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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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!
"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
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.