Slashdot Mirror


Senator Wyden Demands ACTA Goes Before Congress

Fluffeh writes "As recently covered here, EU countries are starting to drop ACTA support. Now, long-time opponent of the secretly negotiated Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, Sen. Ron Wyden introduced an amendment to a Senate 'jobs bill' that would force ACTA to come before Congress for approval. His second amendment tries to force a change (PDF) in how the whole process around such treaties is handled. Right now, the U.S. attempts to keep its negotiating positions a secret. What vital national security interests could be at stake if the public knew USTR was promoting 'graduated response' laws or proposing changes in ISP liability? Wyden doesn't believe there are any."

25 of 78 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Secret positions by Eraesr · · Score: 4, Informative

    Where have you been the last couple of years? It is whack. Extremely whack.

  2. That's My Senator!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's My Senator!!!

    And I couldn't be prouder!!

    1. Re:That's My Senator!!! by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously Wyden. Can we clone him about 15 times? (Don't want a complete monoculture.) I tend to agree with most of his positions and where I don't he has valid reasons to choose a position I don't necessarily back.

    2. Re:That's My Senator!!! by dainbug · · Score: 4, Informative

      :( Mine either, Senator Hatch still can't define "due process."

    3. Re:That's My Senator!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Some times I wonder if Oregon congress critters are the only ones voted in for their surplus of intelligence.

    4. Re:That's My Senator!!! by Kaitiff · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I had no idea we had any senators left that could think for themselves.. unless of course this is another 'I need more money to keep quiet' kind of thing. You can be sure MAFIAA has 'contacted' his office with all the noise he's making that sure to cost them billions. Regardless I find it heartening to see something actually being done FOR us in gov't instead of TO us, or AGAINST us. Us being 'those of them that are not on a BOD raping profits from individuals'.

      --
      If I sound stupid, it's not me talking....
    5. Re:That's My Senator!!! by jesseck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Could you ask him to reintroduce it as a standalone bill, not just slap it on the side of an unrelated bill?

      That's how you get something like this to pass, though- riders help bills that could not pass on their own merit (too many Senators will vote against it) pass by attaching them to a bill the Senate will pass. It's the same tactic used by the *AAs for Internet censorship- attach the rider to an anti-child pornography bill, and who will vote against it?

    6. Re:That's My Senator!!! by yurtinus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which is exactly the problem. Anything worth voting into law must be able to stand on its own merit.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    7. Re:That's My Senator!!! by sconeu · · Score: 4, Funny

      Isn't the traditional purpose a the Senator from Oregon defined as "Drive the rest of the Senate crazy"?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    8. Re:That's My Senator!!! by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

      As well meaning as he is, I'd place good money on Congress literally JUMPING at the chance to approve ACTA.

      Do you know the average age of a Senator? Half of them would probably break a hip.

    9. Re:That's My Senator!!! by Yakasha · · Score: 2

      Which is exactly the problem. Anything worth voting into law must be able to stand on its own merit.

      Stand in front of who? Congress?

      THAT is the problem.

      Why do you think campaign finance reform is such a joke?

  3. Hmm by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On the one hand I am happy to see anything that tries put sun shine on the political process. In a democratic republic I think its reprehensible that how much of this takes place in secret. The public has a right know.

    OTOH

    One of the biggest things I think is broken about our current political process is the lack of atomicity in the legislative process. There should be no such thing as "Job's bill" or "Omnibus", etc. It lets a few people tie unpopular ideas to the necessary business of the nation. Legislation should be simple and cover a single topic. That way each idea can be evaluated on its own merit. IE you don't have Financial Reform, you have bill to require minimum reserve assets value at a commercial bank, bill to classify assets that may be used as reserve assets, bill determine the rate adjustment that may be made on a revolving credit account within a reporting period etc. These bills could naturally be brought to the floor and each could get a quick upper or down vote. The public would be able to find who voted on what when by searching easily.

    Unrelated crap would not be bundled as riders. It would prevent the I am going to veto/block any legislation that contains X, oh so we can't ever pass any part of budget kind of grid lock we haven now.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      That sounds like a really great idea in theory, but in practice I don't know how you'd implement it. Laws are like interpreted computer code: when it's ambiguous, it'll break at run-time. I can't figure out how you'd come up with a legislative algorithm for determining if everything in a bill is about "the same thing".

    2. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Much agreed. Oftentimes this happens as a form of compromise, IE we'll give you law X, in exchange for law Y. Now, within the actual budgeting process this makes some sense, because you have to arrive at a fiscally solvent number, so oftentimes its tradeoffs of tax breaks vs spending, etc. But for law, as in "you could go to jail for this", there is no place for such negotiation. Something is either reprehensibly immoral and should be punished, or it is not. Whether or not you support ACTA should be entirely separated from whether or not you support government spending money to create public jobs.

    3. Re:Hmm by sudden.zero · · Score: 2

      Amen, I have been saying that for years, but it would never happen. It wouldn't allow crooked politicians the ability to get things passed that would never pass on their own merit.

    4. Re:Hmm by JBMcB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now, within the actual budgeting process this makes some sense, because you have to arrive at a fiscally solvent number, so oftentimes its tradeoffs of tax breaks vs spending, etc.

      Yeah I'm pretty sure that hasn't happened in a few decades. It's mostly been we'll cut taxes AND you can spend more. Recently it's been we'll raise taxes by 1% and you can spend 5000% more.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    5. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Never going to happen. This corrupt mechanism is needed so politicians can pass laws their owners paid for, even if it's against the interest of the rest of the population.

  4. Commie, islamofasicist, america-hating traitor! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Prematurely revealing the secret ACTA designation of intellectual property as a 'national security asset granted the protection of the US strategic air command's full deterrent and offensive capabilities' would definitely have national security implications! Just think of how awkward it could get if we told the world about our plan to launch thermonuclear first strikes against suspected piracy-abetting datacenters...

    1. Re:Commie, islamofasicist, america-hating traitor! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      But that's the thing, they don't mind telling 'the world' at least in so far as that means 'foreign governments' - because what they're trying to keep secret is explicitly what they are talking to the rest of the world's governments about. It's the citizenry that they don't want to know.

  5. corporate security by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For the many politicians who think the proper role of government is to prop up corporate profits, corporate income security interests *are* national security interests.

    And certain corporations have determined that letting the public in on what's going on is definitely not in their interests. Those rebellious citizens might demand the politicians to make treaties that benefit citizens' rights rather than corporate profits. We can't allow that in a corpratocracy.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  6. Why ACTA isn't going before Congress... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 4, Informative

    In these threads some guy usually says that the President has to send a treaty to Congress for it to be valid, therefore Obama is abusing his power, usurping Congressional Authority, and raping kittens by not sending ACTA to Congress. This is false, and based on the poster not understanding what's going on.

    What's going on is that everything ACTA demands is already part of US Law. Obama can already seize your shit if he thinks it's counterfeit. It's called asset forfeiture, and it's already in the US Code. As is literally everything else in the treaty. When he does so the people judging whether the US is in compliance have to say "Yes, that guy totally had his shit seized because it was counterfeit." Therefore Obama doesn't care whether ACTA is formally ratified and made part of US Law, he already has all the powers he needs.

    Thus Wyden has to resort to maneuvers like this if he wants to stop ACTA, and Wyden's maneuver probably won't be very effective at all. Because even if Congress does not vote to ratify the treaty we're still in compliance unless Congress also insists on amending all the copyright rules currently in place.

    As a political tactic it has some uses. The biggest is that it establishes there's resistance to the business community's insane copyright/patent demands from some folks with clout, and future ACTAs will be designed to appeal to those other groups. It's unlikely (that ordinary Poles will understand the particular wrinkle of US Law I just explained, so Polish politicians are all answering the question "Why should we ratify ACTA, even the US didn't ratify ACTA?" The potential drawback here is that if Wyden gets his ratification vote he's likely to lose, because this isn't just about copyright. It's also about fake golfclubs, cars, etc. You don't want to be the guy on the side of fake chinese golf clubs/antibiotics/toothpaste/etc. in an election year.

    But if you think there is literally any chance of ACTA not applying to your American ass, I have news for you: It already does.

    1. Re:Why ACTA isn't going before Congress... by Shadowhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What you say may be true, but I don't think he expects to be able to change existing copyright law. IMHO he has two aims; to make ratification of treaties require Senate approval (as specified in the Constitution) rather than Presidential fiat; and requires that negotiations in these treaties be conducted in the open (anything we share with other countries must be made public). Yes, I RTFA, but I'm not new here.

      --
      My mind works like lightning. One brilliant flash and it is gone.
    2. Re:Why ACTA isn't going before Congress... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 2

      Obama's not claiming the treaty is Ratified. That's a very specific Constitutional process which requires a vote in Congress explicitly saying "treaty x is ratified." None of his people ever have. He's claiming we've "Acceded" to the treaty because everything required to enforce was already on the books. That just means all the laws are passed so we're complying, and it's clearly true. The whole point of ACTA is to make everyone else hjave the same BS draconian laws we do, therefore it would be somewhat astounding if we hadn't already acceded. The Ratification argument is a strawman brought up by the Treaty's opponents because the MSM really doesn't give a shit about any of the other numerous issues surrounding ACTA.

      Unfortunately it tends to dominate the conversation, thus instead of finding out whether I care about the secrecy of ACTA you've read a page and a half on ratification and international law.

      BTW, you clearly haven't thought this through if you think that requiring a ratification vote will reduce Presidential power. The President has unilateral power over who is recognized as a country, and he has the unilateral power to negotiate treaties with countries. He also has the power to not send a proposal to the Senate for a vote. Which means you just gave the President the power to veto any law he wants, simply by recognizing some dumbass as President of the Bir-Tawli triangle, agreeing to enforce said law, and then refusing to send the treaty to the US Senate.

  7. Re:Secret positions by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Funny

    It has been measured at 1.21 jiggawhacks, to be exact.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  8. You CAN vote for Sen Wyden! by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just send his re-election campaign money. Money = votes in a political landscape where advertising sways far more voters than actual positions (or even facts). The more money he has the more undecided (or unthoughtful) voters he can get to vote for his re-election.

    Of course, you can't be the one to cast the ballot, but though the miracle of advertising you can have somebody who really doesn't care either way do it for you!

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?