Slovenian Ambassador Regrets Signing ACTA Agreement

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Slovenian Ambassador Regrets Signing ACTA Agreement

Posted by timothy on Thursday February 2, 2012 @05:01AM from the seemed-like-a-good-idea-at-the-time dept.

metacell writes "Slovenia's ambassador to Japan, Helena Drnovek Zorko, writes: 'I signed ACTA out of civic carelessness, because I did not pay enough attention. Quite simply, I did not clearly connect the agreement I had been instructed to sign with the agreement that, according to my own civic conviction, limits and withholds the freedom of engagement on the largest and most significant network in human history, and thus limits particularly the future of our children.'"

149 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

We need an amendment.... by LostCluster · 2012-02-02 05:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Can't get SOPA/PIPA passed? Just get a diplomat from the USA to sign ACTA and all you need is a 2/3 majority in the Senate with no need for the House or President to sign off. Still a tall burden but there's much fewer Senators you need to purchase versus half the House.
1. Re:We need an amendment.... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-02-02 05:05 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The President has already signed it and is claiming the Senate doesn't need to ratify it because "executive agreement" is all you need.
  Handy theory because you only have to influence one person.
  This is why we need this to come before the Senate so it can be voted down.
2. Re:We need an amendment.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  I thought trade agreements were subject to a degree of scrutiny beyond the mere wave of a diplomats hand? For example NAFTA and FTAA...
3. Re:We need an amendment.... by Hatta · 2012-02-02 05:16 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The President has already signed it and is claiming the Senate doesn't need to ratify it because "executive agreement" is all you need.
  So, when do we impeach Obama for violating his oath to uphold the Constitution?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
4. Re:We need an amendment.... by spidercoz · 2012-02-02 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Couldn't make the case. The NDAA on the other hand...
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
5. Re:We need an amendment.... by NatasRevol · 2012-02-02 05:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  About the same time the last 6 presidents were impeached for similar behavior...
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
6. Re:We need an amendment.... by countertrolling · 2012-02-02 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  So, when do we impeach Obama for violating his oath to uphold the Constitution?
  Constitution? Bleh... He'll be impeached just as soon as he hooks up with an intern.
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
7. Re:We need an amendment.... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-02-02 05:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The precedent for agreeing to treaties this way goes back to George Washington's neutrality proclamation in 1793. You would have to retroactively impeach EVERY US President first to have a case against Mr. Obama.
  In actual practice due to the way the Constitution is written the only thing the Senate has is a veto power over treaties.
  http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/9780472116874-ch1.pdf
8. Re:We need an amendment.... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2012-02-02 05:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Hell, Obama already signed into law the ability for the gov to take you away without a fair trial or even informing anyone of your disappearance.
  Obama signed it saying he would never use it and disagrees with it...
  So why did the dumb fuck sign it?
  This country is corrupt as shit. Fuck America in its mouth. The constitution is worthless.
  Btw a reporter was arrested in congress yesterday.
9. Re:We need an amendment.... by DJRumpy · 2012-02-02 05:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Because you would be considered an idiot for claiming this was unconstitutional. The executive branch can, and does sign international treaties. It is well within their authority to do so. There are three types of treaties in the U.S.
  Congressional-Executive Agreements
  Solo Executive Agreements
  Treaties
  If the president has signed one without the direct consent of congress, it is considered either a Solo Executive Agreement, or a Congressional Executive agreement. The U.S. also differs from most other nations in that they treat each of the above types of treaties as distinct classes and the treaty is incorporated into federal law, and as such, congress can go in and modify them after the fact, even though other signing nations would consider this a violation of the treaty in question. The Supreme Court can also hold a treaty as unconstitutional and null and void.
  The authority of the president to do this is well known. Congress has attempted over the years to limit this authority with various versions of the Bicker Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment#Legal_background) but it has never been ratified by enough states.
10. Re:We need an amendment.... by Bucky24 · 2012-02-02 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
  
  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
  
  Now, I think they might be able to get him on bribery. But "they" could be got for bribery as well, so that's unlikely. Seems like failing to uphold the constitution should be an impeachable offence, but I guess when it was written they didn't think that the president was likely to fail in that duty.
  
  --
  All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
11. Re:We need an amendment.... by Java+Pimp · 2012-02-02 05:58 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Except Clinton wasn't impeached for hooking up with an intern. He was impeached for lying to a grand jury about it.
  
  --
  Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
  Kull: She told me she was 19!
12. Re:We need an amendment.... by russotto · 2012-02-02 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  This is why we need this to come before the Senate so it can be voted down.
  The Senate will probably acceed to it if it comes up to a vote. What we need is for the executive to try to use it in court without Senate approval and get smacked down.
13. Re:We need an amendment.... by orgelspieler · 2012-02-02 06:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Nah. We only impeach presidents for canoodling the secretary.
14. Re:We need an amendment.... by Sloppy · 2012-02-02 06:13 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not sure that's necessary in this case. If it's just an executive agreement and doesn't need to be ratified, then it's just an executive agreement and doesn't need to be ratified. It's not binding, has no legal power, and thus isn't threatening to constitutional limits.
  All we have to do is keep reminding the executive that it really is merely his handshake deal, and legislated policy need not change to comply with it. If he goes to Congress and says he needs some crazy new laws to comply with the 'treaty', the response is "What treaty?"
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
15. Re:We need an amendment.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  Do you have citations for this? I mean specific instances of a president signing a treaty and acting on it without it being ratified by the senate.
16. Re:We need an amendment.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:27 · Score: 0
  
  Hey, in Canada it only takes 39% of the popular vote and a Prime Minister who regards himself as a leader, rather than a representative.
17. Re:We need an amendment.... by MightyMartian · 2012-02-02 06:35 · Score: 2
  
  If Congress doesn't like it, they are most certainly free to create a bill that strips the government of any capacity to enact any policy based on ACTA. No need to impeach. Of course, since a goodly number of member of Congress are probably in full accord, it's little wonder they're not upset at being deprived of the right to rubberstamp this agreement.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
18. Re:We need an amendment.... by houghi · 2012-02-02 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  Right after all the other presidents that did the same in the past.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
19. Re:We need an amendment.... by Belial6 · 2012-02-02 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  About hooking up with an intern.
20. Re:We need an amendment.... by davester666 · 2012-02-02 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  He needs that power "just in case".
  Because terrorists keep coming up ways to do terrorist acts that aren't illegal or just result in 1 or 2 years in prison.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
21. Re:We need an amendment.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  Wiki
  He should have said, "I sure did... it was great!" then perhaps nothing would have become of it. Heavily politically motivated... if he hadn't lied, he would would have won. Instead, he pushed it and lost the trust of quite a few folks. If Hillary wasn't eying a political career, you can bet she would have walked. :)
22. Re:We need an amendment.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  WRONG.
  That particular President was impeached for lying under oath, an offense that would land the rest of us in jail. Period.
  Don't be such a lazy thinker and assume that just because a) among the President's critics are some modern-day Puritans and b) the President's fans focused on the sexual elements of the case that this was about Monica's actions.
23. Re:We need an amendment.... by Dahamma · 2012-02-02 07:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's trivial to find. In fact there is a whole section about it on www.senate.gov:
  Executive Agreements
  In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.
  The challenge of obtaining two-thirds vote on treaties was one of the motivating forces behind the vast increase in executive agreements after World War II. In 1952, for instance, the United States signed 14 treaties and 291 executive agreements. This was a larger number of executive agreements than had been reached during the entire century of 1789 to 1889. Executive agreements continue to grow at a rapid rate.
24. Re:We need an amendment.... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-02-02 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  It won't get smacked down in court because of prior precedence for these 'executive agreements'.
  The only way to put an end to it is by a failed Senate ratification vote.
25. Re:We need an amendment.... by Nyder · 2012-02-02 07:40 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Except Clinton wasn't impeached for hooking up with an intern. He was impeached for lying to a grand jury about it.
  We all lie about doing the fat chicks.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
26. Re:We need an amendment.... by Deliveranc3 · 2012-02-02 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  So we may find out that this whole thing wasn't really the U.S. telling everyone else how to act. It was just a few isolated morons within the administration... "don't tase me for destroying your freedoms yo."
27. Re:We need an amendment.... by NatasRevol · 2012-02-02 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Way to miss the point. Not some dumb treaty. Violating the oath to uphold the Constitution.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
28. Re:We need an amendment.... by hazah · 2012-02-02 08:32 · Score: 2
  
  I didn't lie about it. I regretted it vocally.
29. Re:We need an amendment.... by Obfuscant · 2012-02-02 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  No, we impeach them for obstruction of justice and lying under oath. What they lied about isn't relevant.
30. Re:We need an amendment.... by geminidomino · 2012-02-02 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  That particular President was impeached for lying under oath, an offense that would land the rest of us in jail. Period.
  And there's nothing about "upholding the Constitution" in the Presidential Oath of Office, right? (Getting back to what launched this tangent in the first place)
31. Re:We need an amendment.... by Mista2 · 2012-02-02 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Getting his knob polished by an intern while married to someone else is adultery, but not illegal. Lying about it to congres is.
32. Re:We need an amendment.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  Except also Congress had no business asking that question in the first place.
33. Re:We need an amendment.... by pclminion · 2012-02-02 09:32 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Well to be fair, it depends on what the definition of "is" is...
34. Re:We need an amendment.... by Ginger+Unicorn · 2012-02-02 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  i thought it was cigardling
  
  --
  (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
35. Re:We need an amendment.... by rtb61 · 2012-02-02 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  The catch there is, whilst it is that many countries legalise the ability for governments to sign treaties at no stage what so over does that give governments the ability to sign treaties that over rule their constitutions.
  So in the case of a US President signing a treaty with a foreign government that enacted a law that was against the constitution, that President would be treading dangerously close to treason.
  No treaty ever over rules a countries constitution and it would be illegal to enact that treaty if it does so and the politicians who signed it would have committed a criminal act and the treaty voided.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
36. Re:We need an amendment.... by DJRumpy · 2012-02-02 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  It would not be treason. You are being overly dramatic. There have been thousands of bills that were later overturned as unconstitutional. Can you cite a single case where the author of the bill was held for treason? Theatrics aside, the treaty would simply be held null and void if it violated the constitution, and that is a matter for the courts to decide. That was why I also stated that the Supreme Court can rule a treaty as unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
37. Re:We need an amendment.... by exomondo · 2012-02-02 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  Well to be fair, it depends on what the definition of "is" is...
  That depends on your definition of 'fair'.
38. Re:We need an amendment.... by Sinn3d · 2012-02-03 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  As an outsider, I'm still surprised (just a bit) he was taken before a grand jury to talk about such issues...
  Don't people have anything better to do then that. That grand jury should be putting people in jail for wasting their time like this...
39. Re:We need an amendment.... by Isaac+Remuant · 2012-02-03 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  When he started that war against Libya with congressional approval... oh wait...
  
  --
  "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
40. Re:We need an amendment.... by Boscrossos · 2012-02-03 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  When you put it like that, canoodling sounds painful...
  
  --
  Jesus saves... the rest takes full damage.
41. Re:We need an amendment.... by metacell · 2012-02-03 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  What terrorist acts aren't illegal? Thinking about blowing something up?
42. Re:We need an amendment.... by metacell · 2012-02-03 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, of course, but it puts Congress in a precarious situation. It's embarassing and will hurt the credibility of the USA if the president signs international treaties which the nation then fails to comply with.
43. Re:We need an amendment.... by davester666 · 2012-02-03 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  Why else would the president need the power of indefinite detainment without trial?
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Hanlon was right by gmuslera · 2012-02-02 05:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Don't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity
1. Re:Hanlon was right by cpghost · 2012-02-02 05:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  In this particular case, this ambassador may not have acted out of malice (she's just one little cog in a giant machine and couldn't have prevented it anyway), but the government that ordered her to sign it certainly intended to harm Internet. There's no doubt about this. After all, ACTA has been negotiated for a long time, and those responsible in the governments knew full well all the objections that have been brought against it. So Hanlon wasn't right here: ACTA was born out of malice, not out of stupidity.
  
  --
  cpghost at Cordula's Web.
2. Re:Hanlon was right by MozeeToby · 2012-02-02 05:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Sometimes stupidity is malice. Like when you're too uniformed, untrained, and unmotivated to do your very important job properly. Not admitting that and stepping down is malice.
3. Re:Hanlon was right by spidercoz · 2012-02-02 05:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  ... ACTA was born out of malice, not out of stupidity.
  Correct. But the people agreeing to it are stupid.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
4. Re:Hanlon was right by jamstar7 · 2012-02-02 05:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yeah, that went over really well at Nuremburg, too, ya know.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
5. Re:Hanlon was right by countertrolling · 2012-02-02 05:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  ...the people agreeing to it are stupid.
  No, they are corrupt
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
6. Re:Hanlon was right by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Nuremburg is a standard that losers of wars are held up to but nobody else in history has.
7. Re:Hanlon was right by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Like when you're too uniformed [..] to do your very important job properly
  Congratulations, sir. You just won the highly coveted award for Freudian Slip of the Century(tm)!
8. Re:Hanlon was right by jamstar7 · 2012-02-02 07:29 · Score: 2
  
  I was gonna say, what about My Lai, but the US lost that war, too.
  
  An Army captain named Medina got orders from MACV in Saigon to have the village of My Lai destroyed and everybody there killed. He passed that order to Lt Calley, who followed it. Calley got prison. Medina & his superiors got off. The court martial's explaination was of course, 'Following orders is no excuse!'. However, at the time, there was no such thing as an illegal order, so Calley could have been cort martialed for refusing a direct order and gotten shot. Calley knew this, and it came out at the trial.
  
  Later, the UCMJ was annoted to allow refusal to follow illegal orders as a defense at a court martial.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
9. Re:Hanlon was right by SplashMyBandit · 2012-02-02 07:43 · Score: 2
  
  It is a fallacy that the US lost in Vietnam, although they did later "lose" Vietnam itself (there is a difference). If you read the history you'll see that the US destroyed the Viet Cong in South Vietnam and then pursued a policy of "Vietnamization" where the South Vietnamese became responsible for their own defense. Several years later the North Vietnamese Army invaded and conquered South Vietnam - a straight out civil war where the south (backed by the US) lost to the north (backed by China and the Soviet Union). So, South Vietnam was lost to US interests but the US forces were actually unbeaten in the field when they left, and had destroyed the Viet Cong (but were not permitted to destroy the North Vietnamese Army for political reasons, although it was well within US capabilities). It is good you know about My Lai. Time to read more on the bigger picture methinks.
10. Re:Hanlon was right by spidercoz · 2012-02-02 08:40 · Score: 2
  
  I'd bet half of them are both.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
11. Re:Hanlon was right by Chris+Burke · 2012-02-02 09:19 · Score: 2
  
  It is a fallacy that the US lost in Vietnam, although they did later "lose" Vietnam itself (there is a difference).
  Right we only lost in the only way that is relevant because the entire goal of the Vietnam conflict was not to lose South Vietnam to Communism. That goal was not achieved. We lost.
  We "didn't lose" in a sense that is completely irrelevant because were it not for the strategic motivation for entering the conflict -- which was a failure -- then the military "wins" never would have occurred.
  
  So, South Vietnam was lost to US interests but the US forces were actually unbeaten in the field when they left, and had destroyed the Viet Cong (but were not permitted to destroy the North Vietnamese Army for political reasons, although it was well within US capabilities).
  Of course. All we would have had to do was treat Vietnam as if it was World War II and our war machine would have rolled over the NVA.
  Too bad this wasn't Word War II, and the politics surrounding it, the whole reason we were there, made things more complicated and changed the meaning of "win" to something other than simply achieving military success at any cost.
  Like every conflict we've been engaged in since other than Desert Storm.
  We lost Vietnam exactly because we didn't understand how to use the military in a situation where winning militarily and winning in actuality were not the same thing.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
12. Re:Hanlon was right by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 10:40 · Score: 0
  
  I'd bet half of them are both.
  "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
  (Salary == Campaign Contribution here)
  I prefer the term "malicious ignorance", someone insists on failing to understand before it is too late because of an external motivating factor.
13. Re:Hanlon was right by SplashMyBandit · 2012-02-02 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  > Right we only lost in the only way that is relevant because the entire goal of the Vietnam conflict was not to lose South Vietnam to Communism. That goal was not achieved. We lost.
  From the geopolitical strategic perspective the objective was not to "save" South Vietnam. The objective was to stop a Communist "Domino Effect". To this end it was successful. The US didn't actually care about Vietnam, for them the war was a necessary evil to contain the spread of communism. To this end it was quite successful. Like I said, the "conventional" interpretation of that war is full of fallacies when considered from today's perspective (much of the interpretations of "fail" came from the counter-culture of the time who were opposed to the war and declared it a failure well before the US withdrawal, let alone the North Vietnamese invasion). In short, 'you' won, and this was another victory along the road to the eventual fall of the Soviet Union (which had been the goal all along - thanks to the insights of George F Kennan).
14. Re:Hanlon was right by ignavus · 2012-02-02 13:54 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes stupidity is malice. Like when you're too uniformed, untrained, and unmotivated to do your very important job properly. Not admitting that and stepping down is malice.
  And sometimes malice is malice ... when you are a paranoid government in cahoots with a paranoid entertainment industry who want to stomp on all that Internet freedom, and turn it into a "manageable" broadcast medium, where only the big corporations are free to issue content.
  
  --
  I am anarch of all I survey.
Read before you sign by GameboyRMH · 2012-02-02 05:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Applies even more to politicians than it does to the average joe.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
1. Re:Read before you sign by spidercoz · 2012-02-02 05:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  But it was SO LOOOOOONG! I'll just click "accept," what's the worst that could happen?
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
2. Re:Read before you sign by sconeu · 2012-02-02 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  And of course, now the Slovenian ambassador will become part of the first Human Cent-iPad.
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
3. Re:Read Before You Sign by Hadlock · 2012-02-02 05:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I think all legislation should be read aloud by the leading party member of whoever introduced it, and all legislators must be present the entire time before voting on it.
  
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
4. Re:Read before you sign by cayenne8 · 2012-02-02 05:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  But it was SO LOOOOOONG! I'll just click "accept," what's the worst that could happen?
  Seems our politicians are too lazy to read anything these days.
  Wasn't it Pelosi, who said something to the effect with regards to Obamacare..."Let's pass it so we can see what it says..."?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
5. Re:Read Before You Sign by spidercoz · 2012-02-02 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  I thought the problem of politicians signing stuff before they read it was limited to the US Congress.
  Why in the world would you think that?
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
6. Re:Read Before You Sign by spidercoz · 2012-02-02 05:36 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  ...and all legislators must be present the entire time...
  And awake.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
7. Re:Read Before You Sign by repapetilto · 2012-02-02 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Very good analogies.
8. Re:Read before you sign by NIN1385 · 2012-02-02 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Love your signature, applies rather well these days.
  
  --
  
  If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
9. Re:Read Before You Sign by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:09 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  No way, they'd all die of caffeine overdose before one bill was done reading.
  Wait.
  On second thought, I like this plan.
10. Re:Read before you sign by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  You just gave me an idea for the perfect Malware installer. Don't prompt the user for a Yes/No option. Make it into a giant long EULA with an OK button at the bottom. Because after all, only legitimate software will uses such agreements.
  Suckers.
11. Re:Read before you sign by PPH · 2012-02-02 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  But it was SO LOOOOOONG!
  That's what she said.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
12. Re:Read Before You Sign by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Read the Bills Act (Full Text, PDF)
  It would do exactly what you wanted, but nobody is sponsoring it yet.
13. Re:Read Before You Sign by Amouth · 2012-02-02 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Personally i think they should only be allowed to sign off one a personal hand written copy of it.
  they would have zero excuse for not knowing the content as they would have had to read it to copy it.
  they would be a lot shorter and easier to understand as they would have to copy it them selves..
  pork would start to disappear because people don't want to have to sit down and copy that too..
  
  --
  '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
14. Re:Read Before You Sign by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Make it so all such readings are recorded (with all seats visible on at least one of the recording channels) and the multiple video streams available online within an hour. Anyone who naps or is otherwise blatantly unattentive has to justify that in their next re-election.
  I'd also prefer it be coupled with requiring each law to state which article or amendment of the Constitution grants the authority to pass such a bill. Toss in a tolerance for laws that are deemed as unexpected by the Constitution but justifiable under the Declaration of Independence (such as this law restraining Congress).
15. Re:Read Before You Sign by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  ... the problem of politicians signing stuff before they read it
  I'm not sure reversing that order would lead to better decisions on what to sign
16. Re:Read before you sign by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  Out of context, and an inaccurate quoting. It was in regards to the spin such as death panels. She was saying that the truth will not be honestly articulated to anyone that it is being summarized too because of the political spin from the opposing party.
  "[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
  While I do not like her comment, because it's asking for trouble... it is sadly true.
17. Re:Read Before You Sign by Mista2 · 2012-02-02 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  It would sure as hell encourage the legislation to be shorter 8)
18. Re:Read before you sign by maxwells_deamon · 2012-02-02 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  That has been done before.
  http://boingboing.net/2008/04/29/malware-gets-a-eula.html
  One baddie even tried to use it as a protection in court (i don't think it was the group linked to above, but I remember reading about it somewhere)
19. Re:Read before you sign by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 12:17 · Score: 0
  
  But we have to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it. --Nancy Pelosi
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KoE1R-xH5To
20. Re:Read Before You Sign by GuldKalle · 2012-02-02 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  I thought the problem of politicians signing stuff before they read it was limited to the US Congress.
  You Americans think you're so special. Well we have lying, greedy, lazy, corrupt politicians, too!
  Why don't we have a race, Europe vs. USA. The ones with the most vile, disgusting politician (must be elected into office) wins.
  
  --
  What?
21. Re:Read Before You Sign by Jason+Levine · 2012-02-02 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, there are times when I think our politicians have a race like that going on. I don't know who's winning but I know the citizens of the countries are the ones who are losing!
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
22. Re:Read Before You Sign by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 13:06 · Score: 0
  
  Even better, every time a new congress is elected, the officials should recite all laws on books out of memory. If the full congress fails to put together some law exactly, it will be stricken from the books immediately. Now we got short laws and few of them and they better make sense to be easy to memorize :) Also, we might get considerably younger congress who won't pass laws that will only take effect once they will be dead anyway.
23. Re:Read Before You Sign by bell.colin · 2012-02-03 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  And must take a 1000 question test and pass with 100%, If it's too long shorten it (won't need 1000 questions to cover all basis of the bill if it's not 5000+ pages long)
  What point does it do to read it if they don't/won't understand it anyway.
24. Re:Read Before You Sign by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-04 15:18 · Score: 0
  
  She was a bureaucrat, not a politician. Seriously, you didn't even need to RTFA to get that.
Yea dipshit by Osgeld · 2012-02-02 05:07 · Score: 1

Actions have consequences, maybe if you were qualified to be an adult, let alone someone with government powers, you would know that
1. Re:Yea dipshit by NeutronCowboy · 2012-02-02 05:21 · Score: 2
  
  Wow. There's some bitter people on Slashdot. I guess I should have known that someone admitting to a mistake would get excoriated even more so than someone who just keeps arguing that they were right all along. I guess that explains why people like Newt are actually being voted for - there are more people out there who will swallow someone's story about how they were right all along than who will forgive someone who admits to a mistake.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Crocodile tears by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 05:08 · Score: 0

n/t
In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 05:09 · Score: 3, Informative

It's easier to ask for forgiveness then permission.
1. Re:In other news.... by jank1887 · 2012-02-02 06:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  but she had permission. Actually, she had 'instructions' from her government to sign it. And, it's disingenuous that now she's being the one taken to task for putting her name on the paper, when clearly others were responsible for the decision. Yes, she could have stepped down, someone else would have signed it after given other instructions, and we'd be right where we are, lambasting whichever other official put his signature on it. This avoids the source of the problem, and Slashdot is contributing to the confusion, by focusing on the Ambassador.
  FTFA:
  
  I signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) on behalf of the Republic of Slovenia, following the directive and authorisation of the Slovenian government. ... There has been a demonization of “some sneak”, that is me, who in far-off Tokyo secretly signed something on her own initiative...it is dangerous particularly because it conceals the responsibility of those who had the power to decide, and did in fact decide, that Slovenia would be a signatory of ACTA. This was decided by the Slovenian government and by the parliamentary committee for EU matters, and before that, Slovenia was for quite some time involved in coordinating the agreement. All this was done with too little transparency, judging by the outraged responses that have appeared following the signing. Back then, the Slovenian media did not demonise this decision to the same extent as they now demonise my signature. This I consider very dangerous for the continuous (non-)development of democracy in Slovenia.
2. Re:In other news.... by reve_etrange · 2012-02-02 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  FTFA:
  
  I don’t know how many options I had with regard to not signing, but I could have tried. I did not. I missed an opportunity to fight for the right of conscientious objection on the part of us bureaucrats.
  Exactly, she is saying that, had she been more aware of the fact that many Solvenians do not want to be a party to ACTA, she might have been able to find some legal recourse to refuse to sign the agreement.
  It's likely that even had she refused to sign, she would have been subsequently compelled to do so by her superiors in government.
  
  --
  .: Semper Absurda :.
May I be the first to say by oldmac31310 · 2012-02-02 05:12 · Score: 1

What a fucking douchebag!

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com
1. Re:May I be the first to say by Nethemas+the+Great · 2012-02-02 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Probably, but if not them then another...
  
  --
  Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
It was peer pressure by sconeu · 2012-02-02 05:14 · Score: 4, Funny

Dudes, like... you know... all the cool countries were signing it, and they were like, you know... "Sign it, man! Go ahead! It'll be fun!"
So, like, I signed it but now I'm like, really sorry and everything, you know? So we're cool, right?

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
1. Re:It was peer pressure by ddtmm · 2012-02-02 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Sad to see how they all do what the other ones are doing, but in a way I admire her courage to stand up and admit her mistake. Sucks to be her but maybe it'll make a few others wake up too. Does this still have to get passed by the EU parliament too?
2. Re:It was peer pressure by Teun · 2012-02-02 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Yes it has a possibly insurmountable battle ahead in the EU parliament.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
"I was asleep at the wheel" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 05:14 · Score: 0

As a diplomat, she only gets to do what she's instructed to do. Fine, I'll buy that.
As a citizen, though, one in the thick of international dealing to boot, it's not nearly good enough. Not being aware of the pernicious nature of the treaty, of its undemocratic, non-transparent, in fact deliberately obscured dealings and meaning, is quite inexcusable for someone in that position. Or any politician active at a national level, for that matter.
She's got remorse now, and admitting that in public should at least get our support. But far too many still push ahead.
How is it that so many who should know better still haven't caught on the scam on citizens' rights and democracy that's being pulled here?
Well, it's kinda late now, now isn't it? by ilsaloving · 2012-02-02 05:17 · Score: 1

Maybe you should have thought about that first BEFORE signing?
It's so reassuring to know that these thoughtless people rule our world.
Light Applause by ackthpt · 2012-02-02 05:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

You recognised it was folly. Well done.
You recognised it a bit late. Not so well done.
Go void it.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
1. Re:Light Applause by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-02-02 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Or void *on* it, if you know what I mean.
2. Re:Light Applause by Xest · 2012-02-02 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  She doesn't have the power to void the signing, nor did she have the power to decide whether Slovenia should be a signatory.
  She was merely the person who was sent to perform the physical act of signing it, all she is saying is that she wishes in hindsight that she'd have stepped down and joined the unemployment line rather than sign it.
  If she hadn't signed it someone else would have, but good on her for admitting she should have at least stood up and made a point at the time- she's done the next best thing and is making a point about it now. That's all she has the power to do, so given that she's doing the best she can- that is, far, far more than the numerous people who signed it and don't give a shit. I'm in the UK and I'd love nothing more than such an apology from whoever signed it for us, but we don't even seem to know who that is, the media has been silent on the issue and no one seems to give a fuck here.
Read Before You Sign by Jason+Levine · 2012-02-02 05:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

I thought the problem of politicians signing stuff before they read it was limited to the US Congress. Looks like it's a global phenomenon. Could you imagine if other people did that?
Pharmacist: "Yes, those drugs I dispensed killed people. I probably should have read the labels so I didn't give people the wrong dose or pills." (Said while handing a customer Viagra instead of antibiotics.)
Surgeon: "How was I to know that the patient didn't need a quadruple amputation? I didn't get a chance to read his chart before starting the surgery. Next patient! Pass the hacksaw!"
Air Traffic Controller: "Sure, a few planes collided in my airspace. It's not like it's my fault. I had no way of knowing that was going to happen when I instructed them to land without reading what was on the tracking computer. Ok, flights 54321, 31415, and 424242. You're all clear to land on runway (rolls dice) 5."

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Oh come on... by golden+age+villain · 2012-02-02 05:24 · Score: 2

I signed without reading it, honest... So sorry folks! If only I had known before.
Just an ambassador by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 05:26 · Score: 0

instructed to sign it. If this person had chosen not to do so, then the government would have sent another person to do it.
1. Re:Just an ambassador by 0123456 · 2012-02-02 05:51 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, and? Doesn't matter how many other people might have signed it, this is the person who did sign it.
  If they'd said no and then resigned on principle, they might have created enough media buzz to stop it. Now they realise it's unpopular they're saying 'hey, don't blame me'.
2. Re:Just an ambassador by ThunderBird89 · 2012-02-02 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Problem there: an ambassador cannot 'step down', he or she can only be recalled by the sending state. Additionally, ambassadors are, you could say, the personification of the sending state in the receiving state. If she was instructed to sign the treaty, that's what she has to do, carry out the will of her country. She may protest through her official channels, say that it's a bad idea, and ACTA is evil, but in the end, if Slovenia doesn't change its mind, she is practically obligated to sign it due to her position.
  Diplomacy is one of those areas where you don't really have the opportunity to exercise free will, if not having a say in how things get done. But what gets done is not, and usually never was, up to you.
  
  --
  Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
3. Re:Just an ambassador by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  Diplomacy is one of those areas where you don't really have the opportunity to exercise free will, if not having a say in how things get done. But what gets done is not, and usually never was, up to you.
  The Nuremberg defense was ruled invalid almost 70 years ago.
4. Re:Just an ambassador by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 09:07 · Score: 0
  
  And has been restricted to that one time.
Maybe not so bad by Per+Wigren · 2012-02-02 05:29 · Score: 2

This may actually turn out to be a good thing. If the politicians who are about to sign ACTA in june read it, maybe, just maybe, her letter will make them think twice and at least TRY to understand what the heck it's all about instead of just voting yes out of ignorance.

--
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Bet of Both Worlds by Ambiguous+Coward · 2012-02-02 05:30 · Score: 2

This sort of approach really does get you the best of both worlds: you get to sign the agreement so you get all the backscratching that entails, and you get to publicly decry it, so you get the support of your constituents!
Politicking 101

--
Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
1. Re:Bet of Both Worlds by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  I dunno.. what are the constituents of an ambassador? The rest of the embassy personnel?
2. Re:Bet of Both Worlds by Ambiguous+Coward · 2012-02-02 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Those that appoint him.
  
  --
  Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
At least by arnodf · 2012-02-02 05:31 · Score: 1

Well, at least she admits she's wrong. I wonder how the rest would react; they'll probably just say they support it, still without understanding a bit of it.
Is this his "anti-lynching" apology? by erroneus · 2012-02-02 05:33 · Score: 2

I think we are going to see a LOT more of this. "Oh, I signed it but I didn't know what I was signing... and I wasn't paying any attention to the protests going on outside of my windows either..."
I'm sorry, but no. I don't buy it. And if it were true, that it was some kind of "honest mistake" then they need to resign from office and forever from public service because they just admitted to not doing their job.
Bull! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 05:35 · Score: 0

He has no excuses. it was his responsibility to read and understand it first.
1. Re:Bull! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  He has no excuses.
  She. She has no excuses.
2. Re:Bull! by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-02-02 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  That's what he said- no, wait..
3. Re:Bull! by PPH · 2012-02-02 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Remind me never to go out on a date with someone like that.
  Morning after regret is a bitch.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
4. Re:Bull! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, it was her responsibility to sign it. An ambassador does not decide, an ambassador represents.
5. Re:Bull! by Sinn3d · 2012-02-03 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  ^^ mod up. Indeed, she would of been told to sign it anyway, doing so under protest ---or doing so ... and protesting afterwards. Same result.
  If she would of decided not to sign at all, someone else would of signed it. Maybe someone not protesting or apologizing at all.
  We should be glad she is speaking up and making a bit of a fuss about it...
I think we're going about this all wrong... by erroneus · 2012-02-02 05:43 · Score: 1

We need to download all content and never EVER buy a single copy of entertainment material ever again. This won't end until we are all criminals and stripped of our right to vote or to protest. Meanwhile, we keep buying what they are selling, fueling their politician-buying budgets to buy new laws which are then used against us.
Of course, stopping now will not do any good... the words "critical mass" come to mind. They are already out of control. Their high profitability doesn't prove their arguments are false. But people refusing to buy from these criminals serves to prove their arguments are true. There is no "winning" in this any longer.
1. Re:I think we're going about this all wrong... by Mista2 · 2012-02-02 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  I dont buy their DVDs or watch their TV now, so why would taking EZTV down change that?
Re:Hanlon was right a long time ago by TaoPhoenix · 2012-02-02 05:51 · Score: 2

Sorry, no.
Always assume malice. Then when you rule out malice, assume corruption. Then when you rule out corruption, assume greed. Then when you rule out greed, you've spent enough time that by now the malice actually showed up after all.
Then if you rule all that out twice, you get to consider someone stupid, at which point you get sued for slander/libel.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The children by bananaquackmoo · 2012-02-02 05:57 · Score: 1

I love it! Now we just need to communicate his message. "ACTA hurts the children. Won't someone please think of the children!"
1. Re:The children by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  They will probably twist that and use it to create a D.A.R.E. like program for children to rat out their parents.
old saying? by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-02-02 05:57 · Score: 1

How does it go again? Easier to apologize than just doing the right thing in the first place?
Re:bitter by TaoPhoenix · 2012-02-02 06:01 · Score: 2

We're bitter because "not all mistakes are created equal". We're bitter because 40-60% of the Slashdot Nerd News site knows more of the content of one of the nastiest treaties ever, than ... wait for it ... an Ambassador.
Sorry, that's just terr... er ... scary.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I will not forgive by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:04 · Score: 1

I don't care how badly a governing official feels after doing something oppressive. They should know better, and failing to know better puts them on par with those who deliberately oppress.
I will not allow a completely commitment-and-action-free apology influence my opinion of an oppressor.
RTFA anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:11 · Score: 0

If any of you read the link with the embassador's actual words, it will be clear that she HAD TO sign it. Her explanation is a roundabout way of saying she had no choice. I doubt that many of you know the Slovenian laws (I don't), and what sort of responsibilities an embassador has.
nice words by viperidaenz · 2012-02-02 06:12 · Score: 1

Sure he's sorry about signing it, but he can't un-sign it now that he's been given his pay cheque
1. Re:nice words by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  You been at sea for so long you've lost the ability to differentiate men from women? Better spend some time down at the docks, reacquainting yourself with the ladies.
this is what they call by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 06:22 · Score: 0

having your cake and eating it too
huh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 07:06 · Score: 0

"Quite simply, I did not clearly connect the agreement I had been instructed to sign"
who instructed you to sign it? were they wearing an american flag pin? was their hometown in hollywood california?
this isn't legislation, this is corruption on a global scale and americans are at the heart of it.
Asleep at the wheel by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 07:42 · Score: 0

So, yeah, it's not her wrongdoing because she had a lot of work to do (RTFA) and even now she is "recovering". So basically, she is unable to cope with work and instead of resigning and letting somebody competent do it, she argues it's not her fault for spending too much time wasting other people's money. Lovely. If she fucked up so badly on this law, how many other has she badly fucked up?
If it was only so... by denzacar · 2012-02-02 07:53 · Score: 1

First off, greed and corruption are the same thing - one is the motive for the other.
Now, if it was all corruption it would be a very simply problem - simply pay more to have it your way.
After all, the subject is motivated only by greed and self interest, right?
Malice is fine but.. you can't rally people around malice. Note the lack of "hate clubs" in any society - as opposed to fan clubs.
Humans are social animals. We like to be the part of the herd we like for what we like to like. And be liked because of it.
No herd will take you in simply because you hate the same thing as everyone else. Because they don't all hate the same things.
A herd may LIKE the same things, but they don't all love or hate the same things - cause hate and love are individual preferences.
And in politics - you need your herds.
So, while a single individual may have his/her own personal reason for malice they can't teach others their hate.
He/she must give them a reason and logic on which they will build their own hate - i.e. indoctrinate them with false logic and ideology.
Delude them.
They don't even have to hate - they simply have to believe that the other side hates them or the things that they care about.
You know... like morals, god, puppies... America. Whatever.
And the less they know - the more they will believe.
The best part is, once they got the ball rolling, they don't even have to validate their position to anyone.
The other side is BOUND to do (or not do) something that will be construed as "evil" by their righteous followers.
After that, they have it made. Kids will be running away from home for a chance to die fighting those puppy hating bastards.
And all that time, they won't actually hate the other side - they will simply be "doing the right thing", backed by their own ignorance and lack of wisdom.
Or "ideals", as some people like to call that.
Even Nazis were dead certain that they were doing the right thing.
Exterminating the "lower races", avenging their betrayed ancestors, liberating the world from communism, conquering the world so it would be run properly by those with superior genes and culture...
They had both science AND magic backing their cause - how could they've been wrong?

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
1. Re:If it was only so... by TaoPhoenix · 2012-02-02 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Hi there. Nice reply. Here's some notes.
  Let's say corruption is "correlated with greed". I would like to point out the class of greed that operates flawlessly legally, like Chinese labor rates and Foxconn (sp?) hiring *100,000* new workers who are *glad* to go there. As legal as it gets - and the offshoring greed is immense. 100,000 workers is something like 1/2000th of the entire working US population. (Your numbers may vary.)
  Yes you can rally people both around malice, and against malice. K Street in Washington is rallied around malice. The Internet Blackout Day against SOPA was rallying against malice. The trouble is, the people perpetrating the malice are signing documents like "privacy makes you a terrorist", which doesn't leave a lot of legal ways to respond.
  Your next thing about hating and herds is called the Prisoner's Dilemma. The "1%" are all in the same 100 lunch clubs, they have it all orchestrated on their side. The 99% then squabble among themselves, trying to fix it all, but ... well, ... it's harder to both orchestrate by the numbers, and with plenty of disadvantages to boot. Occupy Wall Street was laughed off by the media but it was one of the Protests of the Year, followed by (yes, mild) Internet Blackout Day. The fundmental problem is how to "beat the Prisoner's Dilemma so that we gain force in unity."
  As for "construed as evil", corruption is the social version of "division by zero". An amusing thought experiment would be to point a gun at a mathematician's head and give him a flawed proof of something absurd. It contains a Division by Zero. Of course he will protest. "Do it." "But it's illegal!" (Gun Goes Click.) "Okay!" "Now sign the proof."
  Once you cross the line it becomes Alice in Wonderland, at which point it doesn't make sense to bother caring anymore. Life becomes a Canary Test. "Today I was not abused by either the Govt or a Corp."
  
  --
  My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
2. Re:If it was only so... by denzacar · 2012-02-03 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  See... If I was suspecting malice, I'd go with you puling a couple of ignoratio elenchi on me there.
  But I'm guessing that it is rather the case of you and me having different understanding of the topic of the discussion.
  I.e. You think that we are discussing one facet of the subject, while I am talking about another facet thinking that you are referring to the SAME facet as I am.
  Case in point...
  
  Let's say corruption is "correlated with greed". I would like to point out the class of greed that operates flawlessly legally, like Chinese labor rates and Foxconn (sp?) hiring *100,000* new workers who are *glad* to go there. As legal as it gets - and the offshoring greed is immense
  Of course greed "operates flawlessly", legally or illegally as a motivator for an individual - but I was talking about greed as a motive for a leader/decision maker to be corrupted.
  And there it does not work as advertised in all cases - because what may look like greed or corruption to one side, may be a heroic effort of one individual to preserve his entire society on the other.
  And by corrupted, I mean a corrupted leader/decision maker OF THE PEOPLE he/she represents.
  Doing a disservice to them, being motivated by either personal gain or some other group's gain.
  You say that those people in China are working out of greed - how about a desire to provide a better life to their children through self-sacrifice?
  Greed is what's pushing people when they have more than they will need in foreseeable future.
  People polishing iPhones for Foxconn have a way to go to get there.
  
  Yes you can rally people both around malice, and against malice. K Street in Washington is rallied around malice. The Internet Blackout Day against SOPA was rallying against malice.
  Umm, no. I may have been not... exactly clear with my explanation above, but...
  K Street is an example of group A which, being motivated by unknown factors (we can't really say with certainty are they uninformed, stupid, malicious, greedy, BAD etc. or sacrificing, heroic, in possession of superior ideology or facts, GOOD etc.), hires group K as they provide professional means of influence on a group that designs and votes in laws.
  You may say that the group K is working motivated by greed (which does not have to be necessarily true) but you can't attach negative moral points to the group A - because the group B is doing the same thing.
  Cause that IS how it's done. Which is a sad moral situation, but apparently legal one.
  Anyway - there is no certain malice there.
  At best, it may be greed on account of the K Street - but as they are still bound by laws and contracts, you can't really blame them for doing their perfectly legal jobs.
  No more than you can blame a guy making axes if one of his axes gets used by a serial killer. Or a lumberjack.
  As for malice being the motivator in rallying AGAINST malice - to use Nazis again, that would be like calling WWII Allies Nazis.
  What is malice against malice? Enemy of my enemy is my...? Minus and minus make a...?
  SOPA protesters weren't rallied around their common malice - in fact, they were rallied around their common desire for the protection of their and other people's freedoms.
  
  Your next thing about hating and herds is called the Prisoner's Dilemma. The "1%" are all in the same 100 lunch clubs, they have it all orchestrated on their side. The 99% then squabble among themselves, trying to fix it all, but ... well, ... it's harder to both orchestrate by the numbers, and with plenty of disadvantages to boot. Occupy Wall Street was laughed off by the media but it was one of the Protests of the Year, followed by (yes, mild) Internet Blackout Day. The fundmental problem is how to "beat the Prisoner's Dilemma so that we gain force in unity."
  Umm... no.
  Prisoner's dilemma is about the supposed rational solution for looking out for the
  
  --
  Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
3. Re:If it was only so... by TaoPhoenix · 2012-02-06 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for the nice long reply. Here's some notes.
  When I said "class of greed that operates flawlessly legally", I meant it to be read:
  class of greed that operates (flawlessly legally),
  and you came up with an answer to the equally interesting
  class of greed that (operates flawlessly) legally,
  so that's a case of 'nice answer to something else'.
  By that phrase I meant about the Executives of corporations clearly demonstrating greed by using loopholes etc, such that they didn't cross the legal line, but are acting maliciously against better humanistic interests. I'm the first to admit Americans have a fine standard of living, and the "outsource countries" are in conditions we wouldn't tolerate.
  I drew a distinction between corruption that blatantly (seems to) defy the law, vs immoral actions that are technically in the letter of the law. If the corp found a loophole, they're safe until someone fixes the bad law, vs (seemingly) clearly breaking the law, and then the "influenced" judge magically just throws out the lawsuit/finds for the 'wrong side' with a Nelson HaHa like the IP proceedings of Texas.
  "Professional means of influence" - that's the slippery part right there. Generally speaking, that influence consists of "I'll give you money, you write me a law, my boss pays me my cut of the profits he makes with the new law." That's the entrenched Good Ol' Boy network that's going to be hard to unravel.
  The Prisoner's Dilemma is about a "short term" "narrowly rational" decision based on not trusting the other people to have enough synergy to push through the best solution for all. It's clearly about the lack of communication aspect, and I like your part about binding leadership. In the classic 4-square dilemma, both players end up in the "mildly crappy" scenario because they expect the other person to make an equally individualistic choice, when the best result "on the game board" is both players win and neither loses.
  In the voting world, for once we managed to show that kind of unity to slow down SOPA, and the Euro countries woke up and are slowing down ACTA. Not perfect, but for once we made a start. For me, that's the true purpose of Social Media, it's the only cross-location communication method that lets the masses have the same amount of orchestration as the Washington crowd.
  I have dreamed of a project of a site/system that takes every piece of legislation line by line with a social Like and DoNotWant, with comments, and maybe MetaMods, etc. Then that "minivote" becomes *applied to political action*. "Because the following Reps/Senators approved/voted down this bill, my opinion is to Like or DoNotWant that politician by X amount, and after some threshold, that means I will not vote for you next term." Voters would take the summary data to the polls with them, "remember you hate this guy because he did this and this and this."
  So if a politician is willing to risk his job for x votes, "have at it, but you know what's coming".
  As for the Canary thing, I can't recall exactly where I heard of the idea, maybe Bruce Schneier, but here's a close analogue. From this site about another topic, http://blog.urbaninsight.com/comment/1506
  "Binary Canary is a web service that continually checks to see if a website is online and sends out alerts when it's not."
  That was my point - It's a service that requires routine successes to stay silent, such as refreshing a page, and then when the action is not performed, (presumably because the operator is in custody) the Canary server sends out an alert. Yes, of course it's prone to Operator Forgetting, but for the highest levels of danger, the operator wouldn't forget, so when the Canary 'dies', people know that $hit Just Got Real.
  Regards,
  --Tao
  
  --
  My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I'm a Slovenian and a Croatian... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 08:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

...so I speak as a citizen of a country that has been part of the EU for 7-8 years, and as a citizen of a country who has just joined the EU (signed the agreement, joining in 2013).
This is not malice, or stupidity. Slovenia is a new member-state of the EU. And, because of that status, I believe the government is compelled to follow EU instructions without much objection.
The EU has become a political union, controlled by an EU Commission (which no one elects) and the EU President, who is elected by the Commission. Oh yeah, and the members of the Commission are picked and appointed by the EU President.
EU uses political and economical (since they control how much each country is allowed to borrow, and in this recession it is important that countries get as much as they can) pressure to have countries to whatever the EU wants. For example, many countries were denied a referendum to see whether the people want to join or not. They had a referendum in the Netherlands and France (I believe) and both those peoples said "NO" to the EU. The EU and the respective governments decided to ignore those referendums. In other countries, like Croatia, there was a referendum, but there was so much disinformation and propaganda going on that it was clear that it would pass. Around 40% of Croatians came out to the referendum. According to our original constitution from 1991/2, to have a referendum count you have to have 70%+ people come out. This, of course, was changed so that referendums like these can pass.
It is clear that the EU wants this to pass and it did. The only country that hasn't signed it is Poland. But, unfortunately, there will be consequences for Poland because of that. The EU has made it clear (you can read on their website) that they will require every country to have "compatible" laws to the EU's laws, and that if a country doesn't, they will use political and economical means to force them to.
The Slovenian ambassador takes her orders from the Slovenian government, the Slovenian government takes their orders from the EU Commission. The EU parliament rubber-stamps any decisions of the Commission with little opposition. The Parliament is made up of 754 delegates. Out of those, Nigel Farage (and his cohort) and the Pirate Party will be against ACTA, everyone else will give their support under the watchful eye of the President. 378 people WILL NOT be against ACTA in the Parliament, you can be certain of that. And if the EU signs it, so must every EU country (Poland, too).
Thank you for reading.
captcha: faulted
1. Re:I'm a Slovenian and a Croatian... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 11:21 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  They had a referendum in the Netherlands and France (I believe) and both those peoples said "NO" to the EU. The EU and the respective governments decided to ignore those referendums.
  The Dutch referendum was about the first iteration of the Lisbon treaty (aka "EU Constitution", and our no was honoured -- in effect, the Dutch "no" meant the treaty was changed favourably for the Dutch. But you're right in the sense that the final treaty was not put forward in a new Dutch referendum.
  From my point of view, the EU cannot afford itself an oppressive treaty like ACTA. Nationalism is on the rise in most countries, and antics like the ACTA treaty are only going to fuel the anti-EU sentiment. According to recent polls, about 55% of the Dutch would vote for a party on either the far left or the far right -- parties which are both outspoken anti-EU. On the other side, we have seen the rise of pirate parties in Sweden, Germany and Spain that advocate government transparency and copyright reform (even abolishment), and we can be sure that they will make ACTA a hot topic for the next election rounds (sadly, still far away).
  American corporatism does not yet have a stranglehold on the European populace as it does in North America. That the European Commission had been bought should come as no surprise to anyone. The coming EP vote in June will determine how much of the European government is still working in the interest of the EU. Any missteps there and the EU just might fail completely.
2. Re:I'm a Slovenian and a Croatian... by VAElynx · 2012-02-02 16:18 · Score: 2
  
  Slovakia didn't sign ACTA either.
Well Said by Bob9113 · 2012-02-02 08:52 · Score: 2

"[ACTA] limits and withholds the freedom of engagement on the largest and most significant network in human history, and thus limits particularly the future of our children."
Regardless of the path she took to get there, she hit the nail on the head with this statement. A concise, unequivocal, and accurate assessment of the fundamental societal imbalance of ACTA and other recent attempts at centralized inhibition of copyright infringement. Well said.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Yuh huh by Greyfox · 2012-02-02 12:42 · Score: 1

But he signed it anyway.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Invalid if Not Fully Aware When Sigining by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 22:10 · Score: 0

EU requirements aside, could she/Slovenia legally withhold support by claiming they weren't aware of what they were signing (e.g. like police confessions or EULAs)?
1. Re:Invalid if Not Fully Aware When Sigining by metacell · 2012-02-05 18:49 · Score: 1
  
  Not necessary, since the signature doesn't mean anything from a legal perspective. The EU parliament and the individual member states need to ratify the ACTA agreement before it takes effect.
obstruction of justice and lying under oath by zooblethorpe · 2012-02-03 04:26 · Score: 1

No, we impeach them for obstruction of justice and lying under oath. What they lied about isn't relevant.
For Bob's sake, man, if that were the only criterion we'd have thrown most of the bums into prison, regardless of party affiliation. "Obstruction of justice and lying under oath" might have been the legal crux of the argument, but that was certainly not what Clinton was being impeached for -- he was impeached for riling too many of the wrong people in Congress (and the people who pull Congress's strings).
The Chinese talk about the Mandate of Heaven, putting religious clothing on the old political argument that the ruler ultimately rules with the consent of the ruled, for various values of the set defined as "the ruled". Clinton basically pushed hard enough that he almost lost the Mandate of Heaven in the US. The legal instrument used to pull him down is almost irrelevant.
Cheers,

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Electrodes FTW by zooblethorpe · 2012-02-03 04:56 · Score: 1

...and all legislators must be present the entire time...
And awake.
No way, they'd all die of caffeine overdose before one bill was done reading.
Then some other paid-for schmoe would take their place. No, no, the better option for keeping them awake throughout the reading of the bill is to attach electrodes to their genitals and shock them whenever they nod off.
It would be more humane than the social fallout we are all having to deal with (worldwide, I might add) from them passing any old bill that comes through without even reading it .
Hell, I'm a translator, and I'd suffer pretty bad consequences if I tried to breeze through my job without reading anything. I say that Congress should be held to the same real-world standards.

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Speech by Mr VIZJAK - Slovenian Presidency Program by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-05 10:12 · Score: 0

A bit more about Slovenian involvment in ACTA:
http://www.mg.gov.si/fileadmin/mg.gov.si/pageuploads/Govori/INTAVizjak-EN-22.1.2008-FINAL.pdf
Citation from the speech by Mr. Andrej Vizjak in Presentation of the Slovenian Presidency Programme in the field of international trade policy:
Let me now refer to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).
- One of the initiatives in the fight against counterfeiting, aiming at establishing an additional tool and improving the international legal framework of intellectual property rights (IPR), relates to ACTA – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Regarding this, the Commission has submitted a proposal for a draft mandate to the Council, which is currently examining it.
- The Presidency notes that INTA too has taken an interest in the matter by appointing a rapporteur. It is clear that all political support can only strengthen the fight against counterfeiting, and the Presidency therefore welcomes INTA's interest.