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
... 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'.
Mostly due to the fact that my brain is currently swiss cheese,
but I know there have been great big loopholes in things past that would be unconstitutional, slipping through because treaties are consider on equal legal footing with the constitution. If you can get the USA and another country to sign off on it, then it does not have to pass muster with the nine judges in DC...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
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?
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
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 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
The difference is, enforcement. For example, people have recorded mix tapes for years while technically being in violation of copyright, no one cared though. Today, the digital equivalent of mix tapes are likely to get you sued if you exchange them over a digital means. People have also copied books via handwriting or more recently with copy machines and then sent those to people, which again, was technically illegal but no one cared. Today, even the of ripping a book into a digital format can possibly be interpreted as illegal and be sued, even more so if you distributed your ripped book.
Its only in the past 20 years that big businesses have managed to make everyone a criminal and charge them with a crime. Prior to that, unless you were making money off of it, you were safe. Today, anyone is a potential target.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Its Obama's administration that keeps refusing though.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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?
...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.
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.
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
On the day of his death, Dilawar had been chained by the wrists to the top of his cell for much of the previous four days. A guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling. "Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying. Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned that most of the interrogators had in fact believed Mr. Dilawar to be an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.
You can't take the sky from me...
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?
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."
[citation needed] If you could point out where the parent said torture of anyone was OK I would appreciate it, thanks.
...radical change in the way that copyright and trademark laws are enforced...
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
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."
No informed adult believes that Republicans and Democrats are the same. The two parties agree on certain issues, which is unfortunate for those who hold a different view on those particular issues. But that does not mean that the parties are the same.
Gay marriage? They differ.
Abortion? They differ.
Gun control? They differ.
Tax rates on the wealthy? They differ.
Amount of regulation for the markets? They differ.
Torture of key terrorists? They differ.
Most foreign policy matters? They differ.
Stem cell research? They differ.
Universal health care? They differ.
Immigration reform? They differ.
Only someone completely ignorant of US politics would try to claim that they're the same.
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.
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.
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?
How many more content-mafia lawyers does he need to appoint to the DoJ before everyone here can admit that you've been sold down the river?
If you believe in freedom on the Internet, Obama is your enemy. Get used to it.
They express different positions on many matters, but the results are the same no matter which party is in power.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Almost every single one of those issues you pointed out are just election year platform gimmicks.