Slashdot Mirror


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."

5 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. Wrong, evil and going to happen by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure the TPP is wrong and evil, but Disney and others in Hollywood want it and have bought our political leaders, so it is going to happen.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Wrong, evil and going to happen by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is massive public opposition to the TTP and TTIP on both sides of the Atlantic. When people learn what is in it, they invariably don't like it (unless they run a large multinational corporation, like Disney). It still may pass, but I wouldn't bet on it at this point. Even Clinton, the most corporate owned presidential candidate in history, has been forced to say it is a bad deal for the people. Of course, her surrogates at the DNC platform convention have refused repeatedly to formally denounce the TTP, so that says something about what Clinton would do once back in the White House again. Still, it is going to be a big stain on any politician's record who votes for it. There has never been this level of organized opposition to a trade deal. This time, now that there has been 20 years to assess NAFTA and CAFTA, many of the offending politicians may be voted out of office in the next election.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    2. Re:Wrong, evil and going to happen by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I should add that there may be lots of opposition to the TPP on both sides of the Pacific, but I haven't heard as much about complaints from the Pacific member states as I have from Europe about TTIP.

      TTIP is seen in Europe as purely an economic issue. But TPP is seen by many Asians as also a security arrangement, binding them into an American led world order, as opposed to the alternative of a Chinese dominated system. It is really too bad that TPP has so many flaws, because in principle it could have been good for both America and Asia.

  2. Re:The vote is on November 8th by Tailhook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh, and FWIW, both Trump and Clinton oppose the TPP

    Trump's opposition to these trade deals goes back decades. Hillary's opposition to TPP goes back to when Trump started using it against her a couple months ago; before then she supported it, just like she supports NAFTA, MFN for China, etc., all of which her husband is responsible for. She'll enact TPP as well, after a suitable amount of time has passed and enough spin has been applied.

    Hillary opposing TPP is as fake as a three dollar bill and the only people that believe it are her sycophants.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  3. Re:The vote is on November 8th by skids · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.