Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Names of Advisors Cleared To Access ACTA Documents

Posted by kdawson on from the who-sees-what-you-can't dept.

1 a bee writes "With the White House claiming national security grounds for failing to release ACTA related information, including negotiating documents and even the list of participants, the spotlight is now on just who does have access. Turns out, according to James Love, hundreds of advisers, many of them corporate lobbyists, are considered 'cleared advisers.' The list looks a who's who of captains of industry."

31 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. so much for change... by ph4s3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    weird how things seem to stay the same

    1. Re:so much for change... by conureman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Relax, our Fearless Leaders always do the right thing.

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    2. Re:so much for change... by Nutria · · Score: 4, Funny

      weird how things seem to stay the same

      Nah, it's a zombie movie come to life: Hope and change... hope and change... hope and change... hope and change... hope and change... hope and change... hope and change...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:so much for change... by aurispector · · Score: 4, Informative

      Corporate control that bypasses government via international treaty. Welcome to the new world order.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    4. Re:so much for change... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      weird how things seem to stay the same

      I was actually willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt for a while there. I thought to myself that it must be difficult to negotiate a proposed treaty when the press can print every little revision that occurs during negotiations. So I could kind of see the benefit in keeping a treaty's details secret until it was ready to be proposed to Congress.

      But several things have eroded my trust: the apparent inclusion of a anti-rights industry people, the apparent omission of pro-rights people (EFF, etc.), and the "secrets" claim.

      This is like the crap Cheney pulled with energy policy and oil industry groups, but it's arguably much worse because it could become an actual treaty.

      I was hoping that the "Hope I Can Believe In" would make it to the two-month mark, but apparently not. This leaves me really despirited.

    5. Re:so much for change... by oneirophrenos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I began to doubt the whole "change" thing back when Obama started to stack his administration with people from Clinton's and even Bush's administration. I guess change is a relative thing.

    6. Re:so much for change... by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a jaded cynic I have just this to say -

      You voted for one of the Republicans or the Democrats and you expected a change?

      Ha!!! Best scam ever!!! You were duped my friend.

    7. Re:so much for change... by Goffee71 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Being going for ever, may I quote the almost obligatory Blackadder:

      Melchett: Ah, yes, the special mission. At ease Blackadder. Now, what I'm about to tell you is absolutely tip-top-secret, is that clear?
      Blackadder: It is sir.
      Melchett: Now, I've compiled a list of those with security clearance, have you got it Darling?
      Darling: Yes sir.
      Melchett: Read it please.
      Darling: It's top security sir, I think that's all the Captain needs to know.
      Melchett: Nonsense! Let's hear the list in full!

      Darling: Very well sir. "List of personnel cleared for mission Gainsborough, as dictated by General C. H. Melchett:
      You and me, Darling, obviously. Field Marshal Haig, Field Marshal Haig's wife, all Field Marshal Haig's wife's friends, their families, their families' servants, their families' servants' tennis partners, and some chap I bumped into the mess the other day called Bernard."
      Melchett: So, it's maximum security, is that clear?
      Blackadder: Quite so sir, only myself and the rest of the English speaking world is to know.

      --
      If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
    8. Re:so much for change... by Spacelem · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In Scotland we have proportional representation. This system gives us a government that better represents the views of the people, as the proportion of each party more closely reflects the number of people who voted for them. Even better, we actually have six parties with seats, and many more who stand a chance of gaining a seat.

      Proportional representation is not perfect, and it has been accused of resulting in weak governments as the main party is usually small compared to the opposition parties; however, I think it's considerably closer to democracy as the Ancient Greeks saw it, than the choice between two similar parties that tends to exist today. Most importantly, it allows me to vote where my conscience tells me, rather than for the lesser of two evils.

    9. Re:so much for change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      In 1998, the UK government devolved ruling power to the Scottish Executive, Jackass.

    10. Re:so much for change... by skeeto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am still crossing my fingers that some low level person who has access to the documents will have the bravery, forethought, and knowledge to carefully leak them to Wikileaks.

    11. Re:so much for change... by mysticgoat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You might want to hold on to your doubt for a bit longer.

      Carmen Suro-Bredie, who signed the letter rejecting the FOIA request, is a hold-over from the Bush Administration. Could be she never got the memo that things have changed. She actually predates Bush: she was chairing hearings about trade agreements in 1992, and apparently has at least 30 years of Federal Civil Service behind her. She has always kept a very low profile: the only biography of her on the web is remarkable for saying very little and providing no dates at all. These are the hallmarks of a career bureaucrat; the kind of person who works hard, not out of any sense of ideals, or for the good of the team, but to assure that their personal situation will be more comfortable next year than it was last year (no matter who is in charge or what the new goals of the organization are).

      Now that she has stumbled into the Internet's spotlight, it will be interesting to see if there is any change in her career. Her style doesn't seem to fit well with Obama's approach. OTOH, she has been working the same small patch of ground for more than 16 years, so she might know too much to be easily shown to the door.

      The treaty in question has a long way to go before it is ratified. There will be opportunities for Obama to open up the process; let's see if he takes them.

  2. ACTA the EFF's take.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    Some scary shit from the link:

    ACTA raises serious concerns about citizens' civil liberties and privacy rights. The contents and text of ACTA remain secret, but a document leaked to the public last year shows that ACTA could include stronger criminal measures, increased customs border search powers, and requirements for Internet service providers to cooperate with copyright holders. Some public suggestions from content companies have included requiring ISPs to engage in filtering of their customers' Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material, mandatory disclosure of personal information about alleged copyright infringers, and adoption of "Three Strikes" policies requiring ISPs to automatically terminate customers' Internet access upon a repeat allegation of copyright infringement.

  3. I remain confused about all this though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why is it that so many 'merkins seem to think that Obama was considered "the second coming"? As far as I could dell, the ones who thought that were about equal in number to those who said that Obama was the New Dark Lord Of Evil (tm).

    I.e. nutters.

    Most seemed glad of a change because it wouldn't be Bush.

    And you know what? It isn't Bush. Even if he screws up as badly as Bush did, it still wouldn't be Bush.

    But the same people who seem to forgive Shrub for being as thick as a yard of treacle or making mistakes are exactly the ones who seem to consider Obama to have been "the second coming".

    1. Re:I remain confused about all this though by Chyeld · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually most of the people who painted him as the Dark Lord of Evil are now the ones complaining about the rest of us treating him as the Second Coming. See, they are so invested in the idea that having a black/Democrat/non-neocon president running things will be the end of the world, that they've assumed the only way the rest of us could vote for him was if we had the same level of opposite worship.

      In reality, we picked him because having lived through eight years of the Dark Lord's reign while the neocons praised him as the Second Coming responsible for revitalizing the American Empire, we just wanted change.

  4. National security? by mishehu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is the part that confuses me. How on earth can something that deals with copyright be considered a matter of national security? How can anybody in the gov't say that with a straight face even? It's appalling, and it should be challenged in court NOW.

    1. Re:National security? by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 4, Funny

      How on earth can something that deals with copyright be considered a matter of national security?

      Have you ever seen movies with scary monsters in them? Those monsters are actually real, and the MPAA has threatened to release them near D.C. if the treaty doesn't turn out to their liking.

  5. So Obama failed us then ? by unity100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    all that transparency, all that pro internet attitude, and even declarations of support for net neutrality to the extent of making full definitions of it on his website, getting support and donations through the net and actually succeeding to amass the budget needed to beat mccain through those donations and all that, and ...

    so he fails us in the most important thing, at the most important moment, in almost half of those he promised us then ?

    --
    Read radical news here
  6. It's spelled Democracy by DrugCheese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's pronounced Corporate Oligarchy

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
  7. ACTA is more than copyright by langelgjm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As I pointed out the other day, ACTA is about so much more than copyright. This "counterfeiting" treaty will almost certainly include provisions for stricter controls on generic pharmaceuticals, amongst other things.

    Just take a look at some of the companies that are represented on that list: Eli Lilly, Merck, Monsanto, Schering-Plough... I guarantee they're not there because of pirated CDs.

    Just to clarify, I don't think that changes the fact that the "national security" claim is bogus. It's just further proof of the enormous democratic deficit that exists at the international level.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  8. FOIA request denied by USTR, not the White House by putaro · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The FOIA denial letter is signed by Camen Suro-Bredie. From what I can find, she has been in the USTR office since at least 2004. While President Obama has sent down an executive order that FOIA requests should be responded to in preference to withholding information, that is a new policy and it is going to take some time to get everyone in line with it.

    It will be instructive to see how this is handled now that it has been brought out into the daylight. If the Obama Administration overrides Ms Suro-Bredie and releases the treaty that would be a very positive step.

  9. Re:Bypassing government via international treaty by Verteiron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, and the ratification will pass buried deep inside the Save the Children and Orphans act. Anyone who opposes it will be labeled a child and orphan hater. Probably a terrorist and pedophile, too.

    Sorry, Monday mornings make me cynical.

    --
    End of lesson. You may press the button.
  10. No, dammit, no by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Every single thing we read, no matter how small and inconsequential, must be read as IRREFUTABLE PROOF!!!1! that Obama is a liar! He said he was for change, and that change didn't happen everwhere, all at once, and in every single nook and cranny of the government! Sure there's the changes at Justice and the release of various memos a docs there. And, ok, fine, the Gitmo thing and probably some other stuff.

    But this one thing didn't change, and that means it's all 100% bullshit! Fascism and censorship!

  11. This is surprising, how? by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Government exists for the protection and projection of the ruling class. 300 years ago, the ruling class were post feudalist monarchies. Now it's industrial oligarchies.

    Democracy provides the illusion of control, permitting people to act in ways that seem to benefit themselves as political actors, and thus permitting the hegemony of capitalist industrialist relations to continue as the modus operandi of civilisation, unabated.

    Thankfully geology and nature get to play last, and will make harsh hash of this ponzi scheme called capitalist industrialism.

    Obama is no different than Roosevelt. Contrary to right wing bullshit, Roosevelt SAVED the ruling class from self destruction. Obama is attempting the same.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  12. Don't waste your time complaining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Instead of screaming fury from your computer chair, you should be organizing from your computer chair and screaming in the streets. Things will never change so long as people sit back and take it. You don't have to get violent but you need to be persistent. Protests are held against copyright abuse, but they bring in a few hundred people out of millions.

    And don't bother giving examples of why people don't care, start giving solutions to make them care. We need to increase the visibility of the problems this poses. Plaster signs on walls, try to take out ads in news papers / websites, door to door campaigning, conduct nationwide surveys with the right questions, so on and so forth. The public can't form an opinion if they don't know what they are talking about and they certainly can't form an opinion over a situation they may not even know exists.

    It's time for society to start standing up for itself again.

  13. Re:Bypassing government via international treaty by Duradin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't worry, the President will just issue an executive order stating that the treaty was ratified.

    Really, I don't know why we keep congress around. They just slow down legislation and we've got the President to make laws for us.

    </sarcasm>

  14. Deja Vu by Legion303 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

  15. Re:Bypassing government via international treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, Monday mornings make me cynical.

    I think you misspelled "realistic".

  16. Re:Bypassing government via international treaty by dwiget001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, our current Senate will rubber stamp anything, including passing a bill to grant a representative to Washington D.C, in complete violation of the U.S. Constitution (on and on top of that, TARP, Stimulus, Omnibus spending, etc.)

    Don't expect the current Senate to do anything that might possibly weaken their power and political contribution base.

    For quite some time now, the Congress and Senate have not served the good of the U.S. citizens. And, they have constantly violated their sworn oath to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic...."

    Next election cycle: Each and every Democrat and Republican currently in office should A) not be re-elected and B) neither of the major parties candidates should be voted into office to replace them, vote "some other party or candidate" into office. The Democrats and Republicans are hell bent on completely destroying this country. Wake up people.

  17. Re:Bypassing government via international treaty by mazarin5 · · Score: 3, Funny

    That would have been Bush's regime / posse....

    There's a new gang in town now...

    Just have to wait and see...

    If you want to see what the new gang is up to, I suggest reading this story: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/16/0945237

    --
    Fnord.
  18. Re:Bypassing government via international treaty by wealthychef · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, to really understand them, you should give up stories like "The Democrats and Republicans are hell bent on completely destroying this country." What they are really hell bent on is just staying in power. So yes, vote them out of office. But we need a new conversation to replace the old one, or the "new boss will be the same as the old boss," as I believe the old Who song goes.

    --
    Currently hooked on AMP