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

[girlintraining]

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

There was a grassroots effort in the 80s to pass what was called the Equal Opportunity Amendment. It was approved by somewhat more than 20 states before being killed by the National Organization of Women, who were outraged that the special rights of women would be stripped away in favor of the equal rights of all. The amendment, essentially, made legal distinctions between men and women illegal. A side-effect not noted at the time but since undoubtedly got noticed: If men and women cannot be legally distinguished from one another, all marriages are "civil unions". It's funny how in this country, special rights have become more important than equal rights. Every minority must now have their own special power, rather than everyone having equal power. -_- Our founding fathers would cry if they were alive today to see how far we've fallen from the path of justice and equality.

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

[tsm_sf]

Yeah, we need to let the market sort that out.

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

[Rary]

Government really should not be involved with religious sacraments and marriage is a religious sacrament.

Actually, marriage existed as a civil institution long before religion stuck its nose into it.

Perhaps what would be better would be for marriage to remain in the civil realm, thus avoiding any religious influence on who can marry whom, and instead allow religious institutes to perform "spiritual unions".

Re:national security

[Rary]

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.

Well, except for all of us who consider it to be, first and foremost, a personal commitment between two individuals.

Of course, neither that, nor your religious idea, have anything to do with the origins of marriage. It was a civil institution first. Basically, it existed to secure property rights and guarantee bloodlines. Then, somewhere along the way, people got it into their heads that if they're going to marry, they should marry someone they actually, you know, kind of like. So the idea of romantic love got injected into the mix. Then, further on down the road, the churches decided that they should have a role in all of this, so they injected a religious element to it. Then, much later on, people like you started thinking that marriage is entirely a religious institution, and that the rest of us (gays, atheists, etc) should just stay away from "your" sacrament.

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

Oh, so now you want to prevent non-Catholics from getting married, too?

I'm sorry, this whole "marriage belongs to the church and the rest of you can fuck off" idea is just complete bullshit. I say keep marriage as a civil institution, open to all — gay, straight, theist, atheist, black, white, whatever — and let churches perform their own "spiritual unions" instead.

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.

All the more....

[Darkness404]

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.

Re:All the more....

[ptbarnett]

It's Bush's fault!

Oh, wait.....

Re:All the more....

[Brandybuck]

Q: How do you know when a politician is lying?

A: His lips are moving.

Obama is a politician, thus he is lying. You do not get to be president by being a nice honest guy. You get there by backroom dealing, manipulations of the facts, and old fashioned snake-oil salesmanship.

Re:All the more....

[CodeBuster]

You do not get to be president by being a nice honest guy

Generally speaking that is probably true. However, Gerald Ford, the only US President who was appointed rather than elected (yes, that is possible albeit highly unlikely in our system), was by all accounts a genuinely nice guy. Of course, he sort of "fell into" the office of President so perhaps he should be considered an odd exception rather than the rule.

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.

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.

Re:Secrecy harms national security.

[sexconker]

Dear Hatta

Per your request under the Freedom of Information Act received on Friday March 13th 2009, please find enclosed the following documents:

Blueprints, crew list with rotations, building alarm codes, and launch codes for nuclear launch silo A14-LOL-WUT.

A copy of "Nukes and You - A Complete Guide for Fission-Impaired Presidents".

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.

ACTA is more than a "Copyright" Treaty

[langelgjm]

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.

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:Power

[bigstrat2003]

He's only been in office for a 2 month! How much could he do/not do in 8 weeks? Not very much.

He's responsible for every decision that has been made in the past 8 weeks. I'm a fair man, and I'm willing to say that processes that were in place as he took office aren't his fault... but that doesn't sound like it was the case here at all.

The whole "Obama has broken his promises" thing is basically nothing but something Republicans babble about because they are sore losers.

No, it's the truth. He broke his promises before he took office (see: promises about the FISA bill, which turned out to be bullshit when they weren't politically convenient for him any more), and he's breaking them now.

Furthermore, attempting to polarize this matter into "omg Republicans vs Democrats" is naive of you, at best. I've already seen people who were happy Obama won, who have renounced their support after seeing what he's done so far in office. Not everything is about some stupid bullshit party allegiance.

Wha?? Are you getting this from Conservapedia?

[langelgjm]

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.