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.'"
but it would be nice if the ACLU stepped in. They have vastly greater influence and funding.
If ratified, a treaty such as this could have far reaching consequences for privacy and leave ISP customers beholden to 3rd parties under the guise of 'IP enforcement'.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Seems like the quickest way to stir up some controversy here is to hack the computers of the people running these agencies and see if they're into salacious yet legal pr0n or, even better, nasty illegal stuff. Not that I'm advocating this sort of thing, of course, but there was news of this sort of thing being done to Justice Scalia. He saw no problem with privacy violations and a law professor had his class comb the interwebs for PI on Scalia. They put together a very revealing dossier with all his info. Word was that Scalia was not amused. Heh. Payback's a bitch.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
I think you're a bit off.
Dems == more government [more regulation of citizens + more spending on citizens via social programs]
Reps == more government [more regulation of citizens + more spending on business via defense programs].
Please note that "defense programs" includes things like war.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
...voting populations and legislative bodies.
Just sign a treaty that has many important-to-world-trade parts in the agreement, while also including what you're *really* seeking to put into law. With the other important stuff thrown in with the garbage in a take-it-or-leave-it treaty up-or-down vote, this puts a lot of pressure on legislative bodies to accept what they normally wouldn't for either ideological or re-election-fear reasons while giving them an "out" to deflect criticism from their constituents and opposition members.
It's small wonder they don't want to reveal anything about this treaty. That would simply give the various countries' legislative bodies and populations time to think about possible ramifications and ways to defeat it once they start to "get it" and realize what this may do to their freedoms and economies.
It's nearly the same game they play with domestic intelligence. It's generally illegal for a US agency to spy on US citizens without a warrant, but there's no law against the UK (for example) spying on US citizens and handing the info over to a US intelligence agency.
Basically it's using treaties and agreements with other nations as a way to get around domestic laws, controls, oversight, and the will of the citizens. It's what happens when governments get too large and powerful; they forget that they are the *servants*, NOT the masters.
I'm very afraid though that at this point, correcting this imbalance and returning the reins of the country's government and its' destiny back to the citizens will require much violence, chaos, and the blood of many patriots, as the citizenry has been asleep for far too long and allowed far too much encroachment of central government power over their lives. That powerful & greedy government will not relinquish any of its' wealth or power without a tremendous fight.
I fear we are cursed to live in "interesting times". I wonder if the guillotine of the French Revolution will make a comeback, and if it will be televised?
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I thought it was normal procedure to keep international negotiations secret until they think they have something that all the parties think they can get their home nations to approve. I don't recall hearing the details of other treaties involving the US until they were submitted to the Senate for debate and voting...
ok, so we have our OWN end-runs.
you guys want an IP based battle (IP in both contexts) - you will SURELY LOSE.
we don't agree with 'your' rules and we have been doing our OWN end-run around you, fuck-heads.
so increase your 'surveillance'. we'll just up our arms race to match.
you won't win, you creepy government spooks. but if you really do need an arms race in encryption, bring it on!
(god, I hate this level of 'playing' but when they fuck with your freedom, you MUST fuck wtih them, back.)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I think this article puts a finer point on it:
The gist? Treaties don't trump the constitution. PJ summarizes thusly: "I read it as saying that nothing, not any treaty, not even the Berne Convention, can trump the US Constitution."
What do you think of that?
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
The content mafia will see that you are having traffic with people who are generally filesharing. It doesn't matter if you use darknets and encryption, because they will kick in your door and look at what's on your screen and then lock you up.
You can fight them with technology, but there is no way in hell that you can win the war without removing the ones who are bribed by the content mafia from power. That means that you have to run for office and get your organizations created.
Pirate parties are forming in the civilized part of the world, but unfortunately it will be very hard to do meaningfully with the US political system. But creating other organizations to pressure politicians can work.
I think they should focus on both issues, but the original poster thinks they are not focused on the online privacy issue.
I was not saying you believed in torture, but that you understood the original poster as arguing that torture is ok to save the majority. I was trying to point out that the original poster was not making this point, but that the ACLU should be focusing on issues that are affecting the majority of the population such as online privacy, rather then going for the political points of the torture issue.
I don't think anyone involved in this thread was arguing that torture is ok if it means that the majority is kept safe, but rather that there are other issues that do not "score points" that they are missing, that are actually quite serious and effect pretty much everyone directly.
Why me? Why not!
BACKUP YOUR PARTITIONS