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.'"
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"
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.
Okay, but I have a serious point too: The "Big Content" and other companies are the ones that have a stake in anti-counterfeiting legislation, of course they are going to have primary input. If they were drafting an agreement seeking to protect whiny sensationalist articles on the Internet I'm sure Slashdot would be given advanced versions of the draft.
What. The. FUCK?! I'm a citizen of a country covered by this treaty, I have a stake in this treaty. "Companies" are just groups of citizens, they are not actually citizens. Companies don't have a stake in this, it is the individuals who have a stake in those companies that do, as this will affect their profits. Does their right to profit trump my rights as a citizen? I think not, but you've got the unmitigated gall to call this a whiny sensationalist article and imply that we, the citizens, don't have a right to complain or even see this bill. What patronizing garbage. Companies shouldn't have rights, and they certainly shouldn't trump the rights of citizens. Companies should not get to dictate treaties to the rest of us. They shouldn't get preferential treatment, and you shouldn't go around kissing the ass of Big Content and telling the rest of us we need to bend over and take what's coming to us, you anti-democratic toady.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The trouble is whether or not law enforcement ignores them. It's hard to ignore law enforcement officers.