EU Privacy Chief Says ACTA Violates European Law

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Privacy Chief Says ACTA Violates European Law

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @01:08AM from the ain't-nobody's-business-if-i-do dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection Supervisor, has issued a 20-page opinion expressing concern about ACTA (PDF). Michael Geist's summary of the opinion notes that it concludes that the prospect of a three-strikes and you're out system may violate European privacy law, that the possibility of cross-border enforcement raises serious privacy issues, and that ACTA transparency is needed now."

10 of 136 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out by eldavojohn · 2010-02-23 01:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

So after reading a bit of his "opinion" piece (written way more formally than any opinion piece I've read), it seems that without reading the full extent of ACTA he is dead set against it. Any aspect he has heard of (most likely through Doctorow or Geist) he makes a case for it being a violation of privacy. Without even reading all of it, he knows it's illegal. His title sounds like he should have been invited to these proceedings but I think I can decipher why he wasn't invited ...

I agree with him but it sounds like he would be opposed to anything they could dream up. And maybe that's the way it should be ... maybe privacy and international IP/copyright enforcement are inseparable. Not being an expert, I cannot say. I am fairly certain, however, that each country has to pass this into law once the countries agree on a basis. I will say that my representative and senators had better damn well represent the majority of the population and I hope that majority is with me on this. What the EDPS should do is continue to demand transparency but also get the citizens and all the members of the EU to promise not to pass this into legislation without transparency right now.

--
My work here is dung.
1. Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out by mcgrew · 2010-02-23 01:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  it seems that without reading the full extent of ACTA he is dead set against it.
  How is one supposed to read the full extent of a paper that is not only secret but unfinished? How about this:
  
  We are for the legalization of rape
  We support the use of undocumented aliens
  We support wages of one dollar per hour
  (rest of list redacted)
  How can I be against this list when I've only seen three items?
  If what you see of a list is 100% evil, it is fair to assume that not only is the rest of the list evil, but so are the people writing the list.
  The very fact that MNOs are writing laws for the world's governments puts ME squarely against it, even if they're supporting sunshine and flowers. NOTHING matters to an MNO except profits; they are amoral and nonsocial. They do not care about human rights, only profits, and any politician in any country that supportst this travesty should be voted out of office.
  will say that my representative and senators had better damn well represent the majority of the population and I hope that majority is with me on this.
  I agree completely. But even if the majority of my state's voters are for inhumane copyright legislation, I personally will vote against any politician that votes for it.
  The corporations have too much power; they should have none at all.
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
2. Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out by eldavojohn · 2010-02-23 01:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But this is the problem. We've got these top secret negotations that are clearly secret, because there will be massive opposition to them, (else there'd be no reason to keep them secret)
  I don't quite agree with you there. People have all sorts of different reasons for keeping legislation secret until it is proposed ranging from strategically hiding it from your opposition thereby reducing their reaction time to simply not having a solid foundation built yet. If you've got a shaky idea of what all the players want out of this deal, you shouldn't be publishing the initial draft of the documentation. This leads to confusion and gives opponents fodder. Let's say the countries that came to the table eventually reject the international three strikes rule but later have problems passing a better version of ACTA that actually tries to achieve a solution without invading privacy. Even the opinion piece acknowledges a need for a solution:
  
  The EDPS acknowledges that the cross-border trade in counterfeit and pirate goods is a growing concern that often involves organized criminal networks, which calls for the adoption of appropriate cooperation mechanisms at international level in order to fight against this form of criminality.
  No matter how good that amended solution may be, you and I aren't going to care. We're only going to remember the stories on Slashdot and know that ACTA = EVIL. So with this early exposure, the thing is dead before it can be reformed and amended.
  
  On top of that, how do you get all the big players to the table if the documentation is floating around that angers the hell out of their constituents. "If so and so goes to that summit, I'm never voting for her/him again" is what one might say.
  
  I mean, the leaked documentation is damning but you have to consider that bills proposed here in the USA always have flaws that get worked over and over before it's passed. To claim otherwise is a bit disingenuous.
  
  --
  My work here is dung.
3. Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out by EzInKy · 2010-02-23 02:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Any aspect he has heard of (most likely through Doctorow or Geist) he makes a case for it being a violation of privacy. Without even reading all of it, he knows it's illegal.
  Could you please post a link to all the ACTA documents? If not, all we can assume is it just as bad as the naysayers say.
  
  --
  Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
4. Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out by blackchiney · 2010-02-23 02:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You could be correct. But what has come out of the meetings so far isn't very promising. Leaders are reluctant to share it with constituents because they know they could never pass it in its current form. If you want to see how secrecy can topple a legislative process look no further than the US healthcare bill. The much more public House version passed with what most people would be satisfied with. The extra secret Senate version was a travesty. Meetings with healthcare companies, no input from the public (who later on expressed their anger the only way they could by firing these idiots) and here we are today. A bill that cannot pass in its current form because no one likes it. The good news is the WH, senate, have finally realized the healthcare industry doesn't keep you in washington, people that vote do. Ignoring their questions long enough means you'll be out a job soon. ACTA is like that. Other, more meaningful, treaties (like child slavery, sex trafficking) have passed in less time with majority support. If ACTA was so great it wouldn't take half a decade to be in the "discussion" phase. But it's garbage, they know it and they know we know it.
Re:Seems fairly intelligent... by Errol+backfiring · 2010-02-23 01:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

Will the country with the most stringent policies suddenly be the equivalent of the patent troll district in Texas?
They already are. That is why they came up with ACTA in the first place.

--
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Re:Seems fairly intelligent... by El+Jynx · 2010-02-23 01:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Good point. I certainly hope not. Copyright is already problematic in that copying is built into nature, so going against it is swimming upriver - they're better off going with either a pledge-money-for-band-X's-new-album system or else lowering prices so far that downloading illegally just doesn't make sense anymore (especially if you can get it automatically sorted into the right folders with ID3 tags just they way you want 'em). Lower prices to 10c / song and I'll immediately spend $200. Add the right to re-download whenever you want and you've got a business model. Although on a practical note, there's no reason bands can't do tat themselves. There's plenty of platforms available for it.

On the side: There's a Facebook group I started in the hope to raise awareness, with the ultimate goal being to petition / lobby governments. Feel free to join, it's called We need 5m people to prevent the labels killing internet freedom with ACTA.

--
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it well worth the effort.
Re:Secret laws are illegal anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 01:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Most countries also prefer to avoid having anything to do with the men threatening western civilization instead of fighting them.
Yes, because if EU had declared war on the USA while Bush was in power, it would have caused WW3. The nicer approach was to just wait for his term as a president to finally run out.
Re:Seems fairly intelligent... by commodore64_love · 2010-02-23 01:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

>>>data-sharing for enforcement purposes among countries that have different criminal punishments for copyright law is hard to justify
Not really. The U.S. member states constantly share information across borders and it's justified as "being tough on crooks". The EU member states will likely do the same, if not now, then in the near future.
What I'm surprised he did not address is the violation of the Right to a trial by your peers (jury). The 3-strike law presumes guilt without any requirement that the state prove its case FIRST. Although this may sound harmless, I can easily imagine the state government, or a progressive leader, using the 3-strike law to silence bloggers/reporters he doesn't like by making false 3-strike claims. In such a case the connection gets cut automatically (presumed guilt), the blogger is silenced, and the leader smiles.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Seems fairly intelligent... by Proteus+Child · 2010-02-23 02:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

On the side: There's a Facebook group I started in the hope to raise awareness, with the ultimate goal being to petition / lobby governments. Feel free to join, it's called We need 5m people to prevent the labels killing internet freedom with ACTA.
That's great. How do you propose we go about it? Just sitting around in a Facebook group bitching won't accomplish anything.

Who do we write to? Who do we call? What are they in charge of? What power (realistically) do they have over the situation? Do we tell them that we back them, or that we're against their support of ACTA?

We need actionable information, or pointers to where we can find it. Anyone know where to start?

--
Proteus' Child
Doko ni datte; hito wa, tsunagette iru.