Post-ACTA Agreement CETA Moving Forward With Similar Provisions

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.'"

Comments

You can't win...

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:You can't win...

[Mitreya]

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.

Re:You can't win...

[TrueSatan]

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.

Re:You can't win...

[erroneus]

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

Re:You can't win...

[TubeSteak]

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.

Re:You can't win...

[tlhIngan]

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".

Blame Canada! Blame Canada!

[amorsen]

Before somebody thinks of blaming us.

War on drugs

[girlintraining]

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.

Re:War on drugs

[Yvanhoe]

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.

Re:War on drugs

[girlintraining]

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.

Re:War on drugs

[girlintraining]

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.

Re:War on drugs

[girlintraining]

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

Re:War on drugs

[fredprado]

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.

So get involved in the primaries and a party.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.

Re:So get involved in the primaries and a party.

[codegen]

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

You can win in Switzerland

[MrSteveSD]

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

Obvious cheating.

[SuricouRaven]

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.