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."

10 of 407 comments (clear)

  1. Is Kirk hinting to us? by SlappyBastard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just saying that such a statement seems like a quiet -- yet deniable -- way to ask folks to tear down the secrecy. If he really wanted it to survive, you'd assume he'd be a tiny bit more subtle than, "If this shit is known, this treaty is fucked."

    --
    I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
  2. Walking away from the table by DeeVeeAnt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That would be a bad thing? How exactly?

    --
    Home fucking is killing prostitution.
  3. Down with the Government by PakProtector · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am an American Citizen. Not a taxpayer. Not a consumer. A citizen.

    My government no longer has my consent to government. I only obey laws out of fear of punishment, not because I believe that such behaviors is correct and moral.

    I feel that those who represent us in this country have long ago forgotten the best interests of those they serve, the People, or more correctly, have just decided that it's more profitable serving Corporations and sacrificing essential freedoms for temporary security and monetary reward.

    The only way this kind of stupidity and evil will end is with revolution. From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants, or however the exact original goes.

    The Government's only purpose is to serve the people, to do for them what they as individuals cannot do for themselves: Infrastructure, Sanitation, Hospitals, and Emergency Services springing immediately to mind.

    The Government of the United States has increasingly grown bloated, incompetent, and has increasingly sold out the rights of its Citizens to corporate interests.

    We were once the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. Now we are the land of timid sheep, beholden to our corporate masters, constantly sacrificing our necessary freedoms to protect Children who would better be protected by their parents actually doing their job and parenting, and to protect us from Foreign threats caused by our own meddling in the affairs of other nations.

    It's time to realize that the problem is not whether the politician in the White House is Black or White, Male or Female, Democrat or Republican or Independent.

    The problem is that there is a politician in the White House, instead of a Citizen-Servant who is First Among Equals, not elevated to the status of Royalty.

    We must abolish the Federal Government as it currently stands and return to the ideals of the Founding Fathers on which they attempted to create a nation: The Inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

    No one should have the right to restrict my freedom to do as I wish so long as I do not materially harm another human being.

    Down with the Tyrants.

    --

    Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
    man: no entry for woman in the manual.
    "Qua!?"

    1. Re:Down with the Government by nomadic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I feel that those who represent us in this country have long ago forgotten the best interests of those they serve, the People, or more correctly, have just decided that it's more profitable serving Corporations and sacrificing essential freedoms for temporary security and monetary reward.

      I would like to point out that if you are anyone other than a white male in this country, you currently enjoy far more freedom than at any point in our country's history.

      We must abolish the Federal Government as it currently stands and return to the ideals of the Founding Fathers on which they attempted to create a nation: The Inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

      The problem is that there is a politician in the White House, instead of a Citizen-Servant who is First Among Equals, not elevated to the status of Royalty

      The only president we've ever had who arguably wasn't a politician is, and this is just arguable, was George Washington. Everybody after him has been a politician.

      No one should have the right to restrict my freedom to do as I wish so long as I do not materially harm another human being.

      Alright, this is NOT what the Founding Fathers believed in. If this is what you want, fine, I actually agree that ideally this should be the goal of our society (though I would add "harm another living thing unnecessarily"), but our Founding Fathers would NOT agree with this.

    2. Re:Down with the Government by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      Unfortunately this is a completely wrong measuring stick. By this metrics, one could claim that Roman Empire was "working" just peachy (just as long as you were not a slave or somehow crossed the rich and important), as any and every medieval tin-pot kingdom (just as long as you were nobility), all the way to Nazi Germany (as long as you were Arian and did not oppose the Fascists), Soviet Union (as long as you were not a dissident) ... and the USA (as long as you were not a slave, a Native and as long as there is enough foreigners to get fleeced/invaded/robbed to keep your show going).

      In fact every despotic nation in history could claim the same you do at one time or another (usually at the apex of pillaging conquests of other nations, be it military or economic), that people in it had "plenty to eat". As a matter of fact, Iran and China can make the same claim today - clean water and food are available to pretty much everyone in both.

  4. Re:Should all treaties be public? by Haxamanish · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The League of Nations (1919-1946) forbade all secret treaties, especially military ones, since they lead to the Great War (WW1) - outlawing secret treaties was pushed by Woodrow Wilson. It was broken by the Hoare-Laval Pact in 1935, which effectively killed the League of Nations.

  5. Re:F*CKING BUSH!!! by sanosuke001 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    whoever modded this funny should re-evaluate the state of affairs. Obama is no different than Bush; those of you who saw the next coming of the messiah were shortsighted and ignorant. Those of you who are now saying, "I told you my vote for McCain was right" are just as shortsighted and ignorant if not more so as he would have been just as bad, if not worse.

    The only difference between Obama and McCain is that McCain is up front with his tactics; Obama just flat out lied.

    --
    -SaNo
  6. Re:Corporate Armies by cdrguru · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The "private army" idea came about as part of the "peace dividend" for the most part. The US Army was pretty famous for an extremely high ratio of support personnel vs. guys with guns. The ratio following WW II was claimed to be as high as 12 to 1. Yes, this meant that for every one man with a gun facing the enemy there were 12 supply sergents, cooks, laundry people, etc. Somewhat absurd.

    Well, with the cracking of the "peace dividend" it was decided that while these people were necessary it was no longer reasonable to have them as part of the direct US Army (or other branch of the services). So these were moved to being "civilian jobs" on military bases. This greatly reduced the military headcount and made things look much better come budget time. The only problem, of course, was that they continued the cuts down to base security and every detail that could possibly be done by someone other than uniformed military.

    With the Iraq War, Version 1, we have the silly situation of there simply not being enough cooks, laundry staff, supply sergents, potato peelers, etc. Unlike around a military base in the US, hiring local Saudi staff was out of the question. Contractors to the rescue! All of this was "outsourced".

    Come Iraq War, Version 2 we now have the need for sentries at gates. Can we increase the military headcount for this purpose? No. So now we have contractors with guns standing sentry duty. Security details for Iraqis was next. It all makes sense, in an odd twisted way once you understand how we got there. And for the most part, it was all a budget dodge and something that was supposed to make us believe the military was leaner, cheaper and more adapted to the post-Cold War era. In reality, nothing much has changed and the military is the same size it was.

  7. Re:The question is... by daemonburrito · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is not the status quo. This fact is critical for context.

    Read the discussion on boingboing, where you'll find a conversation with both Cory Doctorow and the author. This negotiation is a departure from the norm, and it is precisely due to the trouble that people like Doctorow caused the last time around, afaict.

  8. Re:The question is... by m.ducharme · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Er, my impression has been that the secrecy around the treaty has been at the behest of the US government, and not countries like China (who don't believe in openness, but don't give two shits about protecting American copyrights, three-strikes laws, and DMCA style provisions).

    This has been kept quiet because if all the details were leaked, the people of the "open" countries would shit a brick, and presumably start turfing out governments come election time.

    --
    Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.