Slashdot Mirror


Two Senators Call For ACTA Transparency

angry tapir writes "Two US senators have asked President Barack Obama's administration to allow the public to review and comment on a controversial international copyright treaty being negotiated largely in secret. The public has a right to know what's being negotiated in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), Senators Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, and Bernard Sanders, a Vermont Independent, argue in the letter."

20 of 214 comments (clear)

  1. ROFLCOPTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why legislate in the open when you can negotiate secret treaties in the dark?

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    It doesn't matter if this treaty is filled with rainbows and puppies. It needs to be killed as a matter of principle. Free people and free nations do not make law in the dark.

    1. Re:ROFLCOPTER by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Back before memory was cheap and RAM speeds were fast, we couldn't use a full 32 bits to represent a pixel on the screen. If you did that, even at VGA resolution, you'd end up with approximately 1.2MB of memory reserved just to render to the screen. Double that if you want to have an off-screen buffer to prepare the next frame. On systems that had 8MB of RAM in total you can probably sympathize with the graphics guys when they had to skimp on bpp.

      Even until very recently, many image formats only used 24bpp. Seeing as there's no real need to go above and beyond 8 bits per color, you can save a full fourth of the total memory just cutting out the unnecessary byte. Of course, you lose something very important: the Alpha channel. Suddenly, the great cost savings you get with that extra saved byte mean little since your image now can't blend nicely with anything else.

      Our government is a 2bpp system in a 32bpp world.

  2. Most insightful department ever by selven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "We got more senators than that"

    Indeed. It's a shame that only 2% of the senate is willing to stand up against this gross violation of transparency and democratic principles. Good luck to Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown and anyone else who might join them.

    1. Re:Most insightful department ever by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

      Indeed. It's a shame that only 2% of the senate is willing to stand up against this gross violation of transparency and democratic principles.

      That really surprises you? Our Congress is anything but transparent. Bills aren't drafted in public and debated on the floor -- they are written behind closed doors by the Congressional leadership and only brought to the floor for some grandstanding in front of the C-SPAN cameras before the vote (whose outcome is already pre-determined) is taken. It's even worse in the House than the Senate. In the House you can't do ANYTHING without the approval of the leadership. We are supposed to have a House of Representatives but it's really a House of whatever [insert current speaker here] wants to allow to the floor.

      Our Government stopped being about transparency and democratic principles a long time ago.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Most insightful department ever by kurt555gs · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wrote to Senators Durbin, and Burris. They both responded in form letter that they are all for whatever is being negotiated to stop "piracy". Apparently either they didn't read or don't care that what is really happening (from what has been leaked) is the end of Fair Use, and First Sale. Along with DRM with no way out.

      Nice to know both my Senators have our interest at heart.

      Not!

      --
      * Carthago Delenda Est *
    3. Re:Most insightful department ever by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I just wrote to my senator urging him to help these men fight this injustice. Write to yours, too.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    4. Re:Most insightful department ever by afidel · · Score: 5, Informative

      Brown's been on the good side of technology legislation for a LONG time, when he was over in the House he served on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet and was almost always on the side of the citizenry. Every time I've written him about issues concerning me I have received a detailed and thought-out response, some signed by him personally. I've also had the pleasure to meet him in person on numerous occasions and even had the chance to follow-up on some of those letters. He remembered details of my correspondence so I'm fairly certain they were not simply responded too by staffers. He might not be as approachable today as a senator has significantly more constituents but I doubt he cares less about them.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:Most insightful department ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Indeed. It's a shame that only 2% of the senate is willing to stand up against this gross violation of transparency and democratic principles.

      That really surprises you? Our Congress is anything but transparent. Bills aren't drafted in public and debated on the floor -- they are written behind closed doors by the Congressional leadership and only brought to the floor for some grandstanding in front of the C-SPAN cameras before the vote (whose outcome is already pre-determined) is taken. It's even worse in the House than the Senate. In the House you can't do ANYTHING without the approval of the leadership. We are supposed to have a House of Representatives but it's really a House of whatever [insert current speaker here] wants to allow to the floor.

      Our Government stopped being about transparency and democratic principles a long time ago.

      It could be worse. In Canada, our members in the House of Commons have to vote with their party or be removed from it (so votes on bills really are predetermined here). And the senate has rubber stamped every bill through for years.

    6. Re:Most insightful department ever by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just a reminder: both of these excellent senators are considered by the media to be on the extreme far-left.

      Goes to show just how badly "framing" has warped political discussion in the US.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Most insightful department ever by grcumb · · Score: 4, Informative

      It never was -- there aren't good old days. Transparency and openness only became possible with mass media, mass literacy and cheap papers a century to a century and a half ago, depending on how you look at it.

      Indeed. The fascinating history of the Belgian 'colonisation' (read: enslavement) of the Congo, King Leopold's Ghost, deals tangentially with a campaign in the run-up to the First World War to shed light on all the secret treaties that Britain had signed and which led it inevitably into war.

      The campaigner was vilified in the press and mocked by government sources as a delusional paranoid. It was only in the years following the conflict that he was proven to have been substantially correct,

      Believe it or not, the situation we have today is about as good as it's ever been. We do at least have some hope of actually exerting electoral pressure on our candidates, and governments do at some point have to bring information such as this into the open. Congrtulations to the two senators for their actions. Their efforts[*] should be supported, regardless of party affiliation.

      ---------------

      [*] Their efforts, that is, not them. One of the great pitfalls of modern democracy is that we often confuse the person with the policy. Policies should be supported or opposed, not people.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    8. Re:Most insightful department ever by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the company openly supports ACTA, or is known to have had a hand in writing it, then don't buy their product at all.

      One of the (many) truly bad things about the ACTA is that it includes punishments for repeated accusations of piracy. So let's say you decide to not buy MPAA/RIAA products and say so publicly. The MPAA/RIAA could accuse you of pirating (even without any evidence whatsoever) a few times and you'd be kicked offline. So even if you aren't pirating, but are just a nuisance, they can say you are pirating, get you kicked offline and force you to spend time and money on a lawsuit to not only clear your name, but to get yourself back online. In other words, under ACTA, big media companies hold all the cards and you'd better submit to their will or else.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    9. Re:Most insightful department ever by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...you had to be a wealthy landowner just to vote...

      This didn't last long, but the idea was that voters ought to have a stake in the system. There's an argument for that. The USA is very nearly to the point that more than half of the voters either pay no taxes, or receive a net payout from the federal government. Once the majority can vote themselves largess at the expense of the minority, the game is over. It's only a matter of time till the corpse stops twitching.

      There is a strong argument for saying that only people who pay taxes should be allowed to vote. Anyone who receives more in benefits that they pay in should be ineligible - it ain't their money, they don't get to say how it's spent. This includes not only those who do not pay taxes, but also essentially all government employees.

      --
      Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  3. My original link + PDF of the letter by angry+tapir · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here's the link to the longer article that was originally in my story submission before the editor removed it. It includes a link to a PDF of the letter.

    cheers,
    A. Tapir

  4. Re:what what the name of that Who song? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The way US politics and campaign finance are run, there is no way to make a credible run for office unless you are "same as the old boss."

    If you don't like that fact, find a way to change it. But don't complain that a system designed to perpetuate itself continues to look the same.

  5. Re:Gonna be modded down but ... by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    American was not interested in a racist religious nutbag.

  6. We Have a House of Representatives by weston · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We are supposed to have a House of Representatives but it's really a House of whatever [insert current speaker here] wants to allow to the floor.

    And the house leadership is selected by elected members of the house, who are presumably representatives of their district, given that's how they get elected. Sounds representative to me. Probably was more so before the mid 90s when party loyalty and fundraising became a bigger criteria for leadership than seniority, so if you're complaining that party politics distorts the picture, I'd agree, but it's still essentially a function of who gets elected.

    Our Government stopped being about transparency and democratic principles a long time ago.

    To the extent that this is true, it's because this is what we (as a whole) really want. Not what we say we want. We might say we want information and transparency, but frankly, even most of the attentive people I know outside the legislature simply don't pay *careful* attention. They might have hobby horses and hot-button topics, but very few of us have the stomach for careful analysis.

    We get the government we have because generally we prefer to focus on our own lives, and when we're not, we prefer entertainment and passionate expression of our general philosophies over thoughtful, nuanced, nuts-and-bolts policy discussion. And because most of us need to be *paid* to seriously research a position and then go down and talk to members of congress about it -- or talk to each other reasonably about it. No surprise the people who will pay others to do that are best represented.

    If you're one of the few people who donates to organizations that lobby and do legal work, that takes the time to cite policy research instead of simply ranting when you write your reps and senators, that understands the opposition positions and research well enough to know which of their points are respectable and which are refutable, that might even know (and be known to) some of the congressional staff by name, then congratulations, you're one of the few what I'm saying doesn't apply to.

    But for the rest of us, well, the government as it now stands is essentially a reflection of our real habits and values instead of our ideals.

  7. Re:Gonna be modded down but ... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Reading political discourse among most slashdotters is like watching old people fuck.

    It's messy, clumsy, and a little bit revolting.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  8. Re:The senators can sign a law that takes a way th by Firehed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Our current plethora of unconstitutional laws and policies would suggest that's not the case.

    --
    How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
  9. Re:Against ACTA or not? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Personally, it reads like they want to know what ACTA is about before they are for or against it. Which is basically what I'd expect from a level headed politician. What they want is that the legislative (ya know, the body that SHOULD actually make the laws. If you think that's the prez's job, you're essentially wrong) can do its job. What I'd guess they want is to take back the power that has somehow appearanty creeped towards the prez (who represents another power, actually) while nobody was looking.

    One of the cornerstones of a democratic, non-authoritarian government is that separation of powers. The creed is that no person should have more power than he absolutely needs. The US founding fathers saw that in certain situations it might be necessary to act swiftly so they created that office of the president and gave him the extraordinary position of wielding the executive power in his single hand, because executing laws can be a matter that cannot wait until you have assembled hundreds of people and got them to find a consensus.

    Creating new laws, on the other hand, is something that should, must take time. It should be pondered and considered, by many brains with many different views, so every aspect these laws could affect can be taken into consideration. Good laws rarely come from one single person. No person has all the facts, no person takes every possible consequence into consideration, so many people can crate better laws that benefit most.

    Ok, ok, so far the theory, because we know how much rubberstamping is going on, with few senators even knowing what they vote on. But at least they should have the power to do so, if they take their job seriously and don't just want to have good salary with little to no work or responsibility.

    I'd guess they want their duty back. Whether they're eventually for or against it, only time will tell. But they want to know what they vote on, and given that most Senators don't, I'd consider that a good sign.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Bernie Sanders is the Man by stbill79 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I only vaguely recognized the name Bernie Sanders until just recently when someone pointed me to this congressional hearing where he rips Greenspan a new one. Great Stuff!