut off. They do monitor which ports the machine is sending and receiving traffic on. This is done more so that various worms and virii can be shut down quickly than to invade privacy. Even if you cut a particular machine from the net, if that machine remains infected it will cause problems as soon as the student plugs it in somewhere else (which often happens). <excerpt><excerpt>2) This is a clear presumption that ALL P-2-P usage is illicit and improper. Nice to see the University presumes guilt over innocence with utter impunity. </excerpt></excerpt> Wrong. It is a clear understanding that technology currently does not exist for differentiating between illicit and legitimate consumption of bandwidth and that the small percentage of users on a campus network that consume <italic>most</italic> of the bandwidth are almost certainly trading content illicitly. <excerpt><excerpt><excerpt>Declan, Dave... presumably legitimate p2p users are being locked out as well. They do exist. -Joe </excerpt></excerpt></excerpt> Define "legitimate"? Downloading the latest Linux ISO or trading the latest Phish recording is not exactly a requirement towards the pursuit of most student's academic goals. Even if the student is trading material for which they have the rights to trade -- see etree.org -- that still may fall into the category of abuse of networking services. Last I checked, having the biggest collection of live Phish recordings is not a part of most college's course work. Bottom line: If P2P is being used for <italic>any purpose other than to fulfill class or university requirements</italic>, then it could legitimately be considered an abuse of resources and appropriate action may be taken. Keep in mind that if a particular student really does not that much bandwidth for a particular project, they can very likely go to their professor and/or the university network services folk and gain the rights to do so. <excerpt><excerpt>3) The University is clearly opening themselves up to a class-action lawsuit here. There are plenty of free-speech implications. The University has an excellent Law School. Sooner or later, they are going to step on the toes of someone with the capacity to fight this and has the will to do so. </excerpt></excerpt> This sounds like the same argument used by spammers and by the Do-Not-Call people. Free speech does not give anyone the right to consume privately funded communication resources without limit. The university offers the student access to their <italic>private network under specific Terms of Service.</italic> Violate those terms, you lose the right to use the resource. Simple as that. The university is not preventing the student from participating in P2P networks in any way. If the student wishes to do so, they can certainly <italic>buy their own connectivity</italic>. <excerpt><excerpt>4) As per this: > Students seemed resigned to abide by the program. > "While file sharing is nice, it's not worth > risking college or your future," Pavel said. HA. Make you a bet -- within 3 years the file sharing at this campus is back at or close (likely in excess), of current levels, as students find ways around Icarus and the more talented ones create tools which obscure the actual activity of the computer from such "Bigbrotherware". I would be surprised to find that there are not already some such tools in existence, but that they are not widespread knowledge yet -- after all, it takes time for "newbies" to get stuff like this, since, as newbies, they don't expect it to be out there. I would venture to suspect that Ms. Dean did not seek out the technological literati for their take on this whole thing. If they haven't defeated it already then they are working on ways to do so. </excerpt></excerpt> Wrong again. The university can trivially monitor per-port bandwidth usage and set limits appropriately. There is no technology in the world that can hide the consumption of bandwidth of a particular port. Nor does the university have to scan the traffic going to/from the individual's port/machine. Exceed the limit, you are cut off, simple as that. This may sound draconian, but compare the bandwidth required to <italic>get a good grade in college</italic> versus the bandwidth used by your average P2P app. b.bum<http://v2.listbox.com/login/archives//doc/policies.html#user_agreement>Terms of Service | <http://v2.listbox.com/login/archives//doc/policies.html#privacy>Privacy Policy
THE LISTBOX NAME AND LOGO ARE REGISTERED TRADEMARKS OF IC GROUP, INC ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- More on U of Florida P2P policy Dave Farber (Oct 05)