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and the Obama Administration has recently informed the court that it intends to defend the classification claims originally made by the Bush Administration.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?
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!
How can the non-disclosure of the terms of an international treaty be justified on national security grounds?
I could use some :(
I don't understand how it is legal to enact a law whose text is not public. Somebody please explain!
Energy and knowledge lead to discontent.
A full belly is enough for most people.
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.
No! He's being SARCASTIC (I hope).
Same as the old boss. Almost
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.
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.
... 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.
'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.
Read radical news here
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.
Better a gram than a damn.
Please go back to troll school and find out what a strawman is.
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
I've no mod points and wish I did. Excellent post.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
n/t
you had me at #!
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?
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?
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
Should there be a Law?
When the US dictates the law. Of course it makes sure there're loopholes for it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
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
Neither the soap box nor the ballot box has worked for Americans, when will they reach for the ammo box and settle the matter?
how is babby formed?
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.
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
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?
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?
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."