Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Selected Provisions: TPP, CETA, and TiSA Trade Agreements

Posted by timothy on from the special-treaty dept.

While proponents suggest that international trade agreements increase economic prosperity, writes reader Dangerous_Minds, it's often hard to find much detail about their details. Here's an exception: Freezenet is offering an update to known provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), and the Trades in Services Agreement (TiSA). Among the findings are provisions permitting a three-strikes law and site blocking, multiple anti-circumvention laws, ISP liability, the search and seizure of personal devices to enforce copyright at the border, and an open door for ISP-level surveillance. Freezenet also offers a brief summary of what was found while admitting that provisions found in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) as it relates to digital rights remains elusive for the time being.

43 comments

  1. tppcetatisattip by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    even thought the sound of it is something quite atrocious.

    1. Re:tppcetatisattip by turkeydance · · Score: 1

      though not thought

    2. Re:tppcetatisattip by Gibgezr · · Score: 1

      You win the internets for today.

      Meanwhile, due to a totally unrelated incident, I need to shake coffee out of my keyboard.

  2. takeover property propaganda CAPTCHA: spotter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The advertising and propaganda industries having taken over all newspapers, radio and television communication channels now turn their ogre eye to the internet. Soon no content will be permitted to be transmitted unless it is advertised or advertising or propaganda.

    1. Re:takeover property propaganda CAPTCHA: spotter by davester666 · · Score: 1

      So, success, then. Where does the ogre eye go next?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:takeover property propaganda CAPTCHA: spotter by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Directly into your home with IoT of course. Have you noticed how nearly all IoT devices require a connection to the company server where three letter agencies can merely politely request direct access without warrant or any accountability?

  3. More bad by MrL0G1C · · Score: 5, Informative

    And millions more jobs lost, workers rights assaulted, product and food standards attacked, environmental protection capability removed. These treaties are written by corporations for corporations, if we don't reject them then it's game over for democracy and justice.

    TTIP: donâ(TM)t mention the job losses / Employment / Blogs - The Broker
    What is the problem? - Stop TTIP Stop TTIP

    TTIP, TISA, TPP CESA etc are all so bad it'd take a large book to cover all the reasons why they're bad. If you've never written to your representative then now is the time.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    1. Re:More bad by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      TPP will gut the Canadian dairy industry and flood the market with cheap American milk that has (more?) antibiotics and hormones. While the current system in Canada isn't perfect it's better than opening our market up. While we are currently paying more than the world price a couple of years ago we were insulated from the high prices when the demand was a lot higher.

    2. Re:More bad by hjf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes. I am from Argentina, which, as many of you know, is a really shitty country right now. But, a few years ago, we rejected (along with most of South America) the ALCA/FTAA. The problem with this agreement is that it's full of technicalities that benefit no one but the US. Americans learned a lot from NAFTA (with Mexico taking a hit in US manufacturing), so they added quite a few provisions to make the FTA one-sided.

      You see, as it is, the US pushes for elimination of trade barriers, or, basically, customs regulations (since they are the simplest and most effective ways of protecting a country's own manufacturing). But the agreements say nothing about INTERNAL REGULATIONS: for example, food standards. One of Argentina's main exports used to be beef. But for many years we've been banned from selling in the US market due to "concerns" about foot-and-mouth disease: It takes only 1 confirmed case of this disease for the USDA to impose a 3-year ban on beef. Or, in other words, it takes only 1 CIA operative to infect a cow in Argentina to ban all beef, at once (Argentina's surface is "only" about 1/3 of the size of the US, so you understand that a country-wide ban for a single case is just plain stupid).

      Another problem is that the US HEAVILY subsidizes certain products, enabling two things: on one hand, unfair "competition" since Argentina is completely unable to sell, for example, corn due to the extremely high subsidies. On the other hand, it enables dumping: the US can flood Argentina's market with extremely cheap corn, destroying the corn "industry" here.

      This is the problem with "free trade" agreements proposed by the US. They follow the same doctrine as US foreign policy, and only benefit the US and their blood brothers (UK, Australia, Canada and NZ).

      Unfortunately, the US has never seen Latin America as an ally (the explanation being really simple: pure racism, still deep in US roots - see who their "partners" are and what color their skin is), and they have historically manipulated Latin America's economies and governments, generating hate and division between neighbors. They decided to make deals with a single country and allow them to become an enemy superpower and creditor, instead of dealing with many smaller states and yet retain cheap labor but with the added benefits of: easier language, smaller distance, not so different culture, and basically the same timezone.

      Unfortunately the US will never accept these conditions.

    3. Re:More bad by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the US has never seen Latin America as an ally (the explanation being really simple: pure racism,

      No. We're racist against our allies, too. The truth is that Latin America is easy to take advantage of, so we do.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:More bad by hjf · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is that you learned racism from the british. And they think you're inferior too.

    5. Re:More bad by epyT-R · · Score: 0

      You know, it's corporates AND governments, too. At this level, the whole right/left battlefield is just a circus put on for the rest of us.

    6. Re:More bad by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "TPP will gut the Canadian dairy industry and flood the market with cheap American milk"

      This news will have Canadians rioting in the streets for more expensive dairy products.

      If you love in the touristy parts of Vancouver or Toronto, I'm sure you've seen the hordes of skinny, starving Americans who have been drinking US milk their entire lives.

    7. Re:More bad by sfcat · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is that you learned racism from the british. And they think you're inferior too.

      Its OK, the feeling is mutual.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    8. Re:More bad by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      You think the dairy industry is the big problem here? Or having to gut the CBC? Terrible problems to be sure, but they're the tip of the iceberg.

      Have fun when the American health insurance companies notice that having the Canadian government pay for health insurance violates TPP.

      Oh, the federal government subsidizes post-secondary education? Can't have that.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    9. Re:More bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This news will have Canadians rioting in the streets for more expensive dairy products.

      Sounds like a joke, but a coworker of my ex had a miscarriage because she drank milk that had too much antibiotics in it.
      Meanwhile there are pro-lifers harassing abortion clinics because all life is sacred.
      Perhaps they are the ones that should riot in the streets for more expensive dairy products.

    10. Re: More bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey hey hey. Leave Australia out of it. We don't want this crap! Some people want to jail the minister who /may/ sign away our rights via the TPP for treason.

    11. Re:More bad by theCoder · · Score: 1

      This news will have Canadians rioting in the streets for more expensive dairy products

      Sounds like a joke, but a coworker of my ex had a miscarriage because she drank milk that had too much antibiotics in it.

      That doesn't sound like a joke, but it does sound a lot like the people here in the U.S. that think vaccines cause autism becuase they heard about a case where a child developed autism after getting a vaccine.

      Correlation != Causation.

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
    12. Re: More bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learned from the British? I think you'll find we were one of the first nations to ban slavery and actually enforce that (I. E. The beor wars).
      Also TTIP et al won't benefit the UK at all. It stands to gut the NHS, enforce ridiculous American drug prescription prices and copyright law, force us to pay them if there are any changes to the deal etc etc amongst the other ISP nonsense

    13. Re:More bad by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Indeed they aren't trying to harmonise standards they're just trying to ignore standards in order to sell poor quality products.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    14. Re:More bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another problem is that the US HEAVILY subsidizes certain products, enabling two things: on one hand, unfair "competition" since Argentina is completely unable to sell, for example, corn due to the extremely high subsidies. On the other hand, it enables dumping: the US can flood Argentina's market with extremely cheap corn, destroying the corn "industry" here.

      What's your problem? The Mexican government bent over and took it up the ass, destroying their small corn farmers, why won't you? You think you're better than Mexico? Racists!

      (Yes, the above was pure sarcasm from a US citizen who agrees with most of what you said.)

    15. Re:More bad by hjf · · Score: 1

      No, you're just an idiot.

    16. Re:More bad by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      And we in the USA get screwed by these agreements too because ALL of our jobs are going, going gone.

  4. vote trump he plans to have fair trade plans by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    vote trump he plans to have fair trade plans.

    nafta killed lots of jobs and last thing that we need is more trade plans where they can ship jobs to places where they pay people $5 hr and that is good pay for them.

  5. When trade argreements are written by industries.. by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    ... do you really expect them not to be highly tilted in favor of the very industries that wrote them?

  6. Massively Unpopular by InterGuru · · Score: 5, Interesting

    During the TPP fast track debate I looked at comments about it in the New York Times. The comments were massively, almost unanimously, against the treaty. I asked myself "Well liberals are against it, who is for it?" Off I went to the National Review Online to see the conservatives' opinion. Well the comments there were unanimously against the treaty too.

    I wonder who is for it. Why did Congress pass the fast track? I leave the answer as an exercise for the reader.

    1. Re:Massively Unpopular by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      I wonder who is for it. Why did Congress pass the fast track? I leave the answer as an exercise for the reader.

      The support for this treaty is clear and obvious: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

      The Coporate-Government Complex is fully in favour. No-one else wants anything to do with it. Which is exactly why they want to keep it secret, until they can push it through without debate.

      And a big 'screw you' to Slashdot's 'junk character' filter.

    2. Re:Massively Unpopular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big business and their lobbyists are for it, which is all that really matters in the US anymore. The voters don't really matter as far public policy in the US according to a study coming out of Princeton and Northwestern:

      You say the United States is more like a system of "Economic Elite Domination" and "Biased Pluralism" as opposed to a majoritarian democracy. What do those terms mean? Is that not just a scholarly way of saying it's closer to oligarchy than democracy if not literally an oligarchy?

      People mean different things by the term oligarchy. One reason why I shy away from it is it brings to mind this image of a very small number of very wealthy people who are pulling strings behind the scenes to determine what government does. And I think it's more complicated than that. It's not only Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers or Bill Gates or George Soros who are shaping government policy-making. So that's my concern with what at least many people would understand oligarchy to mean. What "Economic Elite Domination" and "Biased Pluralism" mean is that rather than average citizens of moderate means having an important role in determining policy, ability to shape outcomes is restricted to people at the top of the income distribution and to organized groups that represent primarily -- although not exclusively -- business.

  7. Re:When trade argreements are written by industrie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... do you really expect them not to be highly tilted in favor of the very industries that wrote them?

    "They". Ohh, scary!

  8. What does this *actually mean*? by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    So it has lots of provisions. Are countries free to pick the ones they want to enforce? There's a seize-at-border clause, does everyone have to invoke it? Or are these all options?

    1. Re:What does this *actually mean*? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Or are these all options?

      A treaty is an open-ended promise: If my government doesn't do the things it promised, what do you think other governments will do? This is why the WTO exists: To encourage protection for corporations and settle the disputes arising when governments break those promises. Technically governments are empowered to agree to treaties and enforce them but a treaty has 2 problems. 1) It puts all the burden of compliance onto the government because the provisions weren't passed by domestic politicians and can't be enforced by the courts. 2) Governments are designed so all technical rules and decisions are made by subservient authorities (eg. The EPA, state legislatures, or local councils.) Most treaties require such rules and decisions are made via tribunals external to the country: It's easy for a government to copy the provisions of the treaty into law statutes but it takes a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo to make trans-national tribunals a part of domestic laws.

  9. ISP liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If ISPs are liable, search engines should be too.

    1. Re:ISP liability by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Search engines operate on the First Amendment. You couldnt hang this on them even if you tried. ISPs and search engines are not really comparable at all. This is like trying to sue the phone company because bank robbers looked up the bank's address in the yellow pages.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:ISP liability by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Not sure about that. The constitution itself says that treaties with foreign governments are the highest law of the land. Of course, the US also has a long history of breaking treaties whenever it found it convenient. (Ask any Amerindian. Mexico and Canada might also have something to say, though they are relatively a bit more powerful, and thus more difficult to stiff.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:ISP liability by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      The constitution itself says that treaties with foreign governments are the highest law of the land.

      The Constitution says that at the Constitution, U.S. law, and treaties are (together) the highest law of the land—in that order. It also says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". That doesn't change regardless of what any treaty might say; a treaty is not a Constitutional amendment. If a treaty says that we have to pass an unconstitutional law, well, we'll just have to break that treaty, because Congress cannot grant itself powers specifically forbidden them in the Constitution through a mere treaty, any more than Congress could pass a law to the same effect.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  10. All this talk of trade federations by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    Maybe George Lucas knows more about nerds than they think he does.

  11. NRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the NRA can sue Autralia under these trade agreements. "Your gun laws are interfering with our profits." Assult rifles for everyone !

    1. Re:NRA by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I wish that was funny. But it wouldn't be the NRA that could sue, it would be whatever they call the association of weapons manufacturers.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.