Slashdot Mirror


EFF and PK Reluctantly Drop Lawsuit For ACTA Info

mikesd81 notes a press release on the EFF website that begins "The Obama Administration's decision to support Bush-era concealment policies has forced the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge (PK) to drop their lawsuit about the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Federal judges have very little discretion to overrule Executive Branch decisions to classify information on 'national security' grounds, and the Obama Administration has recently informed the court that it intends to defend the classification claims originally made by the Bush Administration. ... Very little is known about ACTA, currently under negotiation between the US and more than a dozen other countries, other than that it is not limited to anti-counterfeiting measures. Leaked documents indicate that it could establish far-reaching customs regulations governing searches over personal computers and iPods. Multi-national IP corporations have publicly requested mandatory filtering of Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material, as well as the adoption of 'Three Strikes' policies requiring the termination of Internet access after repeat allegations of copyright infringement, like the legislation recently invalidated in France. Last year, more than 100 public interest organizations around the world called on ACTA country negotiators to make the draft text available for public comment."

150 comments

  1. Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Another victory for transparent democracy

    HIP HIP...
    HIP HIP...
    HIP HIP...

    Why no HURRAHs?

    1. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Chains we can believe in!

  2. Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ACTA will mandate software patents, criminalization of copyright infringements, censorship lists, data retention. States that today resist such measures due to local democratic pressure will be able to cite "Obligations under International Law" as an excuse to move towards eFascism. The goal is to send 4chan, piratebay, and anyone else who offends the powerful to jail.

    This is a major campaign in the war on the future, by the past. Winning this war will push the digital majority towards adulthood.

    Bring it on, I say!

    1. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sooner or later it's all going to come down to whether you are willing to risk death for your cause as the Iranian protesters are. Do you believe that the sociopaths in $COUNTRY's legislative branch (in America, the chief executive is but a puppet) are going to cry crocodile tears rather than spend the contribution money to remodel their bathroom?

      You will die an honorable death, dishonored and labelled a terrorist.

    2. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Am I understanding this ACTA thing correctly; is this a law that cannot be judged?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    3. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by pallmall1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ACTA will mandate software patents, criminalization of copyright infringements, censorship lists, data retention.

      You don't really think Big Media supports Obama for free, now do you?

      --
      3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
    4. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's an international treaty. This is a major sign of the global dark forces at work, some say. Perhaps it's not that Obama is catering to the interests of those who want this, but rather that he has no choice but to capitulate or has no courage to fight it. One thing is certain: we will never know. But the non-government invite list is rather telling of what is to come. Perhaps the movie "Idiocracy" isn't such a stupid movie after all.

    5. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by Elektroschock · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is still a way to get the document, the EU Public Access to documents reform.

      I wonder if the Swedish Presidency will move forward with this.

    6. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I know many things worse than death.

      So I say, bring it on!

      I my plan is successful, I will be able to battle a small government (not on any front you may think about now) in some years anyway.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    7. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Hey, that movie was a great comment on today's civilization. I would call it an important film.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    8. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by Jurily · · Score: 1

      Since when does the US care about international law?

    9. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many voters under 30 thought Obama was Cool.
      This is so uncool, that dude, you wont be so lucky come BOTH elections and donations.
      Voters do notice when you mess with out online experiences - .
      Carry on the work of GW, well who would have thought... Vote no to software prostate bill.

    10. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by Znork · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since always. The government is just very selective about what international laws it cares about, and very picky about who it applies them to.

      ACTA is a typical example of forum shopping tho; when the interested parties cannot ram their desires through WIPO or even the WTO any more, they start up yet another forum. So of course the US is going to care; it's made to order legislation created outside the democratic process and perfectly usable against its citizens, without having to take much of the blame.

      It's the legislative process gone global, and moved out of reach of democracy.

    11. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by Tanktalus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      *sigh* Where is my +1, Deluded mod anyway?

    12. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an international treaty. This is a major sign of the global dark forces at work, some say. Perhaps it's not that Obama is catering to the interests of those who want this, but rather that he has no choice but to capitulate or has no courage to fight it. One thing is certain: we will never know. But the non-government invite list is rather telling of what is to come. Perhaps the movie "Idiocracy" isn't such a stupid movie after all.

      If Obama is caving on this, maybe it's time to think about an impeachment campaign?

    13. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by Inner_Child · · Score: 1

      If Bush wasn't impeached (then tried and hung, but that's my personal dream) for war crimes, what the hell makes you think Obama would be impeached for this?

      --
      Today is red jello day - all workers must eat all of their red jello. Failure to comply will result in five demerits.
    14. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The goal is to send 4chan ... to jail.

      Anyone here have a problem with that?

    15. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1

      Since when does the US care about international law?

      When it's useful, for exporting laws or evading opposition to desired laws.

    16. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1

      The goal is to send 4chan ... to jail.

      Anyone here have a problem with that?

      Yes, they're hilarious.

    17. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by mindstormpt · · Score: 1

      Well, on the scale of hideousness he's closer to the Lewinksy affair than to Bush's war crimes, which, funnily enough, makes him more likely to face impeachment.

      (Not that I think it will happen, or even want it to).

    18. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      You will die an honorable death, dishonored and labelled a terrorist.

      Worse: you will live the rest of your days in a jail cell, obscure and insignificant, just a number.

      Want to flush your life down the drain for that?

    19. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Wont work. That law only applies to EU documentation, not member state documentation. You would not be able to use it to gain access to a treaty which, say, the UK has signed.

      Also, most countries who have the document have been directed by the US government to treat the document as a matter of national security (this is the excuse given by the NZ government to an OIA request for a copy), which for some reason is excluded from every Official Information Act in existence.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    20. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      It would be rather interesting, though, if one of the other countries with a copy decided to ignore the US "OMG National Security Sooper Sekretz!" directive and we got an end-run around them there...

      I know, it will never happen. For all the people who like to badmouth us, their own bosses seem wonderfully willing to bend over to our own overlords...

    21. Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

      ACTA = EU Commission DG trade as negotiator authorized by the EU Council.

      Of course they at the Council secreatriat will use Art 4 exemptions.

      You just need to fix the Art 4 "international relations" examption so that it does not apply to regulatory trade agreements.

  3. Look at Iran for an example by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 0

    The bloodshed and violence going on in Iran right now is precisely what happens when you pit a corrupt government against a small band of rabble rousers. Let it be clear that I am not saying that the protesters in Iran aren't justified in protesting the elections, or even that the violence against them is in any way justified. The deaths are senseless and tragic. In the current situation, there is no good solution that wouldn't throw the entire country into a bloody civil war.

    But the early protests were not violent. It wasn't until a few violent protesters lashed out against government forces, as was also the case in Seattle and Milan, that the true revolt began in earnest.

    There are many who believe that an energized, educated citizenry is crucial to a free society. But I'll tell you now that a lethargic, dumb citizenry is the true key to both freedom and affluence. Energy and knowledge lead to discontent, and discontent leads to violence. Lethargy and ignorance preserve the status quo which is typically comfortable for all involved.

    When the EFF tries to play gotcha with the Bush Administration, in their minds they are doing the right thing. However pure their motives, their methods are not thought through. Like children on the playground, they only look at today and their own goals.

    Whatever is in those documents is useless. We face our current situation as reality, not because someone once wrote something somewhere in confidential documents. Lobby to change the laws, which are public for all to see. Don't foment anger because there is no peace at the end of that road.

    1. Re:Look at Iran for an example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good troll, my man. I even planned a response before I chuckled and clicked the "back" button.

    2. Re:Look at Iran for an example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many who believe that an energized, educated citizenry is crucial to a free society. But I'll tell you now that a lethargic, dumb citizenry is the true key to both freedom and affluence. Energy and knowledge lead to discontent, and discontent leads to violence. Lethargy and ignorance preserve the status quo which is typically comfortable for all involved.

      wtf? "dumb citizens are the key to freedom". are you one of the "dumb citizens"?

      "knowledge leads to discontent"? Perhaps: oppressive governments lead to discontent.

      You are either deluded or a troll

    3. Re:Look at Iran for an example by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Energy and knowledge lead to discontent.

      A full belly is enough for most people.

    4. Re:Look at Iran for an example by Zarluk · · Score: 1

      No! He's being SARCASTIC (I hope).

    5. Re:Look at Iran for an example by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      Better a gram than a damn.

    6. Re:Look at Iran for an example by Reziac · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's something I've pointed out before -- you don't get revolution unless a significant part of the population (I'd guess about half) are actively starving, and have nothing left to lose. And that's why real revolutions have always been bloody, and haven't necessarily made things better for the starving (frex, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution).

      America is nowhere near that point, and probably never will be. However, with the increasing interest in states' rights, secession is not out of the question, and in today's world it would be damned hard to justify a shooting war to prevent it -- it would be seen as imperial rule preventing the Will of the People from being expressed in their choice of government.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:Look at Iran for an example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it was Mao who said it only takes 10% of the population to start a revolution...

    8. Re:Look at Iran for an example by True+Grit · · Score: 1

      you don't get revolution unless a significant part of the population (I'd guess about half) are actively starving, and have nothing left to lose.

      Two counter-examples off the top of my head: the American Revolution (no starving masses, yet violent revolution), and North Korea of the last two decades or so (plenty of starving masses, but no violent revolution). I've even heard claims that the reason for the latter example is that starving people are too weak to fight.

      Who's right? Don't know myself. Even if your theory is the 'rule', there still appears to be plenty of 'exceptions' to it, or else it, like real life, is a little more complicated and nuanced then we think.

    9. Re:Look at Iran for an example by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      If you look at history, most revolutions are led by the offspring of the wealthy who have time on their hands (usually the wealthy who have not acquired political power--frequently because the parents haven't been interested in political power). The leaders of the French Revolution were not from the "starving masses", they were the children of the wealthy. The leaders of the Russian Revolution were the same.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    10. Re:Look at Iran for an example by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Yes, but... there wouldn't have been a receptive audience without those starving masses.

      Of course the real motivation was probably "younger son feels put out since he didn't inherit, and thinks 'the people' will give him power so he can grab back what he thinks is rightfully his" but the effect is the same -- massive upheaval not necessarily to anyone's benefit.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    11. Re:Look at Iran for an example by Reziac · · Score: 1

      The American Revolution didn't have the mass starvation, but probably half the people were feeling the pinch to the point that it hurt -- frex, having to quarter troops is a VERY expensive undertaking for subsistence farmers and businesses, and there was also the problem of failure to protect big swaths of the Colonies from the effects of the French and Indian wars.

      As to North Korea... here's what I see: when you have ONLY peasants, it doesn't matter how many peasants starve; they simply won't have the balls to do anything about it. As someone else pointed out, revolutions tend to be led by the wealthy discontent (such as younger sons who didn't inherit), using the peasants to further their own power-seeking and revenge on the system. Peasants don't lead revolutions, but they sure can be used to fuel them. At a guess, NK has exactly two strata -- starving peasants who can't or won't rebel, and the well-off who already have power so lack motivation to change anything (for good or ill).

      As you say, it's more complex than just "half the people are starving" (or in some way so put-upon that they think about it and are reminded of it all the time, as with the American Rev.) But I think that IS a necessary trigger, without which you don't get a revolution.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  4. Obama for 2009 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporatism we can believe in!

  5. National Security? by grahammm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How can the non-disclosure of the terms of an international treaty be justified on national security grounds?

    1. Re:National Security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cause we'll lynch all those involved

    2. Re:National Security? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      Because "national security" depends on America being able to control the world with our shitty pop culture.

      Foreigners are hooked on it. When they get it for free, our influence and our revenue streams, along with the ability to defend ourselves, go bye-bye.

    3. Re:National Security? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That could even be. If it was a treaty on, say, a common defense strategy, or a military proposal. Even a joint attempt to increase cooperation in crime fighting. But how can a treaty on COPYRIGHT be about national security?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:National Security? by ms1234 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You have to accept the EULA first. Then you can read it.

    5. Re:National Security? by anonieuweling · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It confirms their agenda.

    6. Re:National Security? by siddesu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Propaganda and convenience. Hollywood's been manufacturing the propaganda for the US gubermint for a long time. Small wonder the gubermint will throw them a bone back when asked. And covering it under "national security" totally removes any need to _work_ to justify the law.

    7. Re:National Security? by Ocker3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      because if we knew what they were putting in it, we'd start protesting like it's Tehran?

    8. Re:National Security? by dissy · · Score: 1

      But how can a treaty on COPYRIGHT be about national security?

      By _securing_ our _nations_ income by charging for the same item a few tens of times over and making it a crime if you don't willingly let them steal that money?

      Yea, no, its just BS :/

    9. Re:National Security? by icomxwing · · Score: 1

      in Soviet Russia vodka drinks YOU

    10. Re:National Security? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They can try to charge all they want. I don't know anybody who still buys music. Most of them could not even play it back anymore. Much less would be able to change their mind.

      ACTA is a supernova. But a supernova still annihilates the star it comes from. It's the death cry of a dying industry.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    11. Re:National Security? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Well, I can tell you, this changed nearly completely, since the beginning of the Bush era. Most people in whole Europe (NOT a country btw.) do not blindly side with the USA anymore. Even with the traditional media working hard to reinstate that state.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    12. Re:National Security? by shentino · · Score: 1

      http://www.sjgames.com/secret.html

      Seriously though, we need some federal judges with a security clearance beefy enough to see this "national security" bullshit for what it really is.

    13. Re:National Security? by Nexus7 · · Score: 1

      Ask Slashdot, I suppose, but what is the state of free music (that the artistes release on to the internet)? I know there are streaming radio stations, and there are videos on YouTube, etc. But is there a cultural matrix in which these are embedded? In other words, can one get, say, a smartphone, and listen to internet radio all day long (or all commute long), get the music, and news, traffic, and weather, and all the time consume only unencubmered content?

      I suppose, with a smartphone, traffic and weather is a few click away, but at least music? Is there a directory of these things, or does one accidentally stumble into isolated sub-cultures?

    14. Re:National Security? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      if we knew what they were putting in it, we'd start protesting...

      More like, if we knew about what was in it, we wouldn't get off our fat asses in Mom's basement and just whine about it in 140 character tweets. That's why the government can do this stuff.

      --
      That is all.
    15. Re:National Security? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      because if we knew what they were putting in it, we'd start protesting like it's Tehran?

      You didn't start protesting like it's Tehran over things far worse and far-reaching than some copyright treaty.

    16. Re:National Security? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You have to accept the EULA first. Then you can read it.

      Not really - since the EULA includes a clause that forbids you from reading it.

  6. Change... by santax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I could use some :(

    1. Re:Change... by noz · · Score: 1

      It's as good as a holiday. :P

    2. Re:Change... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Here are some new clothes. Change into them. :)

      *gives santax pirate clothes*

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    3. Re:Change... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's as good as a holiday. :P

      'Cause it only lasts for one day? It certainly did in Obama's case :D

    4. Re:Change... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Don't spend it all on booze.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    5. Re:Change... by againjj · · Score: 1

      Look around this page. There are a lot of people here throwing in their 2c (please adjust for national currency).

  7. WTF by Godji · · Score: 1

    I don't understand how it is legal to enact a law whose text is not public. Somebody please explain!

    1. Re:WTF by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, it will be made public. About 5 seconds before the vote so nobody, not even the senators (or congressmen, I don't know which is responsible for that in the US legislation) can read it. Or act against it. Or at least point out to those that should vote for or against it where the pits lie.

      Bluntly and honestly, if I was a politician, I'd be strongly against it on these grounds alone. If a law is suggested with so much secrecy, it can only mean that I'm going to be bullshitted into voting on something that I won't support.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:WTF by matsoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That is probably exactly what will happen, and when people acctually gets a chance to read the law and start protesting against it, they already have a set of cosmetic changes ready to make it appear more resonable. It i exactly what happen with the last three laws that are supposed to protect us from internet terrorism where I live.

      We seen this happen quite a few times now, and still people in general does not seem to wise up to this after the fact "door in the face" tactic.

    3. Re:WTF by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      About 5 seconds before the vote

      What vote?

      This treaty is so important, and so secret, that it will be enacted by "Executive Branch Decision."

      There are probably plenty of "secret treaties" already. We just don't know about them because, they are . . . well, secret.

      "Negotiating secret treaties with foreign countries." That sounds just grand.

      "Hey what law have I violated?"

      "Sorry, can't tell you. It's secret."

      The conspiracy folks will have some fun with this.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:WTF by Sparx139 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure what the situation is in America, but the Australian Government seems to be covering its bases in this information page, saying "This decision to participate in negotiations does not bind Australia to join any subsequent treaty" and "Taking part in the negotiations does not oblige Australia to join any resulting treaty."
      When the details do come out, and the public starts to scream about it, the Aussie government are likely to back away from it. I'd guess that other involved countries will take a similar stance. I mean, what are we? Iran?

      --
      Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
    5. Re:WTF by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, SOME day it will be made public. This ain't a law that concerns nations or adds something on top of a law that already outlaws something. I.e. it's not a ban on nuclear weapons with more than 100MT yield (which would probably not affect a normal person because any nukes are already illegal for them). It's something that will affect us in some way.

      So eventually we will hear about it. When it's too late to actually do anything against it, of course.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:WTF by notarockstar1979 · · Score: 1

      They're paid to vote for it. Well, the Democrats are. Depending on the exact wording and how much it has to do with war and oil, the Republicans may be paid to be for it as well. Libertarians will hate it because no one is paying them.

    7. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not a law, it's an international multilateral agreement. This is better than a law because it creates the obligation to enact law, without all the fuss of democratic discussion. There have been many examples, some good, some bad.

      In Europe the TRIPS agreement (which ACTA in part replaces, since TRIPS has been hijacked by troublesome BRIC - Brazil, India, China - countries) has often been used as an excuse for software patents: "TRIPS obliges patents on software and genes".

      Same in the UK with data retention: law was quashed by Parliament in 2005, then the Blair govt. got it pushed through the EU with minimum discussion ("terrorism, crime and child porn" was the justification), and then six months later got it through the UK parliament with almost zero discussion. 180-degree U-turn.

      ACTA is like this: "treaty-washing" of legislation that would never pass at the national level.

      Please put pressure on the EFF to restart this. It is a major, major threat to global Internet freedom.

    8. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Apparently the EFF got to a legal roadblock over this national security claim that it had no way of contesting in court. National security claims are precisely the type of abuse of power this administration claimed it was going to be curtailing. Eventually the text of this international law will have to be released - if it isn't leaked first.

    9. Re:WTF by dissy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't understand how it is legal to enact a law whose text is not public. Somebody please explain!

      It isn't legal.

      That hasn't appeared to be a requirement for our government to do something for some time now however.

    10. Re:WTF by frieko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US can't enter into a treaty without Senate ratification, even if the president signs it. That being said, they might not look up from kissing Obama's ass long enough to take their paperweights off the 'yes' button.

    11. Re:WTF by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Don't insult Iran. They are bad, but not *that* bad. :P

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    12. Re:WTF by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And this differs how from the majority of legislation being passed today?? Do you really think it's ANY different for routine bills, which hide unpalatable special interest laws under 900 pages of impenetrable legalese, then are presented to Congress with only a few days to consider them??

      As downsizedc.org says, bills should both be single subject, and required to be read publicly and in full well prior to any vote. This should be equally applied to treaties, since they are effectively laws that We The People are forced to live with.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    13. Re:WTF by blitziod · · Score: 0, Troll

      oh yes a leak!! I am hoping for a nice shamefull leak..something that looks so BAD for the current administration. Something that shows the true colors of the democrats and how, regardless of their brand image, they are even worse than bush. Any republican loyalists out there reading who have access to this, head my call. Do your country a favor. Get this out in the open yes...doom these current C*cksuckers. Show what the president is hiding, please.

      --
      The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
    14. Re:WTF by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Then why do we have those overpaid people in the big halls? I could hire a bum off the street to raise his hand when he's told to, doesn't take any special person to do that.

      Politician is the only well paying profession where you neither need any special training nor take any special responsibilities.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:WTF by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      BRIC - Brazil, India, China - countries

      "BRIC" is actually "Brazil, Russia, India, China".

    16. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It's not a law, it's an international multilateral agreement. This is better than a law because it creates the obligation to enact law, without all the fuss of democratic discussion.

      Doesn't it also bypass the bit about rights not given to congress are reserved for the the states and the people?

    17. Re:WTF by visible.frylock · · Score: 1
      --
      Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
    18. Re:WTF by Reziac · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd say rather that politics is the only business where by default, the fox guards the henhouse, and the fox very often knows that business very well... of course, it's not the business you want experts in when the object is to maintain live hens.

      Lawyers (the majority of politicians being of that ilk) making laws will not make them for everyday and the common man, but rather for the courts, and for the corner cases that lead to loopholes, rather than for real life.

      In short, laws are made for lawyers, not for We The People.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  8. what is probably in it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    if it is anything like the bank secrecy act it is probably .... like what they do for money now, but applied to 'intellectual property'. and full of the following:

    specific indications of what should 'trigger' investigations of people, and/or their transactions, i.e., certain amounts of certain types of IP put through within a certain amount of time.

    requirements to 'report' all transactions over a certain amount to government authorities... ie in money its , say, 3,000 $... in data it might be, 1 terabyte or something.

    the illegalization fo trying to 'avoid' aforementioned 'reporting requirements'. IE, in money, if you separate out your transactions into smaller ones, it doesnt have to be reported to the government... its illegal, so... in data maybe they will say 'you cant split up a 5 TB file into smaller pieces to avoid reporting'

    requirements about proof of identity for anyone performing transactions of certain amounts. ie, you have to prove youre a citizen or something before you can transfer a large file, with a photo ID or some other proof.

    gag orders against all government and corporate employees who are responsible for reporting these suspicions to the federal government department in charge of the program. ie, these workers cannot discuss anything they report with anyone, including coworkers, or they will be in violation of law and subject to punishment.

    add in a bunch of international crap to this...

    maybe some standradization on what is in the reports... banks in the US have standard forms to fill out to report transactions over certain amounts to the government.

    there is also the state department list of countries you cannot trade money with or whatever. well, now they will probably apply that to data too, or something.

    who knows what other crazy shit they will put in here. it is absolutely ridiculous though to keep it a secret.

    the trouble is that Mark Felt types dont usually work in huge corporations... not a lot of leakers on the board of goldman sachs or microsoft.

    1. Re:what is probably in it by Mprx · · Score: 1

      File size isn't all that useful, because the ratio of copyrights to bytes is so variable. Eg. downloading the Atari 2600 romset infringes a huge number of copyrights in a very small size.

    2. Re:what is probably in it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They want to control everything!

      Form F 90- TD 22.1, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts

        US law (money laundering) requires that US person complete and file this information report with the US Treasury if at any time during the calendar year they had an aggregate of $10,000 US dollars or equivalent in foreign bank account(s). So, even if you had less than $10,000 in two or more foreign banks, but the total of all these accounts exceed $10,000 at any time during the calendar year, you would be required to file the report.
      Note: A US Person includes a citizen or resident of the United States, or a person in and doing business in the United States. The term "person" includes individuals and all forms of business entities, trusts, and estates.

    3. Re:what is probably in it by Gravedigger3 · · Score: 1

      It can say whatever the hell they want, they will never be able to enforce it. If they try I suspect the backlash will show them that despite their delusions WE are more powerful than they are, we just haven't realized it yet.

      --
      All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be. -PF
  9. Meet the new boss by ReallyEvilCanine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Same as the old boss. Almost

  10. Obama is just a tool as any other president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He'll be better than GWB (heck, even my cat would be) but he still has orders to execute. For those who live under a rock, keep in mind that the US President decides absolutely nothing: he jumps when the Congress says to jump, and the Congress says "jump" when the financial/economic oligarchy that rules the western world says "tell him to jump". If we as a whole don't change tha way the economic world got corrupted until today (ie, corporations being more important than people) we shouldn't expect a single human, be it the US President, to do anything good.

    1. Re:Obama is just a tool as any other president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      He'll be better than GWB (heck, even my cat would be) but he still has orders to execute.

      Not much better, with a near filibuster proof D congress we're going to see some crazy stuff get passed.
      Gridlock in government is good, it forces compromise and lessens the amount of crap in each bill (lest someone wants to be accused of adding "pork" to a bill).

      When we lose the mild protection of a two-party system all that goes out the window as the ruling party tries to pass as much crap as possible while they're in power.

    2. Re:Obama is just a tool as any other president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gyafu!

    3. Re:Obama is just a tool as any other president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh... but you forget - just how EASY they have made it to delclare Martial Law...

      A President of Conscience could use this power to eliminate both the Private Federal Reserve and the Military Industrial Complex - puting all Military back under the DoD as orginally intended.

      All we need is the Right man for the job - and a strong outpouring of popular support!

    4. Re:Obama is just a tool as any other president by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      He is the same as Congress, yet we voted the "other" party back into power. Funny that. If this isn't PROOF FUCKING POSITIVE that there IS no two-party system anymore, I'll eat my hat. Don't give him such a free pass, though. If you blamed Bush for anything in the last 8 years, you can't now NOT blame Obama for the same fucking things.

      There is no free pass. Obama has the bully pulpit (the press), and could conceivably do better if he were actually DIFFERENT from the last moron in charge. But it's clear that he IS NOT. Change indeed. What fucking change? I blame Obama as much as Bush for raping the Constitution. They both have left their retarded DNA all over our sacred document. The same with Congress.... so cutting Obama slack because he's "just a puppet" and vilifying Shrub for the same thing is a double standard. Blame them all appropriately and maybe, just fucking maybe, we'll get some REAL change with an ACTUAL different party. But I won't hold my breath... sentiment like yours is exactly why we never change... we find ways to avoid blaming THEM ALL, and doing what the Founders said... GET RID OF THEM. *sigh* I am really close to giving up... but Obama, like Shrub, is pissing me off entirely too much to throw in the towel just yet. It's close though.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    5. Re:Obama is just a tool as any other president by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but it's still GWB fault amirite?

    6. Re:Obama is just a tool as any other president by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      No, it's Bill Clinton's. Sheesh.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    7. Re:Obama is just a tool as any other president by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, "popular support" never falls towards "the right man for the job."

      And that man would never take that job, because if he would, he isn't.

    8. Re:Obama is just a tool as any other president by Khisanth+Magus · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would think that a more split congress would result in [b]more[/b] pork as the party that introduced the bill has to bribe the members of the other party to support it by letting them put more pork in it.

  11. Still fighting? by siloko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a major campaign in the war on the future

    Am I the only one who thinks the war is already won? You can not put the majority of a country's population in jail. The culture of the internet has already changed the game and no matter how many laws are passed, lawsuits are won, technology and attitudes are already ahead of those that seek to put the genie back in the bottle.

    This just smacks of desperation. The powerful seem to be busy enacting policies which they hope will change attitudes whilst the rest of us are busy ignoring them and getting on with our lives.

    1. Re:Still fighting? by Meneth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Out victory may be inevitable, but the war isn't over yet. Until it is, it will continue to do damage.

    2. Re:Still fighting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I begin to think that, as the message still seems to be getting lost, it's time to resort to drastic retaliation. Perhaps lynching elected officials will be more effective, they don't seem to listen to anything else that isn't written on hundred dollar bills.

    3. Re:Still fighting? by DarkOx · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is the attitude that may cause us to loose. Freedom can only be obtained and maintained with vigilance. We must never think its impossible to be deprived of our freedom and must always remain wary of those who would seek to curtail it. The war is never over so long as overly ambitious and overly greedy individuals exist.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:Still fighting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As I understand, America's primary export is information. We don't export oil, steel, plastic toys, electronics, etc. Maybe we export some corn or something, but digital content of every variety is what we really offer the rest of the world.

      Therefore, it is clearly in the interest of America's economy, and America's status as a strong Global power, for there to be worldwide buy-in to very strict information-control (ie copyright) policies, and very strict enforcement.

      A world where information is free is a world where America is poor.

      Of course, the fact that this wealth depends on things that clearly do not make sense (introducing tremendous, and obviously bogus, artificial scarcity) and assumptions that clearly will not be true in the future (other countries will never be able to produce digital content as well or as much as we can), means nothing to the politicians that are making these decisions. They see a problem right now, and they see "eFascism" as the best way of solving that problem over the period of time that they will retain office while also pleasing their wealthy campaign supporters. From their perspective, it is the obvious choice (and the people be damned, as usual).

      There may even be some politicians who honestly believe this solution is sustainable in the long term...such are not competent to hold office, though that won't stop them.

      I find the situation quite depressing.

    5. Re:Still fighting? by russotto · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who thinks the war is already won? You can not put the majority of a country's population in jail.

      Yes, you can. You can turn the whole country into a prison and get half the inmates watching the other half. Read _1984_, or for a more convincing example, consider the German Democratic Republic (East Germany).

    6. Re:Still fighting? by siloko · · Score: 1

      Freedom can only be obtained and maintained with vigilance.

      Agreed. I'm not arguing against vigilance. I'm simply pointing out something which to me is a matter of fact. I have nothing against those who want to organise petitions and demonstrations, who write to their representatives, who post on slashdot etc., all with the aim of eroding apparently draconian intellectual property laws. But I think these laws will die anyway.

      Go and fight the fight and sleep better for it, it's just that from where I stand society will progress despite the laws and despite the demonstartions because both are being undertaken by a minority whilst the rest of us already embody the changing attitudes which the power of the internet and technology in general have facilitated.

    7. Re:Still fighting? by siloko · · Score: 1

      Ok, well your first example is a work of satirical fiction. Granted there is something to be learntt from it but it is not a case in point. Your second example, though genuine, did not happen in a world where the internet abounds. This discussion has come about precisely because the internet has changed the game, precisely because the power that governments and corporations have over us is dwindling, and ACTA is an example of a panicked and defeated response to a society which is leaving the traditional power brokers behind.

    8. Re:Still fighting? by Jurily · · Score: 1

      Maybe we export some corn or something, but digital content of every variety is what we really offer the rest of the world.

      What the US has to offer to the rest of the world is oil through USD, which is incidentally the only thing keeping the economy alive since Nixon declared bankruptcy in 1971.

      On a related note, Saddam offered to sell oil for EUR too, just before his army started disappearing.

    9. Re:Still fighting? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      If we're going to start killing people can't we go for the marketers first?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    10. Re:Still fighting? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The GDR didn't operate just by censorship, the GDR operated mostly by having spies everywhere and being able to spot dissent fairly quickly, then crushing it. The internet lets you communicate with others but the StaSi would still catch you and make your friends afraid of continuing your efforts.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    11. Re:Still fighting? by kosty · · Score: 1

      Speaking of jailing anyone or everyone, this is the seatbelt "Click-It or Ticket" crap just waaaaaaaaaaaay worse. E.g., if pulled over on the road by the police for any reason -- or NO reason -- a routine traffic stop sometimes leads to a stack of tickets or worse. During the 80's one could argue in court - sometimes successfully -- that the initial stop wasn't warranted [actions by the SPOTUS in the recent past not withstanding]. Get used to hearing "I didn't see a seatbelt on the driver or passenger" early and often. Viola -- instant justification to stop ANYONE for ANYTHING.

      Now to the present: Need a reason to search / question / detain some person or persons? Maybe deprive them of their computer(s); business, financial, or personal info; or perhaps other property? Seems anyone with an internet connection may be fair game for God* knows what, e.g., "We accuse __________ of copyright infringement!" Not that I'm paranoid or cynical -- I AM. It may be a bad habit or out and out neurosis, but I can't help but look for worst-case scenarios whenever congress gets "busy" these days. Oh, to be blissfully ignorant again...

      * Or invisible cloud-dwelling super-being of your choice. Your mileage may vary.

      --
      "Democracy." It's just a slogan.
    12. Re:Still fighting? by visible.frylock · · Score: 1

      In case you don't know this:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse

      I've also heard people say that our interest in Pakistan is because the Chinese want to build a pipeline to Iran through there. Don't have any info though.

      But this is America. Backroom stuff like this only happens in other countries, but never here.

      --
      Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
  12. Hobbists Are So Screwed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ACTA isn't a concern for p2p software use exclusively. Copy-right protected material for the general use of non-profit will be considered illegal. As you can see, the issue already contested. Although the law currently to date has given a verdict as to the legality of the issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hla7KMY8OFA , http://www.animemusicvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60255

  13. So exactly how much money... by macraig · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... did the Obama Campaign receive from IP holders? Was it a landslide enough to help him get elected, I wonder?

    Between having so many "friends of the RIAA" in the Department of Justice, VP Biden bragging that Big Media will love the new Copyright Czar, and this continued tight-lipped-ness about ACTA, I think it's pretty damned clear what Obama's REAL agenda will be for the next four years.

    All of you fools that thought Obama was the Messiah screwed-up: you voted for Judas instead. The real Messiah might have been Dennis Kucinich, and coincidentally he got crucified... both by the DNC *and* voters.

    1. Re:So exactly how much money... by vivaelamor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd never even heard of Dennis Kucinich (though I'm not american so cut me a bit of slack), just looked him up and although I would agree with most of his policies, I think the big vote killer is his anti-handgun stance. On a purely populist level it would mean the campaign would mostly be spent trying to explain to americans why it would be justified and on a more political level it contradicts some of his other policies from the view of a lot of liberals. I think the main reason Obama got such widespread support was he didn't actually look like he was going to make any radical changes beyond undoing what the last government did.

      I think that is a good example of why the system is flawed more than the candidates.. no one is going to have a perfect set of policies and the voting system in american is very much centered around the presidential candidates policies. The idea that one man is running a country is plain unrealistic yet that is how they market it and how it tends to work out in the guise of party politics. We have similar issues in England and we're a hell of a lot smaller. The candidates keep talking about proportional representation but I'd be surprised if most of them know what that would really be, they tend to use it like a buzzword. Our recent expenses scandal showed just how unwilling they were to get their own house in order before considering what would work for the country.

    2. Re:So exactly how much money... by macraig · · Score: 1

      Kucinich is the one man in our Congress who had the balls to stand up and try to start impeachment proceedings against culpable officials of the last administration; he risked his own political career to do it. His own party leadership publicly vowed to oppose his effort. Obama, a member of that same party, has refused to support an investigation.

      It's funny to me that the greatest amount of political courage and ethics is concentrated in such a diminutive man. IMHO, in terms of ethics he's a giant compared to most of his Congressional colleagues. Most of them TALK about ethics but don't actually have any, just as corporations say quality and customer satisfaction is their priority when in fact neither is the case. Most often the ethically dubious scum rises to the top, but every so often you get an iconoclastic gem like Kucinich. He's a diamond in the rough, but we got the polished cubic zirconia as President.

    3. Re:So exactly how much money... by True+Grit · · Score: 1

      The real Messiah might have been Dennis Kucinich, and coincidentally he got crucified... both by the DNC *and* voters.

      What we *really* need is to get people to stop thinking that only the Presidency makes a difference. There is no Messiah, its the 60 votes in the Senate that controls all.

    4. Re:So exactly how much money... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Obama got widespread support because almost everything he said was such that everyone could interpret it as meaning that he intended to do what they thought he should do, even when they talked with other supporters who thought he would do the diametric opposite.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  14. Hobbyists Are So Screwed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ACTA isn't a concern for p2p software use exclusively. Copy-right protected material for general non-profit use, will be considered illegal. As you can see, the issue already contested. Although the law currently to date has not given a verdict as to the legality of the issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hla7KMY8OFA , http://www.animemusicvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60255

  15. Get a load of that bullshit. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    'state secret' 'bush era policy'. we dont give a crap. this thing is not something related to internal affairs or security. its being FORCED on every country. and it affects citizen's individual rights, personal freedoms. if american legal system is SO stupid as to allow a law that no citizen has seen to be forced upon citizens, europe isnt that stupid. it will be sued and obtained in europe, and probably Eu will pull the plug on it.

    1. Re:Get a load of that bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      europe isnt that stupid. it will be sued and obtained in europe, and probably Eu will pull the plug on it.

      Oh, yes it is. The EU is just as much for overbearing "Intellectual Property" (gagh, I choke on the term) regulation as the United States is, and for the exact same goddamn reason. That is, people who have power, money and control, who want to keep what they have, and take even more. The EU's handling of software patents taught me that much. So, you're a fool if you expect any better: the same forces are at work in the European Union as here in the U.S.

    2. Re:Get a load of that bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU? Are you on drugs? Do you live in honey bunny happy land? This treaty is an example as to exactly how the EU itself words. The EU is an institution to enforce the passing of laws that would never be possible on a national level.

      It's not like they are actually helping us citizens and publish the drafts. They are blocking any attempt to publish them as well.

      Plus the EU is so deep up the US' bottom, they'll blindly agree to ANYTHING. Just look at recent EU-US terror, data exchange, etc. treaties.

    3. Re:Get a load of that bullshit. by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

      DG Trade, it is a conspiracy of trade policitians.

      See bilaterals.org for more.

  16. Back door to legislation w/o democracy by Cacadril · · Score: 1

    If the aim of negotiations is a binding treaty, this is a back door to legislation without democratic control.

    Has the general public ever had the use of reason? Secrecy is justified in two kinds cases. Protecting the privacy of individuals, and protecting military installations, weapon systems, response plans, etc. But none of these cases are of legislative nature. Why is it at all possible to pretend legislative or quasi-legislative preparations need secrecy, and get away with it? It is a blatant inconsistency in terms. It ought to completely discredit whoever forwards it. It should have elicited unanimous uproar from the congress...

    Good grief.

    --
    There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
  17. It's an international treaty MADE by the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which kind of makes it irrelevant that it's international: it's what the US wants OTHERS to do.

    Would be funny if the Swedes DID manage to get it, though.

    "Land of the free" my arse!

    1. Re:It's an international treaty MADE by the US by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think by "what the US wants", you mean "what certain interests in the US wants but can't get enough to support in Congress to get". As powerful and wealthy as these people are, the draconian measures are *not* something that most people in the US wants. That's why they are using this "secret treaty" technique to try to get their rules put in place.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    2. Re:It's an international treaty MADE by the US by Reziac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since when is our government supposed to be doing the bidding of outside forces, rather than the will of The People??

      How did we let things get this far out of The People's control??

      Well, I can tell you... it boils down to the old saw, "He who robs Peter to pay Paul is assured of Paul's support." Once there are more Pauls being paid than Peters being robbed, the country is lost.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:It's an international treaty MADE by the US by perlchild · · Score: 1

      A free meme for you: "You must be new here" (or there actually since I'm in a neighbouring country).

      I think a democracy that signs a secret treaty with its neighbours stops being a democracy. I doubt it's the first such secret treaty, draw your own conclusions.

    4. Re:It's an international treaty MADE by the US by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Should I face north before I wave hello? :)

      I agree with you entirely. When the gov't starts keeping secrets from the people, you're already long past being in trouble.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  18. Re:Everyone, the voting doesn't end. It's all a SH by vivaelamor · · Score: 1

    Please go back to troll school and find out what a strawman is.

  19. Meet the new boss... by PinchDuck · · Score: 2, Informative

    Change you can believe in, but not really expect. Thanks for limiting our freedoms and working for big business, Democrats! You're just as bad as Bush.

    1. Re:Meet the new boss... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Change you can believe in, but not really expect. Thanks for limiting our freedoms and working for big business, Democrats! You're just as bad as Bush.

      Worse, actually. His Water-Walking Holiness is continuing to embrace the damage Redneck Nero did, and adding his own into the mix.

      Yay downward spiral. How do you say "Hello, World" in chinese?

  20. Pirate Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, After ACTA passes and the civil unrest sparks the Pirate Wars of 2013, we'll have a cool pirate decal as banner and logo. that's good enough for me.

  21. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A revolution every 200 or so years is a good thing for democracy.. it reminds the government that it is the people, not cabals that decide the fate of the country.

    light of view is the best policy disinfectant..

    ()

  22. Hey, EFF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, EFF, come back! YOU'RE NOT DONE YET.
                                                 

  23. '-MY- party is the actual saviour!' and other lies by neomunk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The party flag you're waving seems to have flapped in front of your eyes.

    One more time, for the slow kids... BOTH MAJOR U.S. PARTIES ARE CORRUPT. The Republicans are going to vote for this just as surely as the Democrats will. You and your "loyalist" (remember where we've used that word before, historically?) friends are just as slow on the uptake as the people who still think that Obama represents some kind of "change". Our only hope as a nation is to band together and shed ourselves of both infected limbs. Unfortunately the "my party is better than your party" games are apparently too fun, and will continue until we are inconsequential at best.

    I know you don't want to hear it, and you've got "but but but" trembling on your lips, but it's so obvious that people really have to WANT to believe in their party to avoid seeing the (very thinly veiled) truth. The simple fact is that, like the Democrats before you, hoping that YOUR party is going to come to the rescue is the utmost in childlike naivety. Hell, it was even oh-so-slightly understandable from the Democrats, because at least that party was PRETENDING they were going to change to course of the nation, no matter how transparent that lie was (voting records are more indicative than speeches), you Republicans have nothing to offer by way of rhetoric other than "the Democrats suck" and some vague and uneducated mumbling about communism.

    In short, stop the Republican trumpet call, it will do nothing but fail you, just as it failed you with Bush, just as the Democrats were failed by Obama and Clinton. The partisan squabbling does nothing other than to cement the control of those who don't give the slightest thought toward neither your wellbeing nor your freedom.

  24. Re:'-MY- party is the actual saviour!' and other l by anagama · · Score: 1

    I've no mod points and wish I did. Excellent post.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  25. Re:'-MY- party is the actual saviour!' and other l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've no mod points and wish I did. Excellent post.

    Yeah, well, I do and I did. The GP is right, of course: all these pricks want to do is maintain the status quo ante at at all costs.

  26. !hope, !freedom, and worst: !change by toby · · Score: 1

    n/t

    --
    you had me at #!
  27. This could be really interesting... by lazlo · · Score: 1

    adoption of 'Three Strikes' policies requiring the termination of Internet access after repeat allegations of copyright infringement

    Now, on the face of it, that sounds terrible, but think about it: it could be so much worse than we imagine, that it's actually better. So there's little or no penalty for false allegations (I'm sure Big Content, doing massive numbers of allegations, wouldn't stand for penalties when they do so poorly), and you don't actually have to prove infringement, just allege it. So it's sort of like the middle eastern countries where you can divorce your wife by saying "I divorce you" three times. Except instead of getting divorced, they get banned from the Internet. And instead of being their husband, all you have to be is someone who holds a copyright. "I allege you've infringed my copyright, I allege you've infringed my copyright, I allege you've infringed my copyright, POOF! Goodbye." Note here that, as I understand it, everyone holds implicit copyright to every work they create. So this is kind of like giving everyone a "nuke" button.

    So, on the one hand, you've got thousands of employees of RIAA, MPAA, MediaSentry, et al, sending out infringement allegations with little to no regard for truth or justice... and on the other hand, you've got millions of pissed off geeks more than happy to play whack-a-mole with every ISP that RIAA/MPAA goes to, sending in allegations that "RIAA totally infringed the copyright I hold on the video I put up on my website of my cat licking it's balls for half an hour". How long before MediaSentry is lucky to be able to find a dial-up account in Uzbekistan to try and do their investigations from? How much uptime will the RIAA's website have once it can be, not technically hacked, but legally hacked within 5 minutes them finding an ISP foolish enough to host it?

    I say, Rock on! It's the end of the Internet as we know it, and I feel fine.

    --
    Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
  28. When purchasing... by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

    When purchasing products, I have never really considered the fact that it may, or may not be, copyrighted.

    When the day comes that copyright violation is a criminal offense, I will be looking for that little mark on products AND AVOID THEM LIKE THE PLAGUE.

    Why? Because I don't want to take the risk of jail time just so I can buy a product. I know that may sound reactionary, but think about it. How many times have you heard of people being jailed for violating a law unintentionally? Am I to know and understand the whole of copyright law in order to protect myself?

    It is far easier to just not purchase the products that are marked as copyrighted and avoid the whole mess.

    When are these companies/Corporations going to realize that they are killing their own businesses by alienating their customers?

  29. German Democratic Republic (East Germany) by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Your second example, though genuine, did not happen in a world where the internet abounds.

    And how well is the internet working in Iran? Or China?

    Falcon

    1. Re:German Democratic Republic (East Germany) by siloko · · Score: 1

      better than not having one . . . the information coming out of both of those countries is vastly more than before the internet. Granted it is not about to contribute to the overthrow of their respective governments but it has helped mobilise the opposition.

  30. when does the US care about international law by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    When the US dictates the law. Of course it makes sure there're loopholes for it.

    Falcon

  31. EFF Should Keep Fighting by cc_pirate · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The EFF shouldn't drop this. Judges CAN call the Executive out on fraudulent claims of 'National Security' at least to the point of reading what it is that is supposedly classified for 'national security' reasons. When he reads it and finds out that it is just a draconian IP rights treaty, he can allow the trial to continue.

    People pooh pooh this and pretend they can't shove the genie back into the bottle when it comes to the net, but it wouldn't be hard at all. Are YOU willing to go to jail to avoid having your net transfers searched? Are YOU willing to go to jail to prevent having your laptop searched at the US, European and other borders?

    Most people aren't.

    Sadly, I almost see the reasoning for doing this. At this point the US is no longer a manufacturing nation. Most of our GNP is from 'information' work. If we allow that to be devalued our GNP will be much lower than it could be, which means less fancy fighter jets, etc for the defense industrial complex... This is almost 100% certainly the reason this thing is 'classified'. And this will almost 100% be the reason our 'representatives' vote it into law over all our objections.

    --

    "There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur

  32. Ministry of National Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're thinking of "national security" as meaning what the words mean to a regular person, i.e. the literal meaning. Just remember your Orwell. What "national" means to government is "private business," while "security" means "harmful to regular people." When a government says "national security" the most frequent meaning is "multinational business interests that take from the public" though it sometimes applies to smaller local businesses, and occasionally can mean "military acts to hide from the public" (this one has the "blowback" caveat, which is quite a nuisance for the government to hide and the public to comprehend).

  33. Soap, ballot, ammo. by Tolkien · · Score: 1

    Neither the soap box nor the ballot box has worked for Americans, when will they reach for the ammo box and settle the matter?

  34. Crying wolf by hamburgler007 · · Score: 0

    When you keep slapping the label of national security on something to keep it out of public view, eventually people are going to call bullshit on it. Then there will come a time where something legitimately needs to be classified and no one believes it.

  35. Re:'-MY- party is the actual saviour!' and other l by randyleepublic · · Score: 0

    Christ! How many times does this have to be explained to the fucking simpletons? I hate what they, (the people who run the dog and pony show), are doing, but on one thing I fear I agree. Most people so stupid if they were to all die in some societal meltdown it would be no big loss. It's no crime to be stupid, but shut up and do what your betters tell you to do! Vote? Oh, hell no! Anyway, read my sig!

    --
    Social Credit would solve everything...
  36. Civil war? by fugue · · Score: 1

    If the contract that gives our government the authority to govern is ignored, then isn't that grounds for ignoring the laws illegally imposed? Of course, this means civil war... *sigh*

    --
    "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
  37. Well I'm stating for the record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm stating for the record, I'm not subject to secret laws. I'm not going to try to find out what this is about or make any attempt to follow it. I call on lawyers, prosecutors, and DAs to ignore secret laws, and judges to as well -- they were not discussed in the open or voted on, and (being secret) are certainly not on law or treaty books. They are, in other words, just stacks of paper.