Another ACTA Leak Discloses Individual Country Data

An anonymous reader writes "On the heels of the earlier leak of various country positions on ACTA transparency, today an even bigger leak has hit the Internet. A new European Union document [PDF] prepared several weeks ago canvasses the Internet and Civil Enforcement chapters, disclosing in complete detail the proposals from the US, and the counter-proposals from the EU, Japan, and other ACTA participants. The 44-page document also highlights specific concerns of individual countries on a wide range of issues including ISP liability, anti-circumvention rules, and the scope of the treaty. This is probably the most significant leak to date since it goes beyond the transparency debate to include specific country positions and proposals."

Comments

Fascinating

[NeutronCowboy]

I can understand why diplomats tend to like their meetings and discussions to be private. It's a hard enough dance between a few select people in a government that it doesn't need to be complicated by the public getting involved.

However, in this case, this is hardly a private conversation. Business is involved, pretty much all the world's governments are involved, and the only group not at the table is the largest and the one with the most to lose: actual people. I'd like to see what kind of justification politicians will come up with to argue that corporations can make suggestions, governments can provide input, but god forbid the people actually have a say in the way this sausage is made.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that the end of the Internet as we know it is near. Too many organizations with too much clout have too many reasons to see the current Internet go away. I don't know what will come in its place, but I'm pretty sure I'll look back at the 90s/early 00s with nostalgia.

Re:Fascinating

[DaveGod]

I'd like to see what kind of justification politicians will come up with to argue that corporations can make suggestions, governments can provide input, but god forbid the people actually have a say in the way this sausage is made.

It's all secret so everyone gets to blame unspecified others. When it comes to publish this thing governments will be disowning provisions they worked very hard to put in place. Why couldn't the public participate? Well YOUR government fought hard for that but the others wouldn't let them, of course.

Governments are supposed to have power because they also have accountability, but that requires transparency. Even if all the politicians really were doing their very best with only our interests at heart that would not be good enough. They must be seen to be doing so, just like justice must be seen to be done, an agent must be seen to act on behalf of his principal and a professional must be seen to be independent.

We give them some room for national security and so on, in the hope that the bond of trust is so sacrosanct they would be unable to break it, or at least that someone would feel it and the truth would come out. Naive perhaps, but it's happening right here with these leaks. There's a good egg somewhere.

Eh?

[algormortis]

This is probably the most significant leak to date...

Seems like people have forgotten about the R Kelly incident already.

Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid?

[tlambert]

Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid?

Basically, they are saying:

"We can't write working code because the only people willing to write this kind of code are incompetent morons. Skilled engineers think this type of code is a bad idea, and won't touch it. Rather than rethinking our position to be more in line with reality, we want laws that make illegal to circumvent the swiss cheese code that we can actually hire someone to write." ...and now we are trying to foist this stupidity off on the rest of the world?!? No wonder they get upset about their dirty underwear going public.

-- Terry

Re:Anyone else think anticircumvention is stupid?

[langelgjm]

Anti-circumvention provisions, particularly as they have been applied in the US, are often used as an anti-competitive device to block legitimate competitors from making interoperable or replacement products. Anti-circumvention provisions also effectively make legal tasks illegal. E.g., ripping a portion of a DVD for commentary or criticism is allowable under fair use, but the process by which one would do so is illegal because it involves violating the DMCA, even though the end result is not illegal.

Besides, do such provisions actually add anything useful? In order for anti-circumvention to be violated, the underlying work must be copyrighted. In any case of real harm, then the underlying copyright would be infringed as well, in which case you could sue for infringement. If an access control was circumvented but the copyright was NOT infringed, then what harm could there be? On the contrary, it is precisely those situations that we would want to allow for interoperability, etc.

If the argument is because it stops the spread of anti-circumvention tools, it doesn't. Dozens of DMCA-violating tools are a click of a mouse button away from being installed.

Just walk away

[TSHTF]

I don't think there's much chance of changing the American negotiators views on this, but I'm still going to contact my representatives in Congress. Nothing will likely come out of it. If you are a /.er in a more reasonable country, say New Zealand or Canada, I beg you to contact your MPs and demand transparency in this process. We shouldn't have to find out about the progress of negotiations through leaks.

Re:History being made.

[TSHTF]

I think people are upset because this accord is being hammered out in secret behind closed doors, and citizens of the affected countries are only aware of progress on the treaty through leaks.

There's a correct way to "come to grips" with these problems, and that way is by discussing these issues in the open, and allowing for review and comment on what's going on.