ACTA Signed By 8 of 11 Participating Countries

Countries? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 00:54 · Score: 3, Informative

The EU is not a country.

Re:Countries? by TechLA · 2011-10-20 01:01 · Score: 1

And for that matter putting medicines as "counterfeit" items just because they're generic meds manufactured more cheap elsewhere is just stupid and shows that US is mostly interested in protecting RIAA, MPAA and the big pharma companies.
Re:Countries? by King+InuYasha · 2011-10-20 01:05 · Score: 3, Informative

The EU can sign on the behalf of its member countries, though it doesn't exercise that power often.
Re:Countries? by mmcuh · 2011-10-20 01:20 · Score: 1

So, more correctly, it was signed by 8 out of 29 participating countries.
Re:Countries? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 01:29 · Score: 0

Yeah, it really is.
Re:Countries? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 01:39 · Score: 2, Informative

If the US is a country, the EU is a country. Both are collections of states which were once independent nations. The days of dealing seperately with individual European states are numbered. Deal with it.
Re:Countries? by LongearedBat · 2011-10-20 01:48 · Score: 2

Actually, meds are often counterfeited.
From the link:

1. Products without active ingredients, 32.1%;
2. Products with incorrect quantities of active ingredients, 20.2%;
3. Products with wrong ingredients, 21.4%,
4. Products with correct quantities of active ingredients but with fake packaging, 15.6%;
5. Copies of an original product, 1%; and
6. Products with high levels of impurities and contaminants, 8.5%.
Re:Countries? by MikeB0Lton · 2011-10-20 01:50 · Score: 2

Counterfeit drugs are quite often fake in that they contain more, less, or an entirely different drug than advertised. They have also been known to contain toxic filler material and not practice proper sanitation in manufacturing. Have fun fighting big pharma and taking those cheap foreign drugs. I'd rather pay up and be assured I'm getting the correct medicine from a well regulated facility.
Re:Countries? by metrix007 · 2011-10-20 01:56 · Score: 1

While the EU is different from the USA, is it that different from the USSR which was considered a country?

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Re:Countries? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:11 · Score: 0

It's a Union of Countries
Re:Countries? by JasterBobaMereel · 2011-10-20 02:17 · Score: 1

It is 27 countries, that's more than have signed it ... ...and has a combined population larger than the USA ...

--
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Re:Countries? by h4rr4r · 2011-10-20 02:37 · Score: 1

Define incorrect quantity. I take a drug that has 137ug of active ingredient per pill, since I take the generic they work that out by testing the active ingredient in X amount of pills and averaging. The name brand does this too but they use Y amount of pills and Y is less than X. Their tolerances are also closer, would my generic drug then fall under incorrect quantity of active ingredients?
Re:Countries? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:41 · Score: 0

Was the US a country under the articles of confederation?
The EU currently holds more power than the US federal government did at that point.
Re:Countries? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:43 · Score: 0

If this is going to be your definition of country, then please help in the cause to get people to stop referring to the United States of America as a country as well. It is a federated union of fifty countries which has chosen to centralize some of their functions.
Re:Countries? by hedwards · 2011-10-20 03:06 · Score: 1

Actually, even when they aren't outright counterfeit, the FDA doesn't have the resources to visit each and every product line on a regular basis. So, even if the line is legitimate there's no oversight guaranteeing that it works as advertised. On top of that generic time release medications often times have to use a different delivery system as the delivery system isn't covered by the same patent and is often times still valid.
When you cut cost on medication you run the risk of lowering the quality of the medication. Especially if there isn't adequate oversight to ensure that the money is coming from corporate profits rather than by cutting corners during production.
Re:Countries? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:08 · Score: 1

> the EU is a country
It isn't.
> The days of dealing seperately with individual European states are
> numbered. Deal with it.
Just wait until the 'European Spring', which will happen very soon. ;-)
Re:Countries? by Jibekn · 2011-10-20 03:16 · Score: 1

That definition was debunked when half of your states didn't let the other half leave the union peacefully. Your a war-mongering country now :)
Re:Countries? by phorm · 2011-10-20 03:17 · Score: 1

The EU is a bit of an odd duck these days. It's made up of separate countries, but has adapted a form of centralization for currency and to some extent law, making it almost like a set of countries within a larger country.
Re:Countries? by Reziac · 2011-10-20 03:31 · Score: 1

I dunno, but that sounds like a levothyroxin dosage, and turns out they're all over the map, both namebrand and generic. :(

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Countries? by shaitand · 2011-10-20 03:40 · Score: 1

Oh enough with this nonsense. The EU is no different than the US during the earlier period of the union when the states still retained most of their independent authority.
Re:Countries? by shaitand · 2011-10-20 03:42 · Score: 1

"Counterfeit drugs are quite often fake in that they contain more, less, or an entirely different drug than advertised."
Or so the big pharma propoganda tells us. And yes, anything issued by the FDA or DEA falls under that umbrella.
Re:Countries? by shaitand · 2011-10-20 03:45 · Score: 1

It's 27 completely independent nations! Now let me just add up all their populations for a comparison as if it were a single place...
Re:Countries? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:45 · Score: 0

Actually, if the EU can act to sign international treaties on behalf of its constituent members, it IS a country.
If it can force its members to take on new laws on a perfunctory basis, it IS a country.
If one can cross the borders of members without being subject to customs, it IS a country.
If they all accept the same currency, it IS a country.
On all of the above, it's a bit fuzzy around the edges, but very firm in the center.
In all, just because there are multiple languages in use and differing cultures at play doesn't mean that it isn't all one country.
All that's needed now is a direct relationship between the EU and individual "citizens" via taxes, and considering how things are falling apart right now, that's probably in the cards for the next year or two.
Re:Countries? by shaitand · 2011-10-20 03:46 · Score: 1

I think you'll find the civil war put an end to that. You aren't a citizen of state x anymore.
Re:Countries? by h4rr4r · 2011-10-20 03:58 · Score: 1

Good guess. Yeah, the drug doses are a huge issue for these companies. I was just basing that on the claims they make, not always reality. I know now what addiction is and if they take that away from me I would do near anything to get it.
Re:Countries? by StikyPad · 2011-10-20 04:06 · Score: 1

I'd rather pay up and be assured I'm getting the correct medicine from a well regulated facility.
LOL.... Naivety is so cute.
GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to pay $750 million to resolve Justice Department allegations that the company sold adulterated and improperly made drugs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39852323/ns/health-health_care/t/drug-maker-pay-million-defective-meds/#.TqBDwt6Ao8k
"This has 'Pfizer' written all over it," Gupta remarked, looking at some of the counterfeit drugs.
"And it's even got the newer Pfizer emblem with the little slant on it and stuff. I mean from the packaging, you'd never know," Clark said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/10/60minutes/main20040693.shtml

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:Countries? by TechLA · 2011-10-20 04:07 · Score: 1

But the thing is, not all EU countries accept the same currency. UK, for example. EU also doesn't force new laws, it's up to all individual countries to set them up. And you can't really cross borders without being subject to customs. You can do it within Scandinavian countries, but that arrangement was established long before EU.
Re:Countries? by 0a100b · 2011-10-20 04:09 · Score: 1

Not all EU members accept the same currency, the UK, for example, has its own currency. And not all EU members have signed the Schengen Area, which is the 'borderless' area. Its more complicated than you think.
Re:Countries? by HermMunster · 2011-10-20 04:13 · Score: 2

ACTA has no basis in law in the US. Though it is a treaty the Whitehouse is treating it as an executive agreement. It is also a violation of the Constitution to have signed it. It restrains Congress from making laws and treaties, which the Constitution explicitly empowers them to do.
The IP Czar has already been caught with her pants down in collusion with the content industry. One needs to find out if her actions are illegal and/or an impropriety. This forces the other nations to comply with US law, but ACTA lets them disregard any part of it. The Whitehouse has enabled itself a lever to wedge the other countries into action, but really has no basis in law nor in the Constitution of the US.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Re:Countries? by MikeB0Lton · 2011-10-20 04:26 · Score: 2

How is this naive? On the one hand you reference where the FDA and the Justice Department along with a whistleblower put a stop to faulty processes in a GSK plant in Puerto Rico. On the other reference, clear evidence is shown of the dangers of prescription drug counterfeiting. Both support that the FDA protects the patient from significant harm.
Re:Countries? by StikyPad · 2011-10-20 06:06 · Score: 1

The original assertion was that paying more for known sources provides some sort of guarantee of quality.
Article 1) The plant was shutdown after the fact. Adulterated drugs were released and consumed, and there's no reason to assume it was an isolated incident. It could have been, but it could also be the tip of an iceberg. Either way, it demonstrates that legitimate manufacturers have, at best, questionable quality controls.
Article 2) Counterfeit drugs have wound up in US hospitals and pharmacies. Specifically, page 3 asserts that between 5 (drug manufacturer's ceiling) and 80+ (independent assessment) people died from taking heparin manufactured by a legitimate supplier using counterfeit active ingredients, which is further evidence that buying from legitimate sources provides, at best, limited protection. Of course, that doesn't help much when you're dead.
When it comes to prescription drugs, It's naive to believe that paying more will necessarily get you more. Buy from whomever you want and pay what you want, but if you're not getting your medication tested by an independent laboratory, you're rolling the dice no matter who your supplier is.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:Countries? by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-10-20 08:10 · Score: 1

What about the fact that all members of EU have their own, completely independent, militaries?
Re:Countries? by Luckyo · 2011-10-20 08:33 · Score: 1

EU is a legal party participating in the process. If EU adapts the ACTA as a directive, all memeber states are required to harmonize their laws to be in compliance with it within reasonable time frame.
As a result, EU as a negotiating party on matters of law is fairly similar to a sovereign country.
Re:Countries? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 08:34 · Score: 0

The original assumption
... was that known sources may be more expensive, but they also are more tightly regulated than counterfeit goods. Have fun dealing with that strawman.
ad 1) which shows that tight regulation can lead to the closing of substandard production facilities, as it should be.
ad 2) which shows that some counterfeits are so good that even professionals cannot distinguish them from the real thing. That is not an argument for less regulation, regardless of your naive position that it is feasible for every citizen to have access to (and the funds to pay for) their own laboratory.
Re:Countries? by StikyPad · 2011-10-20 08:49 · Score: 1

The original assumption... was that known sources may be more expensive, but they also are more tightly regulated than counterfeit goods.
No it wasn't.
I'd rather pay up and be assured I'm getting the correct medicine from a well regulated facility.
There's no such assurance, and "well regulated" is clearly anything but.
I'm not arguing for less regulation, I'm saying current regulation (and enforcement) is insufficient. No one knows how insufficient because there's no public documentation. But if I have to gamble, my money is on the high-value name brand pills being counterfeit over the generic low-cost drugs from India, many of which are imported into the EU and so are subject to the same quality controls as other EU sources (for whatever that's worth).
And no one needs to own their own lab; there are a number of labs that accept samples for testing.
Nice try though, and I don't blame you for posting that twisted argument AC.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:Countries? by Carewolf · 2011-10-20 10:42 · Score: 1

Odd, most "counterfeit" drugs here are identical to the trademark brands, mostly because they ARE the trademark brands, only imported from countries were they have been sold cheaper, and they are only "counterfeit" due to corrupt laws making re-importing cheaply exported pharmaceuticals illegal.
Re:Countries? by MrNthDegree · 2011-10-20 19:12 · Score: 1

It might as well be called one. It's no different to the United States. It has a flag, a government, a set of federal laws (EU Acts), state laws (laws of each "member state") etc.
I'm sure the placement of European Union as a country is intentional, just as RMS keeps calling DRM "Digital Restrictions Management" and how people call the RIAA the Recording Industry Ass. of America!
Re:Countries? by dunkelfalke · 2011-10-20 22:02 · Score: 1

You can actually get addicted to L-Thyroxin?

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Re:Countries? by KingBenny · 2011-10-22 03:46 · Score: 1

lol yea, does it really state the EU as a country ??? we are a loooong way away from that mah frend ... national dictation collectives are not ready to give up their grip yet, and with people like Motti who would put us back 500 years around, i feel like that's a good thing still

--
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Re:Countries? by Montezumaa · 2011-10-22 18:08 · Score: 1

Except that EU member nations are sovereign nations, where as each state within the United States is a sovereign state, that yields some(not all) powers to the federal body(the United State Government). US states cannot enter into treaties, declare war, and a list of other things. EU members, as I understand it, are still free to do these things. While there may be some similarities between how the EU and the US operate, there are still vast differences between the two.
Re:Countries? by JasterBobaMereel · 2011-10-25 01:09 · Score: 1

Signed on behalf of 588,365,963 people
Not signed on behalf of 622,689,537 people
So by population is less than half ...
The point is that less than half the countries have signed, and less than half the population represented have signed, but the title seems to indicate a last few holding out, whereas in reality the majority have not signed .... and that is not even counting the rest of the world ...?

--
Puteulanus fenestra mortis

Nation-states no friend to liberty by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 00:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

The core problem here is that we have nation-states regulating the nationless internet.

The world's people are no longer divided by stupid, arbitrary national borders. And yet we still have these gigantic nation-states serving to limit our freedoms.

It is downright ironic that as we open up our capabilities, we move closer toward totalitarianism.

What we need now is to move beyond nation-states by implementing new forms of governance, starting at the community level.

Re:Nation-states no friend to liberty by Hentes · 2011-10-20 01:18 · Score: 1

Well, one goal of ACTA is to unify the different IP policies of nationstates.
Re:Nation-states no friend to liberty by TheGratefulNet · 2011-10-20 01:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

The world's people are no longer divided by stupid, arbitrary national borders. And yet we still have these gigantic nation-states serving to limit our freedoms.
get this into your head: the way the world works and has always works is: the ruling class exists to have a great life and we, the 99%, exist to support them and serve them.
anything else you learn in life is secondary to THIS golden rule.
sorry, but its true. this 50 yr old guy has learned this much from his years out in the real world.
all else they tell you is food coloring. the real deal is to keep the lower and middle classes 'in line' and there is NOT going to be any personal freedom if it interferes with the ruling classes.
its how humanity is 'wired' and its always, always been this way. internet or not, people are controllers and those in power are NOT going to give in to this new peer-to-peer (person to person) method of bypassing their control.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Nation-states no friend to liberty by jellomizer · 2011-10-20 01:52 · Score: 2

The core problem is they are too many people, doing illegal and harmful stuff.
One of the biggest problems that we face is the difficultly for a small business to get a foot hold, while the big corporations take all the goods.
Part of the problem is those small business often only have the resources to advertise the same way that most of the conmen do. But there is enough of these people selling faulty/damaging goods only to make a quick buck that people shortly learn to ignore and tag these areas of advertisements for products and services as too shady.
As a consumer we learn to avoid those small shops who looks like a hole in the wall, and those internet adds with obviously little marketing budget. When choosing a company we tend to choose the big one (no one got fired for choosing IBM) because if you get a small company it could be a scam where you loose money, and get nothing back.
Small companies as they grow they hire people, the bosses are on a more personal level with their employees and tend to treat them better (The trickle down does work for small companies) Big corporations when they get more money they put it towards improving efficiency meaning getting the business to run with less people, and more jobs that are more humdrum.
The policing of the internet is overall good for everyone. If you can keep the conmen down to an acceptable levels then you can spur more growth in small businesses and get people people working globally.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Nation-states no friend to liberty by Lumpy · 2011-10-20 02:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

"The core problem is they are too many people, doing illegal and harmful stuff."
Yet people keep electing those criminals.
Honestly if you want to stop this, start electing people that are not rich and have real scruples.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Nation-states no friend to liberty by king+neckbeard · 2011-10-20 02:44 · Score: 1

ACTA doesn't help 'the little guy', it helps the multinational conglomerates.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:Nation-states no friend to liberty by Fned · 2011-10-20 03:00 · Score: 3, Funny

the ruling class exists to have a great life and we, the 99%, exist to support them and serve them.
...and/or invent a special machine to cut their heads off.
Re:Nation-states no friend to liberty by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:05 · Score: 0

I'm increasingly of the jaded opinion that the role of public office ultimate corrupts most people. Even the most righteous person is going to have a hard time saying no in the face of an environment where they are under constant pressure from big business while it's considered by their colleagues that it's fine to play the system for personal gain (and only those who play along get any of their proposals through). The expenses scandal in the UK fell upon the left and right equally - indeed the left were in power at the time, they're meant to be the ones more in touch with the common man, yet all we saw was story after story about politicians stuffing their faces at the trough of public funds. Worse than the fact they were doing this was the fact they didn't seem to understand why people were angry. They seemed to think as long as they stay within the letter of the law it's fine to try and grab all you can as a perk of public office - that kind of person is absolutely the last kind of person you want making decisions with our money, you have to assume they didn't start out that way but the culture made them think their behaviour was fine.
Re:Nation-states no friend to liberty by Reverend+Joe · 2011-10-20 04:28 · Score: 1

its how humanity is 'wired' and its always, always been this way.
it most certainly is NOT how "humanity" is wired. endemic to this *culture*, yes, but not "humanity".
Aside: by "culture", i mean: the totality of "civilized" cultures, Eastern and Western, that share a common parent in the totalitarian agriculturists that got their start somewhere inside what anthropologists call "The Fertile Crescent".
99.9% of the time "humanity" has existed on this planet, it's been in the form of hierarchy-less, law-less, ruling-class-less ethnic tribal units ...
it may be that there is no way to have what we call a "civilized" culture WITHOUT it adhering the the golden rule you refer to ... no way to know, since your golden rule is so intrinsically written into the workings of OUR particular kind of "civilized" culture. but to insist such behavior is inherent to human existence is to *willfully* don the blinders those 1% would request you to wear ...
Re:Nation-states no friend to liberty by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 05:43 · Score: 0

99.9% of the time "humanity" has existed on this planet, it's been in the form of hierarchy-less, law-less, ruling-class-less ethnic tribal units ... [citation needed]
Re:Nation-states no friend to liberty by Per+Wigren · 2011-10-20 06:47 · Score: 1

Well, one goal of ACTA is to unify the different IP policies of nationstates.
That is also the long term goal of the Pirate Party.

--
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Re:Nation-states no friend to liberty by suutar · 2011-10-20 08:59 · Score: 1

do you have evidence that these ethnic tribal units didn't have a chief?
Re:Nation-states no friend to liberty by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 14:16 · Score: 0

...and/or invent a special machine to cut their heads off.
A couple of thoughts on that one. The first is that this is an idea popularised by the French. Aren't they all cowards not worthy of your time as a nation, or something? Freedom Fries, indeed.
The second is that I keep hearing this idea put forward. The soap box, the ballot box, and the ammo box. The ballot box has failed for more than 10 years, probably more like 30 years. The soap box has been failing for years, too. Is the 99% protest the last gasp of it? The ammo box, well, I can't see that happening. Ever. Don't care what you say, or how loud you say it. There's nothing to suggest that the majority in the US will take up arms against their government. It's been going on too long, and too many people believe that your system is right, that the poor and unemployed are just lazy and not willing to work for their money. Nothing is going to happen.

Shit! by GameboyRMH · 2011-10-20 00:56 · Score: 0

FFFFUUUUUUU

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Shit! by scubamage · 2011-10-20 01:14 · Score: 1

My sentiments exactly. :(

Unconstitutional? by Antony-Kyre · 2011-10-20 00:57 · Score: 1

Isn't there the question of whether this is unconstitutional here in America? I mean, didn't Obama sign it without it being passed by Congress?

Please let it be that Obama is vastly abusing power out of hopes that SCOTUS will get involved.

Re:Unconstitutional? by GameboyRMH · 2011-10-20 01:00 · Score: 2

Al Qaeda destroyed your constitution. Not physically, that would have been a regrettable loss of a historical artifact at most, but spiritually, which is much worse.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Unconstitutional? by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-10-20 01:06 · Score: 3, Informative

Isn't there the question of whether this is unconstitutional here in America? I mean, didn't Obama sign it without it being passed by Congress?
A Treaty signing is meaningless in the USA. A Treaty is NOT binding until it has been ratified by the Senate.
So, no, the fact that Congress didn't approve it in advance is meaningless, since they're not supposed to.
On the other hand, it has no force until the Senate approves it (which it will, almost certainly - there are enough Dems in bed with Hollywood to pass it on their own, even ignoring the Reps who would approve it).

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Unconstitutional? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 01:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Al Qaeda destroyed your constitution. Not physically, that would have been a regrettable loss of a historical artifact at most, but spiritually, which is much worse.
Nope, the americans destroyed their own constitution. They were bamboolzed into thinking that Al Quaeda was the coming on the devil on earth and that every possibile action was justified. What is the proverb is fitting to this historical situation "the road to hell is paved with good intentions " ?
Re:Unconstitutional? by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-10-20 01:12 · Score: 2

Don't kid yourself.
The Constitution has been ignored when convenient for far longer than the last ten years.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Unconstitutional? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 01:15 · Score: 0

Nah, that was Bush.
Re:Unconstitutional? by scubamage · 2011-10-20 01:15 · Score: 2

I think "Bread and Circuses" is more appropriate. Americans couldn't care less, so long as they get to watch American Idol and don't have to see people laying dead in the street.
Re:Unconstitutional? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 01:16 · Score: 1

The dems would approve it because they have close ties to the media industry. The repubs would approve it because their ideology holds property rights, including intellectual property, to be sacred and to be made as strong as possible. Their ideology also holds that all commercial activity to be inherently beneficial. Both would approve it because there is good money to be made in contributions, and no-one with money is paying them to vote no.
Re:Unconstitutional? by Jawnn · 2011-10-20 01:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

Isn't there the question of whether this is unconstitutional here in America?
You can't be serious. When it comes to corporate greed, The Constitution of the United States of America takes a back seat, pal. Corporations are citizens too (the Supreme Court has said so) and since they have all the money, they are the most important "citizens". Their unique needs outweigh those of you and me. Keep voting for candidates who are paid corporate lackeys, because the "free market" can't survive without government welfare/protection.
[/sarcasm] It's becoming clearer every day... Obama was a wasted draft pick.
Re:Unconstitutional? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 01:18 · Score: 1

You really should look into the history of Executive Orders signed into being in order to get around your Congress and Senate. The Constitution was actually written in such a way that small groups can run the country in case the common population voted against what might be considered to be in the best interests of the country. That's why you have the Electoral College. The common vote may go one way but if the members of the Electoral College see that as incorrect, they can vote in opposition to it.
Democracy, phaw. There is no such thing, direct, representational or in any other form.
Re:Unconstitutional? by mmcuh · 2011-10-20 01:23 · Score: 1

...which is ironic, considering that "intellectual property" is all about restricting normal property rights. No, you can't put those chips together in that way and sell them, that's patented. Buy a licence. No, you can't play that song in public on your own guitar, it's copyrighted. Buy a licence.
Re:Unconstitutional? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 01:35 · Score: 0

The question of House or Senate approval is easily sidestepped by the president signing soft laws using Executive Orders. If the House and the Senate don't approve of a thing the president can reword it a bit or implement it in sections using Executive Orders.
Your Consitution is actually written to allow smaller and smaller groups of people to control the country if that smaller group doesn't believe that the larger is making decisions in the best interest of the country. That's what the Electoral College is all about. If the Electoral College believes the common vote has gone in the wrong direction they can vote against the people's wishes. And, it just goes up the ladder from there.
Democracy, phaw. Direct, representational or any other form you want to try and describe just plain doesn't really exist in the world today.
Re:Unconstitutional? by Joce640k · 2011-10-20 01:35 · Score: 1

Keep voting for candidates who are paid corporate lackeys, because the "free market" can't survive without government welfare/protection.
[/sarcasm]
Is there a candidate who isn't a paid corporate lackey?

It's becoming clearer every day... Obama was a wasted draft pick.
Problem is ... the other weasel wasn't any better.

--
No sig today...
Re:Unconstitutional? by GameboyRMH · 2011-10-20 01:37 · Score: 1

He didn't do it alone. Most other US politicians supported him and even today Obama continues on the same path. Throughout the leadership of both Republican and Democratic supermajorities over the years nothing has changed.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Unconstitutional? by ElectricTurtle · 2011-10-20 01:49 · Score: 1

The US has been a republic since the ratification of the Constitution. It's no secret, rather the electorate happens to be dumb as paint. If it weren't for "Jacksonian democracy" that wouldn't be half the problem it is today.

"A republic, if you can keep it."

--
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Re:Unconstitutional? by NicBenjamin · 2011-10-20 01:51 · Score: 4, Informative

In general you're right.
Unfortunately Obama is taking the position that all ACTA's provisions are compatible with existing US Law, so actual ratification is unnecessary.
Look at it this way:
If the Obama administration charges somebody with counterfeiting some product using the US Code the Courts are not gonna let the dude off because ACTA isn't ratified. They're gonna try the guy under the US Code. And, according to Obama, they'll convict if he actually violated ACTA because everything illegal under ACTA is illegal under the current US Code.
The people in charge of judging whether the US is complying with the treaty will have to count the dude's conviction as compliance.
In other words you shouldn't be worried about ACTA. Yopu should be worried that everything ACTA does is already illegal.
Re:Unconstitutional? by Lumpy · 2011-10-20 02:03 · Score: 1

GW bush and the Republicans AND Democrats destroyed it. But the destruction started back in the 50's it's just the last 10 years that sealed the deal.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Unconstitutional? by Lumpy · 2011-10-20 02:07 · Score: 1

Close ties? the Dems are dry humping the MPAA and RIAA. The republicans are just standing in line to Dry hump them as well right after they are done Dry humping all the billionaires and Big Corporations.
Every one of the scum-bags on both sides are against the American people. The assholes passed the bill for helping the 911 first responders 10 years late AND put in a slap in the face provision that you have to pass a background check to make sure you were not a terrorist. The people in the house and senate are all major assholes.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Unconstitutional? by oakgrove · 2011-10-20 02:28 · Score: 1

There were more than two candidates.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:Unconstitutional? by w_dragon · 2011-10-20 02:31 · Score: 1

Corps are persons, which basically just means a single legal entity for most laws. They are most certainly not citizens.
Re:Unconstitutional? by rossdee · 2011-10-20 02:39 · Score: 1

AFAIK the Senate has to ratify all treaties by a super majority (something like 60 or 67 senators in favour, even if the House passes it.
(Not that it matters of course I am sure the senators are all bought and paid for by the IP industry.
Re:Unconstitutional? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:57 · Score: 0

That's great! Now you can make a thorough constitutional reform and join the EU by connection through the North Pole. Although it has to be said that the British still don't like those who stick to their principles any more than in the 17th century.
Re:Unconstitutional? by sorak · 2011-10-20 03:06 · Score: 1

And they also added in a provision that the increased occurrence of cancer (which was the justification for the bill in the first place) is NOT covered because it cannot be scientifically proven that one caused the other...
How about this rule: if you rush into a collapsed building during a national emergency to save the lives of your fellow citizens, you get free insurance (health/life/car/whatever). I don't care if the two are related. Maybe we accidentally reward a hero with something we don't owe them. Is that the terrible scenario we are trying to avoid? We have sent people to die. We have spent over a trillion dollars trying to avenge the deaths of 3,000 people, but buying chemotherapy for a handful of firefighters is just too much to ask? /rant
Re:Unconstitutional? by hedwards · 2011-10-20 03:08 · Score: 1

As long as the GOP can't put forward a competent, qualified and sane candidate it's going to be hard for the Democrats to come up with somebody as dangerously incompetent as the ones that the GOP seeks out.
Re:Unconstitutional? by hedwards · 2011-10-20 03:10 · Score: 1

In most states if the elector doesn't vote the way that the voters want there are some pretty substantial penalties attached.
Re:Unconstitutional? by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-10-20 03:12 · Score: 1

Actually, it is not unconstitutional for Obama to sign it without the Senate ratifying it. However, it does not matter that he signed it until the Senate ratifies it. For example, Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol while he was President, yet the U.S. was never, technically, a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol because he never submitted it to the Senate for ratification (and when a bill was presented in the U.S. Senate rejecting the Kyoto Protocol the Senate passed that bill 97-0). The fact that Obama "signed" this treaty is, legally, irrelevant until such a time as the U.S. Senate ratifies it.
Now, Obama has stated that he intends to have the various federal bureaucracies change their regulations in accordance with this treaty. That would be unconstitutional.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Unconstitutional? by delt0r · 2011-10-20 03:26 · Score: 1

Yea, ask anyone exercising their right to political freedom in the 60s that they like idea of communism or socialism. Good luck with that.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Re:Unconstitutional? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:39 · Score: 1

Oregon Senator Wyden has stated something similar to this on his website seen here:
http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=12a5b1cb-ccb8-4e14-bb84-a11b35b4ec53
He calls the signing of this by the U.S. unconstitutional and has written a letter to the president addressing that which is linked at the bottom of the page. If you agree with him, consider calling your senators to do the same.
Re:Unconstitutional? by shaitand · 2011-10-20 04:08 · Score: 1

The constitution lost all meaning after the civil war. MUCH longer than 10yrs.
Re:Unconstitutional? by shaitand · 2011-10-20 04:11 · Score: 1

The destruction started during the civil war when the states were stripped of their individual governing, military, and economic powers by amendments that were never ratified properly and were a bad idea even if they had been.
It did get worse later when the people were robbed of their side of the balance of power and juries were stripped of their authority to determine if a specific application of the law was just in addition to whether it was technically violated.
Re:Unconstitutional? by shaitand · 2011-10-20 04:23 · Score: 1

It's group action, the members of the MPAA and RIAA ARE billionaire big corporations.
Re:Unconstitutional? by shaitand · 2011-10-20 04:26 · Score: 1

Sure there was. Unfortunately, they tend to be self interested multi-billionaires, pyschotic religious freaks, or just plain nuts (ala Ron Paul).
Re:Unconstitutional? by shaitand · 2011-10-20 04:29 · Score: 1

Yet. The only right a citizen has that a corp doesn't under the law now is the right to vote. Not that they miss it much, they have the power to influence millions of votes and/or to influence any politician who is elected. What use is a single vote?
Re:Unconstitutional? by Belial6 · 2011-10-20 04:34 · Score: 1

And we have a winner!
Re:Unconstitutional? by shaitand · 2011-10-20 04:42 · Score: 1

Actually it wouldn't. Obama is the head of the executive branch. Ordering the executive to change its policies for any reason he chooses is perfectly legit so long as he doesn't order them to do something that is in itself unconstitutional.
That's why I always find it silly during election time. We have the candidates standing on a podium talking about their stance on this law and that and making promises to reform this and that but it's almost always legislative. Screw that Mr. wannabe president. Tell me how you are going to reform the DOJ, FDA, DEA, FBI, IRS, FAA, DOE, FCC and the military. Those promises are within the direct unilateral authority of the president and he can enact them in the first week. Further, many of those executive branch entities have the authority to amend US code statutes that fall within their mandate and can be ordered to do by the president.
Re:Unconstitutional? by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-10-20 05:14 · Score: 1

The excutive branch departments all have regulations that are based on authority given to them by acts of Congress. So, the President cannot order executive departments to issue regulations that comply with ACTA, unless those regulations enforce existing (or newly passed) laws as passed by Congress.
I agree that I would prefer that Presidential candidates talked about reforming the bureaucracies that answer to the President rather than reforms they want that require Congressional action in order to implement.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Unconstitutional? by shaitand · 2011-10-20 06:04 · Score: 1

"unless those regulations enforce existing (or newly passed) laws as passed by Congress. "
Yes but the existing laws passed by congress generally give executive agencies a very generalized mandate and the authority to enforce that mandate. The entities are free to make statutes and enforce that mandate as they see fit. They don't have to wait for congress to pass a specific law for the subject at hand. Even if they step outside their authority it takes a high court to stop them and there are no real consequences.
Re:Unconstitutional? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 06:55 · Score: 0

The supreme court has a history of changing their minds depending on who is in office.
In this case, the Supreme court justices did not adequately scrutinize the details. The whole reason PEOPLE vote for senators, is because a busineess / corporation could become too powerful. People voting keeps th check and ballance, for the corporation not to do anything not liked by the people. That slight mis ballance is offset by the fact that Senators get a six year term instead of two.
Re:Unconstitutional? by Theaetetus · 2011-10-20 07:02 · Score: 1

In general you're right.
Unfortunately Obama is taking the position that all ACTA's provisions are compatible with existing US Law, so actual ratification is unnecessary.
Look at it this way: If the Obama administration charges somebody with counterfeiting some product using the US Code the Courts are not gonna let the dude off because ACTA isn't ratified. They're gonna try the guy under the US Code. And, according to Obama, they'll convict if he actually violated ACTA because everything illegal under ACTA is illegal under the current US Code.
The people in charge of judging whether the US is complying with the treaty will have to count the dude's conviction as compliance.
In other words you shouldn't be worried about ACTA. Yopu should be worried that everything ACTA does is already illegal.
Yeah, pretty much. I was studying international intellectual property laws when the whole flap over ACTA first came up, and every provision in there already exists in US laws... This is really about bringing other countries in line with us, rather than anything else. Even the big one that people were incensed about, the ability to seize allegedly infringing goods, already exists, both as an Anton Piller Order and as an explicit power under the Copyright Act.
Re:Unconstitutional? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 23:54 · Score: 0

How is this weird? Happens within the EU all the time. The EU can't make laws, so they issue directives that must be implemented by local law. Controversial stuff doesn't get through easily, but just standardizing existing practice is fairly common.
ACTA would be a big exception for the EU, as it regulates the criminal code. And that's off-limits in the EU because it touches quite sensitive topics: abortion, drugs, etc.

But of course by dkleinsc · 2011-10-20 00:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Many major corporations are in favor of ACTA, and no major corporations oppose it, so clearly, signing it is a no-brainer.

I'd have been more surprised if any of the countries in question had had the cajones to stand up to Disney, News Corp, GE, or Time Warner.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

Re:But of course by Toe,+The · 2011-10-20 01:05 · Score: 1

True that. Those corporations pay their employees (sometimes cutely referred to as "politicians" and "government officials") good money to do as they are told.
Re:But of course by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 01:16 · Score: 0

cojones
Re:But of course by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 01:43 · Score: 0

He, aren't those all American companies?
Re:But of course by dkleinsc · 2011-10-20 01:54 · Score: 1

News Corp is not - Murdoch is Australian, and much of News Corp's operations are in the UK (remember that whole phone hacking scandal?)

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:But of course by arkenian · 2011-10-20 02:10 · Score: 1

News Corp is an American company, based in NYC IIRC. Murdoch is a US Cit, I'm sad to say.
Re:But of course by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:30 · Score: 0

I'm sure all of the countries in question have bureaucracies with plenty of filing space, so I'm not sure why you don't expect them to have drawers.
Re:But of course by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:40 · Score: 0

Corporations > Contries
Re:But of course by kiwix · 2011-10-20 04:14 · Score: 1

It seems that a some companies -- for instance Google -- actually oppose it.
Re:But of course by shaitand · 2011-10-20 05:12 · Score: 1

Not anymore as they will be quick to tell you if the US starts talking about shutting them down or breaking them up. Really though, despite the BS the US is still by far the wealthiest nation in the world so it shouldn't come as a shock to find evil corps here.

Re:Americans at it again by Dyinobal · 2011-10-20 01:00 · Score: 1

An anonymous reader writes. I don't think it said 'an anonymous citizen of the United states of America writes'.

Re:Americans at it again by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 01:03 · Score: 0

A big WTF CANADA? comes to mind... ..kinda erases all previous good deeds of late. =\

When did that start mattering? by betterunixthanunix · 2011-10-20 01:03 · Score: 1

When did the constitution start mattering in this country? We do plenty of constitutionally questionable things all the time, so why single this out? I would be more concerned about the fact that we killed an American citizen without any due process.

--
Palm trees and 8

Re:When did that start mattering? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 01:46 · Score: 0

LMWPTFY
"To avoid the abuses of the English law ...treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. ...
The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore the United States Code at "usc|18|2381" [25] states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
To me it appears that we basically cut out the middleman and went to that death sentence.
Re:When did that start mattering? by JAlexoi · 2011-10-20 03:05 · Score: 2

Doesn't the constitution say that no one shall be convicted of a crime, other than in a court of law?
Killing someone without legal proceedings isn't constitutional either. A person is a person and is not the same as a citizen.

Re:Americans at it again by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 01:03 · Score: 0

Why did they put USA and Canada in the list? They could have just listed the whole country of "North America" :)

As soon as practicable? by mmcuh · 2011-10-20 01:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

They will sign it as soon as practicable? I thought that the European parliament and the Mexican one had explicitly instructed the commission and the Mexican government, respectively, not to sign ACTA in its current form

I suppose that's just a minor detail.

Re:As soon as practicable? by Hentes · 2011-10-20 01:21 · Score: 2

The EP only wanted disclosure of the treaty, their problem was that it was written in secret. And I believe the EU did manage to get the worst parts out of it. Of course, it's still bad.
Re:As soon as practicable? by terminal.dk · 2011-10-20 01:27 · Score: 1

It can't be signed by the EU before they change many EU laws, human rights laws etc.
Disconnecting people from the Internet is not an option, as that is becoming the only way to communicate with the government, report taxes, sales/purchases of houses etc.
Paranoid Americans without a working business model for their old tech can't stop all development in this world. The reason they don't sell that much music anymore is not because people copy it, it is because people do not have time for music, they spend the time on games, TV, Internet etc. And most music worth buying was made more than 10 years ago. They do not produce much good music these days. It will be difficult to make a "100 best hits from 2000-2010".
Re:As soon as practicable? by Pope · 2011-10-20 01:56 · Score: 1

And most music worth buying was made more than 10 years ago. They do not produce much good music these days. It will be difficult to make a "100 best hits from 2000-2010".
Bullshit. There's plenty of worthwhile new music being released today. My concert going schedule since June is proof of that. Just because it's not on the local Top 40 station doesn't mean it isn't good. Hell, I haven't listened to the radio in 16 or 17 years and I still find new bands regularly.

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Re:As soon as practicable? by hedwards · 2011-10-20 03:15 · Score: 1

Really? Wasn't France going to be doing that on its own in the near future?
Re:As soon as practicable? by JAlexoi · 2011-10-20 03:26 · Score: 2

Finland will not enact ACTA, that is guaranteed. You can't get over the fact that access to the Internet is a human right there. Unfortunately, there is this puppet with a baby called Sarcozy, that tramps on French definition of human right via HADOPI. And there are still some sane people in the governments and EP. And since London's riots and other riots across Europe, they should remember that people still have a lot more power than those BoD controlled corporations*.

Do you know why Soviet Union was called "soviet"? Do you know what the word "soviet" means? Do you know how Board of Directors is translated into Russian? I set it up, you do the checks ;)
Re:As soon as practicable? by AmiMoJo · 2011-10-20 06:23 · Score: 1

In fact the EU cannot agree to a treaty or agreement on its own, each member state has to ratify it into their own laws. In theory if the EU parliament decides something then all countries are obliged to go along with it, but since each country writes its own laws the actual implementation can vary a lot.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:As soon as practicable? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 07:00 · Score: 0

"as soon as practicable" can just as well mean never, it is diplomatic jargon.

breaking news by chomsky68 · 2011-10-20 01:11 · Score: 1

The treaty was signed on 01/10/11, the TFA was published on 10/10/11 and made its way to /. on te 20th....

--
I'm Not Antisocial, I'm Just Not User Friendly

Re:breaking news by Desler · 2011-10-20 01:14 · Score: 1

Only 19 days behind the times? Eh, that's not too bad for Slashdot.
Re:breaking news by hedwards · 2011-10-20 03:16 · Score: 1

19 months late. But, in this case the Europeans do that stupid day month year crap which makes even less sense than the American month day year crap which makes less sense than year month date, which quite frankly is the only one that folks should be using.

Decentralize and encrypt everything! by GameboyRMH · 2011-10-20 01:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Alright shit's getting real. I say as a first step we start by moving everyone onto a Tor-like darknet that runs on top of the current infrastructure. Once the uber-geeks are on we can start bringing Average Joes on, the incentive will kick in for them when they can't get their football game streams, replica handbags, Chinese knockoff batteries, cheap viagra and pirated MP3s. Maybe work in an IPv4-IPv6 transition at the same time, but that's just as much work by itself.

Then once everyone's on the darknet, start forking the infrastructure. Once the Internet becomes impossible to police there might not be a need to use a wireless mesh, everyone can have fiber to their door - not that a wireless mesh isn't also a worthy endeavor.

See also: my old commu-net concept: http://search.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1634334&cid=32019410

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 01:21 · Score: 2, Informative

You may be interested in metagovernment, which is developing tools toward the same end, but maybe without the file-sharing rampup.
Along a similar line, you might also be interested in their concept of the distributed administration network, previously discussed at length on slashdot. Admittedly, that is still vaporware, but the alternate system of governance is starting up.
Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 01:26 · Score: 0

It's funny we still have lunatics like you.
Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! by Sponge+Bath · 2011-10-20 01:31 · Score: 2

...start forking the infrastructure.
The regulatory powers of government allows control over any physical infrastructure, particularly an infrastructure large enough to replace the entire internet. It's more realistic to do the hard work of changing government to eliminate monstrosities like ACTA. Hint: it takes a lot more than just voting and complaining.
Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! by GameboyRMH · 2011-10-20 01:33 · Score: 1

Oh yes I think metagovernment is an interesting concept. I had an interesting discussion about something similar here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1244451&cid=28083111

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 01:53 · Score: 1

Once the authorities start seeing traffic they cannot monitor on the net they'll just start shutting of the taps (as it were) to people generating traffic they cannot decypher. It will become illegal to use something like Tor or VPNs (unless you by a permit from the government and provide them with the keys so they can monitor the traffic.)
I think I've seen some countries already moving in that direction. Certainly shutting down Tor anyway.
Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:03 · Score: 0

Slight change: More Freenet. It doesn't let you access anything on the conventional internet, and it can't stream, but it does scale much better and doesn't need anyone to endanger themselves by running exit nodes.
Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:26 · Score: 1

Please join us if you haven't already: http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org
More info on participation is here: http://www.metagovernment.org/wiki/Participate
Everything we do is, of course, open and libre.
Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:38 · Score: 0

First, we need som lawyers to speak up here. Is it legal for the President of the United States to enter us into a treaty without approval from congress?
Is it legal for the President of the United States to also be a member of the United nations Security Council?
If these or any other activities he has done are Illegal, what is our legal recourse? Who's responsibility is it to take action? Is it Eric Holder's responsibility? Is it congressional responsibility to start Impeachment proceedings?
If those in power do not stand behind the law, they do not have the weight of law.
the logical first steps are communications. The people need to have the ability to seize communications. The satalites, Emergency broadcast System, the Telcos, and yes the Internet.
Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:47 · Score: 2, Informative

You mean like an Invisible Internet Protocol?
Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! by GameboyRMH · 2011-10-20 03:02 · Score: 1

Something like that could be at least part of the solution. I2P has some interesting advantages over Tor, I think I'll start running some I2P routers...

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:27 · Score: 1

Tor has been proven to be insecure in practice. All those wannabe security schemes have the same problem: They are completely ignorant of human nature and how societies work. Because they are made by us computer geeks.
There is already a simple and effective system for security that we have used since forever, but that was never properly implemented for computers. Which is weird.
Trust. That's the keyword.
Individual trust. There ain't no such thing as "authority". Let alone a centralized one. Central authority is the exact opposite of security and privacy.
Individual webs of trust. Everyone trusts other people. And trust is neither a on/off switch nor absolute. You can have 50% trust in person X on topic A. You can't simply "trust person X" period.
This sounds complicated, when one thinks in traditional terms. But everyone who can think in terms of automating things away, can see how this is an easy job for software.
All we need is a individual open-source p2p client that lets you define who you trust in what, how much, and why,
and that acts accordingly.
And thanks to automation, we can make those rule sets cascading. Meaning: You inherit his rule sets as a basis, and only have to define your differences to that, saving you from doing all the work if you already have good people.
This kills off abuse very quickly. Because only one person in your chain of trust between the abuser and you has to stop trusting the abuser, and he's gone. Not only for you, but for everyone who trusts that one person. (Unless someone else in his chain still trusts the abuser. But in any case your individual trust in the abuser would go down.)
P.S.: Yes, I'd make it IPv6-only, but with tunnel through IPv4, since we'd obviously have to tunnel anyway.
Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! by SuricouRaven · 2011-10-20 03:40 · Score: 2

Using technology to solve a societal problem is untidy, but in this case it's really the only option globally. It's politically feasable, but difficult, to win a campaign for internet freedom in the US or Europe.. but what about China, or large parts of the middle east, or much of Africa? Even Russia, while certainly better than it used to be, is hardly a beacon of individualism.

It's going to take more than Tor though. Setting up a parallel physical infrastructure isn't really practical, so any effective solution is going to have to be built around modifying existing technology. If I had to pick a few areas to focus on...
1. Anonymous protocols like Tor and Freenet, certainly, but not for all. There is just too much overhead. Keep them for those who need to be paranoid.
2. End-to-end encryption, ideally without a dependance upon central authorities subject to easy government control.
3. Advances in compression. Because the fewer bits you have to move, the easier they are to hide. Be rid of the ageing MP3!
4. Distributed caching. Truely distributed. A node on every device, ideally. This would hugely lower demand on internet infrastructure, thus reducing economic incentives to filter traffic. It would also reduce the viability of choke points for traffic interception. It should ideally be transparent to the user. I'll go into that more later... and practically impossible to take a file down.
5. You want unmonitorable networking? Link that distributed cache with a wireless mesh.

As for how that cache might work... as an example, think of a future time when a webpage may reference images or any other file using magnet links. The magnet link would include both a hash, and a plain old http link. The browser wants to get that file, so it asks the node on that station if it has a copy of the file matching that hash. If no, the node service asks other nearby computers - the ISP's upstream node, the neighbour's computers via wireless, passers-by with mobile phones. If none have the file, then it falls back to the http source... and stores a copy in it's cache, in case anyone else asks for it.
Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 06:34 · Score: 0

Sounds like this creates pressure for wireless meshes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_Networking) + geocasting (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2009; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocast).
I think geocast-based routing protocols with wireless meshes could actually work well. Anyone here able to provide a technically competent summary of major issues in this area, or could point to good resources?
Re:Decentralize and encrypt everything! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-31 10:52 · Score: 0

Well, there's Ogg Vorbis, which is well known for having a better compression ratio than mp3 (meaning, better sound at same size or vice-versa: smaller size at same sound quality) - plus, it is completely open.

Orwell is probably laughing in his grave, by now. by borfast · 2011-10-20 01:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

One more unfortunate step towards 1984... :(

Re:Americans at it again by scubamage · 2011-10-20 01:17 · Score: 2

Not all of us, just most. The remainder are stuck /facepalm'ing all of the time and shaking their heads in disbelief.

Re:Americans at it again by GameboyRMH · 2011-10-20 01:19 · Score: 1

You obviously aren't familiar with Canadian politics over the last few years or you wouldn't be even slightly surprised...

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Mexico? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 01:21 · Score: 0

I know some in Mexico would love to sign it and some government puppets indeed are sold to the industry for that purpose, but in Mexico the senate has expressed unanimously that they won't sign acta at least during this legislature, so I don't know who they consulted, but I am guessing it's the industry droids.

Re:Orwell is probably laughing in his grave, by no by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 01:24 · Score: 0

His name was Eric Blair. His namesake Tony, treated 1984 as a blueprint for his time in power.

Game over by MistrX · 2011-10-20 01:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well people, the age of your relative freedom is definitely over when this is ratified.

Welcome to the neo dark age. This time not ruled by the church but by Megacorp & co that is called the western world.

Re:Game over by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:10 · Score: 0

The NK will eventually save us from the Megacorp & co and offer us a cult of Kim instead. It's called the restoration of the faith in putting statues of Kim everywhere. Then the Al-Qaeda will save us from the cult of Kim by forbidding the erecting of statues.
Re:Game over by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 06:52 · Score: 0

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Re:Game over by theCoder · 2011-10-21 01:37 · Score: 1

Maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't there a story recently about how the Obama administration considered this a trade agreement not subject to ratification by the Senate?

--
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown

What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 01:29 · Score: 0

Read ACTA http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/may/tradoc_147937.pdf and tell me what's wrong with it? Even the EFF's page just kind of "suggests" that it "might be bad" without giving any detail. Well ACTA is up now. You can read it. What's the big deal?

Re:What's the problem? by feepcreature · 2011-10-20 04:15 · Score: 2

The problem?
The ACTA treaty confers powers with dangerously broad and ambiguous language - an example is language to ban:

a device or product, including computer programs, or provision of a service that... has only a limited commercially significant purpose other than circumventing an effective technological measure.
So legitimate purposes that are significant, but can be made out not to be commercially significant, won't protect you. Education and research purposes, and fair use gone, at one stroke!
The international coordination is all about the interests of "intellectual property" owners (mostly distributors, in the content industries), and not about consumers or the broader creative economy. The only stakeholders explicitly mentioned are "rights holders" - if we're lucky, the rest of the world may sneak in as "other relevant
stakeholders" - but don't hold your breath - it hasn't happened yet, and isn't happening in the shady negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. And the only measurement or analysis to be done is about how well they tackle the nut of infringement, with no examination of the sledgehammer of social and economic costs of the enforcement regime ACTA requires.
Then there are the optional extras such as:

A Party may exclude from the application of this Section small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature contained in travellers’ personal luggage. [a Good Thing]

and

A Party may provide for the remedies described in this Article to be carried out at the infringer’s expense. [not necessarily A Good Thing]

A good government would implement the protections ACTA says they MAY do, and omit some of the more onerous and opressive powers the lobbyists got into ACTA as optional extras.
Our governments, on the other hand, will use draft legislation written by the same content industry lobbyists who wrote the original ACTA policy shopping list, and will try to omit every inconvenient consumer protection measure some ACTA negotiaters insisted on, and include each of the overreaching powers the negotiators reduced from MUST to MAY in ACTA.
Or we can just stop worrying and hope that the law-faries will bring us cuddly, fair and reasonable legislation that servers the public interest, instead.

--
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"

Re:Americans at it again by DarkOx · 2011-10-20 01:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Keep telling yourself that. I got news for you the EU mostly controls your currency. Has the power to make treaties, and has courts. In most cases EU law has supremacy over member states laws. That is pretty much a nation by any definition. The EU is a central government. It might not be as strong as the Federal government we have here in the states but it is none the less a central government.

Its time EU citizens face up to the fact YOU FOOLS gave up the sovereignty of your to make quick buck by streamlining some trade and travel restrictions. That worked out short term but just like here in the USA globalism is hollowing you out; and EU membership is going to make your own local government impotent and powerless to protect you. The EU just like dear old Uncle Sam here is far enough removed and fractured enough in represented interests, it either does not care to or won't chose to protect you.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Re:Americans at it again by Joce640k · 2011-10-20 01:37 · Score: 3, Funny

I thought the whole "war on...XXX" thing was a way to learn some geography.

--
No sig today...

What about Iceland and Norway? by HopefulIntern · 2011-10-20 01:39 · Score: 1

I know it says EU and Switzerland, but what about the remaining European countries? Are they bound by some other trade agreement to the ACTA if the EU signs it?

Re:What about Iceland and Norway? by JasterBobaMereel · 2011-10-20 02:22 · Score: 1

Switzerland is not a member of the EU ...

--
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Re:What about Iceland and Norway? by HopefulIntern · 2011-10-20 22:15 · Score: 1

Yeah, that is my point. It mentions EU *and* Switzerland. But no mention of the rest of the non-EU euro countries.

ACTA will be an "Executive Agreement" for the US by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2011-10-20 01:40 · Score: 2

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_agreement . ACTA walks, talks, and quacks like a treaty, but the President of the US can sign it without Congressional approval.

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!

Re:Americans at it again by Sponge+Bath · 2011-10-20 01:43 · Score: 1

I knew Americans are generally quite stupid...

All that seething hatred is bad for your health. Just relax and admit the USA is THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH! Woooooo! USA! USA!

What happened to putting it to a vote? by RandomAvatar · 2011-10-20 01:43 · Score: 2

For something this big, isn't it supposed to be standard procedure to have a vote? I mean, if I thought the Canadian government was stupid enough to sign it in the first place, I would have protested it. I guess that goes to show that you should never trust your own government.

Why the piracy icon? by coder111 · 2011-10-20 01:51 · Score: 1

Um, I know the DECLARED purpose of ACTA is to curb piracy and counterfeiting, but really, this is about your rights on-line and corporate rule. Piracy is just incidental.

--Coder

Re:Why the piracy icon? by Fned · 2011-10-20 03:10 · Score: 2

Slashdot doesn't have a "boot, stamping on a human face, forever" icon.

Re:Americans at it again by Pope · 2011-10-20 01:52 · Score: 1

"Poverty" is a place?

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.

Your own government by bussdriver · 2011-10-20 01:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Functionally, in areas where corporate interests dictate policy it is no longer your government. "Let them vote for cake" is where things are headed; serious self government is being removed gradually; like boiling a frog.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news

info about what's bad about it? by SkunkPussy · 2011-10-20 01:58 · Score: 1

So what are the actual problems remaining with ACTA as it is signed?

--
SURELY NOT!!!!!

Re:info about what's bad about it? by SuricouRaven · 2011-10-20 03:43 · Score: 1

We'll know in about a month, once someone finally finishes reading the thing.
Re:info about what's bad about it? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 04:35 · Score: 0

I guess everyone is waiting for the EFF to spell it out. Apparently they haven't read the final draft from May 2011 that's available here http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/may/tradoc_147937.pdf. They're still going on about it being "secret".
I had a skim through. The parts the EFF seems worried about are, in RFC terms, MAY clauses, not MUST or even SHOULD clauses.
But hey, if Slashdot wants to have their end-of-the-world parties now, I don't mind, so long as I'm invited :)
Re:info about what's bad about it? by feepcreature · 2011-10-20 05:00 · Score: 1

As I said in an earlier post, the" MAY" clauses are a problem, because the governments / lobbyists who write the legislation required by the treaty will include them! Good luck with teh line-by-line scrutiny of the bills as they pass through your legislatures.
> The parts the EFF seems worried about are, in RFC terms, MAY clauses, not MUST or even SHOULD clauses.

--
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"

Constitutional scholar by Quila · 2011-10-20 02:05 · Score: 2

Now we know why Obama became a "constitutional scholar," to be able to figure out more ways around it when he came to power.

Re:Constitutional scholar by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:10 · Score: 0

Yeah, it comes in handy when dealing with idiots that like to obstruct everything.

Re:Americans at it again by bussdriver · 2011-10-20 02:07 · Score: 1

Parent post would be funny; I'd normally moderate it as such but I'm skipping moderating it to say that the situation in the stupid USA is beyond despair so there is no longer any humor in such statements; its just depressingly sad and horrible - perhaps if you are on the outside you are removed or ignorant enough to enjoy such humor but being here and watching the self-inflicted implosion is another matter.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news

Back a bit by jabberw0k · 2011-10-20 02:08 · Score: 1

The destruction started with the New Deal, but a few Supreme Court justices and World War II got in the way.

Re:Back a bit by Lumpy · 2011-10-20 02:15 · Score: 1

And the Korean war. Vietnam also slowed it down a bit, all those dirty hippies protesting against freedom for the Vietnam people...

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Back a bit by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-10-20 02:28 · Score: 1

A few Supremes back in the New Deal caved, you mean?
Or did you forget the ruling that said that growing food for your own livestock on your own land came under the Interstate Commerce Clause?

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Re:Americans at it again by Lumpy · 2011-10-20 02:11 · Score: 1

"I knew Americans are generally quite stupid and don't know anything about the world outside North America, "

Most Americans don't know anything about north America, the United states, or even their own state. There is a large percentage of our population that has no idea how many states there are or even the number of stars or stripes on our flag. Education here is exceedingly bad because it's high priced.

In fact Student DEBT is higher than credit card DEBT nationally. Yes, our education system is that tilted so that only the rich get education.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Which didn't sign it? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:24 · Score: 0

Australia signed it, I need to move somewhere else. Which countries did not sign it?

Re:ACTA will be an "Executive Agreement" for the U by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-10-20 02:31 · Score: 1

The President doesn't need Congressional Approval to sign a Treaty (see Kyoto, which was signed, but not even submitted for ratification by Clinton).

And the President can make all the "executive agreements" he likes. Without a controlling law (passed by Congress), they don't mean a hill of beans.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Re:Americans at it again by oakgrove · 2011-10-20 02:33 · Score: 2

Hahahahaha. European anti-Americanism maps one to one to American anti-terrorist sentiment. Both are fomented as a distraction by the powers that be to steal your rights away from you. Look around you fool.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.

hERE IS hOW iT iS dOne by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:36 · Score: 0

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/greek-riotcam-time

Re:Americans at it again by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-10-20 02:47 · Score: 1

In fact Student DEBT is higher than credit card DEBT nationally. Yes, our education system is that tilted so that only the rich get education.

Either that, or students tend to be poor enough that they have to borrow, and adults tend to be smart enough not to run up debt unnecessarily....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Not in México. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:48 · Score: 1

"Three of the participating countries (the European Union, Mexico, and Switzerland) have not yet signed the treaty, but have issued a joint statement affirming their intentions to sign it 'as soon as practicable.' "

Those who were in Japan representing México are Pro ACTA, but in no way are representatives of the mexican goverment. The senate has repeatedly blocked their attempts at signing it: http://alt1040.com/2011/06/acta-a-punto-de-venirse-abajo-en-mexico

But that doesn't show up on the mainstream news: http://mexico.cnn.com/tecnologia/2011/10/01/mexico-no-firma-aun-el-acuerdo-antipirateria-acta-en-japon

The mexican senate cares about the unconstitutionality of several measures taken by ACTA should it be approved.

The EU by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 02:52 · Score: 0

It's not yet, but they working on it, and they have been since the beginning. Free Britain.

The US started out a lot like the EU by Quila · 2011-10-20 02:53 · Score: 1

Even now we are technically a federation of sovereign states which granted specific limited powers to a federal government in order to take advantage of the security and economic benefit that comes from being united. The states and the people supposedly retained all other powers not specifically granted to the federal government.

But you see what we have become. You see yourself in 50 years, your countries relegated to what the federal power allows.

Re:Americans at it again by Greyfox · 2011-10-20 03:04 · Score: 1

Perhaps the poster was from the future, after the EU either becomes a country because it's the only way to save the Euro, or after Germany starts "Foreclosing" on deadbeat countries. And don't tell me some Germans aren't already thinking that's actually not a bad idea...

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Re:ACTA will be an "Executive Agreement" for the U by hedwards · 2011-10-20 03:13 · Score: 1

That's not a very informative link. Plus, it's President, not president, although the typo is probably more accurate at this point.

As you might note, they are the equivalent of an executive order and are not permanent in the same way that executive orders are not permanent. It's not a real treaty and it's not something that appears anywhere in the constitution. A real treaty would be durable over successive administrations.

Re:Americans at it again by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-10-20 03:15 · Score: 1

The European Union is as much of a country as the U.S., the states within it just don't acknowledge it yet because they have not yet fought a Civil War.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison

Obstruction is good by Quila · 2011-10-20 03:27 · Score: 1

Right now a Democratic (yes, not Republican) senator is trying to obstruct Obama from bypassing Senate ratification of this treaty. Obama is of course trying to use his constitutional knowledge to avoid that.

Constitutionality does not have to be partisan.

Re:Americans at it again by delt0r · 2011-10-20 03:30 · Score: 2

Look around you fool.

I heard that in a Mr T. voice.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?

Re:Americans at it again by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 03:32 · Score: 0

hey, leave Canadians and Mexicans out of this!

Re:Americans at it again by delinear · 2011-10-20 03:50 · Score: 1

I'm in the UK - the EU influences my currency (just as the US or any other strong nation does) but it doesn't control it. The way things are going this might soon be true for a few other EU member states...

Re:ACTA will be an "Executive Agreement" for the U by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 04:16 · Score: 0

Which is unconstitutional...

canadas ows protests can grow now by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 04:22 · Score: 0

great, at least now we got more to complain about for the OWS protests in canada. the ungenerous bastards, now that they cant make more b.s up for the usa other then wars are coming for us.

Re:Americans at it again by shaitand · 2011-10-20 04:45 · Score: 1

Some of us are well aware of the overinflated ego of EU member states but fail to see any practical reason to recognize them as having more individual authority than a US state, former USSR state, or Canadian Provence. Any of which hold a level of population, economy, and military power comparable to an EU state.

Even if there is still a difference today the inevitable result is that the EU will more and more gain authority as a central government.

River of pain runs deep by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 04:47 · Score: 0

It's a sad and painful day for the Internet. My heart just sank a few centimeters into my gut.

Re:Americans at it again by shaitand · 2011-10-20 04:47 · Score: 1

The US Federal Gov't didn't used to have a central standing army or police force either.

Re:Americans at it again by jo_ham · 2011-10-20 05:00 · Score: 1

No, it really isn't a country. The EFF just made itself look stupid, and it certainly can't use the "oh, well it's pretty much a country by definition" excuse. Doesn't anyone give a cursory proof read of their statements or does no one there actually know that the EU is not a country?

Re:Americans at it again by shaitand · 2011-10-20 05:08 · Score: 1

Nope, he's right. School is ridiculously expensive they seem to price it based on lifetime expected earnings!

You are right too though... as an adult I realize that there are better ways to invest that kind of money than university degrees. In that sense the debt is "unnecessary."

Re:Americans at it again by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 05:10 · Score: 0

well the germans are due to start taking over other nations again...

Re:Americans at it again by Lumpy · 2011-10-20 06:05 · Score: 1

Yet as adults we tell the youth to "get your degree" or do stupid things like requiring a degree for a job position.

I saw yesterday a Job posting for a receptionist that had in it's requirements a Bachelors or higher degree. Incredulous!

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

FTFY by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 06:19 · Score: 0

Americans couldn't care less, so long as they get to watch American Idol and people laying dead in the street don't get in the way of their SUV's.

Re:Americans at it again by dkleinsc · 2011-10-20 07:53 · Score: 1

In an alternate way of reading history, they've already had several: French Revolutionary Wars, WWI, WWII, the Cold War, etc.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

hopeless by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-20 08:12 · Score: 0

Do you actually think somebody who isn't a push over can even get a party nomination?? In a debate?? Ross Perot only got attention because nobody wanted to visibly push him out given all the attention he was able to BUY with the tons of money he handed to the media. Nader didn't have a chance because he didn't pay off the media enough to gain any leverage or coverage. Some voices you ONLY hear when they get a book or movie deal (payments to tv & radio corps.)

IF somehow Obama turned around and stabbed the corporations in the back in his second term just how far do you think it would get?? His mild pre-compromised plans had a hell of a time passing his OWN party even without the filibuster DoS attacks. IF Obama managed to gain traction by some miracle-- Seriously. We are talking Billions at stake in multiple areas with powerful interests with serious resources and connections (not to mention if you cut down the CIA or military those industries have.)

Remember the Gov of New York who pissed off the banking industry and then somehow they found him spending a few grand on a prostitute when they are only supposed to track your money if you spend far greater amounts? (leaving aside why they have any right to investigate you anytime you move around $10k of money; but apparently if you upset the wrong people they watch everything...) Hell, I'd expect them to have setup the prostitute to catch him-- GM actually did that for real against Nader and that was for chump change by comparison!

I knew Obama couldn't make a dent without risking everything and he isn't the type. The elite agree which is why he was allowed to be the fall guy for the depression; he would have been marginalized out early on. The fact he was so well promoted and came out of nowhere still makes me suspect... (Hillary was understood, a known sell out; all he did is provide a small chance. McSame was the biggest sell out.)

Fuck ACTA by Tolkien · 2011-10-20 08:49 · Score: 1

We all know who is behind ACTA. World-wide civil disobedience en mass is what this calls for, moreso than is already going on anyway, blind hypocritical fucking politicians. Ugh.

--
how is babby formed?

wired or coerced? by manaway · 2011-10-20 08:56 · Score: 1

Counter-examples of "humanity is 'wired'" to serve the 99%": Bolivia (during Morales), Venezuela (during Chavez), Haiti (during Aristide), Cuba (during Castro), Chile (during Allende). Not perfect examples, obviously, since there are and were power structures already in place, much exchange and influence with and from other countries, and a whole bunch of individual quirks; but perhaps enough to show that people are not "wired" for 1% rule. You could make a pretty strong case that the 1% want the 99% to believe this is biological fact and will always be so, but that's a different discussion. Much like how governments and their corporate bosses will market the ACTA as a benefit for the 99%.

Re:Americans at it again by Tolkien · 2011-10-20 09:00 · Score: 1

Yep. Harper is a brown-nosing spineless cunt.

--
how is babby formed?

No longer countries by initialE · 2011-10-20 10:54 · Score: 1

Whoever signed that agreement has basically signed away their sovereign right to govern their countries according to the laws as they see fit. What do they get in return for that?

--
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.

Re:Americans at it again by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-10-20 11:30 · Score: 1

or do stupid things like requiring a degree for a job position.

Do you know why we do this?

Once upon a time, before many /.'ers were born, companies used to have job candidates for many positions take aptitude tests of one sort or another, to determine whether they knew enough (or were bright enough to learn) to do the job.

Then someone decided that aptitude tests like that were discriminatory. So they were made illegal.

So, companies switched to requiring High School Diplomas.

Up until the time that high schools started graduating people who couldn't read.

So companies upped the ante to requiring Bachelor's Degrees.

Which is where we are now. My guess is that within the decade, the number of college graduates who can't read/spell/learn will cause the businesses looking to raise the ante to Master's Degrees.

And won't that be fun?

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Re:Americans at it again by TechLA · 2011-10-20 13:28 · Score: 1

EU doesn't have a military. There is NATO, but even US is part of that and it's different.

Re:Americans at it again by shaitand · 2011-10-20 16:16 · Score: 1

Before the US civil war the military power was in the hands of the states and not a central standing army. Same story, different union.

Who voted for this by Trogre · 2011-10-20 19:00 · Score: 1

To those of you asking who really voted for ACTA in the above constituencies, the answer is: We did. With our wallets.

Every time we purchased a CD, DVD, online music or movie ticket from a MAFIAA equivalent group member we gave them money to lobby their respective governments.

The next question to ask yourself is, what are we going to vote for next?

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife

Slashdot Mirror

ACTA Signed By 8 of 11 Participating Countries

213 comments