Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Post-ACTA Agreement CETA Moving Forward With Similar Provisions

Posted by Unknown on from the they-just-never-give-up dept.

rrohbeck writes "From eff.org: 'The shadow of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is back in Europe. It is disguised as CETA, the Canada-European Union and Trade Agreement. A comparison of the leaked draft Canada-EU agreement shows the treaty includes a number of the same controversial provisions, specifically concerning criminal enforcement, private enforcement by Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and harsh damages.'"

28 of 136 comments (clear)

  1. You can't win... by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    they've got full time jobs doing this sorta thing. I suppose you could hire someone to fight on your behalf, but who's got enough disposable income for even that. Basically, if you're rich enough to fight ACTA you're probably rich enough to a) not care and b) benefit.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You can't win... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      I suppose you could hire someone to fight on your behalf,

      It is called "voting," at least for those of us who can vote. In this case, that means voting for a politician who is not bought and paid for by the copyright lobbyists, so if you are an American, you can forget about the major parties.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:You can't win... by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is called "voting," at least for those of us who can vote.

      Voting is a very delayed response mechanism. By the time election round comes -- a) you forgot about the issues, b) the official got a cushy new job and will leave anyway and c) the competitor is even worse.

      We desperately need an easy-to-initiate vote of no confidence. So that X people sign a petition/vote and then the politician gets recalled and banned from running for a year

      Then those bastards would step carefully, at least on things that are universally hated.

    3. Re:You can't win... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So we need a Constitutional Amendment that calls for a vote 30 days after every new law is passed allowing a veto by the people (peto). Don't like the budget? Vote it down. Don't like th treaty? Peto it. Any politician voting yes on 3 things petod in a year has voting rights removed for the rest of his term (and is expected to stand down to allow a special election elect someone with voting rights to represent his constituents). No reason why we can't elevate the people to the 4th branch. We finally have the tech for instant on-line voting. Bonus if we could get that done with vote tracibility. Know how your neighbors voted, if you wish. If you aren't comfortable with that, then don't vote like a jackass. Open voting is what the country was founded on. The first signature on the Declaration of Independence wasn't Aye (Anonymous).

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    4. Re:You can't win... by stanlyb · · Score: 2

      Actually, it is really very simple:
      1.All the politicians are elected based on their programs.
      2.They come to power, and forget all the promises.
      3.SOLUTION: Make them pay for breach of contract. WOW, i am genius.
      3. PROFIT.

    5. Re:You can't win... by TrueSatan · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are many organisations already working on behalf of ordinary people in cases such as this...the summary already has highlighted one such in the most excellent EFF but there are a number of others who are charitable donation funded and the like so negating your belief that huge wealth is needed to have voices on our side in this, and other, conflicts with the corporations who seek to enrich themselves by removal of our freedoms and liberties. I'll offer a small selection of such organisations below: https://www.eff.org/ http://ffii.org/ http://www.publicknowledge.org/ http://keionline.org/ http://infojustice.org/category/trade-agreements/ http://www.article19.org/ http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ http://www.edri.org/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ The last link is to Professor Michael Geist a prominent a noteworthy intellectual and activist in the field. All the above worked diligently to stop ACTA.

    6. Re:You can't win... by erroneus · · Score: 3, Funny

      I really like this idea... I suppose that makes me a peto-phyle.

    7. Re:You can't win... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hello betterunixthanunix. I see you are not familiar with the Canadian electoral system. Our prime minister, with less than 40% of the popular vote, nonetheless rules with absolute power. Voting doesn't have a lot to do with it.

      The problem is to get this out to the people. The media are firmly in the hands of the Content or Copyright Industry. They have no interest in bringing that up. They'll report on the cost of extending pharma patents, but are absolutely numb on copyright militias, and copyright term extensions (for Canadians).

      If tens of thousands would hit the streets in Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, etc. something might change. But that won't happen.

    8. Re:You can't win... by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All the above worked diligently to stop ACTA.

      For some reason, governments are allergic to consumer advocate groups and sunlight.
      Which is why those groups were never invited to the ACTA negotiating table and will never be invited to participate in negotiations for any other copyright-related treaties.

      I am a stakeholder in my country and I should not be frozen out of the process that creates my laws.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    9. Re:You can't win... by ldobehardcore · · Score: 2

      Wait... WHAT?!

      Are you saying that
      1.) We'll somehow figure out what corporations and deep pocketed donors are secretly willing to pay politicians in order to BRIBE them.

      2.) Then if we like what the same politicians do, just pay them the same amount?

      3.) Then after they finish their terms in office, move into the revolving door and work in the cushy, high paying jobs they were promised by lobbyists, while still having a strong influence on the government where they built up their contact books?

      This is a terrible idea. What you suggest is not an incentive in any way to do the right thing. The politicians will push through the exact legislation the lobbyists want using earmarks and tacking on other changes to unrelated bills at the last minute. They'll publicly proclaim that they're fighting the good fight. After they're done, they'll just be paid twice as much as what they're currently paid by lobbyists, for doing what's already being done by every Congressperson today.

      What a fantasy.

      Or did you have a different idea and I misunderstood you? If so, please elaborate, as I'm perfectly willing to listen, as long as it makes sense.

      --
      Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
    10. Re:You can't win... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      #1 is possible now in most places with absentee balloting. Theoretically, your boss could get 100 absentee voter forms, and fill them out for all the employees, then have everyone sign them in his presence and then he sends them. On vote day, everyone is required to get to work early (before the polls open) and stay late (after the polls close) so that they can't dispute an absentee ballot. Tampering, easy, and available today. There haven't been reports of such problems in the US, so likely, even with completely open systems, there wouldn't be.

      But yes, other places take the US system and do it poorly. That's why there are so many UN forces needed for vote validation. The incumbents pre-vote all the ballot boxes. The votes of the day aren't counted, or are counted after 10,000,000 ballots are pre-stuffed in the bottom of every box. That, and voting is a shooting offense if you are in the rebel territories - which was the reason open ballots were abandoned in the US. The southern conservatives were harassing voters. Until the Civil War, open balloting was used, and it was a much better success for the first 100 years than closed balloting was for the past 100 years.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    11. Re:You can't win... by qbast · · Score: 2

      Dear Canadians, could you please burn capitol AGAIN? It looks like US idiots need a little reminder every now and then.

    12. Re:You can't win... by tbannist · · Score: 2

      That problem has never been solved, and with closed ballots can never be solved.

      What if you can track the ballots to the people who issued them (not voted on them)? In Canada, the ballots have serial numbers on them. Two poll workers issue a ballot to a voter, and confirm that a valid serial number is returned after the vote is cast by checking the serial number against the list of currently active ballots. In practice, they have a pad that they tear the ballots off of. The pad has a serial number above and below the tear, and poll workers check that the serial number on returned ballot matches the top number on one of the pads. If it does, the ballot is placed (unread) in the voting box and the stub on the ballot is marked returned.

      As I understand it, at counting time each ballot is once again verified against the the pads which have been signed and notorized by the poll workers and scrutineers. The ballots are counted at the polling place in front of the scrutineers and by the polling staff from a different section. If there are more ballots then there are valid voters, then either the extra ballots should not be traceable back to a valid pad from which the ballot originated, you have a multi-party conspiracy, or several people royally screwed up.

      In short, you need a valid chain of custody on the ballots to ensure that the ballots haven't been tampered with, so you should probably go the extra step to make sure you can identify any trivial attempts to stuff the ballot box. In theory, you could determine how someone voted by memorizing their ballot number, but generally speaking, the scrutineers don't get to look at an individual's serial number while voting and the poll workers who do see it aren't allowed to count the ballots that they issued. It seems to work pretty well, I can't remember ever hearing of a Canadian issue with ballot stuffing.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    13. Re:You can't win... by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bonus if we could get that done with vote tracibility. Know how your neighbors voted, if you wish. If you aren't comfortable with that, then don't vote like a jackass.

      Is voting for abortion being a jackass? Against? Voting for gay marriage? Against? Hell, in the US, I'm sure you can say the same about creationism (which what, 40% of the people believe in?). Unionize? Break the unions?

      The secret ballot is actually one of the most important tools - because coercion is real and has been demonstrated. Hell, there is evidence for example, in voting to unionize. In places with secret ballots the rate of unionization is far lower than at places where the voting is open - not by a little bit, but by a lot (a lot of old style thuggery and bullying).

      And yes, you'll find without a secret ballot a lot more vote buying. The population doesn't care about ACTA - so all pro-ACTA forces have to do is say "Vote yes and we'll pay you $10". If you're a "I don't care, but by doing this I get a free $10, I'm game!". And your vote tracability website offers perfect proof and a perfect list of people to send the money to. These people who would probably just ignored the vote to begin with have now got economic interest.

      Open voting simply does not work at all - there have been way too many documented instances of coercion. It's why we have secret ballots to begin with.

      Need one final example? Take our fine goverment representatives. On critical issues (e.g., budgets) the party "whips" will basically demand the members vote one way. Anyone who doesn't is reprimanded out from plum positions (getting kicked out of cabinet, tossed onto the backbenches, basically being ignored, etc). And you know it's an open vote when they can do things like "Republicans X, Y and Z voted against the motion while Democrats A, B and C voted for the motion".

    14. Re:You can't win... by FreshlyShornBalls · · Score: 2

      So we need a Constitutional Amendment that calls for a vote 30 days after every new law is passed allowing a veto by the people (peto). Don't like the budget? Vote it down. Don't like th treaty? Peto it.

      Actually....that's the reason the Federal government's power was [supposed to be] so limited. All the laws and regulations that REALLY affected John Q. Public's day-in-day-out life was supposed to be handled at the state (and even local) level. THAT way, the politician responsible for the act would at least have a chance of having to look Mr. Public in the eye after sticking it to him in the rear.

      Ah....the Constitution....what a great idea.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
  2. Blame Canada! Blame Canada! by amorsen · · Score: 4, Funny

    Before somebody thinks of blaming us.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  3. War on drugs by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Guys, I'm gonna make it easy for you: You can't possibly follow all the laws. Everyone is a criminal. And it's been that way for a long time now -- they've had a reason to get rid of anyone they want for a long time now. And who's they? Well, them, you know, the guys, the illuminati, the conspiracy, the wizard of oz, whatever. People who are more powerful than you. Accept this.

    Following the law is no longer a measure of ethical behavior, and neither is violating it. This is just part of the typical evolution of societies -- Rome had the same problem, right before the Visigoths came marching over the 7th hill. Laws grow increasingly complex, eventually strangling and murdering the very things it was instituted to correct. And then, out of the ashes, comes a new society, that advances to the butter zone, reaches its golden age... and then murders itself.

    No matter where you are in the cycle, the answer has always been the same: Do what you feel is right, for you'll be punished for it anyway. The law has never been there to guide the behaviors and actions of a moral and ethical person... it exists solely to educate unethical and immoral people on how to go about their business without getting noticed. That's why ethical people don't say "But it's illegal!" -- they say "That's wrong." The only people who place a high importance on the legality of a thing are the unethical... and if they have a modicum of power and wealth, then they're probably busy passing laws to rob Peter to pay Paul, and trying to convince others that legal = ethical.

    Don't buy their story: Do what you feel is right, and fuck the law.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:War on drugs by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Informative

      Accept this.

      No. Don't. Organize. lobby. If you can't give time, give money to the applicable non-profit : EFF in US, Quadrature du Net in France.

      Our ancestors fought and die for democracy. We have it much easier : we just have to work one or two hours a week to maintain it.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    2. Re:War on drugs by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Our ancestors fought and die for democracy. We have it much easier : we just have to work one or two hours a week to maintain it.

      And we haven't lost it. In fact, democracy is what has accelerated the problem: How many well-meaning lawmakers and citizens have clamored for "tougher laws" after a high-profile incident? Those tougher laws often remove critical elements of criminal law and due process, as well as tougher punishments under the (false) statement that it'll act as a deterrent. In truth, those tougher punishments aren't there as a deterrent, but as retribution. A critical element of our judicial process is satisfying the public's idea that the criminal "got what he deserved", which is in sharp contrast to the idea of rehabilitation or restitution. The democratic process results in a lot of people's emotions being used as the basis for justice -- but there's a fine line between justice and vengance, and when you have a democracy, it tends to fall more on the side of second than the first.

      These problems can be fixed; But it won't be through fighting or dying for our country, nor will it be through blind faith in democracy. To achieve the changes needed, unneeded complexity must be removed. Control must be ceded. Our understanding of the problems need to be improved, and our personal interest and emotions removed. That is a lot harder to do for your country than taking a bullet for it -- it's easy to die. It's harder to change how we live.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:War on drugs by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We don't have it easier. If anything we have it much harder. The illusion of democracy in which we live today is a much more immutable beast than any kind of authoritative regimen.

      It's not an illusion; we really do have democracy. But that doesn't mean we don't also live in a police state. And a lot of it is because we're a democracy, not in spite of it. We threw away trillions of dollars and our civil liberties willingly to combat terrorism -- that was popular opinion after 9/11, and it still holds a slight majority today. Nevermind that we didn't have to do either, that there were more effective and cheaper options available. Democracy doesn't prevent mass-stupidity and hysteria... if anything, it reinforces and amplifies it. The greatest thing about democracy is also the worst thing about it. While we have freedom of speech, we also have anti-gay legislation on the books. We have the right to vote, but the candidates we vote for were bought and paid for by corporate interests, not us. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point; Democracy is just a method of selection. It does not give any promises about the selection itself; We can vote ourselves into an oppressive government just as well as a military dictator can create one.

      Democracy promises the vote: It does not make promises about the result.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:War on drugs by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Funny

      The GP didn't imply that there is a relation between lawfulness and wrongness. Actually he not so subtly implied the exact opposite, that the two things are different concepts and should not be confused with each other, idea that I completely agree with, by the way.

      Why the hell do I attract rational and well-reasoned posters like you from time to time, despite my best efforts? I don't want you to see the logic here! I want you to fly into a frothing rage, saying how I'm oppressing some off-beat political view of yours, making giant leaps to conclusions, twisting my words, and typing in all caps with at least three exclamation points in your 15 paragraph masterpiece. Yeesh, this is slashdot... we have standards here.

      I appreciate your support, but if you really want to help me out, go throw out some catch phrase in an argument... like "correlation is not causation", or imply some esoteric logical fallacy like I'm making a "straw man" or an "ad hominim" attack. If you're feeling particularly supportive, I haven't seen anything digging into my gender or sexuality in awhile and I'm really growing concerned about the overall quality of posts from my detractors! :) But above all else, you have to display a vague sense of intellectualism, implying that you're smarter than me, and making thinly veiled personal attacks. That's really what I'm looking for in a detractor.

      Thanks again! Look forward to the hate mail. :D

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    5. Re:War on drugs by fredprado · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, maybe I can do a better job of antagonizing you here than in the previous post. I will apologize in advance if I fail to be obnoxious enough to attend to your tastes, though. :(

      Real democracy belongs to the realm of fantasy, together with ideas like free market and communism. They are ideas that have the common flaw of ignoring human nature.

      Communism ignores selfishness and the need of desire and ambition as driving forces to achieve goals.

      Free market ignores the ability of human being to organize themselves in groups and to create oligopolies and monopolies.

      Democracy ignores human nature to follow. Most people are more suited and more willing to follow than to rule. The "rule of the people" inevitably ends becoming the rule of a few people who can best herd them, and when these people come to power, laws and bureaucracies are increasingly created to keep them and their peers in power.

      Personally I think democracy has one and only one redeeming trait. By design it needs lots and lots of laws and lots and lots of cooperation to work. Its own complexity makes any significant change to come slowly which is good if things are going well. That is why democracy works very well in developed countries, because it makes difficult to change what is working into something else.

  4. Re:time for some more murdering of politicians by cas2000 · · Score: 2

    It's not the politicians who need murdering, politicians are just the stooges, it's the lobbyists and lawyers, and CEOs of mega-corporations, and shareholders with significant shares of same.

    They need to understand that declaring war on the people of the world has direct personal consequences that are not excused just because they're acting as the agent of a monstrous inhuman artificial life-form.

    (note for cretins who want to take this as a serious call to action: it is not. It is is a sarcastic reaction against idiotic blaming of 'da ebil gubmint' for evil shit done by *corporations*. governments are not the source of all evil. I'm not saying that some CEOs etc don't deserve a bullet to the head, just that this post is sarcasm, not incitement)

  5. So get involved in the primaries and a party. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By the time election round comes -- a) you forgot about the issues, b) the official got a cushy new job and will leave anyway and c) the competitor is even worse.

    Why the hell are you waiting for the general election. You should be voting in the primaries, at least. Your rep doesn't vote the way you want? Deny him renomination for his party's slot on the ballot.

    If you're really serious, get involved in a party's other activities. Become an officer, a delegate, etc. And be aware that it's a WAR, not a bunch of nice people playing by the rules. You have to hold their feet to the fire at all stages.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:So get involved in the primaries and a party. by codegen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you miss the part about this being in Canada? We don't have primaries, and the next federal election is several years off.

      --
      Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
  6. The price of freedom... by Dutchmaan · · Score: 2

    ...is eternal vigilance. Seems to ring pretty true.

  7. You can win in Switzerland by MrSteveSD · · Score: 4, Informative

    In Switzerland the people can instigate referenda and overturn government decisions. It takes about 100,000 signatures to trigger a referendum on an issue.

  8. Obvious cheating. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How, in a democracy, does one go about passing a highly unpopular law? Easy: One simply does it in secret, making no announcements and not revealing the purpose or text to any but a select few. The public cannot oppose what they do not know about.