Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Privacy Chief Says ACTA Violates European Law

Posted by kdawson on 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."

14 of 136 comments (clear)

  1. Seems fairly intelligent... by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of the points he makes, which is a good one, is that data-sharing for enforcement purposes among countries that have different criminal punishments for copyright law is hard to justify. It also makes me wonder if--for example--I live in a country with fair use and a country with more stringent fair use policies wants to go after me for copyright infringement... well, you see the issues. Will the country with the most stringent policies suddenly be the equivalent of the patent troll district in Texas?

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    1. Re:Seems fairly intelligent... by Errol+backfiring · · 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!
    2. Re:Seems fairly intelligent... by El+Jynx · · 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.
    3. Re:Seems fairly intelligent... by Proteus+Child · · 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.

  2. I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out by eldavojohn · · 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 M-RES · · Score: 4, Funny

      I could care less about what the majority wants.

      You COULD? Personally I COULDN'T care less... I wonder why you care so much about the majority? ;p

    2. Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out by Xest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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) and the hope is that they can slip these laws into each country without the populace even noticing. If even half the law makers aren't party to the negotiations they can only go by what is available.

      These sorts of laws like 3-strikes really do breach the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also specifically in terms of the right to fair trial, and the reasonable right to privacy. Further, most countries have laws derived from the Geneva convention to govern related and similar civil matters, such as to protect against collective punishment, which is a war crime under the Geneva convention- cutting off internet access to a household for the action of one clearly also breaches this.

      So we've got this situation where governments are trying to pass these laws regardless, even though they are clearly in conflict with existing, more fundamental laws. In Europe, this has happened repeatedly this last decade with the likes of the British government's DNA database storing DNA of the innocent and so forth, and the end result is always the same - the law gets deemed illegal in itself by the European Court of Human Rights and change has to happen, or governments will face penalty, but in the meantime it is citizens who have to deal with all the shit.

      So regardless of whether this guy is right or wrong, it doesn't really matter, he's making comments based on what he does know, and that's really key, because if at least he can make the point heard that it's about time they start thinking of the consequences and repercussions of the laws, and whether they are legal BEFORE they implement them, then that's a good thing. I don't however, hold much faith, because those passing such laws seem to do so on the hope that no one will notice said laws have been passed- but we do notice, because we're the ones they potentially effect.

      Good on him for making the point regardless, they need to know that we are listening, we do know about it, and that these laws will end up just being shot down by the courts anyway.

    3. Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out by mcgrew · · 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:

      1. We are for the legalization of rape
      2. We support the use of undocumented aliens
      3. 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!
    4. Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out by El+Jynx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We SHOULD be against any form of copyright protection on principle. It goes against nature (copying is natural) and hence will require LOADS of energy to enforce - from policy makers, judges, and cops to sysadmins and users. Get rid of it; there's plenty of better ways to get this done. Open source collaboration is one, alternate business models are another. The record companies have already been made superfluous by these developments and they know it, but they're doing their damnedest to become tyrants rather than adjust to life's flux.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it well worth the effort.
    5. Re:I Think I Know Why They Left Him Out by blackchiney · · 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.

  3. dude has got it all wrong... by sxpert · · Score: 5, Funny

    the title should read "European Law violates ACTA"
    subtitled "The law must be changed"

  4. Re:Secret laws are illegal anyway by codegen · · Score: 5, Informative

    Its not law yet. Its a proposed international treaty. Once it is signed, then each individual country that signs (an ratifies) it is then obligated to pass laws to implement the treaty. Those laws of course will be public.

    The problem with secret negotiations, is that the public is then presented with a fait d'accompli, which must be implemented in law, thus depriving them of any input. In some countries, the ratification process provides some measure of input, but it is binary, either yes or no. Once ratified, the politicians can then say, "we have to pass this law, we are obligated by the treaty" and ignore any opposition from the public.

    --
    Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
  5. Re:Secret laws are illegal anyway by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  6. Keeping proposed legislation secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have to disagree with you in this:

    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.

    That's exacty what corrupts democracy from an open discussion of ideas towards a power game more akin to chess playing. Entertaining, but missing the point.

    One of the pieces of US legislation I'm most envious of, as an European is FOIA (the time span should be considerably shorter, but over here, governments are free to keep things secret forever).

    Keep politics and admin honest by making known as much as possible as early as possible.