Slashdot Mirror


Chief CETA Negotiator Says Treaty "Virtually Complete" (freezenet.ca)

Dangerous_Minds writes: Steve Verheul, chief negotiator of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), is saying that the agreement is "virtually complete." He also says that translated versions are to be completed by May and that the agreement is likely to be implemented in 2017. CETA contains provisions that would compel countries to implement Internet censorship through site blocking, anti-circumvention laws as seen in the US, and compel border security to seize digital storage devices (i.e. cell phones) at the border for the purpose of looking for copyright infringement.

16 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. Re:And how exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are we supposed to prevent this from going through? "calling our representatives" certainly does not seem to help.

    This is no rethorical complaint: *HOW* do we fight this? What can be done, specifically, to make those happily pushing this through *STOP*?

    Legal methods and comments about their ethics and morality (or complete perversions thereof) certainly don't work... So what about stooping to their level? What can we do to make this disappear decisively?

    Vote Sanders. He's not perfect, but he's the closest option in the US to a candidate who favors the people over the special interests.

  2. remember Benito by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These fascists need the Benito treatment.

    1. Re:remember Benito by schnell · · Score: 4, Informative

      These fascists need the Benito treatment.

      Umm, before we advocate the summary execution and public hanging of those involved, I might like to get a wee bit more information about what we're discussing. Stuff that, you know, the summary might have actually included such as:

      • Which countries are potentially party to this?
      • How do the provisions differ from currently accepted law in those countries?
      • Who has enforcement rights over violations?

      It's also worth noting that the story has only one link, to a blog which is politically opposed to the treaty. A cursory Google search would point you to a much wider range of viewpoints on the agreement. Some are pro-treaty, some against, but they all provide much better context than the linked article. I don't particularly care one way or another, but any story with only one viewpoint expressed is usually a sign of either a lazy editor or an agenda.

      I hate to keep dredging up the "Slashdot flame bait post because it has no actual 'editors'" trope, but damn. I imagine that if I submitted a story that said "Apple CEO advocates eating puppies" and linked to a blog somewhere that suggested it, the story would be published immediately and without actual review or "editing." Which is, you know, what an "editor" is supposed to do.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
  3. Re:And how exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you're in the US, vote Sanders, because it applies to other treaties and because the US strongly supports pro-copyright treaties because of its entertainment industry.

    The principle is the same if you're elsewhere, including in a country directly affected. Find the candidates (or better yet, advocacy groups) who most actively support the cause you're interested in. There's a reason people give to the EFF.

  4. Re: And how exactly by easyTree · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem isn't who is in office; the problem is a system where (a few) individuals are able to exert their will over the rest of the planet.

    I believe we've dispensed with the myths that they:
      * know what's best
      * have our best interests at heart / are working for the betterment of humanity
      * govern on behalf of the people
      * govern with the consent of the people

    What remains? That they have forced their way into power?

  5. Re:And how exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sanders is a US candidate, and there was just recently an election in Canada. Your advice... isn't.

    Get them strip-searched and swatted a few times a month at least; after all, they "have nothing to hide" as they're so adamant in informing us, and if we don't know the contents of their urethra and smartphone's intestines on a regular basis, then the terrorists have won.

    Force-feed them their own medicine until they choke.

  6. Seizing Cell Phones? by mentil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    compel border security to seize digital storage devices (i.e. cell phones) at the border for the purpose of looking for copyright infringement

    How exactly is that going to work? Everyone with a laptop holds up the line for 30 minutes while their hard drive gets imaged? What if it's encrypted? What do they do about devices with dead batteries? The poorly-trained Little Hitlers in customs aren't going to know how to operate the variety of digital devices they'll encounter.

    Ok let's say they just seize everything and send it off to a central location for processing, and then ship it to wherever the traveler is staying when they're done. How are they going to judge if a file is infringing copyright, and not a fair-use format-shift? Hash video files and compare to known scene releases? Good luck doing anything similar for music; there are legit ways of ripping CDs that produce identical files every time, the same encoding software will give these perfect rips an identical hash for everyone who goes through the process; some music stores use unwatermarked files, everyone gets the same copy. This is ignoring the issue of locked phones.

    If by 'seizing digital storage devices' they mean 'seizing spindles of burned discs coming from China with movie titles Sharpied on them' then I could see this making sense.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Seizing Cell Phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well if it's anything like the electronics they steal at airports...
      They take it.
      And in a year or two when their kids have worn them out or broken them...
      You get it back.
      Rarely in one piece.

      But don't worry! They've long since replaced it with the newest model. It was recently christmas after all!

    2. Re:Seizing Cell Phones? by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      Everyone with a laptop holds up the line for 30 minutes while their hard drive gets imaged? What if it's encrypted? What do they do about devices with dead batteries?

      [...]

      Ok let's say they just seize everything and send it off to a central location for processing, and then ship it to wherever the traveler is staying when they're done.

      You're being strangely optimistic. I very much doubt that the laptops/phones will be shipped back to their owners. The owners will be required to get their devices back in person several weeks later (so that they can easily be questioned, fined, or arrested, because of the content found on their devices).

      This is not to say that a significant portion of those devices won't get disappeared/damaged/withheld indefinitely in the process. And this is not to say that this process will apply to everyone, if you're a law enforcement official, a politician, or a Sony executive, chances are that your devices won't get confiscated/imaged/scanned at the border.

  7. Re:And how exactly by Khyber · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "What can we do to make this disappear decisively?"

    Cripple the internet to the point that global economy can no longer happen, and force a global economic collapse.

    In other words, all you network engineers and people running the backbones need to step up and protest.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  8. Re:Nope by StevenMaurer · · Score: 2

    I don't trust that this is an accurate representation of what the treaty actually says, any more than I trusted Republicans about the whole Obamacare "death panels" B.S. Hell, the thing is filed under "Censorship" this site, and flat out, combating the piracy of musicians cannot be described as that. Slashdot may not like it, but are legitimate reasons for some forms of copyright laws.

    When they have a less one-sided summary, post it. It might be interesting.

  9. Re:And how exactly by mukinrestak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hey, that's not fair! There's a whole other party full of fascists and authoritarians to choose from too!

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Re:And how exactly by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Informative

    LOL gotta love "history lessons" written by political whack-a-doodles. But just FYI Hitler was about as much a "socialist" as Stalin was a "communist", both were totalitarians. In fact Hitler went so far as to outright execute the socialists in his party the second he had enough power to get away with it.

    So next time instead of getting your history from National Retard and Faux News how about actually reading a real book? If you want a good place to start on what actually became of anyone with socialist leanings in the NSDAP I'd suggest you start with any of the books written about Ernst RÃhm, one of the first ones grabbed during the Night Of The Long Knives. Protip: He was demanding they actually uphold the bullshit they fed the people about a "socialist revolution" and got himself a bullet in the chest for it, same as how Trotsky and anybody else who dared tell "dear leader" Stalin that actually following the writings of Lenin and Marx was kinda required if you were gonna be a communist. You see that is the thing about totalitarian regimes, they'll spew any bullshit they think will get them in power, but once they are there? All that bullshit goes right out the window and it all becomes about keeping that power with an iron fist.

    Or are you gonna sit here and argue that the DPK is "democratic"? After all it has democratic in the name so according to the National Review logic it MUST be true...right?

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  12. Re:Nope by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't trust that this is an accurate representation of what the treaty actually says

    I'm sorry, but what?

    Have you missed the part where every treaty the US is involved in pushes corporate interests because the US government is in the back pocket of the copyright cartel?

    The US lets the copyright lobby write the text of laws and treaties, and does what they're told. The US government is on the fucking payroll ... and I really wish I was exaggerating.

    The US wouldn't be negotiating a treaty which didn't push draconian copyright measures. That's kind of what they do these days.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  13. Re:And how exactly by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 2

    Have you actually listened to the crap that Trump says?

    As for "criminal," I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, but the Plutocrat Party has made it abundantly clear, through more than 20 years of flinging crap at her in hopes that something will stick, that they have nothing.

    As for "communist," cue Iñigo Montoya.

    --
    Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
    Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze