EFF Delivers 210,000 Signatures Opposing Trans-Pacific Partnership (eff.org)

An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: "The TPP is simply bad for tech users and innovators," writes the Electronic Frontier Foundation, arguing the proposed trade agreement for the Pacific Rim "exports the most onerous parts of U.S. copyright law and prevents the U.S. from improving them in the future, while failing to include the balancing provisions that work for users and innovators, such as fair use." At a press conference, the EFF delivered 210,000 signatures gathered in conjunction with other activist groups "to call on Democratic Party Leader Nancy Pelosi to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership from going to a vote during the 'lame duck' session of Congress following the November election."

More signatures are still being collected online, to be delivered on July 21. In a statement, the EFF adds that the TPP also "does nothing to safeguard the free and open Internet, by including phony provisions on net neutrality and encryption, trade secrets provisions that carry no exceptions for journalism or whistleblowing, and a simplistic ban on data localization...to buy off big tech."

Comments

EFFin' copyrights

[rmdingler]

There are not a great number of causes worth getting behind any more, but the free and open internet is decidedly one of them.

This is not only a Democratic pillar, as your conservative candidate may also oppose this rendition of the treaty.

Re:The vote is on November 8th

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump opposing anything is as fake as a three dollar bill. You seriously think he'll do anything to block either TPP or TTP if he's elected? If so, I have an Internet to sell you.

Re:The vote is on November 8th

[skids]

Hillary's opposition to TPP goes back to when Trump started using it against her a couple months ago; before then she supported it

Actually, she announced this posture in October of last year.

The truth, of course, is actually quite more nuanced than that, and had little to do with Trump. During her tenure as secretary of state, though, she did her job and represented the view of the administration that was employing her. After leaving that job, in 2014, she started to say she'd reserve judgment until the final deal was announced.