Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Maintaining Internet Freedom Isn't Easy (Video)

Posted by Roblimo on from the if-you-want-liberty-you-need-to-work-for-it dept.

Go to Stop the Secrecy.net and you'll see that this is something that requires action now, not someday, It's about the TPP, or Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement that could place major restrictions on how we use the Internet. This is far from the only attack on Internet freedom we need to fight against, just one the EFF (and others) feel is one of the worst ones in play right now. Mild-mannered Steve Anderson, founder and Executive Director of OpenMedia.ca, is today's interview guest. He's Canadian, but OpenMedia.ca doesn't stop at Canada's southern border. Steve and the rest of the group want U.S. citizens to have the same Internet freedoms they want Canadians to have -- as well as people all over the world, because Internet balkanization hurts all Internet users. Including you. And worse, this is not the only problem with the TPP. Did you notice, in the TPP link above (to Wikipedia), that parts of this trade agreement are secret? So even if you want to protest against it, you might end up holding a sign that's mostly blank. This is a "Call your Congressional representatives" situation. Unless you're in Canada, in which case it's a "Call your Member of Parliament" situation. Ditto if you're in another TPP country. In any case, it's going to take a lot of calls, letters, emails, and faxes from people like us to overcome some of the heavy money that wants the TPP to go through. (Alternate video link.)

34 of 55 comments (clear)

  1. Government must be transparent by qazsedcft · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We must force our governments to be more transparent. IMO, it should be a constitutional principle that all law must be negotiated in public. If history has tought us one thing is that secret negotiations lead to horrible results. For example, one of the most despicable treaties in history, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, was the result of such secret negotiations.

    1. Re:Government must be transparent by stevez67 · · Score: 2

      Negotiating in public means absolutely nothing will get done because no one will dare cross the line and compromise. While in theory 100% transparency in gov't sounds like a good idea, in practice it's a recipe for gridlock.

    2. Re:Government must be transparent by krashnburn200 · · Score: 1

      This is the eternal cry of the politician and economist. They should all be sent back to kindergarten. Two wrongs don't make a right.

    3. Re:Government must be transparent by qazsedcft · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that the people negotiating have to do all their talk in public because that would be ridiculous. But the terms of the deal have to be made public during the negotiations. When a new law is proposed there are certainly lots of back room deals but you get at least a couple of public readings and, if the law has any significant impact, lots of media attention too (at least here in Europe that's the norm). Where I live, a law adopted in a hurry or in a context of dubious public review would get struck down by the Constitutional Court. A treaty should be no different.

    4. Re:Government must be transparent by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      you say that's like it's a bad thing

    5. Re:Government must be transparent by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Laws are like sausages. Fans of either should never watch them being made. - Some dude

      When Bush requested $700 billion to bail things out at the end of his term, Congress added $110 billion in pork to get it passed.

      This means many, who thought the bill necessary, were prepared to hold it up until they got bought out. Others, who thought the bill awful, voted for it anyway once bought out, too.

      Why do you think these people go into power? Hehehehe, to "serve you".

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    6. Re:Government must be transparent by pla · · Score: 1, Insightful

      While in theory 100% transparency in gov't sounds like a good idea, in practice it's a recipe for gridlock.

      While in theory, a functional government sounds like a good idea, in practice, a state of perpetual gridlock means they do the least harm over time.

    7. Re:Government must be transparent by SeePage87 · · Score: 1

      Here here!! I'm working on my Ph.D. in economics with a non-market focuses, such as political economy. The sad fact is that even if government representatives are actually trying to do what's best for their constituents, they'll still do things that are harmful to most people to help the few who actively support them, meaning legislation on average is expected to be harmful. But it gets worse! because this type of legislation is difficult to get through congress unilaterally, legislators trade votes all the fucking time to get their bad policy passed in exchange for helping other bad policy pass. And this is assumes good-intentioned legislators who can be trusted to do their job as specified by the Constitution!

      It's not that I don't think problems can be solved in a centralized manner. I don't even necessarily think the private market necessarily are more efficient when solving them. It's just that I don't trust any piece of policy that's gone through the legislative gauntlet of nearly 550 self-interested powerful individuals with almost no real accountability. It's binding legal language: they can literally change a few words to transform good policy into a legal means to rob us of billions of tax dollars often with ancillary consequences to boot. What's the chances the benefits of anything will outweigh its costs by the time it comes out of Congress? We're perfectly capable of taking care of ourselves and each other: deadlock sounds just fine to me; disempowerment sounds even better.

    8. Re:Government must be transparent by sexconker · · Score: 1

      This is the eternal cry of the politician and economist. They should all be sent back to kindergarten. Two wrongs don't make a right.

      If by kindergarten you mean the chopping block, sure.

    9. Re:Government must be transparent by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? I'd love to see sausages being made. All that good meat, and tasty fat, ground up into a pulp then squished into an animal intestine that still smells faintly of shit...

      Ok, I see your point.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    10. Re:Government must be transparent by mellon · · Score: 1

      To Serve Man?

    11. Re:Government must be transparent by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I suspect any treaty negotiated between Hitler and Stalin would have ended poorly for everyone aside from those two no matter how transparent and open the proceedings were. I'm more optimistic about other government actions, but there are still always going to be loopholes in transparency. Giving people the illusion of transparency could legitimize some awful agreements. I suspect the opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership would be even more muted if a show of negotiations were made to look like they were transparent. I think most of the traction the opposition is getting is by pointing out it's large corporations deciding law in secret.

      If Haliburton was able to say "No way! We posted the notice for the open session! ...in the cellar in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'." then the TPP would be getting even less attention than it is now.

    12. Re:Government must be transparent by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Negotiating in public means absolutely nothing will get done because no one will dare cross the line and compromise. While in theory 100% transparency in gov't sounds like a good idea, in practice it's a recipe for gridlock.

      Given never ending stream of attacks from media and LEA's gridlock is preferable to "progress".

    13. Re:Government must be transparent by Roger+Wilcox · · Score: 1

      I fail to see a downside to this. When a clear need arises, congress will act. When there is no need, they won't cross the line. Sounds pretty good to me.

      What we have now is politicians bowing to corporate interests and lining their pockets behind closed doors to the detriment of common folk. You don't think gridlock is preferable to that?

    14. Re:Government must be transparent by tom+arnall · · Score: 1

      as i understand network technology, i believe it is possible to set up networks of the peer to peer variety which have no need of the currently conventional internet connections. my computer talks to yrs which talks to another guy's, etc. data wd be spread out on the network the way it is in a torrent network. i'd very much like some feedback on this.

    15. Re:Government must be transparent by tom+arnall · · Score: 1

      "it's a recipe for gridlock"

      depending on what gets gridlocked, it might be a good idea.

  2. Re:Light on the details by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 1

    Yeah man, it's all part of the hidden anarchist agenda.

  3. I am confused. by generic_screenname · · Score: 1

    I can't understand what this is actually about from reading TFA, or TFA links. What am I supposed to be angry about?

    1. Re:I am confused. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      I can't understand what this is actually about from reading TFA, or TFA links. What am I supposed to be angry about?

      Right now, Obama is meeting with leaders in Asia to finalize the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.

      The TPP threatens to censor your Internet, kill jobs, undermine environmental safeguards, and remove your democratic rights.

      That's the first two sentences on the first link - what part are you having trouble understanding?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:I am confused. by Minwee · · Score: 2

      Right now, Obama is meeting with leaders in Asia to finalize the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.

      The TPP threatens to censor your Internet, kill jobs, undermine environmental safeguards, and remove your democratic rights.

      That's the first two sentences on the first link - what part are you having trouble understanding?

      It will also give your ex-girlfriend your new phone number. It will mix Kool-aid into your fishtank. It will drink all your beer and leave its socks out on the coffee table when there's company coming over. It will put a dead kitten in the back pocket of your good suit pants and hide your car keys when you are late for work.

      It moves your car randomly around parking lots so you can't find it. It will kick your dog. It will leave libidinous messages on your boss's voice mail in your voice! It is insidious and subtle. It is dangerous and terrifying to behold. It is also a rather interesting shade of mauve.

    3. Re:I am confused. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Right now, Obama is meeting with leaders in Asia to finalize the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.

      The TPP threatens to censor your Internet, kill jobs, undermine environmental safeguards, and remove your democratic rights.

      That's the first two sentences on the first link - what part are you having trouble understanding?

      It will also give your ex-girlfriend your new phone number. It will mix Kool-aid into your fishtank. It will drink all your beer and
      leave its socks out on the coffee table when there's company coming over. It will put a dead kitten in the back pocket of your good suit pants and hide your car keys when you are late for work.

      It moves your car randomly around parking lots so you can't find it. It will kick your dog. It will leave libidinous messages on
      your boss's voice mail in your voice! It is insidious and subtle. It is dangerous and terrifying to behold. It is also a rather interesting shade of mauve.

      So, basically what you're saying here is, unless every single possible aspect of a thing is specifically drawn out for you in a way you can comprehend, it's tantamount to utter ridiculousness?

      Please. We aren't your mommies. If you find a subject interesting enough to research it, then do so. If not, ignore it and move on with your life. There's no call for such childish snark.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:I am confused. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Mauve?? I hate mauve!!

      Ban the mauvey TPP!!

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    5. Re:I am confused. by generic_screenname · · Score: 1

      How and why? There are no specifics, only scary words.

    6. Re:I am confused. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Among other things, it requires members impliment some new intellectual property protection measures that are stricter even than those in the US. Mostly streamlining of enforcement by removing those time-consuming things like courts from the legal process. For a specific example, it makes it trivial for a copyright holder or an exclusive distributor to get an import ban not only on infringing products, but on products not licensed for distribution in that country. In practical terms that means banning the grey import market - you won't be able to, say, buy a DVD boxed set of a series from the US and have it delivered to Australia because the Australian distribution rights have been sold to another company who is only going to start selling it six months later and for three times the price. Or you won't be able to buy imported DVDs of your favorate anime series in the US because 4Kids has purchased the rights to import it and will only sell their heavily-censored version in which rice balls have been translated into donuts.

    7. Re:I am confused. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      So do your own research about the TPP, I'm certain once you do you'll understand what all those "scary words" are about.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  4. Re:Really? by binarylarry · · Score: 1

    Holy shit, that post is so anonymous it's Bananymous!

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  5. flashless version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Here is a flashless version of the video made with jsfiddle and a html5 demo.
    Why does beta not fix flash?

  6. The reality is... by blahplusplus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... one issue based bullshit is not going to stop this. We had SOPA and CISPA and they are preparing CISPA round 3.

    The internet is something 'everyone can agree on' but unfortunately most people trying to 'protect the internet' are too historically and politically illiterate to really do so. None of you who are hardcore capitalists are "protectors" of the internet, in fact why SOPA and TPP are trying to lock it down is BECAUSE they fear the masses rising up against corporate (capitalist) powers. That's why we got governments and corporations going gangusters on surveillance worldwide.

    If you doubt this check the spyfiles

    https://wikileaks.org/the-spyf...

    Corporate power is global, and resistance to it cannot be restricted by national boundaries. Corporations have no regard for nation-states. They assert their power to exploit the land and the people everywhere. They play worker off of worker and nation off of nation. They control the political elites in Ottawa as they do in London, Paris and Washington.

    Consider the G20 Protests in Toronto

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...

    This is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Look at the following graphs:

    http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesa...
    http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesa...
    http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesa...

    And then...

    WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap
    http://www.businessinsider.com...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Free markets?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    http://www.amazon.com/Empire-I...

    "We now live in two Americas. One—now the minority—functions in a print-based, literate world that can cope with complexity and can separate illusion from truth. The other—the majority—is retreating from a reality-based world into one of false certainty and magic. To this majority—which crosses social class lines, though the poor are overwhelmingly affected—presidential debate and political rhetoric is pitched at a sixth-grade reading level. In this “other America,” serious film and theater, as well as newspapers and books, are being pushed to the margins of society.

    In the tradition of Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism and Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death, Pulitzer Prize-winner Chris Hedges navigates this culture—attending WWF contests, the Adult Video News Awards in Las Vegas, and Ivy League graduation ceremonies—to expose an age of terrifying decline and heightened self-delusion."

    1. Re:The reality is... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Protip: Canada doesn't have freedom like many other western democracies, or even free speech. We have "as much freedom as dictated by law, courts, and government." And those can be restricted at any time, if they can be so justified. In Canada, it's spelled out plainly in s.1 of the charter of rights and freedoms. There's a reason why many don't think the charter will last beyond 2030, not withstanding the Quebec issue.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  7. Ads; yuck. by daedlanth · · Score: 2

    Slashdot can help the internet by not having 3+ minutes of ads before giving us content on a video stream; sickening, so sickening I turned it off & never got what I came for, BYE!

  8. Huh? by genner · · Score: 1

    Someone want to explain this with actual facts instead of scary buzz words.

  9. Good Will Hunting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ever see "Good Will Hunting"? Best movie Matt Damon and Ben Afleck ever did.

    After reading your post, I keep thinking of the long haired guy in the bar who kept trying to best Will by reciting books he read and Wil eventually told him to get an opinion of his own.

    -Just say'in.

    I see a lot of shit too - how "free" markets are manipulated, big money in politics, an electorate stuck in mindless jobs (coding advertising widgets and apps at Google and Facebook fall into that category too) and watching insipid TV programs for relaxation, a banking system that has run amok and a political class that has turned into an aristocracy (Really? We want another Clinton or Bush in the Whitehouse?! Or Kennedy?! How about an unknown from S. Dakota?!) and a business/CEO class that basically says "Let them eat cake!" - or - "Be lucky you are not in India!"

    When I find myself getting very angry about an issue, it means I do not have all the facts. Because when I learn about the other side's view point, I soften.

    I am pro-choice, but I respect and understand the pro-life folks.

    I am pro-Second amendment - but yesterday, some asshole shot up a Fedex office that my wife visits often. I am quite understanding of the gun control folks.

    Capitalism,.. as much as I hate it, I like to remember Richard Branson's take on it: 'It's not a perfect system, but it's the best we have so far.'

    Getting angry and preachy solves nothing.

    Being quiet, rational, and cunning - makes changes or keeps the status quo (see Koch brothers).

  10. Re:Really? by flaming+error · · Score: 1

    You see AC's commentary on the value of secrecy.

  11. On the other side by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Everyone know thay are also negociating the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) with EU at the same time? The talks are so secret that even members of EU parliament do not know what is discussed.