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
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.
That would be a bad thing? How exactly?
Home fucking is killing prostitution.
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
I'll be glad when we have a new president!
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
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!?"
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
But Copenhagen still would be public
Sounds great to me.
Do you have additional changes to the moral law of publication that would encompass Copenhagen?
Why would we want to?
(b) This section does not apply to matters that are--
(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;
People interpreted that as meaning national security, but it clearly means foreign policy in this instance.
When the FFII asked the EU Council of Ministers for opening up the documents regarding the ACTA negotiations, the Council refused, with (a.o.) the argument that this "might affect relations with the third parties concerned".
So the US can't release it because others might object, and the EU can't for the same reason. Inquiring minds want to know which mysterious third country is kicking both the US and the EU into submission. Canada?
Donate free food here
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
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.