Slashdot Mirror
EU Parliment To Vote On ACTA Soon; Take Action Now
sTeF writes "Laquadrature du Net releases 3 videos on ACTA: Every citizen can help defeat ACTA by spreading this video across the Internet, urging their fellow citizens to mobilize, and contacting their elected representatives. ACTA is a threat to Internet users' fundamental freedoms and to EU Internet companies' competitiveness and free competition. The European Parliament will soon decide whether to give its consent to ACTA, or to reject it once and for all."
"Reject it once and for all"?
I find your naivety charming but have no need for your newsletter.
That video generates more questions in my brain than it answers. "ACTA is bad, nnkay?" it says, which is not enough. The extremely one-side view on ACTA the video provides sickens me. It doesn't even tell me who "The Negotiators" are. I can't say "No" to ACTA based on this video alone.
-- Cheers!
maybe s/he doesnt know. s/he should. dont risk it.
Read radical news here
You missed the irony cause you probably don't know who Christian Engström is.
That said, if your MEP is Christian Engström, maybe you could bother another one?
That's what I did for the telecoms package. I called a dozen of MEP. Of course, they are less receptive when you tell them you don't vote for them. But
1/you don't have to tell them (they tend to forget that they are paid to serve general interest and not just to make sure they will be reelected)
2/when they speak with lobbies, they are less peaky about where they're from and
3/freedom deserves me trying that (it's just a bunch of phone calls, no harm done, and it's really efficient).
For more informations: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta
To act, see http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/How_to_act_against_ACTA
I had to give up before the end of the introduction paragraphs. It doesn't contain a single comma, even though it's in dire need of a few dozen, and the start of the article at least doesn't say more than "ACTA supports the industry and will soon be signed" (I imagine that most readers would consider that a good thing). And the video in TFA is very economical with the truth, badly structured, and low on info. No wonder people don't get worked up about ACTA, if all the opposition can come up with, is this trash.
Please stop making a fuss about ACTA if you can not objectively tell us what is it going to do and why should we even oppose it.
Um... no. You should oppose it for this exact reason. What exactly it will do is so multi-faceted and so deeply buried in legal speak it requires a book to explain. This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read. — Winston Churchill
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
The problem with legislation is that, even if you defeat one, it can simply be reintroduced again and again until it is passed. There is no provision for forbidding anything to ever become a law (for a reason, otherwise we'd never be able to undo bad decisions). I hate ACTA as much as the next guy, and I really don't want to see it in use, but if the politicians have decided that some form of law like this will be in place, there's no stemming the tide simply by expressing our displeasure for it. Do you honestly think that politicians listen to the people who elect them? That's not how it works. We listen to the politicians, and elect the one we believe best represents our interests. It's (almost) always a one-way street.
Move sig!
I hope you're joking. :)
Cause ACTA is not EU specific. In fact, EU might be one of the last chances to stop ACTA.
USA, Japan, Australia, Canada, North Korea, New Zealand and Singapore already signed ACTA.
Mexico and Switzerland didn't want to sign the text. EU couldn't sign the text because this case never happend (who will sign the text in the name of the 27 member States?)
On the other hand, UK has been one of the worst State in the EU on this topic (filesharing, making isp become private police, etc.). Blair was a crazy puppy found of Bush. We though I might change with Cameron. Well, it didn't.
ACTA's secrecy is the biggest reason to vote against it.
Why? Because it's something that the powers that be are afraid we would oppose if we knew what was going on.
Oh wait, we're just citizen peons. We don't get to vote on it.
Only the government does.
And with no way to recall someone from congress after we've elected them, what incentive do they have to vote how we wanted them to when we elected them?
If it's lucrative enough someone can easily sacrifice their political career for a handsome payoff in the private sector.
Or assume rightly in most cases that if they pull a fast one early enough the electorate will have long forgotten by the time campaign time comes around again.
So that he can stand up and say "It's not just my view I'm representing: I've received lots of letters from constituents about this specific issue".
The purpose of treaties like this is to bypass such requirements as amending constitutions and getting a democratic majority. This way, a very few individuals of merit (bribed) can create and institute regulations that supersede national constitutions without bothering you or your elected representative with details until the enforcement phase. It also allows elected representatives to claim plausible deniability when the political fallout hits and since you do not know who the original negotiators were, no one is held accountable.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -