Browse Prior Art Database

Omniscience Protocol Requirements (RFC3751)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000023979D
Original Publication Date: 2004-Apr-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2004-Apr-01
Document File: 10 page(s) / 21K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

S. Bradner: AUTHOR

Abstract

There have been a number of legislative initiatives in the U.S. and elsewhere over the past few years to use the Internet to actively interfere with allegedly illegal activities of Internet users. This memo proposes a number of requirements for a new protocol, the Omniscience Protocol, that could be used to enable such efforts.

This text was extracted from an ASCII text file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 16% of the total text.

Network Working Group S. Bradner

Request for Comments: 3751 Harvard U.

Category: Informational 1 April 2004

Omniscience Protocol Requirements

Status of this Memo

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does

not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this

memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

There have been a number of legislative initiatives in the U.S. and

elsewhere over the past few years to use the Internet to actively

interfere with allegedly illegal activities of Internet users. This

memo proposes a number of requirements for a new protocol, the

Omniscience Protocol, that could be used to enable such efforts.

1. Introduction

In a June 17, 2003 U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, entitled

"The Dark Side of a Bright Idea: Could Personal and National Security

Risks Compromise the Potential of Peer-to-Peer File-Sharing

Networks?," U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the chair of the

committee, said he was interested in the ability to destroy the

computers of people who illegally download copyrighted material. He

said this "may be the only way you can teach somebody about

copyrights." "If we can find some way to do this without destroying

their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that," Mr Hatch

was quoted as saying during a Senate hearing. He went on to say "If

that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines."

[Guardian]

Mr. Hatch was not the first U.S. elected official to propose

something along this line. A year earlier, representatives, Howard

Berman (D-Calif.) and Howard Coble (R-N.C.), introduced a bill that

would have immunized groups such as the Motion Picture Association of

America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America

(RIAA) from all state and federal laws if they disable, block, or

otherwise impair a "publicly accessible peer-to-peer file-trading

network."

Bradner Informational [Page 1]

RFC 3751 Omniscience Protocol Requirements 1 April 2004

The attitude of some of the copyright holders may be that it's OK for

a few honest people to have their computers or networks executed as

long as the machines and networks of the dishonest are killed. But

it is not likely that any measurable error rate would be acceptable

to the public. Clearly, anyone implementing laws of this type need

some way to reduce the error rate and be sure that they are dealing

with a real bad guy and not an innocent bystander.

Part of determining if someone is a "bad guy" is determining his or

her intent. Historically, western jurisprudence has required that

prosecutors show that a person intended to commit a crime before that

person could be convicted of committing that crime. [Holdsworth,

Restatement, Prosser, United States v. Wise, Garratt v. Dailey]

Because it can be quite difficult to establish a person's intent

lawmakers have, in some cases, reduced the requirement for

prosecutors to establish intent a...