Slashdot Mirror
IP Enforcement Treaty Still Being Kept Secret
Hugh Pickens writes "More than a thousand pages of material about Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), are still being withheld, despite the Obama administration's promises to run a more open government. The EFF and Public Knowledge filed suit in September of 2008, demanding that background documents on ACTA be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 'We are very disappointed with the USTR's decision to continue to withhold these documents. The president promised an open and transparent administration,' said EFF Senior Counsel David Sobel. Publicly available information about the treaty shows it could establish far-reaching customs regulations over Internet traffic in the guise of anti-counterfeiting measures. Additionally, multi-national IP industry companies have publicly requested that ISPs be required to engage in filtering of their customers' Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material, force mandatory disclosure of personal information about alleged copyright infringers, and adopt 'Three Strikes' policies requiring ISPs to automatically terminate customers' Internet access upon a repeat allegation of copyright infringement. 'What we've seen tends to confirm that the substance of ACTA remains a grave concern,' said Public Knowledge Staff Attorney Sherwin Siy. 'The agreement increasingly looks like an attempt by Hollywood and the content industries to perform an end-run around national legislatures and public international forums to advance an aggressive, radical change in the way that copyright and trademark laws are enforced.'"
... that all internet communications needs to be done over encrypted connections or sessions
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Hopefully in the next election, the people that though Obama would bring such great 'change' won't think that their new favorite choice will be bringing great 'change'.
Republicans = Less govt = Less social benefits for citizens
When was the last time that Republicans ever brought about less government? 50 years ago?
It's not really a democrat or republican thing at this point, the government seeks to serve itself and increase this or that. Both seem to be increasing government just on different sides of the spectrum which is what floors me when one side or that other tries to say otherwise. That being said its not necessarily a bad thing, a lot of the comforts that people rely and depend on come from the government which sometime does a good job and sometimes doesn't its a little hit or miss.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
Obama showed what he thinks of liberty when he decided to appoint someone as an "intellectual property czar".
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Something like a layered approach of Truecrypt+One Swarm/TOR/other anonymization. That will of course also benefit people who commit actual crimes, as they can hide in the crowd.
'It's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted'.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
When did you type that, 1963? Big business has ruled the US for decades.. welcome to the past.
Sadly, neither party seems to be particularly true to their own ideals anymore. The Dems claim that they are the party of the workers and unions, yet they use taxpayer dollars to bailout the big corporations instead of helping the increasingly unemployed population. The GOP claims to favor less government regulation and intrusion in people's lives, yet doesn't object when the government ruins the lives of non-violent drug users, tells people they can't have sex if it's for money, or makes any other legislation of the perceived morality of someone's private life.
The two parties in this country are more alike than you think. And they both want more power and money in their pockets than anything else.
It'd be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. The ACLU seems to be more interested in civil liberties when it's something like terrorists being tortured, than when it's something that affects all freedom-loving internet users. Mind you, I'm not advocating torture or waterboarding, but when we're talking about a relative handful of people, most of whom are almost certainly guilty, and all of whom are foreigners vs. an issue that affects the citizenry at large, I think the latter is far more important and deserves more energy.
Simply put, the ACLU seems to be more interested in fringe cases.
It was a reference to the dystopian societies always set in "the future" -- like 1984 (when it was written), the Shadowrun world, etc.
But you're right, the 70s and 80s really saw the rise of the corporate-controlled government. Although even Reagan bothered with lip-service to the people ("trickle-down economics") -- Bush didn't even bother with that, and it appears Obama's method will be to pretend that's what he is really doing... and the sheeple will believe it.
That's the one common factor to all the leaders we've had since time immemorial... the sheeple. There's nothing quite like the fact that most people are happy to be ignorant.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Frankly, I'm truly amazed that the invasion of personal freedoms in the UK and US have gone as far as they have as fast as they have. Monitoring personal communications for possible infringement of any law is frightening. What would people say if this was done on their phone lines?
'm not advocating torture or waterboarding, but when we're talking about a relative handful of people, most of whom are almost certainly guilty
So most of those held at Gitmo were guilty? As were most of those at Abu Grab? All that was required to end up at Gitmo was for a person to be turned over to the US military in return for some money.
'It's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted'.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I can cite a reference, but it contradicts what you said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
Frankly, I'm truly amazed that the invasion of personal freedoms in the UK and US have gone as far as they have as fast as they have.
Its only to be expected. People are wanting to sacrifice personal liberty for "safety" safety for what they don't know though. People always think its not going to happen to them. They see a few college kids get busted for using P2P to download music at college, they figure, its not going to happen to me because I'm not on a college network. They see a single mother get sued for using P2P to download new, popular music, they figure its not going to happen to me because I only download obscure '70s hits and techno. They don't see themselves in any danger at all.
Honestly, while not surprising it does draw striking parallels to the post WWI world where the desire for national greatness even if it meant putting a president in for life, letting a dictator run Germany, Italy and just about every other European country, loyalty to a "divine" emperor, even if it meant the deaths of you and the men under your command, and restricting any sort of human rights.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Falconwolf, you're missing the forest for the trees, just like the ACLU is missing the forest of "everyone's rights" for the trees of "those few guys in prison".
Grishnakh is pointing out that while the ACLU is rabid about "terrorists' rights", they have a much less aggressive stance on defending the freedoms of Americans, especially when it comes to electronic communication. That's EFF's domain, and they're pretty damn good at it, even with their scarce (compared to ACLU) resources / influence.
And yeah, I know it's a local custom to latch on to any minor point of an argument you disagree with, and blow that one point the hell out of proportion while ignoring the rest of the post, and I'm also keenly aware of the irony of a 7-digit-UID'er lecturing a 6-digiter on the finer points of discussion board etiquette, but still... Unintentional *WHOOOOSH* or intentional nit-picking?
I thought treaties were things we agreed to until we decide that they aren't convenient. For example, some of the treaties that resulted from the Geneva Conventions that we totally ignored over the past few years.
I really don't see a problem with this if people totally ignore the treaty en masse.
No, missing the forest for the trees would be falsely imprisoning 10 innocents to get 1 guilty person. The 10 innocent is the forest whereas the 1 guilty is the tree.
Grishnakh is pointing out that while the ACLU is rabid about "terrorists' rights", they have a much less aggressive stance on defending the freedoms of Americans,
Except the ALCU supported American NAZIs' right to protest. Like the ALCU I disagree with them but I support their right to peacefully protest. As one slashdotter's sig says, paraphrasing, "I may disagree with your speech but I will support your right to say it."
I'm also keenly aware of the irony of a 7-digit-UID'er lecturing a 6-digiter on the finer points of discussion board etiquette
My point had nothing to do with netiquette or any other etiquette but was about facts and the truth. The person I replied to expressed the opinion that it was better to torture a bunch of innocents to get intelligence, while the USA's Founding Fathers fought for a free society which I support myself.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
...radical change in the way that copyright and trademark laws are enforced...
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
really wise idea!
the ONLY way for the IGNORANT judges (yes, I consider many of them too far detached from reality to make any sensible decision these days) to understand what they're doing is to live in a glass house (so to speak) and be under the very rules they are passing.
if they don't like it, that's your litmus test right there.
in fact, new rule: any lawmaker who has a 'bright idea' should have to experience it directly, to see if its really just or not. or to that effect.
if they are entirely detached from the rules they are making - and we KNOW that judges are beyond the law (for the most part) - they how can they VALUE the very rules they are making if they are outside the system, themselves?
cops, lawmakers, judges, congresscritters - all should have video camera surveillance on them 7x24. if they don't like having their privacy invaded, then maybe this is USEFUL INFO for them, experiencially, and maybe - just maybe - they'll start making sane legal decisions and laws again.
its far too easy to make snoop-laws when you are outside the system and are part of a 'protected class'. they really need to see what its like to live like normal non-priv'd citizens. I am sure all in power eventually lose touch with that level of reality.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
if you can be arrested for almost anything, you are now living in fear and are controllable by the state.
by design!
this is no accident. when everyone is potentially a 'criminal' then the state has fear-control over its populace.
fully by plan. not by accident.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
You must be thinking of those treats that protect people who don't matter. The little people. This is a treaty bought and paid for by our finest corporate citizens. Minor difference.
So I guess by your logic its OK to torture people to death so long as someone is saved or vindicated at the end.
Been said before by for your benefit I'll say it again, the ends do not justify the means.
If that was accomplished with the torture of another 6 million catholic Germans would it still be OK?
BTW, it was 5 Million Jews and 1 Million various other minorities like Gypsies. Pleas learn about the Holocaust before using the Holocaust as hyperbole.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Why do they rabidly want such control over thoughts, ideas, words?
Money. The US is losing ground on making physical things. Some of the few things that is left that the US actually makes is movies, tv shows, music and computer programs.
It shouldn't be surprising that the US is going to defend these things tooth and nail as very valuable and vital to the national interest.
Whether this is misguided or not, and whether the actions taken is not ethical is a different issue.
Falconwolf, you're missing the forest for the trees, just like the ACLU is missing the forest of "everyone's rights" for the trees of "those few guys in prison".
I'll make this as simple as possible:
A) Torture is a violation of basic human rights.
B) ACTA is, at best, an example of governments bowing to corporate interests and at worst and example of corruption.
You tell me which issue is more related to "everyone's rights".
Here's a recent article to give you context:
"Never in my worst nightmare did I ever think that it would be my own government that I would have to protect my children from," Lundeby said. "This is the United States, and I feel like I live in a third world country now."
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Grishnakh is pointing out that while the ACLU is rabid about "terrorists' rights", they have a much less aggressive stance on defending the freedoms of Americans,
You gotta be friggin kidding me. Terrorist rights vs. American rights? What about Human Rights? You are aware that treaties the United States enters into are the supreme law of the land?
What if you were a "terrorist" turned in by your neighbor because he was upset about a deal over some goats 10 years ago? Would you be worried about American rights or Terrorist rights? AS MLK said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".
they have a much less aggressive stance on defending the freedoms of Americans,
I don't know, I always see the ACLU defending unpopular causes, such as the right of the KKK to hold a rally, or a person to freely practice their locally unpopular religion such as Wicca or Judaism. Hel, they even did a lawsuit to prevent Rush Limbaugh's medical records from being released for his court case.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Grishnakh is pointing out that while the ACLU is rabid about "terrorists' rights", they have a much less aggressive stance on defending the freedoms of Americans, especially when it comes to electronic communication.
ORLY? http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/internet/index.html
I think he's just ACLU-bashing, not comeone with a point.
From the "2009 ACLU Legislative Priorities" pdf, I see
Repeal the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
Codify binding open Internet principles to discourage public and private
online censorship, to assure online privacy and to pursue equal access free
from discrimination.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit challenging the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 the same day that it was enacted into law. The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose ability to perform their work - which relies on confidential communications - could be compromised by the new law.[15] The complaint, captioned Amnesty et al v McConnell and filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, argues that the new spying law violates Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.
which look a lot like defending the freedoms of Americans, especially when it comes to electronic communication to me. They were on top of that one day one, punctuality is a virtue.
Took me a minute in google to find that information. I don't know if or why they don't get involved with that treaty. Maybe they just haven't gotten around to it. Maybe they're understaffed, out of their jurisdiction and over budget. Maybe they're reptilians who pretend to defend civil liberties but they really want to drain your precious bodily fluids.
He's ranting against the ACLU, against foreigners, and against opposing torture. And he's calling that "freedom-loving". If he's pointing out anything, it's his perceptions, and I'm pretty sure he's perceiving that through the lenses at Fox News.
You can't take the sky from me...
"We are very disappointed with the USTR's decision to continue to withhold these documents The president promised an open and transparent administration," said EFF Senior Counsel David Sobel.
So it looks like, if the government, even a new presidential administration in which some have hope, wants to keep the pesty people from derailing a law the administration likes, what it does is HIDE IT until it's too late for the people to be heard? Honest to God, is this America?
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
"Simply put, the ACLU seems to be more interested in fringe cases."
It is NOT a fringe case to suspend Habeas corpus and enact retrospective laws to keep one of my countrymen locked up for political reasons. And no, this does not make me a "Hicks supporter" as our prime minister was fond of saying about anyone who thought keeping Hicks as a political prisoner was morally repugnent and illeagal.
You are making the same "mistake" about the ACLU as our PM did about me and others in this country who were appalled to see a "kangaroo court" sweep the rule of law under the rug for political reasons. The ACLU are not "defending terrorists" they are defending the rule of law and the civil liberties that those laws enshrine.
"when it's something that affects all freedom-loving internet users"
Specifically, what rights does a "freedom-loving internet user" have that are being abused by keeping treaty negotiations secret?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I had a privacy issue that I wanted some info on (and some help with) with my landlord.
The ACLU wouldn't take your case when you has a problem with your landlord? Hos did this get modded Informative?
Here's a clue: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects you from the government, not another private individual that you enter into contract with.
aclu IS worthless to the average person.
It's not their job to provide free legal service to everybody in the US. Call them when the government prevents you from practicing your religion, or when you get locked up in a cell without charges or a lawyer.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I think when people say "Republicans or Democrats, it's all the same to me" they don't literally mean they have the same platform. They mean that electing either party will bring about the same result - the same corrupt politics that dominate our country. The parties are very much the same in my eyes.
Obama promised that his administration would be more transparent. They are pandering to Hollywood and the RIAA, and setting up for full monitoring of all citizens Internet communications. This much seems pretty transparent to me! So what's the problem, then?
It's a sad state of affairs, but I don't believe that the rule of law goes out the window just because a few rules were broken. We don't live in a perfect world; we always must strive to live up to our ideals.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Almost every single one of those issues you pointed out are just election year platform gimmicks.
Torture is a violation of basic human rights.
It's also prohibited by the US constitution. Of course, our Federal government would never violate the constitution unless they found it absolutely convenient to do so.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Civil liberties are rights the people have with respect to keeping the government in check
Which makes it particularly puzzling that the ACLU is not interested in protecting the second amendment.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The "ACLU" should be named the AFSCS (American Federation for the Separation of Church and State) or something like that. It seems to me that they're only interested in committing serious time and energy to supporting the Establishment clause. I definitely applaud them for that effort, but the organization shouldn't pretend to be a global "Civil Liberties" organization when they cherry pick the civil liberties they want to protect(or narrow the definition of "liberties" if you prefer).