There are two new bills being introduced by the U.S. House of Representatives which may create some very bad unintended consequences.
The first is called the Informed P2P User Act. Its intended function is “to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of information on a computer through the use of certain `peer-to-peer' file sharing software without first providing notice and obtaining consent from the owner or authorized user of the computer.” In a nutshell, this means that a warning box (or alert notice of some type) will be displayed each and every time a computer’s user installs software that allows files to be shared across a network, and also each time the user starts an action with that software to transfer any files across a network.
The large problem is not the intent of the bill insomuch as it is within the wording. The bill is worded in such a way that would likely cause many applications and other software to fall into the camp needing to do these alerts outside of the intended P2P (Peer-To-Peer) programs: FTP clients, Operating Systems (all recent versions of Windows, Linux, and Macs have built-in FTP software), and web browsers like Internet Explorer or Firefox. This could cause an alert box to appear each and every time any user in the U.S. opens their web browser to browse the Internet; or perhaps every time you upload a photo to Facebook or Myspace.
That isn’t to say the intent of the law is bad: making sure users know that their files are being made available to the public, and helping to prevent classified and private documents from being available to download by the general public are both laudable goals.
The second bill is called the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act. Its intended function is “to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to Cyberbullying” by fining or imprisoned up to two years (or both) “whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior”. And the punishment for this bill is listed as a felony, not a misdemeanor.
Leaving any possible clash with the First Amendment out of this discussion, the problem again seems to be in the wording of the bill. Foremost is deciding whether a person or persons has the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to another person or persons. It’s far easier to decide whether or not these effects actually occurred, but the bill states the accused must have had the intent of doing so. Second, what is the difference between substantial emotional distress and unsubstantial emotional distress? How does one quantify emotional distress with such vague wording? Third, the behavior must be severe, repeated, and hostile. Whether or not a behavior is repeated is easy enough to measure. But how does one qualify the descriptions of severe or hostile? Put in other words, what a behavior seems severe to one judge (or jury member), but not so to another? These descriptors seem to be subjective terms instead of objective ones.
For examples of how this could play out badly, look no further than a political blog. If one politician complains about a second politician more than once, the second may decide that the first was cyberbullying him. Even if the case is dismissed in court, it is still one more case loaded upon our already overloaded court systems. Or if you have a complaint about a service, a store, a company, or a client – and you complain about them via email, an instant messenger, a chatroom, a text message, or on your blog – that store may be able to sue you if you did so more than once and they decide your behavior fit the criteria in their opinion.
Again, the goal of the bill is not the problem. It would be hard to find a respectable person or organization that does not applaud the prevention of harassment or bullying of others – online or offline. But with language this vague, it would seem to be inevitable that a bill like this would have severe unintended consequences from misuse.
Sources:
For Informed P2P User Act
CNET
THOMAS (Library of Congress)
TechDirt
SlashDot
For For Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act
THOMAS (Library of Congress)
TechDirt
SlashDot
DigitalDaily
