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.

Comments

national security

[girlintraining]

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...

Re:national security

[DoofusOfDeath]

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...

It sounds like you're appealing to a time in (recent?) U.S. history when the people had more balls regarding government.

But the most recent time I can think of was the Civil War, which certainly wasn't recent.

Re:national security

[sexconker]

1960s?

Re:national security

[DoofusOfDeath]

1960s?

Great point. I feel stupid for missing that.

How about a new question then: When's the last time that the citizenry successfully resisted an attempt by the federal government to expand its powers or otherwise work against the will of the People?

Re:national security

[sakdoctor]

Yes, we are all "tragically" unequal, but social engineering isn't the answer. We *should* all be equal under the law.

Re:national security

[Nick Ives]

Whilst I disagree with certain aspects of affirmative action I think you'd have to be barmy to think men and women should legally be treated exactly the same. Men and women are different and the law should respect those differences.

Admittedly those differences are tied to (what should be) relatively minor things like women being generally smaller and needing more maternity leave than fathers need paternity leave due to having to actually carry to term and give birth but those differences do exist.

The law should respect those differences because sometimes you need to treat people differently in order to treat them equally.

And just in case anyone thinks that's some Orwellian double-think consider this: A man where I work is allowed to leave five minutes early each day because he's in a wheelchair. If he didn't the three p.m. rush (early starts suck, early finishes ftw though!) would mean he'd be five minutes later leaving than everybody else which is thirty minutes a week. He didn't even ask for it, one of the bosses just noticed he was always last out and realised it was because it's impossible for him to navigate the corridors when they're full of people.

Why should he lose half an hour each week due to something he can't control? It's the little things like that which really make a difference.

Looking at the preview I realise this is wildly OT. Oh well!

Re:national security

[jedidiah]

> Essentially, you're wanting to legislate a change in terminology, which is simply a waste of
> tax dollars and something that the general public will fight kicking and screaming.

Not at all.

This whole "gay marriage mess" is a side effect of the fact that the US Government has
decided to meddle in something that EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET views as a primarily
religious matter. So public policy gets conflated with religious doctrine.

This is why polygamy is banned in the US when it really shouldn't be.

The Puritans in Boston shouldn't get to bully around people in entirely different states.

First it was inter-denominational marriages.
Then it was inter-faith marriages.
Then it was inter-racial marriages.

Every time, it's the same mess because the secular government failed
to do what it was supposed to to begin with.

Let the Pope decide what a sacrament should be and keep any hint of
sacrament out of what the government does.

Re:national security

[Nethemas the Great]

• The election of George W. Bush
• The re-election of George W. Bush
• The assassination of Kennedy (possibly)
• Prohibition
• no strings attached gift of money to financial institutions
• DMCA
• ACTA
• FOIA denials pertaining to ACTA
• state sponsorship of the Talibani insurgency against the U.S.S.R., in Afghanistan
• Operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom
• Iran-Contra
• Military sponsorship of Iraq following Iran-Contra
• ...

I could be here for months and not scratch the surface with even recent history.

Re:national security

[mrchaotica]

Southern Confederacy's desire to secede.

Which was unconstitutional and illegal.

That's only because the North won.

Re:national security

[commodore64_love]

>>>Which was unconstitutional and illegal

I cannot lay my hand on any part of the Constitution that forbids states from voting to leave. If a state may enter the U.S. or the European Union whenever they desire, then a state may also leave whenever they desire.

In fact, that's how the U.S. was formed in the first place (the 13 states seceded from the United Kingdom).

Re:national security

[tweek]

While you're trying to be trite and cute (and failing, I might add), the Civil War was indeed about federalism and state's rights.

Slavery just happened to be the lynch pin issue at the center of that debate.

As to the person you're responding to, it's true. History is written by the winners. We can go round and round on this but there's no FEDERAL constitutional law regarding secession. In fact, if you interpret the 10th Amendment the way MOST people interpret it, that's a power reserved to the states because it's not explicitly listed as a power of the federal government.

I'm born and bred deep south. That doesn't make me an idiot or some sort of "war of northern aggression" idiot but to call something revisionism without evidence is pretty silly.

Re:national security

[mrchaotica]

First of all, I resent that you accused me of being a Confederate sympathizer, and that you imply that all such people support slavery. Yes, I support states' rights (and I only coincidentally happen to be a Southerner), but I also support civil rights!

Second, the Civil War was about both slavery and states' rights. In fact, the most unfortunate thing about it was that abolition was allowed to become an excuse to trample over the Tenth Amendment, in essentially the same way that things like drugs and kiddie porn are giving government excuses to destroy other parts of the Bill of Rights today.

Secrecy harms national security.

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Secrecy harms national security.

[Ninnle Labs, LLC]

You don't have to look farther than the Bush administration to see this.

Or the Obama Administration also, apparently.

You still trust Obama?

[Gothmolly]

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.

Re:Power

[bigstrat2003]

I think you're kidding yourself if you think that Obama really isn't the same as any other politician, even after he's shown us several times that all his talk of change was bullshit. As several others have said already: meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Re:All the more....

[shutdown -p now]

Blaming Obama directly is probably a bit of a stretch in this regard. It is VERY UNLIKELY he had anything to do with the FOIA request.

The only contact he would normally have would be a general guidelines given to the associated Agency. The Agency still is the one who deals with FOIA requests.

While this is probably true in this case, you should be very, very careful lest this turns into a slippery slope. The notion of "good ruler, evil advisors/subordinates" is an ages-old excuse for all kinds of tyranny.

Re:All the more....

[X86Daddy]

Challenge the denial; have the media bump this question up to the whitehouse press secretary; demand an actual response from Obama.

The media will not be bringing copyright issues up with the President nor the People.