Slashdot Mirror
Leaked TISA Documents Reveal Privacy Threat
schwit1 writes with some Wikileaks-enabled news at Forbes about the Trade in Services Agreement, a treaty currently under negotiation between the U.S., the European Union and nearly two dozen other parties. Wikileaks' release of 17 documents from the negotiating countries puts some bad light on some of the provisions being considered: From the Forbes report: Under the draft provisions of the latest trade deal to be leaked by Wikileaks, countries could be barred from trying to control where their citizens' personal data is held or whether it's accessible from outside the country. ... These negotiating texts are supposed to remain secret for five years after TISA is finalized and brought into force. Like TTIP and TPP, TISA could be sped through Congress using Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), also known as fast-track authority, which has been passed by the US Senate and may be taken up in the House this month. Under TPA, Congress is barred from making amendments to the trade deals, and most simply give yes-or-no approval.
"countries could be barred from trying to control where their citizens' personal data is held or whether it's accessible from outside the country"
The businesses pushing for this are the same businesses that are going to throw a fit when this affects them.
How much do you want this is at the request of America so that a) their security spying can access everything, and b) so that companies like Microsoft can't be told what they can do.
I'm so sick and tired of government officials signing away our rights under the table.
It should be a criminal offense to have secret treaties which impact our rights.
This is to benefit US spying interests, and corporations. Neither of which is a sensible reason to sign away our fucking rights.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Well, the US has divided its authority into houses to maintain a balance of powers, so that no single authority can dominate the decision making process.
The executive is charged with being the head of state, namely a single person to negotiate treaties. The senate, or the "upper"/"elder" house, must ratify those treaties before they become law.
The congress, the "lower" or "junior" house, was meant to deal with day-to-day issues of the younger folk, those with a future.
In general it was originally decided that any two of the congress, senate, and executive are needed to make a law.
The judicial branch is intended to resolve disputes based on judicial principles. Except where there is a legal vacuum they cannot create law ("stare decisis" / "ratio decidendi").
It would that the balance of the division of powers is mulching of late, and I agree it is a problem â" not just on principle, but in sticking with the design choices of the founders of the United States.
Whatever the content of the treaty the fact that TPA is just standard procedure.
You can't hammer out an agreement between multiple different countries only for a national legislature to take issue with a single concession that was won by another country and agreed to by the delegates. The negotiators are there to get the best possible deal for their country. Congress then gets to decide whether or not the deal is good enough, they can't unilaterally renegotiate it.
No, no, no.. Especialyl not when the negotiations are secret, if they were public, the parliaments and public could comment on the procedings, but when they are secret, they can only comment and correct "mistakes" afterwards. And if you can't make a treaty that everyone will agree on in the end, maybe you are negotiating someting unacceptable. Rejecting it piecemeal by national parliaments is exactly how this should be dealt with.
Yes, but the deal that they will vote on is kept secret from the public and the vote on it will be held in private as well. That's not acceptable
yet what do you do on that fated election day... which side do you vote for when both don't care.