Slashdot Mirror
US Rejects Demands For ACTA Transparency
An anonymous reader writes "The US Trade Representative issued a release just prior to the launch of the New Zealand round of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negotiations that has left no doubt the US is the biggest barrier to official release of the ACTA text. Unlike most other ACTA countries that have called for transparency without condition, the US has set conditions that effectively seek to trade its willingness to release the text for gains on the substance of the text."
http://www.stopacta.info/alertbox
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
they actually said it. one member of this 'trade house commitee' assured corporations recently that 'consumer groups' participation would be kept to a minimum'.
Read radical news here
Luckily for democracy, the process is leaking like an old bucket anyway.
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help in documenting this is very welcome.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
...the US has set conditions that effectively seek to trade its willingness to release the text for gains on the substance of the text."
Not true-- this is what was said:
“In this upcoming round of ACTA negotiations, the U.S. delegation will be working with other delegations to resolve some fundamental issues, such as the scope of the intellectual property rights that are the focus of this agreement. Progress is necessary so that we can prepare to release a text that will provide meaningful information to the public and be a basis for productive dialogue."
This says if we work on scope our release will be more meaningful-- it by no means says no release until scope issues are resolved.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
What part of "no change" did you not understand?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
No, you've misunderstood how elections work in the US. You need 50%+1 of the votes--however in Presidential elections it is not the popular vote that is counted but the votes of the Electoral College. To be elected President you must have 50%+1 vote from the Electoral College, which you could theoretically win with as little as ~25% of the national popular vote. In virtually all other elections it's just 50%+1 of the popular vote.
How are all those Obama promises of change working out for you folks that supported him and voted for him?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/
"My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use."
"Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government."
"Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperateamong themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector."
>>>Obama has tried new approaches but was shut down by various people
True but the president could just veto everything, if it does not line-up with his view of "openness" or "constitutional" laws.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
As for the Electoral college, while it is true that a president could theoretically win with a mere 10-25% of the popular vote, I only recall two elections in America's history where the electoral vote diverged from the popular vote.
Actually it's 3. In the elections of 1876, 1888 and 2000 the electoral vote differed from the popular vote.
3 candidates won the presidency without the popular vote and I believe that's 3 too many. 3/44 = 6.8%
They were forced to resort to indirect democracy 200 years ago because they lacked the infrastructure for direct democracy, but that limitation is long gone now.
I agree. I think we should scrap the Electoral College as its an antiquated, undemocratic, and unnecessary intermediary. It's only positive function is that it theoretically gives smaller states more influence, but it arguably gives too much power to small states. And, in any case, I think we should move beyond the idea of representing state sovereigns rather than persons.
Thanks for the correction.