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and the Obama Administration has recently informed the court that it intends to defend the classification claims originally made by the Bush Administration.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."
Another victory for transparent democracy
HIP HIP...
HIP HIP...
HIP HIP...
Why no HURRAHs?
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.
How can the non-disclosure of the terms of an international treaty be justified on national security grounds?
I could use some :(
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.
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!
Same as the old boss. Almost
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
*sigh* Where is my +1, Deluded mod anyway?
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?
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