Bit Torrent

[AverageJoe]

Do you think that the govt. should be able to monitor what we download via bit torrent? I don't think they should.

 

 

Joe

[Tbone]

No i dont think the govt. should be able to monitor what we DL.

[AverageJoe]

I know, it violates our rights. I sent a letter to my congressman asking why I was monitored for downloading a song, and the (auto)reply, said they did it in our interest, because of threats from terrorism. I don't see how Crank That, is a threat to our country. I'm sure if I hosted something labeled "big terrorist plan" they wouldn't find it in a million years.

 

 

 

[multipleoranges45]

No!

 

We should at least have a bit of privacy! They've already got CCTV coverage intruding when it shouldn't be!

[Catara]

First, I'll say that I don't think the government should be monitoring anything the public is doing within their own homes without a search warrant attained on the grounds of reasonable cause that the person is committing a crime.

 

Now, let me play devil's advocate. What if the response had said "in your best interest, because of the proliferation of child porn available through peer-to-peer services"? If they told you they were monitoring file transfers on P2P systems because they were looking for traders of child porn, would you be as upset? If they were looking at file transfers between 5 MB and 20MB because they are potentially kiddie porn, would that necessarily be a bad thing? Do we want the people who prey on young children out there trading their home-made movies and making more and more of them while they destroy the lives of the children they are forcing to participate in their horrible fantasies?

 

Of course we don't want that, but even if that were what they were looking for, it's still a violation of our civil liberties to monitor what we are doing without probable cause of a crime. So, in short, my answer is HELL NO!

[JimBOB]

First, I'll say that I don't think the government should be monitoring anything the public is doing within their own homes without a search warrant attained on the grounds of reasonable cause that the person is committing a crime.

 

Now, let me play devil's advocate. What if the response had said "in your best interest, because of the proliferation of child porn available through peer-to-peer services"? If they told you they were monitoring file transfers on P2P systems because they were looking for traders of child porn, would you be as upset? If they were looking at file transfers between 5 MB and 20MB because they are potentially kiddie porn, would that necessarily be a bad thing? Do we want the people who prey on young children out there trading their home-made movies and making more and more of them while they destroy the lives of the children they are forcing to participate in their horrible fantasies?

 

Of course we don't want that, but even if that were what they were looking for, it's still a violation of our civil liberties to monitor what we are doing without probable cause of a crime. So, in short, my answer is HELL NO!

 

QFT

 

This would happen, I can assure it.. or they could SAY it was happening, I wouldn't be surprised if it was one of the presidents "Scare Tactics", to keep the hearts and minds of the citizens scared, so nobody would do anything, and so that they could catch the REAL terrorists. In other words, liek Catara says, HELLZ NO.

[euler]

The torrents are the best p2p software all over internet, so... continues sharing

[Everlast7]

Why does it matter? They aren't going to tell the world you are a man who downloaded [bleeped!] in the City or something..You just don't want to be caught for downloading illegal stuff.

[foxxyD]

While I agree with the notion that software piracy should be better monitored, I don't approve of monitoring the torrent channels. They do have a lot of legitimate uses, and from what I've read, they're used for information sharing between hospitals as well.

 

Having some sort of entity that monitors every piece of torrent traffic would probably slow things down a lot, which might even cost lives. Sounds silly, but if somebody dies because the government doesn't want Jimmy listening to an illegal copy of Fall Out Boy, that's a sad state of affairs.

[awesomegamer]

If I had the money I would buy the CDs, but I don't. Which really defaults to them not making a profit from me either way, so it doesn't matter if I download songs.

[teh silly]

Monitor what we download?

 

Hmm...the "government." Which government? The internet is international! What if all major countries banned downloading everything illegal and tried to enforce it? Then could we all just go to a third-world countries with no internet laws and download (via satellite, probably) all we wanted without repercussion?

[Wizard]

For some reason, I don't think terrorists would be on Bit Torrent.

 

Child pr0n might be something worth looking into however. That's bad stuff, and it shouldn't be done in ANY country. [in my opinion anyways]

 

And as for copyrighted stuff, people know the risks when they do that, they can be screwed over by the RIAA and the MPAA[sued]. The gov't doesn't need to monitor that.

[meriadoc]

Wouldn't bother me, they'd get pretty bored watching me download linux distributions. Although at the same time it would bother me hearing that tax dollars are allocated to such an activity. Any thoughts on what they could possibly gain from this practice? Probably another useless study costing who knows how much.

[JcX]

Of course I support p2p downloads, that enables me to search and obtain many resources I need.

But undeniably, it violates the rights of many intellectual creation.

E.g. software, songs, movies copyright.

 

If government execute the monitoring, they got their own reasons.

There's no right or wrong about this.

 

p/s: Of course, hopefully not!

[teh silly]

How very silly. Peer-to-peer file sharing itself violates no laws and no regulations. It's simply a protocol through which people can convey information in a somewhat efficient manner. It's ridiculous to say file sharing violates any rights, because it does not (it's the people who make the violations).

This is a terribly important distinction to make.