US Gov. Releases Six Pages On Secret ACTA Pact

narramissic writes "Change is afoot at the Office of the US Trade Representative. New details have been released about an anti-counterfeiting trade agreement that has been discussed in secret among the US, Japan, the European Union and other countries since 2006. Although the six-page summary (PDF) provides little in the way of specific detail about the current state of negotiations, the release represents a change in policy at the USTR, which had argued in the past that information on the trade pact was 'properly classified in the interest of national security.'" Michael Geist has a timeline that puts together more details about the ACTA negotiations than any government has so far been willing to reveal.

Comments

My Optimistic Theory

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

My best case, optimistic theory is that the bureaucrat handling this paperwork classified it because they classify everything and think that is both acceptable and desirable to the people in charge. Then, There was a FOIA request and Obama ordered the executive branch to release everything unless they could document a real security reason to keep it classified. The people working on this, however, either did not pay attention to that order or did not take it seriously. Then, they started to hear murmuring about their actions on "the intarwebs" in relation to said executive order or at least someone noticed the discussion and made them aware. Now, they're in damage control mode and trying to cover their ass. They don't want to release the agreement itself because it might piss someone off, but they also don't want to do nothing because as an old school Republican appointee, appearing to ignore an executive order while also pissing off select members of the public sets them up for a dismissal and as a convenient scapegoat if the issue ever becomes more mainstream. They now fear for their job at the hands of of the negotiators and at the hands of the new Obama appointees. So they take this middle ground and (hopefully) try to pass the buck up the chain of command, where the real policy makers will make a decision.

Re:My Optimistic Theory

[TubeSteak]

My best case, optimistic theory is that the bureaucrat handling this paperwork classified it because they classify everything and think that is both acceptable and desirable to the people in charge.
...
So they take this middle ground and (hopefully) try to pass the buck up the chain of command, where the real policy makers will make a decision.

Wrong.
Everyone has been keeping ACTA a secret.

A large number of countries were negotiating ACTA in complete secrecy for 7 months before a policy paper got uploaded to wikileaks last year. Since that leak 11 months ago, every single country party to the negotiations has released... absolutely nothing about ACTA.

The most likely scenario is that the various politicians and industry lobbies are doing what they can to get their domestically impossible wish lists put into a treaty and have it all agreed upon before the public interest groups can get a chance to protest.

When you can't get a shitty law passed at home, get it passed in a treaty.

Re:Best

[Chabo]

Please do not use the Subject line to start a sentence that you finish in the Body field.

"Counterfeit press ever" isn't even a sentence fragment; it's nonsense.

Are we TRYING to destroy the Union?

[girlintraining]

The Declaration of Independence warned us about this. Specifically:

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

You should read the rest of the document too, you might be startled to realize just how many of the reasons our country separated from its original government (the british) are presently true and in force. Frankly, secret treaties, secret courts, secret laws, and everything behind the veil of National Security... has now descended to matters as trivial as copyright. I think it's time to reconsider our perogative as Americans.

Re:Are we TRYING to destroy the Union?

[phantomfive]

I think it's time to reconsider our perogative as Americans.

Why? I assume you are talking about a violent revolution? How many people do you think you would need supporting you in order to stage a revolution? 30%? 60%? If your revolution is going to be successful, you'll need more people for you than against you.

Now, if you have that many people willing to support you, willing to DIE in order to get you to lead the country, why not just do it the normal way and get elected president? It would be so much simpler. That is why we don't need a revolution.

Re:Are we TRYING to destroy the Union?

[flameproof]

So you're a conspiracy theorist. Now I have to ask you.....who is they? Can you pleeeease say, "The truth is out there" with a straight face? Cool, thanks. Who is it? Is it the illuminati? The Jewish Cabal? Who is your preferred conspiracy group? Who is this 'they' that is trying to keep people from getting together in large numbers?

I am no "conspiracy theorist", but I am very concerned about the lack of transparency in my own government and the open abuse of the power I have only one real choice (at this juncture in "history") to endow it with: by "voting my conscience". I really don't like the fog of "terrorist" paranoia my country is living under right now; it's much worse than I can remember when there was a so-called "communist threat"; not much of which, it turns out, was in any way real, hurt multitudes of innocent, good people and only served to strengthen and prop up the abuses of power that came after (Nixon, Iran Contra, Nicaragua, Saddam Hussein, etc).

A lot of people have the problem that they haven't really studied history, so they don't know what a revolution looks like

Well, I have studied history. I know what a revolution looks like; it's ugly. People get killed. Good, innocent, just-minding-their-own business people. It's only the ones who stay informed and choose a side who have any chance of effecting a worthwhile change and even then, only because they've made a conscious decision to stand up, fight and often die for what is right. And most of those, unless you've taken a long walk through Arlington, you'll never even hear about.

I love this country. I love the Ideal of this country. My father, uncles, brothers, cousins, friends have fought and died for you to have the right to nitpick someone on this board's ability to intelligently add to the conversation. And if the time ever comes that as a civilian I have to stand up and fight and die for your right to continue to do that because AMERICA NEEDS TO REBOOT then I'll do that. I think that's what it means - as a Student of History - to be an American.

Re:Are we TRYING to destroy the Union?

[HiThere]

I beg to dispute point 3:
3) Yes, tax dollars do contribute a huge amount to healthcare - even more per capita than some public healthcare countries.

Yes, as stated it's correct. Unfortunately you are measuring dollars spent rather than services provided. A very large part of the health-care budget is siphoned off by insurance company bureaucracies. Another large part is spent on research into drugs known to be useless in advance. (Well, not totally useless...their point is to maintain patent coverage over drugs that would soon be slipping out of patent coverage.) And, of course, the bureaucracy to manage such activities. And lobbyists.

I'm sure that there are other features of the current system that I haven't mentioned that are equally wasteful. E.g., I don't know how much is spent promoting drugs known to be actually useless, or even harmful...i.e., known by those who conducted the research that was suppressed by the corporation funding the research. Occasionally such stories break into media coverage, but if one considers HOW such stories become known, it's very clear that what we hear about is less than the tip of the iceberg.

I'll agree that tax dollars SHOULD promote the health of the citizenry. This isn't how dollars spent in the health field are used, however...except possibly 1/3 of them. And I'm including reasonable overhead for administrators of doctors and hospitals as being spent on health. The US not only spends very little on the health of the citizenry, what it spends it spends incredibly inefficiently. Research needs to be separated from manufacturing, and no manufacturer should have a monopoly on any drug. That's just a starting point, but it's an essential change. Exclusive licenses to sell drugs should be forbidden. Which means that the company that manufactures and sells the drugs must be separated from the company that does the development. Even that doesn't suffice. Negative results are as important as positive results, and MUST be published. The groups that verify a drug as safe and effective must not have a financial stake in selling the drug. (I'm sure you can see why.) Etc.

Wikileaks has some more docs on this too

[AHuxley]

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:ACTA

eg.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/ACTA_negotiations_brief_on_Border_Measures_and_Civil_Enforcement_2008
"Rights holders to get the right to obtain information regarding an infringer, their identities, means of production or distribution and relevant third parties."

Change is not afoot.

[peektwice]

This isn't change. It's appeasement. Event TFA states that the paper's goal is to clarify ACTA's objective, not to show its actual language. However, when the final agreement appears, if ever, it probably won't look anything like what you expect it to be. It'll be an abomination that preserves nothing in the way of individual rights, and likely will go far to extend corporate plutocracy.

FOI Request Was Properly Denied

[fluffy99]

5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1) says
                "(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"

Guess what? It's pretty standard to have an executive order that prohibits releasing treaty negotiation documents. The denial does not mean that it was "classified" in the sense of it being confidential, secret, or top secret". FOI requests are routinely denied because the information is proprietary, personnelle, or sensitive.

The public would be outraged

[DJRumpy]

It's more likely they denied the FOI request simply because the general public would be outraged at potential loss of civil rights should this treaty be signed.

This is scary stuff, although it seems mostly conjecture at this point. Frightening to think that they gave the recording and movie industry access and even consulted with them according to rumor, while leaving civil rights groups out in the cold.

I'd suggest folks start calling their local papers and news channels asking why they aren't bringing this issue into public awareness. I just did the same with my local news and MSNBC.