Slashdot Mirror
Secret ACTA Treaty May Sport "Internet Enforcement" Procedures After All
Andorin writes "Ars Technica writes about the recent work on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, and reveals that while the public does not have access to the text of the agreement, a handful of lawyers representing Big Content and numerous companies and organizations do. 'Turns out that... ACTA will include a section on Internet "enforcement procedures" after all. And how many people have had input on these procedures? Forty-two. ... Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) found out in September that the US Trade Representative's office had actually been secretly canvassing opinions on the Internet section of the agreement from 42 people, all of whom had signed a nondisclosure agreement before being shown the ACTA draft text.'"
They seem to like to vote on things that no-one has read.
I'm most curious as to why nobody's yet sued to see a copy of the draft treaty. It seems that "national security" is a bit of a stretch.
So much for having a truly transparent administration. This president operates the same as all the others.
Coincidence?!
Yes.
It would be nice to see this linked from the article but.... the EFF has a page up to send your reps a request to call senate hearings on this issue:
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=383
I have been forwarding the link to everyone that I know, I recommend that everyone else who cares about transparency in the legal process to do the same.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
...do not welcome our new corporatist overlords...
Oh, wait...they've been screwing us for the past couple of years...now where did I put my gun?
I love my country, I hate my government (because it is no longer "my" government). We need a change. We need to break the stranglehold the Republican and Democratic parties have on the machinery of government. We need the populous to wake up and act...vote. Vote for repealing rights that the federal government has usurped from the state governments. We need to limit federal legislation of states and depend upon each state to make the decisions that affect the people that they know better than the federal government (you know, they way our founders intended it to be). I'm going to stop here and get ready for the onslaught of all of the knee-jerk, anti-American flames aimed squarely at me.
Speaking of....
I CLEARLY remember an emergency session being called right after they went into recess a few years back (4-8 years ago I believe) because they passed a budget that contained a provision that removed privacy protections from tax return information.... and of course.... nobody read the bill.
Of course, as much as many hate the idea, it could be REALLY BAD for political figures, big businessmen etc, so they held an emergency summer session, and fixed it.
Anyway, I clearly remember it.... maybe my brain is broken in a way that makes it not interface seamlessly with google, but I can't find a single article or reference to this incident, which is too bad, because it is a link that could be really useful in say.... discussions like this.
Anyone remember this? Anyone have a link?
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
$100 to the first person to post the fully draft here or on wikileaks. Seriously we can leak SpiderMan movies, crack supposedly uncrackable digital encryption schemes and share giant files, but nobody is willing to post perhaps 60kb of text? IANAL but, Considering the type of legislation, leaking this sort of thing isn't likely to follow with litigation against the mole.
moox. for a new generation.
The lack of mainstream media coverage of this issue is telling. They're not afraid to pass up a story if it's in their best interest to do so. I propose we force them to report on ACTA by kidnapping Kanye West, stripping him naked, tattooing "SETEC Astronomy" on his forehead, and launching him in a homemade balloon purchased by John Gosslin with the money he stole from Kate.
You know the world's in trouble when the Business Software Alliance is at the head of a list of representatives privy to secret international treaties about the Internet that the US is going to sign off on.
Holy shit! I'm having a flashback to the mid-90s... Clinton administration giving away our cable infrastructure to the content monopolies... the death of local ISPs...
Its my original realization that the two parties are identical!
WOW MAN, its all coming back so FAST
Something must have happened shortly after the election of 2000 that completely changed the way I look at government, for roughly eight years.
I'm suddenly overcome with a desire to vote for Ralph Nader.
Isn't anyone bothered by government asking commentators to "sign a non-disclosure agreement" about a proposed law disturbing?
This makes republishing a law that's "copyrighted" look like a free and open society.
Back-room, off-the-record, tit-for-tat haggling over laws' formation is bad enough as it is. The only possible reasons for this NDA are precisely the reason it should be blasted out over public loudspeakers.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I see 36 people who one one at all would miss.
There is a war going on for your mind.
You sound like my kind of patriot.
I swear, NOTHING has radicalized my views, like reading about the ideals of the radicals that started the American Revolution and founded this country. Nothing has so quickly shown the current system to be one of utter hypocrites.
Frankly the only place I disagree is in that this would even be useful. I think my state, and the few that surround it, should all consider secession. Then we can go and sign our own treaties.
As was pointed out at the time, even on the republican side, the northeast voted 2 to 1 for McCain over Bush in primaries for the 2000 election. Thats the exact opposite from the rest of the country. I think its pretty clear that neither party really represents the interests of the North East.
An article from the 2000 election on this issue: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=6856
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I agree. Though some state governments are almost as big and out of touch as the federal government with large parts of their constituency, there are no cases where the federal government is more in touch. Hopefully that will provide a small buffer between you and the flames. Actually, I'm not sure why you think you'll get flamed...unless it's by people who think that an equal measure of push back should happen at the state and local government levels who feel left out of your argument.
I am no government scholar, but I was under the distinct impression that legislation was required to be made public. Am I wrong about this? Or is it the fact that ACTA is a 'treaty' make it substantially different? People signing NDAs to participate in the legislative process is not a good thing. Whose eyes are they shielding this from? Us?
They want to send the Internet back to 42BC.... (basterdised content).
All they see is (devalued) Dollars, and (devalued) Euros in front of their eyes.
The uneducated politicians pander to these people, because they give out campaign contributions / BIG brown envelopes. Maybe we should start demanding politicians with REAL degrees who understand the REAL world, not worthless cr@p subjects like English, law, art, history that politicians seem to specialise in.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
I don't think voting is going to be enough at this stage. I agree that the federal government needs to have its power diminished severely and be given back to the states. The problem is that most career politicians see big government as a way to increase their own wealth and personal power, and these people have built such safe districts for themselves that the chances of getting them voted out are slim to nil unless they do something bad enough to wake up the average uninformed voter. At this point, I'm afraid that the only way to save our country is with a revolution. People everywhere are certainly getting angry enough for something like that to happen, and their motivations stem from a true grassroots movement with no party involvement.
I know that there are some people here who love big government and are going to disagree with me, but so be it.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
Isn't anyone bothered by government asking commentators to "sign a non-disclosure agreement" about a proposed law disturbing?
Anyone else suspect that it won't be much longer before we just ignore the dictates that come from central authority utterly? I'm looking forward to it, personally...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
That's OK. People don't abide by secret laws (by definition)
So since this will make me a criminal, and I can be punished for doing nothing defined as illegal, I might as well live it up and break all related laws. I mean, if I am to be imprisoned for years for breaking a law that isn't even a real law (a law has to be public to be followed and enforced) then I will ensure I perform all the crimes that I will be paying for with my incarceration.
They want to send the Internet back to 42BC.... (basterdised content).
All they see is (devalued) Dollars, and (devalued) Euros in front of their eyes.
The uneducated politicians pander to these people, because they give out campaign contributions / BIG brown envelopes. Maybe we should start demanding politicians with REAL degrees who understand the REAL world, not worthless cr@p subjects like English, law, art, history that politicians seem to specialise in.
English, Law, and History help so that you can see when a coup d'e'tat is imminent. That then allows you to run and hide in your bunker.
But seriously [most of] our current politicians are useless idiots that are almost as bad as a dictator
That bill would allow the President to shut down the private internet in the event of an emergency--a phrase so broad as to allow any excuse he chooses--along with unrestricted access to data by the Secretary of Commerce under regular conditions. The EFF has an informative overview of the legislation. It's currently in a committee, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. Thankfully, the EFF has done a good job of keeping an eye on things like this.
Your brain is not a computer.
And no federal government yet has represented California's interests. Hell we don't even get 80 cents on the dollar back in federal tax money, and what we do get is so wrapped in pork and idiotic regulations it costs almost as much as we get to use. Hell without the drain of the federal government California would be a profitable state (and yes, that includes if we hired our own army)
We are tired of subsidizing the rest of the country as they tell us we cannot live the way we want to.
Secession! *waits to get put on some watch list for speaking out against the fed*
to post something to wikileaks
Absolute statements are never true
I'm going to stop here and get ready for the onslaught of all of the knee-jerk, anti-American flames aimed squarely at me.
So what you are saying is that any criticism of your ideas must not be well thought out, and must be anti-American. Wow.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Hey, don't blame me. I voted for Kodos!
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
They have been getting input from a good, broad selection of people? The corporate interests listed have legitimate interests, whether we like them or not. Others, such as the three representatives from Public Knowledge, are EXACTLY who I would want representing various other interests.
Silence that dissident!
Sadly, the blame for this thing goes to everyone. You, me, Big-Content, our elected* Representatives, our 'bought' representatives... It spans across industries, from tech giants like Microsoft, and Google Inc. , to supermarket chains and hobby shops.
Ultimately, this breaks down to ideological differences on the future of information, and 'Copyrighted Content' (not mutually exclusive by any degree), and whether Capitalism, or Corporatism if you prefer, should remain superior to the rights of the public, and private citizen.
I could argue on end about how this really started when Corporations were given the same, and possibly more, legal rights than the individual citizen, but dissecting the historical evolution of this actually does a disservice, and distracts from the present.
The simple fact is, the rights of the individual citizen, be it public or private, if left up to the wills of the legal arm of the Corporate puppeteer, will be made subservient in every sector of society for the foreseeable future. Yes to a degree, that is the case now, but in the near future, any attempts to route, subvert, or even object the will of those who we so gladly pay of incomes to, will bring forth the hammer of the gavel to such degrees, that even infants won't escape innocence.
You've been warned before, and I warn you now. YOUR future is slipping away! Do you even recognize that?
Isn't anyone bothered by government asking commentators to "sign a non-disclosure agreement" about a proposed law disturbing?
No, and anyone who is could only be motivated by racism.
I wonder how China will react after being told by the President of the United States that they must shut down their portion of the private internet.
Once again the government of the US screws all consumers on purpose and gives away what little rights to media we had left, to big business. Party affiliation has no meaning once the $ is on the table.
Am I really the first one to point out the obvious reference to "42" and the "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy"? "42" is the answer to everything, you know (it worked surprisingly often in calculus).
Or did I just miss an earlier reference...?
-JJS
Hmmm Northeast leaves.... and CA leaves (probably taking the rest of the west coast with it).... I have to imagine that the midwest/south would then split.
For some reason this leaves me with the image of Texas becoming the Lone Star State again and being overwhelmed by a rush of Mexicans looking to take their land back.... and that makes me giggle and want to see this even more!
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
No, what he's saying is that most critcism of his ideas have been, and unfortunately continue to be of the knee-jerk "love it or leave it" crowd who consider any critical assessment of the current government situation in the US to be unpatriotic and slander. That should shock you as much as it does me. The ACTA treaty shenanigans simply illustrate quite clearly we the people are no longer the boss. It's been that way for decades, but we're getting the bitter pill of the results of that coup only in the last decade or so. It was slow, deliberate, insidious, and illegal... yet we're stuck at the moment. If that's not frustrating to you, you're part of the problem.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
"This product contains chemicals that are known to the state of California to cause cancer."
You just got a Change(tm), with some free Hope(tm).
What about the children? Won't anyone think of the children?
If ACTA has nothing to hide, why are they hiding. All this secrecy suggests that it is loaded with anti-freedom, corrupt, vile and unconstitutional provisions. What does this pile of ... "stuff" ... do repeal the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta (insert your nation's equivalent here)? Anyone who values whatever freedom they have should be raising a stink.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
And no federal government yet has represented California's interests. Hell we don't even get 80 cents on the dollar back in federal tax money, and what we do get is so wrapped in pork and idiotic regulations it costs almost as much as we get to use.
I hope you realize that's your own damn fault for voting for politicians that seek to expand Government.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Only terrorists don't think of the children. Why are you a terrorist?
IMHO, the problem with the "stranglehold the Republican and Democratic parties have on the machinery of government" is the result of corporate influence on those parties ... ... "
... how?
"We need to limit federal legislation of states and depend upon each state to make the decisions
when some corporations have revenue (and sometimes profits) greater than entire nations (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/business/worldbusiness/01iht-exxon.4.9679416.html), state budgets (http://www.nasbo.org/Publications/PDFs/FSSpring2009.pdf), and global influence, the various state gov'ts will be immune to this
+1 fashionably cynical
Yes, the corporations listed have legitimate interests. Yes, it's good that there are three PK people and one person from the Center for Democracy and Technology.
However, four people total from PK and CDT are not enough to constitute adequate representation in the public interest. The reason KEI is making such a fuss about this is because there is a big concern in the access-to-medicines community that any ACTA treaty will include provisions making it easier for customs authorities to seize pharmaceuticals that are allegedly "counterfeit". There's a very active effort to confuse the distinction between counterfeit and generic medicine, and KEI and others are worried that ACTA will make it easier for shipments of generic medicines to be seized as they make their way between countries. This has already happened several times this year, and in no case that I am aware of have the accusations been substantiated - it's always turned out that the medicines are legitimate generics.
People from PK and CDT have no history of working on access to medicine or public health issues. None of the groups on that list seem to have any relation to public health issues, yet ACTA could have a very real effect on public health.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Maybe you should get involved. You know actually go places and meet people.
It is our government, and I've seen it in action, i've seen it change, and it does.
Our founders intended the constitution to be adaptable.
States ahve rights, but the politician are afraid they might lose money so they just cave to the feds.
That is entirely different then the feds taking away states rights.
"anti-American flames aimed squarely at me."
see, that's your problem. you thing by my government means they should do what you say regardless of what most people want.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
incorrect:
"we the people are no longer the boss"
If that was true, they wouldn't need to hide it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Why settle for the lesser evil?
Vote Cthulhu! F'tang R'ley!
Guess what?
The president has the authority to shut down every think else in the event of an emergence.
How many times ahs the president shut down a freeway? Airline traffic? phones?
Not very often. It would be political suicide to shut down anything where there isn't a clear public emergency that impacts specifically whatever he is shutting down.
Yes, t should be open. Lets not get paranoid.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
...I can't find a single article or reference to this incident, which is too bad, because it is a link that could be really useful...
Wipe it from Google, wipe it from history.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
...but could someone please explain to me how, apart from any concern over contempt of democracy, we are supposed in the future to abide by laws we don't even have the right to read?
Really. Show me on single 'love it or leave it' comment directed at the state's rights types. It seems to me that we had eight years of the right wing claiming any dissent was unpatriotic, and we lefties should 'love it or leave it.' But now that the left is in power, they are whining that we are doing it to them. Even if we were, which we aren't, turnabout is fair play.
Funny thing, when the left criticizes the government, we are unpatriotic commies bent on destroying America. However, when the right criticizes the government, they are being patriotic. Our criticisms are 'knee jerk' while theirs are calm and rational. Do you not see the utter hypocrisy?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
but what really compounds the issue is that the Press is still enthralled with Obama and Co that they press on nothing. The Administration showed their hand, using their own people to bash news companies that report in a manner they don't like, while patronizing wholly sold out organizations like MSNBC.
What does that leave us with? A bunch of right wing talk show hosts? They are even easier to box than the traditional broadcasters because if they truly do become a threat they will diversified/regulated out of a job. Let alone the fact a few are just too grating to pay attention too.
We have gone from having watchdogs to having lap dogs and it shows. Hell it amazes me all the calls for information on this bill from people here who don't even blink at universal health care being crafted in just as much darkness.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Canada would welcome the north east states as provinces btw. I'm sure at least Vermont would gladly be Canada's 11th province, and with New York being such a tax happy state, they would fit right into Canada too.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
The only thing I could find was HR 1226, which was passed by the Senate on 8/7/97... this may or not have been during the August recess...
HR 1226 made it illegal for IRS employees to "browse" tax returns.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Lately the Legislative branch of the U.S. Government has done a piss-poor job of actually reading and debating anything that has heavy support from industry. There is good reason for public interest advocates to be skeptical of the Senate behaving any better with respect to this "secret" treaty.
No way. It had to be more recent than this. (in 1997 I had just left HS, was in college, and my head was way too far up my own ass to care). I am pretty sure I know where I was working when it happened, which places it somewhere between 2000 and 2005... possibly somewhat later, but no earlier.
As far as I understand the law now, Law Enforcement can ask the IRS to review a return for fraud. However, the IRS (this is my understanding now, please correct me if I am wrong) can review it and decided fraud was committed or not. However, they cannot actually show the return itself to anyone, as the contents are protected.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Anyone else suspect that it won't be much longer before we just ignore the dictates that come from central authority utterly? I'm looking forward to it, personally...
Excuse me, sir, but you'll have to come with me to the Re-Education Center.
My blog
For some reason this leaves me with the image of Texas becoming the Lone Star State again and being overwhelmed by a rush of Mexicans looking to take their land back
Too late.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.
-1, Disagree is not a valid option. Troll, Flamebait and Offtopic are not a substitute.
Nice. You mean it would be like China shutting various aspects of the Internet for National Day? I have a friend in Shanghai, and it's getting more and more complicated explaining to him why China is bad and the US is better.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I think my state, and the few that surround it, should all consider secession.
While I understand your sentiment, I'm not really eager for another Civil War. The first one was bloody enough. (And make no mistake... there would be another Civil War.)
I'm just wondering what would constitute an emergency that's not political suicide. 9/11-style attack? North Korea launching nukes towards Alaska? Kiddy-porn? Note that I'm not even bringing up child abuse, because apparently downloading of child pornography is much worse than the creation child pornography.
Sorry, I can't think of a reason where the free flow of information would present a risk to national security.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Why do you hate America? Why are you trying to fuck America?
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
And no federal government yet has represented California's interests. Hell we don't even get 80 cents on the dollar back in federal tax money, and what we do get is so wrapped in pork and idiotic regulations it costs almost as much as we get to use.
I hope you realize that's your own damn fault for voting for politicians that seek to expand Government.
I hope you realize that this is completely irrelevant to the parent's point.
"My government is not representative" != "My government is TOO BIG!"
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
Kidnapping two people is enough where I come from
now that the left is in power
...left? In America?
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
How is it irrelevant? He's complaining about the fact that his state is paying out more in taxes than it takes in. Why do you suppose that is?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I hope you realize that's your own damn fault for voting for any politician.
Fixed that for you.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Well, I can only suggest searching Thomas for it. Good luck, it's not easy to search by date. If you don't know which Congress passed it, you'll need to check several Congresses...
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
now that the left is in power
...left? In America?
Well, you see, here in America we have three right wings. And as we all know, three rights make a left.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
There are some fundamental problems that cannot be fixed with voting, but rather would require a constitutional convention. Good luck dissolving the current Congress, and good luck finding honest men to form a new one.
It's not a proposed law yet. It's a pile of paper that may someday become a proposed law. When it becomes a proposed law it'll be up there on Thomas with everything else. Meanwhile it's just a thought, an intermediate position in international negotiations, and negotiating requires a party to be mum about its desires and willingness to compromise until it decides it's in its interest to reveal them.
Maybe that's not how *governments* should negotiate (at least not ours), and if I heard a strong enough argument I might even agree with that position. But it's not a sign of sinister intent. It's the status quo for treaties.
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.
The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.
Cause she's asking for it, that slut!
...because his government isn't representing him, it's representing the people in the states that take in more tax money than they pay.
Tax distribution is a zero-sum game. That has nothing to do with the size of the government. The same size government that takes money from California gives money to Louisiana.
I feel that interesting comparisons could probably be made between the list of states according to their representation levels (click the button to sort by pop per House seat) and the list of states according to their taxes paid/received ratios, but eh, I'm not that interested in bothering. Suffice it to say none of the ten best-represented states get less than $1 received on the dollar paid.
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
Which founding father are you basing your argument on? Thomas Jefferson? he was all for State Rights. Alexandar Hamilton, he thought States would be at war with each other in a matter of a few years. Or, in my case. I HATE CALIFORNIA. Due to their size, they try to dictate to other states. State rights, please. Most states are run by bigger idiots then what is at the national level.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
Oh, I get it! If only we could somehow get the corporate kleptocracy, God's Voters, and the libertarian fringe to somehow form a coalition, we could finally get some national health care and a minimum-wage increase! :D
Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
I like how just because the Spanish conquered the natives first, it's suddenly 'their land'.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
It's not a proposed law yet. It's a pile of paper that may someday become a proposed law. When it becomes a proposed law it'll be up there on Thomas with everything else.
With all the crying about the health care reform bill text, they want to minimize the text of the law's exposure to the public. It'll be proposed and voted on a late night Friday, whisked quickly through the other chamber, rubber stamped through the Prez, and, poof, instant gestapo, paid for by the taxpayers whose necks they'll have their knees against.
More Twoson than Cupertino
California does everything it can to dictate to the rest of the nation. Do us all a favor, leave the nation. Then we can put tarrifs on EVERY FREAKEN PEACE OF CRAP your state/nation trys to sell us. And we can tripple the price of energy we sell to your state/nation because your to busy chasing all energy companies away. Thank you California for nancy pelosi. You should have shot that bitch when you had the chance.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
At this point, I'm afraid that the only way to save our country is with a revolution. People everywhere are certainly getting angry enough for something like that to happen...
Revolution -- hell, yeah, I'm all for that! Count me in!!
Er...that is unless it conflicts with any of my TV shows. And, um...there's not going to be any violence like, say, shooting or anything, right? This is not going to, like, get me in trouble or anything like that, is it?
Oh, hell...on second thought, is there just somewhere I can send a check or something? But, hey, you need someone to post to Internet forums or call some talk shows, I'm your man!
Sincerely,
Mr. Typical American
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
ACTA will include a section on Internet "enforcement procedures" after all.
Dear Imperial Overlords,
Are you familiar with the term "radicalize"?
Are you aware that the script kiddies of the world are extremely unskilled?
Do you really think you control, or can control, the Internet?
You are guests in our world. Try reading some cypherpunk. Me, I'm interested in other things, but keep this up, and an increasing number in our community will begin to get defensive and protect our community from you interlopers.
Just the facts, not trying to be a dick or anything.
Have a good day,
Bob
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Sometimes there is also a public consultation document towards the start of the process, but the usual procedure for delegated legislation is to invite comment on a published exposure draft once it has been, uh, drafted.
Isn't anyone bothered by government asking commentators to "sign a non-disclosure agreement" about a proposed law disturbing?
How does the government prosecute someone who broke the law? Make the jury sign NDAs? Or maybe use a military court?
If ACTA has nothing to hide, why are they hiding. All this secrecy suggests that it is loaded with anti-freedom, corrupt, vile and unconstitutional provisions.
If Joe Foobar Citizen has nothing to hide, why is he encrypting his emails? All this secrecy suggests that it is loaded with terrorist plans, and corrupt and vile schemes.
See what I did there?
Wow talk about kismet. That song came around on the iPod the same time I came across this post. How weird is that?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
"States' Rights" these days are always a smokescreen for some other issue, rallied around by people who wanted to use the federal system to force something and discovered that the feds actually don't have the power to do that - but that they could get a lot of individual states to go their desired way. You may think you, personally, "get it" and have only the bests interests of citizens in mind, but the big names that push for the States don't give a damn and are merely picking the most convenient rallying cry to support their ulterior motive.
I do find it funny, though, that you try to tie the Founders to your opinions. You should perhaps review US history some more; all the powers the federal government has, it has because our *first* attempt, in which the states had those powers, was a complete failure. The same Founders who were revolutionaries, the same Founders of the failed version, are the Founders of the successful version we're still using today.
Every time it comes up, people seem to think I am a southerner when I refer to the War of Northern Agression.
Your right, we don't need another war of Union Aggression. However, I don't think the people here are served by maintaining the Union either, so whats a people to do?
If the Union wont allow us to leave peacefully, thats on them, as far as I am concerned.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Probably not. I see people throwing around numbers like that, but like every other kind of accounting the number you end up with depends on what you include in your analysis. Some things they tend to forget about:
I suspect if you included all this in the analysis you'd find California a net beneficiary of federal largess.
Which party exactly is trying to expand Government?
The one that wants to do secret search and seizure, and destroy your privacy and social liberties in the name of National Security.
Or
The one that wants to make sure that the Rich don't trample over the poor, while at the same time lining their own pockets with money.
Why are you trying to fuck America?
To quote Sir Mix-a-Lot: I like big butts and I can not lie...
At first i laughed.
Then I realized that you were correct.
Now I am sad.
I think the only way to stop ACTA now is to engage in FUD.
We must engage in a long and nasty FUD campaign, of which the likes no one has ever seen. If they will not reveal information on ACTA, we must slander it until we utterly destroy it. The only way to counter this campaign would be to release information on ACTA, which would also be a victory.
Seriously.
The trouble is whether or not law enforcement ignores them. It's hard to ignore law enforcement officers.
Freedom wasn't so great anyway.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
No, I intended to imply that the flames targeted at me would accuse me of being anti-American. I apologize for the ambiguity.
I am encouraged, though, that the majority of replies have been in agreement.
My reference to our founders involves the fact that only the powers specifically granted the Federal government by the Constitution were to be within the federal purview. All else was to be that of the States. The Federal government has stepped way beyond that limitation. This was a response to a the colonies being ruled by a government separated geographically from their citizenry and thus, out of touch with the immediate needs of said colonists. I don't believe for one second that a group of in-fighting, power-hungry, money-grubbing (gross generalizations, I know, but you sound intelligent and I believe you will get my meaning) politicians can honestly make decisions that best serve the citizens of states outside of the politicians' day-to-day exposure.
While you are at it, please, warn everyone you know of the dangers of waking up in a tub of cold water without a kidney, and about a kid dying, but wanting to collect as many e-mail addresses as possible. Oh, and don't forget that famous Neumann-Marcus cookie recipe. The world must know at once!
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Why would you think flames targeted at you would imply you were anti-American? You aren't saying anything new or controversial. States' rights and a limited Fed are a key plank in the Republican platform.
But the thing is, there are a number of reasonable people who disagree with you. They are commonly known as 'Democrats' and are currently in control of two of the three branches of government. How do you feel about desegregation? Never would have happened with stronger states' rights. The government of the southern states knew their constituency very well. They knew they hated black people and wanted 'separate but equal' to continue. Was it wrong or right of the Federal government to override them?
There are some parts of the country, where if it were put to a popular vote, lynching of blacks and beating of homosexuals would be perfectly legal.
You say the two major parties have a stranglehold on politics, but your answer is to enact the platform of one of those parties.
The funny thing is, the Republican dominated states almost always get more federal funding than they pay in taxes. It is the big, wealthy, liberal states that pay for it. For instance, California gets around 80 cents back for every dollar they pay in taxes, while Mississippi gets more than two dollars for ever dollar it pays in Federal taxes. In this defederalized world you crave, many states would be left bankrupt while the liberal states like California and New York would be rolling in money.
You may want to go here and take a look to see if your state is getting more than it pays in taxes. If so, contemplate what your state would look like without all that Federal money propping it up. If the citizens in your state aren't educated enough to compete in the modern marketplace, they mat be in for a very rude shock when they get rid of that Federal pork. They may have to face the fact that it is the rich, liberal, intelligent, successful states that are keeping them out of abject, third world poverty .
On the other hand, if you are from one of the rich, successful states that have been propping up the rest of the country with our tax dollars, downsizing the Federal government could save you billions. Of course, all of the poor, uneducated citizens of the unsuccessful states will then attempt to move to the liberal states, screwing up their economy and leaving states like Mississippi, Alabama, and Kentucky barren, desolated wastelands with no government or infrastructure.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
English, Law, and History help so that you can see when a coup d'e'tat is imminent. That then allows you to run and hide in your bunker.
The problem with modern democracy is that it takes a huge amount of time, effort and money to get elected and there is no guarantee of success. This often means that those going into politics have generally been rather unsuccessful at their chosen careers (and have less to lose and more free time) or actually have no career other than politics. Neither is particularly desireable for someone who is effectively managing a country: the first is incompetent and the second ignorant.
Maybe we should start demanding politicians with REAL degrees who understand the REAL world, not worthless cr@p subjects like English, law, art, history that politicians seem to specialise in.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
When has the Republican party attempted to give back any of the Federal powers "stolen" from the states? While I agree the Republicans pay lip service to limiting the Fed, when have they ever really put that ideal in action.
Each of the two major parties is in it for themselves, not for the rest of us (again, gross generalization, blah, blah blah).
As to some states failing while others prospering if the Fed were to stop their redistibution of wealth, that would be a shame. But history is littered with the downfall of governments and civilizations. Sounds harsh, I know; but it's true. Also, no one is making us stay in any given state (or country, if it gets that bad). If a state is not bearing up under pressure, move. We are free to move about this land of ours. Surely one can find a place that suits one's ideals and needs. If they cannot change the place they are (I'm talking to myself here, too), go elsewhere.
Well, yes, the Republicans only pay lip service to a smaller Federal Government, until the question of home-town pork comes up. Which is one reason why conservatives need to find themselves a new party that better represents them. And the fact that many liberals thought Obama was a liberal shows why they need to get themselves a new party too. We've got the Blue and the Red Plutocrats Parties here in the US, all beholden to corporate interests.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Honestly, this AC has it figured out. We must stoop to their level to possibly win at the game they made. FUD this thing to hell and back, either it's as shady as it looks and they drop it or to counter act or rabid nonsense they release it, at which point we can read and go "Ohhhh yeah, that makes sense, go ahead".
Why would you think flames targeted at you would imply you were anti-American? You aren't saying anything new or controversial. States' rights and a limited Fed are a key plank in the Republican platform.
And Republicans ignore that platform.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Well, yes, the Republicans only pay lip service to a smaller Federal Government, until the question of home-town pork comes up. Which is one reason why conservatives need to find themselves a new party that better represents them. And the fact that many liberals thought Obama was a liberal shows why they need to get themselves a new party too. We've got the Blue and the Red Plutocrats Parties here in the US, all beholden to corporate interests.
You're talking as if it was conservatives not liberal who believe in small limited government. In fact is was liberalism that called for small limited government, chief among those in the US to do so was Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the other Thomas, Thomas Paine.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I think my state, and the few that surround it, should all consider secession.
You don't happen to live in New Hampshire, the home state of the Free State Project?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
History? You seriously think history is worthless for somebody supposed to be running a country? English, okay, art, sure. Law shouldn't be necessary but it is if you want them to understand the bills they're supposed to be informedly voting on. But history? I'm not even going to bother explaining why it's essential. Think about your position.
Yes, you missed an earlier reference. Even if there hadn't been one, just mentioning occurrences of the numer 42 like you just did, is so utterly devoid of merit, novelty or wit that I started wishing for a categoric "-1 mentions 42" modifier two years ago.
And three wongs make a white?
So much hand wringing so little time...
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
There is a cyber attack against critical infrastructure, nation emergency where the communication lines need to be give priority to responders, when being attack through the internet by a major group.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I believe the punchline is actually 'Two Wongs can't make a Wright.' As the joke itself is a horribly long shaggy dog story designed to be humorous only to the person inflicting it on others, I won't relay it here. It involves airplanes, I'm sure you can figure it out on your own.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The idea is they don't want people to not file out of fear of possible exposure of nefarious activity. The IRS really don't care what Al does or who he kills for a living, they just want the due percent of profits from his rackets. Law enforcement is another dept's job. The IRS's job is to collect as much cash as they can.
It is called classical liberalism now but it was called liberalism before. Don't blame me if others don't use a word properly and instead redefine "liberalism". Are you going to say Thomas Jefferson was not a Liberal?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You can consent pretty easy if you're dead.
As long as it is a part of human nature to lust for power, governments will always suck.
The corporate kleptocracy doesn't care which way we turn as long as they are driving and the meter is running. They get paid no matter where we end up.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
And by 'they are driving' I mean, their money and lobbyists control and direct elections and government. By 'the meter is running' I mean, they control the Federal Reserve Bank.
*sigh*
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I'm pretty sure he meant the adjective "anti-american" to apply to to him and not the flame. i.e. that people would flame him for being anti-american.
How many Illuminati are there again?
This is not a law, this is not even a proposed law, this is a treaty proposal. A treaty does not have force of law, it is merely a contract between nations. It is up to the signatories of the treaty to give it force of law within their individual domains. Expect to see this argument in the near future. "We know that provision X is forbidden by the Constitution, but we SIGNED a treaty, we MUST obey. And so will you... For the good of the treaty provision X must be stricken from the Constitution, there, we will NEVER speak of this again.
Hold on, in a different context, your response would make sense, but this guy is complaining about the federal government's ever broadening powers. He said Democratic and Republican, which means he's probably a Libertarian now. So in other words, you made your comment at the wrong time to the wrong person.
Let's take a quick look over the issue again - here we have a possible law being formed (we know that it will eventually be put into a senator's hands, the senator won't read it but will put it up for vote, and depending on how much money is placed in the system for the issue by the lobbyists (it'll be just enough to buy the senators), the measure will pass. In other words, it won't get read and it will definitely get passed.
So what will it mean for us? This is one step in the overall process - eventually copyright will not have ANY close out date. We will have a fast track system for copyright holders to bypass the legal system and receive all fines, which will be set in an arbitrary manner. There will be no recourse for any mistakes made in the process, there will barely be anyone to contact regarding the matter except for a collections agency.
On a larger note, this system will also be used by federal agencies for other purposes. As I have yet to see said capabilities get implemented, I'll hold back my opinion on what it could mean.
I will say this: there's a threshold government can pass where they no longer represent the people. There are a lot of lines our government has already crossed. Does your government represent you? I thought we elected Obama to provide justice concerning the torture and right to trial issues, as well as hopefully to provide more transparency in government. Instead, he's done nothing but take up right where Bush left off, defending Bush's policies, and furthermore giving organizations like the RIAA and MPAA a direct line into the Whitehouse. Given, he's not as much of an embarrassment for the country as Bush was because he's at least intelligent, but it doesn't look like he will be delivering on any of his campaign promises.
Thanks, that was well-thought out.
Yes, i'm going to waste mod points for this. While this bill is probably over hyped, all I'm going to say is....bring it. The day you managed to actually step on the average individuals toes will be the day that citizens of our proud country rise up and take back what is rightfully theirs. Every since laws were repealed that prevented politicians from taking virtual bribes from corporate entities this country (the USA) has been in a downward spiral. So yes I say, give us a reason. Give Americans a reason to take back this country from the tyranny that is now our government. Give us a reason to rise up and take back our freedom.
I don't understand what the issue is with shutting down the internet in the case of an emergency.
We have tremendous infrastructure vital to our economy and the logistics of daily living. I'd much rather have no WoW for a week or two than have our national infrastructure twisted in knots by a devastating cyber attack which could have been stopped by simply "blowing the bridge".
The internet is not just a conduit for speech, and it's also not the SOLE conduit for speech by far.
I had always assumed the military had the capacity to pull the plug on the intertubes before this was brought up.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/
Only those who are... disloyal. Those of us who are not disloyal understand that the giants who carry this world on their shoulders must be free to conduct their business without interference from the public which does not understand its own good. Keep up your harassment by unreasonable demands for democratic oversight and they may decide to withdraw into seclusion, no longer showering the fruits of their genius upon us.
Besides, there are profits at stake. Better dead than red, right? And if speaking against your financial elite doesn't make you a commie traitor, I don't know what would.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Yeah it'll be up there on Thomas. For the last five minutes before the vote because no one wants anyone to know what it says until it's too late. People always get after our Congress for moving so slow. In situations like this, I think they move too fast. It is becoming increasingly clear that the checks and balances of our government are buckling and eroding as a result of two parties that have become experts at gaming the system. The ability of the people to control their government is but a shadow of what the framers designed, for the government has learned how to effectively control the people.
We have only 2 chances: 1) A majority of Congressmen must vote this abomination down. But the Copyright monopolies will be spreading Millions around Capitol Hill and we need to make our voice heard more loudly. 2) A majority of Congressmen must repeal it. And if you though the bribery was bad in 1) you haven't seen anything. Chance 2) is an incredible long shot. We better hope this no vote, no input present from Obama the great Corporatist doesn't get voted in.
The only reasons for making a treaty secret are sensitive military content or to delay protests until the end. Which could this be?
You mean it's hard for 307 *million* people to ignore the few LEO amongst them? Even with the 1,473,900 active personel in the millitary, they still vastly outnumber the cops/soldiers.
And you should never forget, that even a soldier with a tank is likely to join a giant group of so many protesters, that he does not see any chance other than dying inside that completely locked down tank.
The real problem is the retards out there, who are acting like passive, easily influencable cattle.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
O R'lyeh?
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Then clearly you support legalizing marijuana and legalized physician assisted euthanasia because some states have passed laws allowing this. Since you support states rights.
Bush and the Republicans sure didn't.
If only it weren't true...
well, there's always the possibility that they could drive the country and/or planet right off the edge of a cliff. But they'd probably still expect a tip on the way down.
Holy shit, when did spain re-invade mexico?!?
I could have sworn they won their independance quite a while ago?
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
You mean it's hard for 307 *million* people to ignore the few LEO amongst them?
The problem is getting all of them to stand up at once. If you stand up without everyone else standing up at the same time you will get shot down. That's why they're doing the boiling frog approach.
Maybe if Iowa would stop deciding who we get to vote for we could :) Try making them do their primaries same day as everyone else.
I have voted in every election since I was 18 and not yet as the guy I voted for won, but I keep trying and hoping in vain.
It's a bit late, but I should point out that the Patriot Act has not been repealed, the warrantless wiretaps are defended (to the point of absurdity) by the current administration, Guantanamo is still open, Afghanistan is now his problem and he is treating it just like Shrub treated Iraq for years, and he's mucking with "stimulus" that does not, cannot, and will not do anything to help the economy, which is still sliding ...(the bulk of the "stimulus" is coming 2010... nice "quick turnaround" there...) And the "Open and Transparent" government promised on many a platform during the election has not even come CLOSE to materializing.
So, If you believe those to be "okay", and not "more of the same" from the one-party system we are under (left, right, give me a break... there IS no more delineation), then you ARE part of the problem, just like I've said in other threads...
I criticized Shrub, and I am criticizing Obama... not for stupid reasons like "birth certificate" or his religious/non-religious ties, but SPECIFIC things that he said he would do and HAS NOT DONE. (yet he has time to go on 22 fundraisers in only 11 months in office... contrast that with shrub's 6 his first year.) The funny thing is, the people who see the problems for what they are now ARE labeled as "nuts" "birthers" and other nonsense by the media and left-wing apologists (there IS a left/right wing on TV... but for the life of me I can't figure out why...) When Obama fixes all those problems (and stops benefiting from Shrub's expansion of executive powers)... I'll believe he's "different". Right now, his "change" is merely a name on the door. I do NOT support the expansion of the Federal Government, and no sane American should either. Still, nothing has changed, and the government is STILL fucking us in the ass and raping the Constitution. If you can't see that, you're the hypocrite, or at the very least, a blind follower of Saint Obama.
I believe VERY strongly the government is NEVER the answer to our problems, and more government means less freedom. I have for many years, but until recently, there haven't been enough people like me pissed off enough to even get a minor blurb in the press. (Ross Perot did NOT count as a viable third party candidate...) The Repubs and the Dems are doing their damnedest to make fucking sure we don't have a viable alternative. Groening was right... "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" is about all we're going to get until we WAKE THE FUCK UP and realize the "two" party system has failed us. We need another party that remembers what the Constitution means, and remembers that Freedom, above all else, is the reason we wake up in the morning. There's a line in the sand... and unfortunately for the Obama supporters, Barak's STILL on the wrong side of it. Shout louder, because he can't hear you sitting behind the stacks of money...
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.