From time to time concern has erupted over the tendency of P2P filesharing software to “share” user files and directories that the user would not want shared–excel files, for example. Identity thieves were known to be mining shared files for social security numbers. Software distributors have several times denied that this continues to be a problem. Apparently that is not so. A new report from the Copyright Office shows that the problem is very much much a current one, and that filesharing software continues to default to settings that share much much more rather than less, sometimes covering the default with deceptive screen displays. TheHouse Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has taken an interest.
Privacy advocates, so far, have not; buy in too far to “business is bad” ideology (ironically perpetrated by Hollywood) and one ends up not being able to see what is right in front of one’s face.
Advertiser-supported “free” software is missing a crucial link of accountability to consumers. Consumers do not scrutinize what they are getting as carefully as they might, because it is “free.” Once they discover a problem, they lack the usual easy means of penalizing the distributor–by withholding their dollars.
How exactly does this play out in different advertiser supported markets? Broadcasting is ad-supported, for example. But broadcasting depends on a mass audience. Broadcasters need to keep eyeballs coming back repeatedly; it leads to a lowest common denominator effect that holds down the quality of programming and keeps them from serving niche markets. By and large, though, quality and other aspects of audience service can’t fall below a certain threshold. It helps, too, that everybody (almost literally) is watching.
A similar factor seems to keep Google on its toes. Google depends heavily on its reputation as the best search tool to keep people coming back. Furthermore, it has tools it can use to tailor ads so it doesn’t have a lowest common denominator quality problem; it can serve users with niche interests no problem. The quality of its service is the *only* good it offers; it can’t bribe anyone into overlooking problems by offering other stuff. And it has nothing to gain by slacking off on privacy or security.
Why don’t reputational factors boost the privacy and security aspects of P2P?
First, the P2P networks do have something to gain by not supporting good security. If consumers were fully aware and controlled what they “shared” over P2P networks, they might share little (or nothing) rather than more, but rather take without giving. So the software tends to give a more or less gentle shove in the direction of sharing more, and makes it hard for users to control.
Reputational mechanisms here are not strong. The P2P sites may not be in business for the very long run, as they are aware of the possibility of legal challenges. Functioning in a black or grey market means that reviews and such are not as “public” as they might be. And many users are likely on the young side–inexperienced or very inexperienced consumers. Finally, the product that users seek to access through the software is not the software per se–it is the free music and movies that the software gives access to; users are in effect paid (with someone else’s hard work) to overlook problems.
Some general lessons:
Consumers should want to pay for things–from health care to music to software to privacy and security–because it creates direct accountability to producers that is hard to replicate.
Black and grey market products, however widespread, are likely to be inferior to what the product would be if legal. Many commentators on the efficacy of legislation such as the DMCA have failed to bear this in mind.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.