Citizens Demand To See Secret ACTA Treaty

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "One hundred groups of concerned citizens have united to demand a look at the secret ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) treaty and have drafted a letter to their representatives asking for information. We've discussed ACTA before, including what are believed to be parts of ACTA that lawmakers are trying to get a head start on."

Comments

Brave New World, 1984

[hpycmprok]

Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, etc...

When I was in school (a while ago) these were books we had to read.

Seems most people 10, 15, or more years younger than myself haven't even heard of these stories.

Corporations are taking over the world. A well functioning democracy requires an educated populace.

Considering what public schools are turning out here in the US, so much of what happens in the world isn't surprising to me anymore.

I don't know what is more disturbing, the fact that so many people don't seem bothered by things like TFA, or that people aren't aware of them and/or don't understand them.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[esocid]

Just how old are you? I'm 23 and was required to read the latter two in school, and read 1984 on my own.
I think people are apathetic about stuff like this because they don't see how it affects them, and because they aren't aware and/or understand them. I'm aware of them and barely have a working knowledge of them. All I understand is that these corporate oligarchies are trying to perpetuate old systems that are still making them a$$loads of money by screwing over the consumer.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[garett_spencley]

What bothers me the most, and what I don't think most people understand / are aware of, is how international treaties can be signed, thus becoming laws which supersede the most supreme law of the country (constitution, charter, bill of rights etc.) all without public knowledge or involvement.

I think every single democratic country desperately needs to update their charters with clauses requiring that all international agreements be signed with public knowledge, consent and involvement and to clearly make available avenues for referendums so that the public can force their governments to withdraw if the majority of the population wishes (without replacing their government obviously).

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[whoever57]

how international treaties can be signed, thus becoming laws which supersede the most supreme law of the country (constitution, charter, bill of rights etc.)

I believe that the Supremes ruled some (many?) years past that treaties cannot be used as an end-run around the constitution.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Of course, due ratification isn't really required, per se. The 1963 Vienna Treaty on Consular Relations provides quite specifically that a republic is bound by a treaty it signs but does not ratify, since international law could well break down under the strain of two hundred different ratification mechanisms. I admit, however, that this applies only to international law, and that a conflict between international and domestic law in the United States would be unlikely to successfully stand based purely on the tenets of the Vienna treaty.

Yes, treaties can be an end-run around the constitution; that's their point. A constitution that could not survive losing a war (and the negative treaty-based consequences thereof) would have been a big problem in the early days.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[cpt kangarooski]

In the US, at least, that's correct. The federal Constitution is supreme, with federal law and treaties at an equal level (where they conflict, the most recent trumps). All of those are superior to state constitutions, which are superior to state laws.

People often misread the Constitutional language indicating that treaties are superior to state constitutions, which is where the confusion arises.

This having been said, treaties are often used as an end-run around Congress. First, they're developed by the executive branch, which otherwise cannot write federal law at such a high level, and can be much more secretive and less receptive to the will of the people than Congress. Second, only the Senate is involved in ratification, and they cannot amend treaties, so it's a pure yes or no vote. Third, the Senate can be pressured into ratifying, on the basis that the US has committed to its treaty partners, after a diplomatic process that may have taken years, and shouldn't let them down at such a late stage. And fourth, if the treaty is not self-executing, Congress as a whole is pressured into enacting enabling legislation, lest we not be in compliance with the treaty.

It isn't good, but we're stuck with this system and its flaws, barring either a Constitutional amendment that would give Congress more of a diplomatic role, or the Congress (particularly the Senate) developing a spine and looking to the public interest.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[MightyMartian]

The problem ultimately is that people in the West have become incredibly coddled. It's not that they trust governments more than they did in the past, it's just that they can't get out of their web browser, off the telephone to Aunt Mavis or turn off the TV long enough to give a shit about the nature of liberty and the need of vigilance. People may not always be happy to surrender personal responsibility to their governments, but they're too fucking lazy to realize that it's not themselves they're selling down the river, but rather their children and grandchildren, who will suffer the consequences much more severely than us.

Governments always have and always will tend towards tyranny. It is the nature of the species that we organize ourselves into dominance hierarchies, and that very fundamental encoded behavior is a powerful force. The Founding Fathers, along with many great minds of the Enlightenment, hoped to create societies and complimentary political systems that could overcome to some degree human nature, to create societies that could strive for freedom, justice and equality, where the least in society could at least dare to hope that they might be able to enjoy the liberties of the greatest.

But, sadly, America, like most of the West, is turning its back on the Enlightenment. We are rapidly becoming a civilization that will sell itself away bit by bit, giving away every hard-earned freedom for the promise of security (which, as even the most tyrannical regimes in history demonstrate, can never really be bought). So many believe the lies of the corporate-government oligarchies, not because the lies are believable, but because believing the lies is so much easier than the alternative, which involves using democracy to punish the liars.

And now look. Wall Street is melting down, and the liars are begging for aid from the catastrophe they caused. Where are the citizens, commanding their political servants, flexing their muscle, making the mighty tremble in their cracking ivory towers? No, much easier to let our betters do what's right, even though letting our betters do what's right has thus far lead to one of the most severe (if not the most severe) financial crises since 1929.

But that's alright, because a new television season is here, and the Feds will throw lots of money around, and it's Tuesday and I'm tired after picking the kids up from soccer practice, and I've got to get to work early tomorrow, and what can one vote do, and voting for a third party is throwing my vote way, and... and... and... and...

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Spy der Mann]

Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, etc...

When I was in school (a while ago) these were books we had to read.

Seems most people 10, 15, or more years younger than myself haven't even heard of these stories.

Nope, but they've watched V for Vendetta, the Matrix... and maybe Gattaca.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[NovaHorizon]

Hmm.. Seems you and the parent here (as most people are) are unaware that the United States is not and never was a democracy.

I demonstrate my point 1 one very simple exercise. Say the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

On top of that, democracies are bad.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
- Benjamin Franklin

Also, nothing the government does can supersede the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is not a declaration of what the people are allowed. It is a list to remind the government of what they cannot prevent. We made the Government, and gave it privileges. It can NOT infringe on the rights we have for being sovereign individuals. In fact...

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson

...

/rant

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Artraze]

Um... Most schools I'm aware of still teach at least one of the ones you listed, and most 2. The others usually show up on a list of books for something like a book report as homework across a break. The problem is far from a lack of education. It's a mix of stupid 'journalism' and apathy.

Just look at this year. You can't turn on the damn TV or open a newspaper or magazine, etc. without hearing about the presidential race. Every four years it's always the same old "get out the vote" BS, and the other three (and their primaries) are barely even reported, let alone discussed. People (that aren't totally out of it) know that congress passes the laws, and the laws are what actually affect you, but they just never seem to realize that means their congressmen matter, even more than the president. Sure, if, say, Jesus were to show up and appoint someone to the presidency who knew what the hell was going on and actually cared about the people and their rights, then the veto power could be used for some good, but I'm certainly not holding my breath.

The other problem is that people don't understand that the law isn't "The Law". They never realize that it's not some ancient black tome with gold letters that's been the sitting at SCOTUS for 200 years, but rather that it is a living reflection of their will. Most people just think that congress passes laws and they have to obey them. It's pathetic really, and primarily the result of the centralization of power at the federal level. (And at the state level for those powers the constitution expressly forbids the federal government from having. I'm looking at you drinking age!)

It used to be that the most power rested with the local government and the people would get together and decide how they wanted their community to run. That is why schools are run by local governments. They were set up by the community to teach kids what they thought they should know. Now we see massive pressure from the states to teach a precise curriculum and even more regulations on top of those. (e.g. public school is so damn expensive now because they are required to educate _everyone_ because it's apparently important to force children who are medically retarded through the same mold as those that aren't). Things like these make people feel powerless. The further up the power goes, the less their vote counts, and the more beholden to the higher-ups for funding for the regulations that are forced upon them (e.g. see above).

I was visiting a friend a couple months back and he warned me about a school zone (15MPH speed limit for those who don't know) they had just put in. Nothing on that road had changed in 20+ years, including the fact that it had no sidewalks, nor anything but forest opposite the school. But for some reason the township had recently declared it a school zone and stationed a police officer there. The result being high school students being hit with tickets for $200+ for going only 25MPH or so on a road that normal 35MPH. Nobody liked it, so I hold him to get together with a group of people and tell the commissioners something to the effect of "This is our community and if we don't want a school zone with camped out officer then we better not have one, and sure as hell better not be paying for one". I don't know if that ever happened, but regardless, it hasn't changed.

I've gone a bit far off the path, but the point is these are all things that reasonably intelligent (i.e. not on Jaywalking) people _know_, they just don't _understand_. The challenge is actually getting them to realize that _they_ are the solution and voting for the best turd sandwich every four years is not.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[node 3]

When you say "Corporations are taking over the world", are you generalizing a bit, or do you really hate Capitalism

I'm not the OP, but hating what Capitalism has wrought is not the same as hating Capitalism, just as hating your wife's lasagna is not the same as hating your wife.

Corporations, and Capitalism, have a very critical role in our world, but ruling the world is not their role. Corporations exist primarily (some would say solely, but I think that's too simplistic) to serve the interests of their shareholders, or owners. If Corporations were to rule the world, essentially, we would be taking the rulership away from The People, where it belongs, and giving it to the wealthy few.

So, for me, I don't hate Capitalism, but I do most definitely hate many of the things Capitalists have done.

The world is not so black-and-white.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[hpycmprok]

When you say "Corporations are taking over the world", are you generalizing a bit, or do you really hate Capitalism, or do you have a better explanation for Corporations as the cause of the crap storm that is our future?

I'd really love to say that I'm generalizing a bit. I'm not an expert, and it'd be better if I'm dead wrong. The tired cliché is 'follow the money'. Corporations act legally as individuals but with only the obligation to increase shareholder value. I don't hate capitalism. Historically it seems to have been good for the US (where I'm from) and for other parts of the world as well. But I think maybe it is getting out of control, with the legal invention of the corporation and how that legal device has evolved to where it is now. Corporations are global and transcend national boundaries. Corporations are able to merge and aquire each other. Branches of them are able to operate under umbrella companies, just consider Proctor and Gamble, to name one example off the top of my head. Or think about the entertainment industry... Time, Warner Bros., Netscape, AOL, how many entities that appear to be different are actually different branches of one company?

When that much power and money to becomes organized into a single entity, the influence over governments and politics is incredible. I've read many times that in our little war with Iraq, there are more private contractors over there than US troops. Halliburton scare anybody?

So to me, with what I have time to read, and am able to make of it, yes, it seems like corporations ARE taking over the world. (I know I should do my homework and post more links, but I need to go to bed, and somebody else can do it - for or against - if they want to).

If ACTA isn't corporations exerting global influence on nations for only the gain of corporations, at the loss of the individuals, etc. etc. etc. than I know I can't think of any better current examples.

Thanks for mentioning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_ShruggedAtlas Shrugged, I'll definitely go to the library and work those inter-library loan ladies. I admit I don't recall every hearing of it or reading it.

And I agree with you, people who don't think seem to be taking over the world. Or maybe, people have become sheep and think what they're told to think.

There are many other things people have said I'd like to jump in on but, it's late. I didn't mean to accidentally start a discussion. I promise to go back in my hole and lurk more.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[whoever57]

Yes, treaties can be an end-run around the constitution; that's their point.

I'm sorry, Mr. AC, but your interpretation of the constitution has no importance. All that matters is what the Supreme Court has to say

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[wellingj]

I didn't mean to accidentally start a discussion. I promise to go back in my hole and lurk more.

No need to apologize, in this day and age you should be congratulated.

I agree with you basic assessment of Corporations in the fact that they are more or less headless entities. They are a collective which is treated as an individual. If I had my way there would be no such thing as publicly owned companies. But that's my simple summation of it, and I realize it wouldn't solve everything, but when you can hang your ire on a single man, and that single man knows that the ire of some 300 million people is directed at him for the decisions he makes, and the decide who to give the money to every second of every day, it tends to put moral men in charge of the companies. First and foremost I'm a firm believer in individualism, so the idea that I would sell parts of any company I make to people I don't know really really bugs me.

But you have my vote for the sleep thing...

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[cpt kangarooski]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
- Benjamin Franklin

Of course, Franklin never actually said that. It's more likely from the late 20th century.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[wrook]

I'm also not the parent, but here are some good links that will explain what many people are concerned about:

Capitalism which many people think is good.

Corporate Capitalism which cause some people to be a bit worried.

Corporatocracy which causes some people to be very worried.

Corporatism which a very large number of people find extremely worrisome.

Fascism which is considered to be a really, really bad idea by a very large number of people.

If you read through all of those links, ask yourself honestly where you feel that your country sits on the scale. The parent expresses concern. After reading these links, do you share their concern?

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[gantzm]

Yes it is. It's a democratic republic.

Actually it's a constitutional republic.

But nobody seem to bother with that old piece of paper these days.

Re:ACTA?!

[deepershade]

I like to know what my government is doing behind my back Screwing you.

Re:Occam's razor?

[spikedvodka]

yes, but it's much easier to arrange a "civil protest" about an action when you know what's going on BEFORE they vote on it.

not to push buttons here, but if there had been enough time prior to the patriot act being voted on, do you think people would have gotten into an uproar?

for this whole democracy thing to work right, we need to have an edumacated populace, we need to know what's going on in enough time to tell our congress-critters how we feel they should represent us.

ACTA Now!

[dotslashdot]

Better ACTA soon, or you will have to forfeit the counterfeit.

Re:ACTA?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I never do this, but you've made it too easy: "In Soviet Russia, government likes to know what you are doing behind its back!"

No problem

[PPH]

Send them a fake copy.

FOIA

[poetmatt]

I requested it via FOIA and they danced around it and eventually refused. It'd be nice to see it come out, although I hope this "citizen's group" collectively sent in a few FOIA requests on this one.

Shouldn't even be a question.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The fact that this is even an issue suggests that things are thoroughly rotten. There are arguably justified instances of government secrecy(aspects of national defence, any private data that has to be handled during course of business, certain subsets of police activity); but there is absolutely no plausible claim that ACTA falls under such a heading.

Unfortunately, even figuring out who is responsible is a rather murky business. This is the one thing that really bothers me about a lot of international/multinational activities and organizations. Democracy is tenuous enough with the layers of alleged representation within a nation, once you lay a mass of appointed diplomats on top of that, you get something largely opaque and unresponsive. That might be ok if your job is agreeing that starving orphans are tragic; but if you work will end up as law across the developed world, you need to do better than that.(well, actually you don't, and we just have to suck it up; but I meant that in the normative sense)

Re:ACTA?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to know what my government is doing behind my back

Screwing you.

Actually the government has gotten quite comfortable screwing you to your face.

Who wants to bet...

[DustoneGT]

That The Anointed One and Captain America are both involved in this...

You'll never get your money back

[AnotherUsername]

Yes, they stole your money and used it to build roads, build hospitals, maintain and strengthen a military, provide protection from criminals, educate the young, stop threats against the country, and help out those who have run into misfortune. Yes, they stole your money and you will never get it back in any form.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[cayenne8]

"Yes, they stole your money and used it to build roads, build hospitals, maintain and strengthen a military, provide protection from criminals, educate the young, stop threats against the country..."

If only they would stop at those actions!! Yes, those indeed are what a govt. are for for the most part, yet they seem hell bent on overstepping those powers, in order to restrict the rights and privacy of the citizens from whom their power (supposedly) comes from. They seem to be more interested in locking down society, and protecting corporate issues and interests.

THAT is what we're all wary of and protesting....

Re:You'll never get your money back

[digitalchinky]

...and they also invested many billions of stolen dollars in communications equipment and computers to suck down your phone calls, locations, internet activity, and generally monitor everything you do from credit card transactions to tracking your number plate with bridge mounted cameras as you drive your car from one side of the country to the other.

While the things you mention are (sort of) positive, the list of negatives has long since outgrown it.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[meringuoid]

Yes, but apart from the roads, the hospitals, the civic security, law and order, education, and social welfare, what have the government ever done for us?

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Dekker3D]

actually, it would. in that case, the amount of money for certain operations would be directly related to how many people care for it.

at the very least, we'd have less wars, and shorter ones, too.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Anonymous Coward]

"They seem to be more interested in locking down society, and protecting corporate issues and interests."

In fairness, "protecting corporate issues and interests" is and should be one of the most important jobs of government in order to have a well-functioning and fair economy ("fair" in that businesses compete on a reasonably even playing field, consumers have some basic protections, and employers do not exploit their workers too greatly). That being said, it could be argued that rather than having these interests at heart, many of the laws that governments have been passing recently are designed more to enrich corporations and let them take advantage of people (whether consumers or workers).

I mean, sheesh, the recent mortgage meltdown is a perfect example. No income, no job, no asset loans (so-called "ninja" loans)? Why in the hell was this ever legal? Where were the government regulators as mortgage companies were making money off these obviously risky schemes? And now U.S. taxpayers are out >$200 billion dollars in bailouts, hundreds of billions of dollars of investments worldwide have evaporated, and the economy tanks. It's the "Savings and Loan" fiasco all over again.

All we hear from corporations is that they want less regulation of the things that keep them honest, and more regulation (like parts of ACTA) that will hose competitors and consumers. The reality is, they don't really give a !@#$%^! what happens as long as they make their money and don't end up in jail. That's why government needs to be involved in "protecting corporate issues and interests", because in the long/whole economy view, the corporations sure don't care. They only care about *their* individual bottom lines.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Anonymous Coward]

And exactly which of these does the Constitution authorize the government to do?

Build Roads

Don't recall reading that job description for the feds. States, maybe.

Build Hospitals

Not even mentioned. Maybe you could stretch Promote the general welfare from the Preamble

Strengthen a Military

Ok, that one is there.

Protection from Criminals

There is no explicit provisions for law enforcement in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment gives me the ability to defend myself (even from the government)

Educate the Young

Can't find anything in the Constitution about that, meaning it was a state responsibility.

Stop threats against the country

Well, there's details about defending the country. Stopping threats could be interpreted as preemptive strikes, like Iraq. This one is grey, 1/2 point.

Help those who have run into misfortune

Not anywhere in the Constitution I can find. That started with the New Deal.

So by my count, you have a score of 1.5 out of 7.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[eagee]

Which makes me feel all snuggly wuggly and safe!

Re:You'll never get your money back

[philspear]

THAT is what we're all wary of and protesting....

Fine protest, but let's not go overboard with our cynicism and say the government does nothing good ever. Then we look like a bunch of ridiculous, clueless archanists. Plus I come to your house and steal all your stuff and call you a hypocrite if you go to the police.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[AnotherUsername]

Funny little story about the mortgage and financial crisis. Where were the regulators? They were let go by Phil Gramm due to a law he wrote and got passed in 1999. It pretty much deregulated the entire financial industry.

Less government regulation + greed of big corporations = our present situation

On a political side note, guess where Mr. Gramm is now...

Yep, he's the economics advisor to John McCain, who doesn't like regulation. Guess what will happen if McCain is elected...

Re:You'll never get your money back

[AnotherUsername]

The whole 'being able to decide where tax dollars go' argument is ludicrous. If people were able to decide where tax money went, our governmental services would go into shambles. People who hated cops would say that they weren't going to pay for police protection while the anti-war activists would not want to pay the salaries of the soldiers and the people whose kids weren't in school wouldn't want to pay for education. People who don't use roads would not want to pay for roadways, and concentrate their moneys in sidewalks and bike paths. Part of living in a society means that you accept from your government how they use your money. If you do not like how they use it, then you elect someone else.

Stupid citizens

[clarkkent09]

Citizens Demand To See Secret ACTA Treaty

It wouldn't be secret if you could see it, now would it. Now be patriotic and buy some $16 CDs. Otherwise Bin Laden wins!!!

Re:Democracy != Republic

[hedwards]

Umm, technically ours would be a democratic republic. We don't vote on every issue, but we vote on many and the times when we don't vote on the issue we vote for the people that make the decision.

A republic does not require voting, Rome for example appointed people to their senate based purely on age, nothing more. They represented the people but the people weren't allowed to vote about anything.

Just because we're not in the model of the Athenian democracy, doesn't mean we aren't a type of democracy.

Re:ACTA?!

[mrsteveman1]

They still like it doggystyle though

What about the *really* secret treaties?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Because the public knows about ACTA, means that they can try to do something about it.

What about the secret treaties, of which we know nothing?

They might be trying to ban civilian use of tinfoil, or something like that.

Re:ACTA?!

[foniksonik]

Uh... I'm thinking if all they wanted was to kill a few thousand people anywhere, it would have cost a lot less than the Billions of dollars spent on the Iraq project

The lack of MSM reports on this is Damning.

[plasmacutter]

I just did a google news search, and nobody outside the ars technica/slashdot crowd has stories listed for this.

The fact that such a huge coalition is being ignored by CNN, NBC, ABC, REUTERS, et. al. shows how deeply these news agencies are buried under the thumb of the media cartels.

Positively disgusting.

Re:The lack of MSM reports on this is Damning.

[steelfood]

Erm, they are the media cartels. Obviously, they're going to ignore it.

The internet is a great threat to them, and in more than one way. That's why they want to control it with treaties such as this.

I don't get it- secret laws still exist in the US?

[Lazy Jones]

How is it possible that citizens must comply with laws that they cannot know because they're secret? (see also: papersplease.org).

Also, how can this still be called a "democracy" when those people, who are supposedly holding the power, are not allowed to know what their so-called representatives are doing?