Slashdot Mirror
Ambassador Claims ACTA Secrecy Necessary
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "According to Ambassador Ron Kirk, the head of US Trade Representatives, the secrecy around the ACTA copyright treaty is necessary because without that secrecy, people would be 'walking away from the table.' If you don't remember, that treaty is the one where leaks indicate that it may contain all sorts of provisions for online copyright enforcement, like a global DMCA with takedown and anti-circumvention restrictions, three-strikes laws to terminate offending internet connections, and copyright cops. FOIA requests for the treaty text have been rebuffed over alleged 'national security' concerns. One can only hope that what he has said is true and that sites like Wikileaks will help tear down the veil of secrecy behind which they're negotiating our future."
If it's an international treaty, then why is the secrecy a "national security" matter?
Yet Another Tech Blog
(but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
If the contents of this treaty are so abhorrent that politicians cannot survive being associated with it, then that seems like a great reason why everyone should walk away from the table.
Alphanos
If people will walk away from the table if they become associated with the effort, then what does it tell you about the effort?
It tells me that ACTA is something that companies want to increase their profits without the bad publicity of trying to throw their "customers" in jail.
Perhaps it's better if we stopped the charade here.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Oh, treaties concerning the military powers should be secret, except of the most general gist ("we are cooperating", "we have a non-aggression pact" and such.)
But this is a treaty about the fucking entertainment industry. Using the "national security" excuse here is a sign of the absolute abuse of power.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
It would be a bad thing to those who are trying to get make this garbage law. By all appearances, any scrutiny of these plans would inflame the public's ire, and anyone with a public image to care about would not want to collect this kind of tarnish. We can only hope the two senators calling for transparency get some kind of traction going, but Big Media has money in so many pockets, it might be frivolous.
On one hand, I see why a treaty like ACTA might be desirable to establish a common copyright law across all nations. Especially given how much copyright infringement is going on between nations and how hard it is to enforce laws nationally when the economy and the access is global. I can also understand that they may not want to disclose the nitty-gritty of the treaty until they have a lot of the kinks worked out so that parts that will get changed aren't attacked and destroy hope for the treaty ever being passed in any form.
However, everything I've heard about it, admittedly "leaked", is terrible. They're using the secrecy of the process to hide the severeness of the treaty rather than "working out the kinks". Also, the treaty seems very much focused on protecting America's corporate copyrighted interests rather than respecting the authors and the people who use the author's works. This is a huge opportunity to fix our system, but instead it's being used to make everyone else's more broken.
It worked because 200 years ago the only people who had say in gov't were wealthy white land owning men. A fairly homogeneous class that didn't have too many internal divisions. Now-a-days we have a huge spectrum of voters which makes it much harder to agree on anything.
Blar.
Oh please. Our system is "working" just fine. 95% of American's get plenty to eat (too much, including me). We get fresh clean water at a moments notice - even the poorest among us can get free clean water. We can even manage jobs for 30+ million illegal immigrants.
America has problems, but to spout revolutionary rhetoric over copyright laws is just as silly as the mountain men in Montana holed up with 100s of guns and 10 years of canned food. It's just that, rhetoric. Stop being an ostrich, a sheep - get involved, get your friends involved. Let your elected officials know exactly how you feel. You are but one voice, but one voice among many - motivate them.
Politics isn't just for the politicians, you know.
What do the negotiations matter? The politicians, or most of them, aren't usually involved in negotiations anyways. What counts is the ratification. That's where the politicians wear it.
Well, ratification would count, except that in the U.S., ACTA is being negotiated as an executive agreement, and thus doesn't require ratification by Congress.
A few Congresspeople have sent a letter to Obama expressing their concern over the secrecy of the treaty, but others are just parroting the line about protecting American business and innovation, etc.
I agree there are good reasons for some negotiations to be kept private, then ratified later. However, when there is no ratification, the negotiation is entirely secret and simply presented to us as a fait accompli, where is the opportunity for public involvement and comment?
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
I just wrote the President, I urge you to do the same. I think they deserve to get slashdotted in that way. Tell them what you think and that there Is interest in the topic and that you have an opinion. Then they have some more information on which to base a decision, especially when you think that this is an issue that effects all the people.
What I am concerned about is that this looks like an end run by another group that was seeking net non-neutrality. In this case the corporate owners of copyrights, here we know that it is not the singer song writter (like it ever was) that is being effected, or for that matter consulted. It appears as though big corporations, I suspect news and entertainment are a big part of it as well as software companies. That want to get a hand on the internet spigot to have prior-constraint control over information especiall information they feel they own. But then I suspect a handful of countries would love to have access to request internet connection be broken for filtered if they think the message is not what they want. That is being done in China now certainly and the some Middle Eastern countries. That is not a good trend. It would be like only being allowed to listen to Fox news all day, is it really fair and balanced and calling it news might be a stretch. And it is a small step from corporate control to a corporate state (or one that is corporate controlled).
The key here is the controls that are being hinted at may not be in the countries , or the worlds best interest. We need to know what they are contemplating before we as a people are committed to an action that effects our information infrastructure. We own it, not them. They forget that sometimes.
They don't need to be secret ; they just need to be complex and numerous. You and I probably already broke several laws today, without realising it. Unhappily for us, ignorance is not a defence.
A state that keeps it's law secret wouldn't be bothered about due process either - because they couldn't try these cases in the open, for fear of revealing these laws. At this point, you're just disappearing people you don't like, so you don't need laws, secret or otherwise. The one law becomes "don't piss off The Man".
Of course, there is a point where you just have the appearance of justice. Perhaps we're approaching it. Perhaps we've passed it.
Sadly, you seem to have missed the entire point.
If you are merely satisfied with having enough calories per day and enough clean water to continue surviving, that's fine. Some of us, however, feel that more than mere physical necessities are necessary for our happiness. Free discourse, without threat of retribution or harm, the freedom to travel as we see fit without the Government saying who may or may not go where based on how politically 'risky' they may be (as the TSA watch-list brings back memories of McCarthy era communist-blacklists), and the ability to be allowed to live our lives in peace so long as we harm no one.
The Government may not punish us for what we may do. It may only punish for what we have done. You cannot lock a man up on suspicion of likelihood of his committing murder, only once he has in fact attempted or committed said murder.
The attitude of the common people, the faex populi, is that security can be purchased. We have been lulled into believing that the world can be made 'safe.' Life in inherently unsafe. Being 'free' means that you give up security.
We are coming all too quickly to a nation where papers are required to move about, where every single aspect of our lives is monitored by the Government for 'suspect' information exchange, and where we, Human Beings, are being treated as commodities and resources to be traded, purchased, and sold, instead of being treated as Human Beings, with inherent dignity and with respect afforded to us.
One need look no further than any modern corporation and its "Human Resources" department to see this mindset. I am not a resource. I am a human being. We have been desensitised to the callous manner in which we commonly treat each other. We have lost, as a nation, the concept of personal responsibility for our actions. There is always someone to blame.
The death of Democracy (which we are, in fact, not -- we are a representative republic) is that of scapegoating.
The People want their bread and circuses. They want someone to blame when things seem bad, be it the Anarchists, the Communists, the Pinko-Commie-Sympathisers in Hollywood, the Hippies, the Socialists, the Terrorists. These targets are paraded in front of the people to drum up the necessary excuse for the acquisition of greater and greater power by the Government. The Government does not need to read my e-mail, or tell me what weapons I may and may not own. If people truly wanted to be safe from gun-totting madmen, the easiest way to do so would to arm everyone so that as soon as a man opened fire on a crowd, everyone in that crowd would be able to respond in kind.
If people truly cared about the lives and living conditions of prostitutes/sex-workers, they would legalise prostitution so that pimps cannot beat their girls without fear of the girls going to the police, so that prostitutes would not be raped in back alleys because their trade would take place in safety and not in secret.
The right to swing one's fist ends where the other man's nose begins. Likewise, the right to dictate correct behaviour ends where your body ends. Murder is not a curtailment of one's freedom (as something being illegal does not stop anyone from doing it), but is a protection of the freedom of others to remain unmolested in their person.
You, and the people like you, are what have driven this country to the dire straits it is in. Government is not a good, sir. It is a necessary evil. It must necessarily, therefore, be kept as small, impotent, and powerless as it can be.
We need no great standing army to defend our nation. If every man and woman who has reached the age of majority was required, as in at least one country I can think of, to keep in their home a fully automatic military weapon, then any invading force would be met with resistance the likes of which our standing army with its tanks and planes and bombs could not match.
The only true way to security is through freedom -- the freedom of the
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
But I suppose you have to slam the black man, in case he slams your women, huh?
Typical, someone raises a question about what the government is doing, but because the president is black then anybody who questions him must be racist right? "You're a racist" is such an effective way to censor people these days.
I hope you recognize the irony of just how incredibly racist it is to call "racism" when nothing racist was even hinted at.
Asshole.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
While I do agree with many of your sentiments, technology has rendered the citizen-militia / obscenely-funded-military balance untenable. Other nations can muster weapons of such power that assault rifles become a laughable response. Your assumption that an invader has to occupy - and therefore engage in the kind of warfare which USA is waging in Iraq - is false (also note that even though Iraqis had a lot of AK-47s in pretty much every house, their "liberation" was crammed down their throats despite of that, with millions of refugees and hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed). I case of vast riches hoarded by a population armed only with anti-personnel weapons, a nation-state enemy has only to employ a sufficiently powerful WMD system with reasonably short lived post-effects. Then there are also issues of naval blockades etc.
So clearly something beyond the home-kept assault rifles and RPGs is required.
but it clearly means foreign policy in this instance.
And like most classified material it actually means 'in the interest of protecting the people involved from political embarrassment'.
But it's great way to launder policy; take an internal policy for which you have no democratic political support, push it in a secret international forum as 'foreign policy', then take it back home and adopt it, claiming it's an international treaty requirement. Great way to bypass any democratic forms.
Oh please. Our system is "working" just fine. 95% of American's get plenty to eat (too much, including me). We get fresh clean water at a moments notice - even the poorest among us can get free clean water. We can even manage jobs for 30+ million illegal immigrants.
My cat gets plenty to eat, fresh clean water at a moments notice (she'll let you know). And, she has a "job" keeping rodents away. But... she desperately wants to go outside, and I won't let her. She doesn't have Freedom, she has creature comforts.