Slashdot Mirror
All 12 Member Countries Sign Off On the TPP (freezenet.ca)
Dangerous_Minds writes: News is surfacing that the TPP has officially been signed by all 12 member countries. This marks the beginning of the final step towards ratification. Freezenet has a quick rundown of what copyright provisions are contained in the agreement, including traffic shaping, site blocking, enforcement of copyright when infringement is "imminent," and a government mandate for ISPs to install backdoors for the purpose of tracking copyright infringement on the Internet.
Now any corporation can sure your country, but you can't vote on the selling out of your rights to foreign corporations.
Are you happy yet?
Days like this I wish I'd never helped create the Internet or the tools you use, or let it escape from academia.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Don't forget, we're putting covers on our TPP reports before we send them out now.
But has it passed Congress yet?
Why else would they be permitted to sue countries/governments over alleged threats to their 'perceived potential profits' due to new laws (such as environment protections laws that might forbid those companies from operating under these new laws) passed by said countries.
AC comments get piped to
Right, because an international agreement negotiated by a Democratic administration is some hope to be blamed on the Republican party.
Pull your head out of your ass. The Establishment is the problem, If you are remotely considering voting for HRC or Rubio, THIS IS YOUR FAULT.
Vote Sanders, or Vote Cruz as you like but do not allow HRC or Rubio to get nominated!
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
It hasn't been ratified though. There are significant benefits to being an original signatory on any international treaty, and every member country is afraid of being left in the dust if they don't. There are provisions requiring signatories to ratify certain provisions, but it has not been ratified yet, only signed, and there is a big difference.
The TPP might actually be a net financial gain for the United States - unfortunately, at the expense of other countries involved. A number of provisions in it give an unfair advantage to the US, because they have demanded that these provisions be put in.
Michael Geist is doing a very good review of all the problems with the TPP, and has been posting daily about it for about a month now. It's a rather Canadian perspective on it, but a good read nonetheless.
"Government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington
Would it have been that hard to expand that initialism? I've got far too many TLAs floating around in my head to be able to figure out what context you are talking about. The inability to introduce a topic properly within a slashdot summary irks me more than all the other stuff people always moan about here.
Investor-state dispute settlements here we come
According to The Nation's interpretation of leaked documents in 2012, countries would be required to conform their domestic laws and regulations to the TPP Agreement, which includes provisions on government spending in certain areas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Investor.E2.80.93state_arbitration_.28ISDS.29
Welcome to shadowrun chummer
The latest economics study on the TPP suggests it will "cause some job losses and exacerbate income inequality in each of the dozen participating nations, but especially in the largest — the United States"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/business/international/economists-sharply-split-over-trade-deal-effects.html
No, only Malaysia has ratified.
It is a silly headline. The 12 countries that agreed to have their negotiators, whose only authority is to negotiate the text, sign what they negotiated. This is not an approval step in any of these countries, or intended to be. It is just a signing ceremony. The news was months ago when they agreed to a text; countries that didn't agree then were not on the list they're using here. They make it sound like all the countries that negotiated signed. Not true at all. The countries that came to a deal, signed the deal as the first step towards referring it to their respective national processes.
Republicans in the US House have suggested that the only chance they'll have enough votes is if they pass it during the "lame duck" session after this year's Nov election. I agree that is their one chance, but I think they might have a hard time selling it to voters this year and if it is a major election issue then it won't pass the Senate. Elected Republicans mostly like it, but most Republican voters don't.
You are a special kind of troll that we should all cherish.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
^^This, a million fucking times this!
Corporatism knows no party, and cares for none but one driving ideology: profit.
The sooner you partisan asshats get that through your skulls, the better off we'll all be.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Just give in to the Hollywood studios, world. It's BLISSS.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
You're just shouting, without checking the positions. What if it really is a partisan issue, and Obama is the only high profile Democrat supporting it? Then what?
Clinton and Sanders are both against the TPP. Not sure why you're spewing anti-Hillary stuff here. Trump is also opposed. Rubio says he is undecided.
Cruz supports the TPP, but doesn't think that Congress should vote in a lame duck session.
Even counting withdrawn Democratic candidates, you'll find that Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb both opposed it.
Presidential candidates supporting the TPP are only: Bush(R), Cruz(R), Kasich(R), Rick Perry(R), Rick Santorum(R), Scott Walker(R)
Maybe yes are: Rubio(R)(maybe; supported before now says undecided), Rand Paul(R)(opposes Presidential authority to negotiate it, but open to voting for the actual deal)
Moderators, please note that many of the comments in this thread are a troll replying to himself to make it appear like a conversation. It's one jackass who posts this type of spam on a regular basis, replying to himself as AC. And, of course, he never says anything of substance, just one line nonsense.
Here's one example: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8657315&cid=51359929 (posting about how Republicans want people to die)
Another example: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8685139cid=51400945 (making BS claims about Facebook tolerating and promoting gun violence)
Yet another: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8700601&cid=51428235 (Claiming that Republicans are always tracking and spying on everyone)
There are others. It's almost certainly one assclown who ought to be banned or at least modded into oblivion. I'm hoping the new owners get rid of some of the shit like this. I don't really mind real trolls that post on-topic stuff. Some of it's actually pretty damn funny. Even some of the old -1 logged-in posters like cyborg_monkey were entertaining. Besides, they didn't waste mod points because they were already at -1 and you could easily avoid reading them. But I'd like to see really stupid nonsense like this go away. As one user said, real trolls would either make us laugh or piss us off; this guy does neither and is just a waste.
According to Michael Geist, TPP requires implementation of a DMCA-style take-down notice system, while eliminating the good faith belief requirement. Oh please oh please let it pass. YouTube? I'm sorry, it infringes. All of it. Vevo? Infringing. Take it down. Redtube? Infringing. Take it down. If TPP is implemented, it is our duty to see to it that no automated take-down system in any of the 12 countries will work anymore. And it will be legal.
Finally all those spam botnets will have a productive use.
Cruz does not support TPP. He does support TPA. Get your facts straight.
Hillary being "against" it is hilarious because you have to remember that this thing has been going on long enough that she literally was involved in negotiating it. Her hands are already all over the TPP. The only reason she's "against" it is because Bernie is against it. Once Bernie loses the nomination (and he will, democracy doesn't mean shit to the DNC), she'll forget all about being "against" the TPP.
Clinton was in favor of the TPP until recently when she realized she has to be against it to win the primary. There's every reason to think she'd be for it again if elected.
This space intentionally left blank
We're headed deaper into the world of cyberpunk once more with all its hallmarks, including corporate socialism (corporates reap gain, citziens/taxpayers pay loss). TPP is just another step along the way. ... I wonder when there will be a counter movement. ... Right now everyone get's bored when I try to explain software and algorithm patents to them.Or they simply believe it doesn't exist.
Whatever happens, I want a cyberdeck and Kanedas bike from Akira. ... And a tank with a few clones of me so I don't grow old. :-)
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
This time they're arm and arm together screwing us.
Nope. Most Democrats oppose the TPP because the unions oppose it. Many Republicans oppose it because Obama is for it. It will not pass, or even be voted on, until after the election. If Bernie wins, TPP is dead. If Hillary wins, it may be dead because Bernie has forced her to take a stand against it. If Trump wins, it is likely dead. If an establishment Republican wins, it will have a good chance of being ratified.
Have you never tried to do any sort of group project (college comes to mind for me) where you have no way (or authority) to fix everyone else's stupid?
Yes, but Hillary was one of the authors of the TPP. And in the debate she didn't say she wouldn't support it when asked, she just waffled.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
>> If Hillary wins, it may be dead because Bernie has forced her to take a stand against it.
You must be new here. Nothing pivots like a Clinton in office.
Hello there, Lennie.
You raise some interesting points. All quite true for those - which does overlap in other areas. So, maybe? At least I think I get what you're saying. This might be a bit long but I'll do my best to be concise and articulate.
If you don't mind, and treat these as rhetorical in all or in part if you prefer - though I do welcome a reply, if I ask a question or two?
Do we, as a citizenry, have enough impetus to act?
Will we, in viable numbers, actually act and make changes to our own habits?
Have we reached a point where action is of dire importance?
Are we, as a group, so disenfranchised, disillusioned, and jaded that we are willing to risk persecution?
Bread and circuses (beer and television) go a long ways, Lennie. Throws in some creature comforts, some modicum of freedom (even if only a matter of perspective) of choice, fear, and cowardice (I can think of no better word)... Then, well... Pithy, yes... We've still got tools, we still have options. Will we use those options before it is too late?
The sooner the pendulum can be swung back the better and the less destructive those swings will be. It's a bit like speed-wobbles on a bicycle or a skateboard. It's hard to tell, from my perspective, how far we've come. I'm inside looking inside - not outside and looking in. How much is too much? When do we make use of those tools with an adoption rate large enough to matter? When do we begin the deconstruction process and do we need to? What will that look like? When it comes time to throw stones, which side will you be on?
So, those aren't really rhetorical but you can interpret them as such. Buggered if I've got all the answers. I know that, historically, things like the French Revolution look good on paper but that actually lead to a horrific time and didn't really start to die down until Napoleon. For a while, it was pretty damned crazy - including changing calendar dates, use of shaming, forced adherence to social standards, encouraging spying on ones neighbor, and a whole lot of head removal.
Why do I mention the French Revolution? Well, it wasn't quite like a lot of people expected and it's not really covered well in history. No sides were innocent but one side is a bit better able to whitewash the history because they still had their heads. That leads back to the question - which side will you be on?
At any rate, the tools are there. Some people are not actively abetting and those people have some sway - but how hard will they push when push comes to shove and the pendulum swings a bit further still? The less the pendulum moves, the less force it has when it swings back. Entropy is the natural thing - it will swing back for the foreseeable future. For all our pomp and circumstance, I can think of no greater arrogance than that displayed by those who believe we are at the pinnacle of morals and education. Well, except maybe that displayed by those who would deem themselves your master.
During WWII and the Siege of Stalingrad, it was not uncommon for roving groups of young men to gather in groups to accost the old and feeble. They'd do so simply to steal their bread. One journalist, from that time, retells a story about a lady who came upon such a lad, by himself that time, who'd done such a thing. When she came across him, he was down on the ground and being beaten to a pulp by the witnesses. She realized what was happening and joined in with the group who was beating that boy. Somehow, in the mix, she managed to get that piece of bread - small, some 50g, in her hands and she did not recollect how. Then, again without knowing how - while still a part of the group kicking the thief, she proceeded to stuff that purloined bread into her mouth and eat it - others noticed and where aghast but, seemingly, unsurprised. Which side will you be on when the stones are thrown?
It's all rather complex, I'd say. The less swing to the pendulum, the better and more prosperous the society seems to be. That can be extrapolated to those who advocate
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
No, Congress gave the President "fast-track trade promotion authority" which allows the President improved power to negotiate because it ties Congress' hands so that they can only ratify or reject a trade agreement; they can't modify it, and in the Senate they can't filibuster. They still have to vote "yes" for it to be ratified. ;)
Congress improved the likelihood of passing a trade agreement in general by preventing themselves from getting in the way with parliamentary procedure. As somebody who dislikes the agreement I think that is great, they've backed themselves into a corner and they're going to have to have public debate on the actual subject being decided! I don't think that leads to passage of this thing. If it was popular, this would aid passage; since it is unpopular, it harms passage.
The main reason for it was so that the negotiators could tell the other countries, "this is the real deal that Congress is going to ratify." In past rounds of negotiation, Congress has often passed bills changing the details of the American implementation of trade deals. That possibility meant that other countries weren't believing that the details would hold up, and so not wanting to compromise. It is hard to do a compromise on specific issues if the other side might change the rules later.
The fast-track trade rules are not bad law, and they don't prevent Congress from fulfilling its role. It just prevents them from bungling around and exceeding it on this issue. Don't assume that because you're against this or other specific trade agreements that the "trade promotion authority" bill was automatically bad. Congress sucking less is good, even where you still want them to vote no.