Slashdot Mirror
FOIA Request For Pending Copyright Treaty Denied
Penguinisto writes "According to CNET, Knowledge Ecology International's FOIA request for information about ACTA was denied. ACTA is the pending copyright treaty believed to have been authored by lobbyists for the content cartels. Even stranger, the denial cited 'national security reasons (PDF). While it is not unusual for the White House of any administration to block FOIA requests for national security reasons, one would think that a treaty affecting civil interests alone wouldn't qualify for such secrecy. Not exactly sure what involvement the former RIAA mouthpiece Donald Verelli (a recent Obama pick for the DOJ) may have in this." KEI is not alone; the European Parliament wants to see the ACTA documents too.
If money is your hope for independence you will never have it. The only real security that a man will have in this world is a reserve of knowledge, experience, and ability. -- Henry Ford
National security has become a thing used to protect illusionary profits, rather than real people. The solution is obvious: If our government is making treaties without the consent of the governed, then we should convene congress in our respective states and vote to remove from the constitution the power of the Federal Congress to make treaties without the consent and approval of the state legislatures. Of course, with as soft as the population has gotten lately and so indifferent to the affairs of its government, such a call to action is all but futile...
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Wait... Didn't Obama say he was all for transparency? How less transparent can you get that you can't even disclose a treaty about copyright without it being a matter of "national security". Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
National security exemptions should be abolished. Allowing the government to hide whatever it wants just by saying "national security" is extremely dangerous. You don't have to look farther than the Bush administration to see this. They used national security to cover up illegal actions, and sway the people into an unnecessary war. This war has cost us more lives and more money than any terrorist attack.
Abolish national security exemptions entirely. Open everything wide up. Yes, that might increase the threat slightly from external enemies. But it will dramatically decrease the threat from internal enemies, who are far more dangerous.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Meet the new king.
Same as the last.
It appears to be an attack on all world Citizens. Though, I can imagine, it may contain some National Security issues.
I think people should be more proactive in their governments or "stuff" such as this will continue to happen.
Good luck
You still think that the new administration, and new congress, have the country's best interests in mind? Wake up and smell the 21st century.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I think Obama has found a lot about how much power other people have in Washington in the past couple of months. He seems sincere about his desire to change things but change isn't going to come from one person.
...that the FBI lost the documents.
FYI, ACTA is much more than a "Copyright" treaty. I wish that's all it were about, but the "C" in ACTA stands for "Counterfeiting". There's been a recent rash of seizures of legitimately produced generic drugs in the Netherlands, all on concerns about "counterfeiting." The pushing through of ACTA is likely only to make this sort of nonsense worse, and the effect on people's lives is real.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
(b) This section does not apply to matters that are--
(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;
Bold added by me.
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foiastat.htm
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If you would like to continue down the path of dissent of the u.s. government and the powers that rule it (special interests [record companies...?]) is it not possible to see your voice as a risk to national security?
Listen, this may be off-topic, but relevant to this post. This is also asking the choir to not be so mean about satan, so I am sure toget blasted.
/. also does.
Could we get a little less BIAS in our article stubs. From line 1 all i could think of was "EVIL GOV'T. EVIL CORP. EVIL EVIL". We always talk about the media controling us...well
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
may not have anything to do with this. His calling for transparency doesn't mean that every request for information comes across his desk. I'm sure that there is a lot of Bush-era cruft that is yet to be uncovered and rectified.
That said, take a look at this page on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
Specifically the part about ISP Cooperation
"ISP cooperation
The leaked document includes a provision to force Internet service providers to provide information about suspected copyright infringers without a warrant, making it easier for the record industry to sue music file sharers and for officials to shut down non-commercial BitTorrent websites such as The Pirate Bay."
More people truly need to be informed about this. I personally think conducting this act in secrecy says all I need to know about it. It should be protested against and voted against.
Treaties do get a "once over". If you want to push a button or two - write your senators.
I think he meant the Equal Rights Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
So let's get this right: We are now classifying out own treaties and laws as 'national security risks' so that even if we -wanted- to follow the law, we can't.
Wow. You know, until now, I never -truly- believed everyone that was screaming that we were making laws to make sure people broke them. With this, how can I refute it?
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
It was called the ERA, the Equal Rights Amendment
I love that link, I mean talk about subtle paranoia. The case involves a shipment being accidental stopped for counterfeit drugs, to WHO is hiding something.
What's paranoid about getting upset when this happens:
"Such a seizure occurred last month, when authorities in the port of Rotterdam blocked a consignment of Losartan, a treatment for high blood pressure, that was being shipped from India to Brazil. Although Losartan is a legal generic drug, the seizure took place after an unnamed company claimed to hold the patent for it in the Netherlands."
So, generic drug legally produced in India, on its way for legal distribution in Brazil, gets stopped in the Netherlands because someone asserts that they have a patent on it in a country through which it's merely passing.
That instance occurred in January; since then, HIV medicines have been seized as well.
As the saying goes, it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you.
I also find it pretty amusing that /. will get its panties in a twist over DRM conspiracies, but not medicines. I mean, really, how important could medicines be?
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Bill, that is. And yes, its his fault. Check out EO 12958 from 4/17/95:
Section 1.1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) "National security" means the national defense or foreign relations of the United States.
(l) "Damage to the national security" means harm to the national defense or foreign relations of the United States from the unauthorized disclosure of information, to include the sensitivity, value, and utility of that information.
Why do you think preventing counterfeiting is not in the best interests of the country?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Not exactly sure what involvement the former RIAA mouthpiece Donald Verelli (a recent Obama pick for the DOJ) may have in this.""
If you're not sure what involvement the person has in any of this, why mention him? To politically polarize the discussion to follow? To create a sensationalized summary?
It would be nice if the submission summaries could stick to the details that are known and allow people to post their personal thoughts and opinions in the discussion's comments.
Is the link to the current strip intentional? Usually people link straight to the strip they're referencing.
http://xkcd.com/180/
HTH
Nick
First of all, as others pointed out, you must have meant the Equal Rights Amendment.
Second, I'm fairly certain that NOW was one of the main forces behind the ERA, and that it was conservative forces raising fears that the ERA would lead to mixed-sex public restrooms and public funding for abortions which managed to shoot it down.
In fact, now that I look, NOW's website appears to support the ERA, so I have no idea where you're coming up with this stuff.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
While I agree with your sentiment about the need to rework the treaty ratification process, you are wrong about the process of amending the constitution. I suggest that you read up on the amending process.
There are two ways to change the constitution. First (and the only method that has been used) is by adopting an amendment to the constitution. It's an involved process where BOTH parts of the US senate must vote (possibly by a 2/3 vote, but I am not sure) to PROPOSE an amendment. Then the legislatures of 3/4 the states must approve the proposed amendment. Only when both steps are fulfilled can the amendment be added to the US constitution.
The second method is to form a second constitutional convention. The new constitution would have to be approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures. The second option probably will never be used because it allows wholesale changes.
Also note that the president of the US or the supreme court have no role to play. For practical purposes, changing the constitution is unlikely to happen. Also note that it is very hard to change the constitution because that is what the founding fathers intended. I think your real gripe is about the secrecy. This can easily be changed by a simple law that tightens what can be classified as a national security issue.
More secrecy, not less. Don't let anybody read it. Imagine the following transaction.
Content company: Counselor, our rights are being violated. See to it that charges are brought.
Lawyer: I would be happy to do that, but the law is secret, so I don't know what to do.
Content company: D'oh!
Sigh... don't these people realize that whatever credibility they had at the beginning is being totally eroded by things like this?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
S/he has a grasp of actual facts.
Our founding fathers would cry if they were alive today to see how far we've fallen from the path of justice and equality.
Oh, you are just too funny.
Granted, the founding fathers have much to their credit, but "justice and equality" was somewhat lacking. I seem to remember something relevant in the Constitution:
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
I'll give you one guess at who "all other Persons" refers to.
Oh, and your version of "equality" seems to have left out the whole women's suffrage movement... so... yeah. I'm not saying that everything's all fine and dandy now, but to say that the founding fathers would cry over justice and equality is pretty much ludicrous.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
It is not unusual for treaty negotiations to be secret. This is more common than you seem to think.
These are working sessions, and getting a zillion people ranting and raving about a casual word or phrase here or there is counter productive.
When submitted to The Senate for approval there will be no secret codicils attached and the written word will be available to all. Write you Senator and get on the list to be notified when the issue comes before them.
Poor choice of denial reasons? Perhaps. But don't go all conspiracy nut on the issue till you see the work product.
The writers of the Constitution worked mostly in secret too.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Forcing the legality of gay marriage in Massachusetts (Mass. supreme court vs. majority of the state's voters, I believe.)
Possibly Prop 8 in California, depending on how that state's supreme court rules.
So, let me get this straight. Your take on democracy has no ability to counter a tyranny of the majority?
Here's a hint - just because a bunch of people vote for something doesn't mean they should get it. Otherwise we could probably just do away with the court system and have people vote on everything, instead.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Can somebody please explain to me how an international treaty qualifies as a national secret? o_O
Once again, so much for transparency. Instead we get FUDge!
OMG!! What could securing movies and songs against piracy have in common with national security? How come the papers are private but you will dang well be shippig your DRM'd content all over the world??? Don't they realize that it will just be reverse engineered?
OOOO... bad thought... what if they are using the same encryption scheme milnet uses? That's the ONLY way I can see this being a national security issue..... That being the case, please, crack a movie and take over our military too.... Surely they're not THAT retarded.
2 cents,
QueenB.
HDGary secures my bank
"Tyranny of the majority" is exactly what democracy is. That's why the USA is a republic instead.
Please. Quit being pedantic and using a definition of democracy that dates back to Aristotle.
Actually, it's not even pedantry, it's just plain wrong. The definition of "democracy" is simply not "rule by the majority without any checks and balances" as everyone with the chorus "The U.S. is a republic not a democracy" seems to think.
Just in case the "tyranny of the majority" that is the English language doesn't convince you, I'll provide an appeal to authority for you. "Democracy" defined by the Oxford English Dictionary:
1. Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Perhaps the GP was getting the ERA and CEA mixed up, and maybe getting NOW mixed up with Phyllis Schlafly as well (impossible though it may seem). I remember that stuff - must be getting old.
The National Organization of Women supports both of these putative constitutional amendments. The ERA originated in the early 1920s, long before NOW existed, and came fairly close to adoption in the late 1970s. The CEA was crafted by NOW in the late 1980s, to reflect their arguably partisan ambitions. Although titled "Constitutional Equality Amendment", it contains some non-gender-neutral language which would make its consequences different from those of ERA. It has never been introduced in congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Organization_for_Women#ERA_and_CEA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
If we try to look at this in the best possible light, without a hint of cynicism or doubt about our wise and benevolent overlords, where even probabilities of the magnitude of being struck by a meteorite are not considered "far-fetched"...
How is this not a bullshit excuse, but rather, "national security" is a truthful and accurate description of why a treaty draft must not be disclosed to the public?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Government really should not be involved with religious sacraments and marriage is a religious sacrament.
Hogwash. I'm married and I've never gone to church a day in my life. It might be a religious concern to some but marriage is de-facto about more than religious tradition.
I agree that the government should not be involved. There should be no financial incentives or tax breaks for marriages. The government should not define marriage or families for that matter, whatever their form. People should be free to designate any individual they trust to make legal decisions on their behalf (including but not limited to financial, estate, healthcare, and guardianship) with a minimum of difficulty.
I don't have much use for either of our two major parties. I do find it somewhat ironic that the political party which supposedly espouses small government is so keen to get the government involved in defining marriage for blatantly discriminatory purposes. Ethical convenience I suppose.
Even though some of the items in your list were voted on by a majority of the people, these voter initiatives might be unconstitutional. The USA is not a democracy but a republic. In a pure democracy, what the people want becomes the law of the land. That becomes the "Tyranny of the majority". I'll give an example. Let's say the majority decides to kill all of a particular minority. In a pure democracy, that would be legal. In the USA (and most other nations), the majority should not trample the rights of the minority.
the US Government has
decided to meddle in something that EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET views as a primarily
religious matter.
Really? I'm not religious and yet I'm married. At least 10% of the US population is either atheistic, agnostic or effectively non-religious and yet a huge proportion of them are married. Marriages occur in every culture on the planet, the majority of which are not based in the christian tradition. You might consider that these days marriage has relatively little to do with actual religious doctrine even when conducted under religious ritual.
The Puritans in Boston shouldn't get to bully around people in entirely different states.
Hence we have the first amendment to our Constitution. Doesn't mean you won't have to fight the good fight against others trying to impose their values on you though.
Let the Pope decide what a sacrament should be and keep any hint of
sacrament out of what the government does.
Agreed but that has nothing to do with the modern concept of marriage.
If the RIAA is privy to the negotiations then security has already been compromised, you can't unring that bell. That being the case we are all entitled to equal access to this process as the RIAA is.
If this crap is actually brought into a signed treaty, without us, the people subject to it, ever being able to see what is going on, then this needs to be brought into courts.
Ignore the treaty, be prosecuted, then claim that it was illegally signed/partied to because of the FoIA violations.
Take it out of the hands of the "few" and put it into the hands of the many IN A COURTROOM. The guv'ment would have no choice but to make those very same documents available to the courts.
When your government isn't playing by the rules, stop playing hardball, and start pitching ROCKS.
Get over it :-(
Actually, pushing back is a good idea. In the last week, I have contacting my senators and congress woman concerning legislation that might make it difficult to have community and personal gardens (House and Senate bills HR 875 and S 425). I also contacted my congress woman to ask her to support Ron Paul's bills to add transparency to the Federal Reserve.
One thing that disappoints me about my family and friends: they never seem to want to take the time to talk to their representatives about important issues.
".getting the government entirely out of the business of defining "marriage". About time, too."
You are correct sir! The government shouldn't have a thing to do with marriage, straight, gay, polygamy or polyandry, whatever. People's living and social arrangements are their own private business, and normal contracts can be used to address any official and economic issues associated with that. Let the people involved work out what ritual they want to perform if they want one to sanctify a living arrangement according to their personal beliefs, and everything else can be accomplished with a normal signed and witnessed contract. Everything, work it out yourself with your insurance company or whatever. Work it out in advance the "what about the children?" deal, all of it. The government should just drop all official marriage "licenses" as being totally constitutionally illegal and against the letter and spirit of our born with right of freedom of association.
And adopting this stance would *immediately* defuse all the arguments for and agsinst gay marriage, because the federal and state and local governments would no longer be in the position to offer economic benefits for one group over another, when they shouldn't be using tax payers money to do *any* of that at all in the first place.
No more "joint filing" of taxes, no more definitions of some benefits you are magically entitled to because of whom you sleep with, etc, it would go on a strictly individual basis and if you wanted more than that, you would have to work your own contract out with your partner or partners and your employers and insurers and pension plan providers, etc. And THEN, gay and straight folks could agree on it, just get the whole government involvement in marriage OUT, and then no one would have any beef with feeling discriminated against, because it would be back to all individuals are EQUAL.
Why don't you tell us what your root password is and your IP address and set up an ssh server on your website or home computer? Then you can find out why somethings stay secret.
In the case of counterfeiting: What kind of counterfeiting is the treaty about? Currency?
if they open all the secret service things about the way that currency counterfeiting is curtailed, then the currency will become worthless.
It is playful and fun to post flame here, isn't it? You can see how many idiots like me flame right back.
Every modern society needs some form of allowing for secrecy or they become slaves. Either you work for the slavers (who want all all to work for them) or you are an idiot.
You're probably not an idiot so who the hell are you and why would you suggest such a reckless policy?
A widely disliked, tiny minority that the vast majority of the social conservatives in California don't even consider Christian, and they're somehow responsible for what a bit over 50% of California's voters voted for?
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I blame the people who voted for the fucking thing, not Teh Mormons. If I were to single them out by religion, the Catholics and Evangelical Protestants would be the two main blocs to blame.
These sorts of ugly scapegoating reactions have been oddly too common, though; the other group that gets blamed, besides the Mormons, are blacks (Andrew Sullivan started that one, I think). Yeah, blacks, who have virtually no political power in California, and constitute a small minority of the state's population are responsible for an election outcome.
Next time, how about blaming the real culprits: white and Hispanic Catholics and white evangelical Protestants.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Just to add an European element to this debate (we seem to be under-represented, for some reason, threadwise!). There really ought to be more lobbying by both the public (electorate) and public interest groups for a clause within the EC administrative process that; lack of information about trade agreements etc., may not be withheld from the ECP prior to voting and any attempt to so do will automatically render any ECC proposal denied until full and open disclosure is made and a period of discussion, including interrogation of the underlying negotiations/ECC members, has taken place.
Once again, in Europe, we have a case of the tail wagging the dog!
National Securtiy depends on Mickey Mouse, Bambi, Finding Nemo, Brittney Spears and the upcomming movie with this famous guy....
Your "Yes we can!"? has changed into "Sorry we can not change this!"
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
I agree. A call to a Congressman's office from a constituent actually means a lot. They don't hear from anyone but lobbyists on most issues.
james.love@keionine.org
Forcing the legality of gay marriage in Massachusetts (Mass. supreme court vs. majority of the state's voters, I believe.)
More like, "Mass. supreme court AND state constitution vs. plurality of the state's voters"
Fixed that for ya (MA resident here.)
Southern Confederacy's desire to secede.
Oh christ. It wasn't a "desire to secede", it was "unwillingness to accept that black people were 'men'".All of the southern states accepted the US Constitution when they formed under the union. When the rest of the country told them that black people were in fact men, the hicks revolted. And who do you think powered and controlled that revolution? The southern "people", even if you count out the black population? Of course not. It was the 1800's version of today's corporate farms- because they were the ones benefiting from slave labor.
Please help metamoderate.
This isn't true at all. Marriage is primarily a civil matter. It is an arrangement in which society recognizes two people has having formed a bond that imposes some responsibilities on each toward the other. Religions have overlaid religious significance on this civil arrangement, to varying degrees. While the Roman Catholic church has gone as far as to make marriage a sacrament (comparable to baptism or communion), not all religions (Christian or otherwise) go this far. Many do not consider marriage to be of great religious significance.
In some European countries (Germany, I think?) churches are not even allowed to legally marry people. Couples are legally married in a civil ceremony, and then have a religious ceremony if they wish, but the religious ceremony has no legal effect whatsoever.
Um.. you do know that we elected Obama as President, not God, right?
Omniscence doesn't come with the job. Attributing every decision (good OR bad) to the president is as much of a cop-out as attributing none of them to him.
What he CAN do, however, is correct the situation. And it is your job (and that of every citizen) to see to it that such things are brought to his attention.
The president, however, is pretty much permanently slashdotted. You might look up the size of the White House mail room, then ask yourself how much of that influx any one person can handle.
Note that the same situation exists for pretty much all elected representatives - and that just on the legislation they're passing. Ask the staff of your state representative, if you don't believe me, how much of what passes they get a chance to read.
And so yes, you do have to deal with intermediaries, staffers, underlings of that figurehead you want to fix everything. But you'd better actually contact them, instead of simply complaining on slashdot about them.
Having served as a US delegate to multilateral negotiations, documents that provide information or background on the negotiating position of the United States are typically classified SECRET. If the other parties knew the hardline positions, they would have an advantage at the negotiations. It would be nice to have better representation on the advisory panel...
Actually, pushing back is a good idea.
Very true. But informing oneself fully about the issue in question is even more fundamental - to wit:
I have contacting my senators and congress woman concerning legislation that might make it difficult to have community and personal gardens (House and Senate bills HR 875 and S 425).
Having an active interest in both community gardening and organic farming, I spent a modest amount of time reading the text of these and other bills related to the recent food-safety debacles (like HR 814 - ref http://thomas.loc.gov/), and reading analyses from respected pro-consumer food safety advocates (eg http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/foodsafety/background-on-h-r-875). It quickly became clear that there's been a bit of a rush to judgement by some people about just what's in these bills.
I understand that the last few years (heck, the last several decades) may have made many of us prone to hair trigger paranoia wrt govt/corporate quid-pro-quos. But breathless panic doesn't serve our personal or public interests any better than ignornace or willful denial.
To bring this back to the original topic, I'm glad KEI is pursuing this information and I hope that people will press the administration on it, but it does look as though this initial denial of FOIA can be laid at the feet of a longtime civil servant's overenthusiam for the rubber stamp, and not current Executive policy. I believe that the truly important part of this story will be to see how the Obama administration reacts when made explicitly aware of the issue.