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.'"

Comments

EFF asking people to ask for Senate Hearings

[TheCarp]

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

Re:How can this be secret?

[MightyMartian]

It's actually a fairly old tradition that treaties are negotiated in secret. In most democracies, that's not supposed to be the point at which things are scrutinized. It's when you bring the treaty back that whatever branch of government responsible for ratifying the treaty does so and then the legislative branch passes laws to enact the treaty.

That's why I'm not exactly losing sleep yet. Before most countries sign on to it, there's going to have to be a debate. Even in the UK, where the Queen technically is the ratifier, an Act of Parliament is required, and her ratification is going to be based on the advice of Her Ministers. In the US, the Senate does the ratification, so the terms are going to be heard anyways.

Re:I am definitely not a lawyer...

[MightyMartian]

...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?

Because it isn't a law yet. You do understand how treaties work, right? Treaties are negotiated, then, if agreed upon, ratified by the signatory nations, and then after that's all done, legislation is passed in each country that has ratified the agreement which gives the treaty the force of law. In fact, even after agreement has been met, treaties can be rejected. That's what happened to Woodrow Wilson in 1919 when he went back to the Senate with the League of Nations, and they sent him packing.

Don't they teach any kind of civics courses in high school anymore?

Re:So much for transparency

[cmiller173]

ACTA is not an organization, it is the name of a (currently proposed) treaty being negotiated by Office of the United States Trade Representative which is part of the US State Department (which is part of the Executive Office of the President of the United States). Even though the negotiations started before the current administration, they are being carried on by THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION! Since this is a part of the US government that is under the purview of the president he could simply by executive order make this public. So far he has not. That a trade agreement could be kept secret as a mater of national security is utterly spurious.