[IP] More on U of Florida P2P policy
Listbox Delivers
From: "b.bum" <bbum@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [IP] More on U of Florida P2P policy
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 14:47:44 -0700
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
List-ID: <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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 roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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 roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/