Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the what's-on-your-ipod-eh dept.

Privacy 390

SpaceAdmiral writes "The Canadian government is secretly negotiating to join the US and the EU in an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The agreement would give border guards the power to search iPods and cellphones for illegal downloads, as well as to force ISPs to hand over customer information without a warrant. David Fewer, staff counsel at the University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, characterizes ACTA this way: 'If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas what would they look like? This is pretty close.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Probably Related, EU Software Patent Treaty. (1, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551249)

If you can't buy a law, buy a treaty. This one [slashdot.org] would force software patents on the EU. I am ashamed of my country for pushing things like this and I'm amazed we try given our excessive petrolium consumption, excessive pollution and a war of aggression. Is this GWB's way of getting as much done as he can before leaving office or have all of the world's government become this much less democratic?

Economic Big Stick. (5, Informative)

Odder (1288958) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551297)

The third page of the article explains how the US is able to get away with such outrageous requests:

In a situation similar to what happened in the Softwood Lumber trade dispute, Canadians could face hefty penalties if it does not comply with ACTA after the agreement has been completed.In a situation similar to what happened in the Softwood Lumber trade dispute, Canadians could face hefty penalties if it does not comply with ACTA after the agreement has been completed.

So the proposal is, "surrender your citizens rights or we will make it cost you." The answer should be, "without rights, you will just take our money anyway, no thanks."

Re:Economic Big Stick. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551363)

first reply to first reply to first post! Suck it you basement dwelling cum burpers!

Re:Economic Big Stick. (1, Informative)

willyhill (965620) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551507)

Why didn't you post this in your original comment as twitter, or post another comment with the same account? Why reply to yourself like this?

Re:Economic Big Stick. (1)

slazzy (864185) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551659)

So what do the consumers get out of this deal?

screwed. (5, Insightful)

Odder (1288958) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551847)

16 hour work days, food that's poison, obesity, insurance and medicine they can't afford. At some point it collapses on itself because there's only so much greed an economy can stand. We are entering a recession [infowars.com] exactly as predicted by Former World Bank Vice President, Chief Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz in 2006 [prisonplanet.com] .

Re:Probably Related, EU Software Patent Treaty. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551377)

Only thing I could come up with when I read this was Holy Fuck!

Why don't we just surrender all our telecomm networks and computers to the government now? It should be cheaper for everyone involved, they wont even have to ask for the information from a third party!

Re:Probably Related, EU Software Patent Treaty. (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551709)

GWB and his parties aren't smart enough to understand what they are doing. What they understand is they have power and that it is valuable... they have made it available for sale and there are ample buyers out there buying their piece of the government and by extension, control of the world.

I doubt any explanation could be more accurate and simple at the same time.

What "Free Trade" Looks Like. (5, Insightful)

westbake (1275576) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551769)

Software patents are one small but important piece of the IP Empire which demands universally oppressive laws.



The list goes on and on but it has one common theme, your rights mean nothing, shut up and get back to work for the man.

how do counterfeiting and copyright (2, Insightful)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551261)

go together?

Re:how do counterfeiting and copyright (5, Interesting)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551309)

A copied song--as it was not produced by the authorized agent--could be considered "counterfeit." At least, that's the closest to understanding that I can get to by guessing. It sounds like someone's buggered all their sense away.

Re:how do counterfeiting and copyright (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551329)

Sounds like they're stretching now to stop copyright infringement any way they can.

Re:how do counterfeiting and copyright (3, Insightful)

jeiler (1106393) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551851)

To me, it sounds like they're completely raping the legal system to accomplish their goal. Which can only result in contempt for copyright laws.

Re:how do counterfeiting and copyright (4, Insightful)

gnuman99 (746007) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551889)

I'm a proponent of IP laws and copyright. But how the heck is counterfeiting and IP fit together?? Sorry, but it doesn't make any sense.

Counterfeiting to me means items produced as a "look a like" or in similar context, without a license to use the trademark. So, candy or tires or even CPUs can be counterfeit. But IP is not, because only counterfeit is reverse engineering. IP generally gets copied exactly. So how the heck is that counterfeit??

The only way they can apply it is if you have counterfeit CDs or DVDs or similar. But that still applies to the media marks, not the IP. The video is not counterfeit, the media is.

Or is someone selling KDE has "Windows Vista"?

Counterfeit and IP don't exactly make sense.

Easy (2, Interesting)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551319)

Copied disks sold as retail are counterfeit. Copying disks breaks copyright. But it is a stretch to see how you could tell if the stuff on an MP3 player came from counterfeited or original sources.

Re:Easy (2, Interesting)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551391)

Digital watermarking. Not that I support such systems, but there's a potential answer to your question.

Re:Easy (1)

Xzzy (111297) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551557)

At the simplest level, they could just plug it into a PC under their control and try to play a video. The way iTunes works, a DRM locked file won't play on an "unauthorized" PC. If the file does play, they could assume it's an illegal copy.

Obviously there's a good chance this won't be the case and such detection methods would be easy to defeat but this is what I imagine their thought process would be.

"If we can't prove they bought it, clearly they're guilty!"

they don't (4, Interesting)

Odder (1288958) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551335)

ISP records don't have anything to do with it either. This is naked imperialism - a power grab without disguise. It's not about "protecting" brand names, it's about silencing political dissent.

Perverse logic to this Intellectual Property stuff (2, Insightful)

ibane (1294214) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551463)

Someone who's been blinded by the IP propaganda term [gnu.org] might confuse "fake" handbags with ripped music. The confusion is intentional and it's designed to take rights away.


Even given that, the demand for ISP logs and invasion of Canadian and EU citizen privacy is ballsy.

Re:how do counterfeiting and copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551445)

Like doughnuts and motor oil!

Re:how do counterfeiting and copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551563)

Hell, I don't know. How does a blue tablecloth go with Red China?

Fuck This (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551279)

I can't wait for the baby boomers to die so we can take our damn country back and start thinking logically about copyright law.

You mean the country that the baby boomers built? (-1, Flamebait)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551383)

I'm guessing you're a member of "Generation-Me".... everything is about you and what you want.

Don't like your life? Get off your ass and do something for yourself and maybe others too. Don't like the government? Vote.

Your damn country is largely a result of what baby boomers built. If the baby boomers had been little whining generation-me types like you then there would be nothing for you to want.

Kids... learn to say please and thank you!

Re:You mean the country that the baby boomers buil (4, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551483)

> I'm guessing you're a member of "Generation-Me"

You mean the baby boomers?

Re:You mean the country that the baby boomers buil (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551517)

The baby boomers built the country? Please! They were sitting around protesting, free-loving, and smoking dope while their parents and grandparents actually built what we have today. No one on this planet has the same entitlement mentality as United States baby boomers. No one.

Re:You mean the country that the baby boomers buil (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551591)

You don't know me. I do like my life, I work hard, and I also vote. Forgive me for expressing dismay over the possible adoption of ridiculous policies.

Where do you draw the line between whining and merely stating one's opinion? Seems to me like you are a whiny baby-boomer who can't handle the criticism of younger people (I'm 27). See how easy it is to flip that around? I can argue with you and make up negative things about you, rather than actually attacking your opinion with logic.

I got it though, you have enlightened me. The baby boomers were here first so they deserve the chance to not only gobble up the world's resources and pollute the environment, and to write up some draconian laws that will persist and cause the next generations to suffer for decades after they are dead and gone. All so that a few large media corporations (run by baby boomers) can get wealthier and the CEOs can be entombed in large structures with their luxury cars and secretaries.

I got news for you old man, you're gonna die, and your country will be ours. So long. We won't miss you.

Re:You mean the country that the baby boomers buil (5, Insightful)

CoolGuySteve (264277) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551765)

Maybe it's the product of growing up under the red scare, but between the anti-Vietnam movement, the war on drugs, "Family Values", the war on terrorism, and the bare minimum of environmental laws/cheap gas/tax breaks for SUVs, the boomers' voting record will probably cause them to be remembered as the most cowardly and coddled generation in history.

"Generation-Me" indeed.

Why yes, I do have karma to burn.

Re:You mean the country that the baby boomers buil (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551865)

The baby boomers are (were?) a bunch of dope-smoking draft dodgers that have run this country into the ground while their parents wonder why exactly it is that they fought World War II, since they just ended up living under authoritarianism anyway.

Over Christmas, my now almost 95 year-old grandfather apologized to me, my sister and our 2 first cousins for the sorry state of the world that my parents generation created.

However, the boomers did such a good job of screwing things up, and peppering our generation with the semi-retarded after-effects of marijuana on the gametes that the US is pretty much doomed.

Oh well, it was nice while it lasted. What does it take to defect to Russia these days?

Re:Fuck This (2, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551579)

It's going to be a while. People who were undergrads when napster was out aren't even able to run for president yet. When these people are the politicians and the dominant party, what new issues will they be missing out on? Will we be seen as a stodgy class that refuses to give up these stupid privacy laws that make it so that the darn kids can't join 15 sites at once? Perhaps the pendulum will swing the other way, and they'll be getting angry because we're not letting artists control their works, because nobody can get a job writing software because president Stallman (or similar) refuses to recognize any actionable copyright or patents.

The real answer is smaller federal government and less laws so that thigns can be decided on a smaller scale or not decided by the government at all. Too bad there aren't any parties that run on that platform in the US.

Re:Fuck This (1)

CautionaryX (1061226) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551727)

Try the libertarian party. Unfortunately they never get votes b/c they're not Rep. or Dem.

Re:Fuck This (5, Interesting)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551633)

The baby boomers couldn't wait for their parent's generation to move on and allow them to legalize pot. Logical thinking about copyright won't happen either.

America is moving towards an information economy. Those in power are aware of the transformation and are trying to protect future American interests.

When the manufacturing is all being done in the cheapest places (globalization) America will only have her service economy, IP (If America owns Hollywood, she can buy and sell the world's spare time), and such control over business dealings in foreign lands as her businesses can muster and enforce.

Can you get rich by doing your neighbor's laundry if he is doing your in return? The GDP generated by Americans doing services for Americans is only wealth in terms of employment.

If IP is not protected, the only remaining wealth in America will be foreign businesses. Foreign businesses can be nationalized as soon as America's military isn't a major threat.* So suppose these events happened:

1: Rampant piracy makes ownership of IP moot
2: Japanese, Saudi, or Chinese businesses dump their bonds.

That's it! Those two things would bring America crashing to her knees, and destroy the cultural, economic, and military might of the greatest nation on earth. There really is a 3: profit for many powerful people. This is what America's leaders are doing about the situation:

Hiding the extent of the danger
Misguidedly passing draconian IP protection laws
Maintaining a large, secret technological lead (black tech: its real. No, I don't believe in UFOs)

That's what they're doing. I pass no judgment here, I'm just saying, that is the cause of these actions.


*Did you know that 50% of American businesses overseas (overseas divisions)are owned by the Chinese and theoretically controlled by the Chinese government? Did you know that the Saudis can take controll of foreign firms with the flick of a pen?

Libertarian horse poop (4, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551721)

I understand IP. I understand what is theft, and what isn't. I don't abide by customs searches for somebody's IP. I bought and paid for every single piece of music I have. None were torrented, or obtained through nebulous means from a copyright respect perspective.

And the music moguls now want to enforce the ability to check on me. With WHAT??? How can a customs agent possibly determine the MP3s that I have are, or are not purchased with validity???? THEY CANNOT!

IP protection isn't the backbone of the US economy. It's an intangibles-fantasy to think so. That's not what my father built, his father built, my mother built, and so on. It's the asset protection mechanism of the nonsensical. It's not innovative, it's not producing return on the intangible asset, it's as flimsy as derivates. Yet I respect the concept of asset ownership, and my rights under the law as a consumer. Now some nitwit's pressured various treaty signators to look at my damn MP3 player-- where's the justice in that??????

This is a little ridiculous. (5, Funny)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551281)

I mean, all the standard talk about Big Brother and the futility of fighting music piracy and the ethical problems of fighting the means of music piracy etc. aside...

IPods full of American music smuggled past Canadian customs? I'm sure that's exactly how Canadians are getting illicit copies of American music. (And vice versa.)

Re:This is a little ridiculous. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551375)

IPods full of American music smuggled past Canadian customs? I'm sure that's exactly how Canadians are getting illicit copies of American music.

If you've got a better way to do it, please share... iPod Shuffles are not the most comfortable things to hide in one's ass.

Re:This is a little ridiculous. (1)

servognome (738846) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551581)

It's gotten worse with the second gen Shuffles

Re:This is a little ridiculous. (2, Funny)

neoform (551705) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551691)

Shh, make them think that's how we get our pirated music, I don't want them to know I actually have the mp3s shipped via FedEx.

This may be a stupid question... (4, Insightful)

NoobixCube (1133473) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551283)

How would border guards be able to tell an illegal song on an iPod (i.e. downloaded without buying it in any form), from a song ripped from your private CD collection (which as the RIAA would have us believe, is illegal too), from a song bought from the iTunes store?

Re:This may be a stupid question... (1)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551393)

A hash would be my first thought.

Re:This may be a stupid question... (3, Insightful)

hacker (14635) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551897)

A hash would be my first thought.

They must be smoking hash was my first thought.

Seriously, how are they going to take my ipod of 8,000+ songs, mp3s, ogg files, Linux .iso images, podcasts, etc., hash them all and compare those to the ones in their database?

I change the ID3v2 tags, add missing ID3v1 tags, store lyrics and album art INTO the actual song file itself, and so on. All of these modifications change the hash. Now because my hash doesn't match theirs, I'm somehow guilty of copyright infringement? I don't think so.

Time to replace the stock firmware on the ipod with one that embeds AES-256 onboard and has to be unlocked before you can play any music from it.

Encryption is the only way to stop this madness.

I have nothing to hide, and therefore they have no reason to look.

Re:This may be a stupid question... (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551421)

Digital watermarks [wired.com] are one possibility. Not that I support such systems, but they're probably on the way.

Re:This may be a stupid question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551447)

I agree. I have bought a bunch of stuff from the itunes store, and switched from a powerbook to a Mac mini. All my purchases no longer are in the purchased music section. How are they going to discriminate what is purchased and what is illegal.

Re:This may be a stupid question... (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551473)

How would border guards be able to tell an illegal song on an iPod (i.e. downloaded without buying it in any form), from a song ripped from your private CD collection (which as the RIAA would have us believe, is illegal too), from a song bought from the iTunes store?
They wouldn't necessarily be able to, unless they're obviously labeled something like: Madonna-New_Album_ReleaseGroup

This action brings two thoughts to mind.
1. The war on Copyright Infringement has succedded where the War on Terror & War on Drugs have failed.
2. They're essentially making a civil enforcement matter into a Federal enforcement

Re:This may be a stupid question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551985)


The war on Copyright Infringement has succeeded? Based on what?



If the passing of a stupid law was enough to merit success, then the wars on drugs and terror have also succeeded. Obviously, this is not the case.


They won't, but they needn't care... (5, Interesting)

Animaether (411575) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551511)

Think of it like speed traps. You, presumably, sped. The speed trap captures this, takes that moment-in-time shot, and you get the bill in the mail. You are, at this point, guilty until proven innocent. Yes, you are guilty, you were speeding; (important) technicalities such as calibration times of the speed trap, etc. aside... you were speeding.

Now it's up to you to 1. challenge this and 2. provide evidence that either you were NOT speeding, or that you were speeding for a damned good reason which exempts you from getting a ticket.

---

So to get back on-topic...
"How would border guards be able to tell an illegal song on an iPod"
If it's in the AAC format with Apple's Fairplay DRM - which they license to nobody and all that.. then it's probably legit.
If it's an MP3, it'll get added to the list of 'probably-illegal' bits of music.

"from a song ripped from your private CD collection"
1. Challenge it, 2. provide evidence that you, in fact, are in posession of that CD.

"(which as the RIAA would have us believe, is illegal too)"
If that is indeed the law - which, last time I checked, it's not - yhen you're screwed even in the above case regardless.

"from a song bought from the iTunes store?"
Presuming you purchased an unprotected MP3 - that purchase should be listed in your iTunes Account. 1. Challenge it, 2. provide the evidence - name Apple if you want.

-----

Now, personally, I don't think this will actually be checked all -that- actively. Lines at airports and the like are queued enough as it is and they're strapped for money just to check for things like, you know, actual terrorists, drug smugglers, etc. That's not to say I'm complacent - I already sent in my letter of protest several weeks back, but we're not exactly part of the G8 countries so that's probably going to do fook all good - but I don't think that the first kid with a few MP3s on his system is going to be shipped to Gitmo either.

Now, with that out of the way, the clauses regarding the restrictions of privacy tools use online (and, possibly, offline; that TrueCrypted drive you've got and such) I find far, far more unsettling (and was the majority of the body of my protest letter; personally I can't really justify saying "I'm only downloading a movie! What's the harm!?", but I did point out the ridiculousness of involving law enforcement officials in this, never mind the penance, and my disagreement with those clauses on those grounds).
I'm still waiting for them to hook this into a "That way we'll get the terrorists, too!"-type defense argument.

But maybe they're not, and they're expecting people, to just fume at the worst bits, then blank those out and just leave it with the anti-piracy bits which might be grudgingly accepted.

Re:They won't, but they needn't care... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551549)

There's a much more important issue with respect to Canada. There's no such thing as illegal downloads. Essentially, there was a court case a while back that essentially said that downloading was OK - uploading could get you in trouble.

Since they can't prove that you've uploaded those songs in any way, they can't do jack to Canadian citizens except maybe turn them back from the border.

Re:This may be a stupid question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551565)

It is clear that all media must be marked for removal because it all has the potential for being illegal, eventually itunes will become illegal too if the RIAA gets their ever starts getting their way.

Re:This may be a stupid question... (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551707)

Itunes has proprietary DRM..

a better question is how they'd know if I had paid for the music I purchased from sites like beatport.com or djdownload.com, which are 320kbit MP3 files with no labeling that distinguishes them from any other MP3 I have..

Sure, I can carry around my purchase receipts, but.. fuck that.

Um, okay... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551303)

So when I travel, do I have to carry proof of purchase for all the stuff on my iPod? How exactly do they plan to enforce this?

Re:Um, okay... (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551673)

So when I travel, do I have to carry proof of purchase for all the stuff on my iPod? How exactly do they plan to enforce this?
Exactly like they currently enforce the present requirement to be able to prove that you first left the country in possession of $WHATEVER_THEY_THINK_YOU_BOUGHT_ABROAD.

I wonder... (4, Interesting)

crazybit (918023) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551313)

how will they manage file encryption.

Just one more excuse to induce more fear in the normal population.

Re:I wonder... (5, Funny)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551429)

You: Haha! I've got it encrypted! wooo! You're SOL, ain't cha?! Fascist!

Them: Give us your passwords or we'll confiscate your device.

You: But.. I... I've got to make a flight! I have riii--

Them: That's it, Bob! Tase that fucker and keep his iPod! We'll show this twat what we Canadians are all a-boot!

Re:I wonder... (3)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551711)

how will they manage file encryption?

Good morning, Guantanamo!

Re:I wonder... (1)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551891)

yeah, uh, I dunno about you, but I haven't dared bring an important electronic device (aside from my camera and my cellphone) across the border - and I don't plan to start now. Encryption would likely equate to near-instant confiscation and detainment, if I refused to cooperate.

If I urgently need a laptop while I'm on a trip, I'll bloody well buy one :)

Illegal Search and Seizure (2, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551331)

Amendment IV [cornell.edu]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Constitution easy to subvert (4, Insightful)

CustomDesigned (250089) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551465)

Article VI: ...and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Any provision of the constitution can be done away with by getting 51 Senators and the President to sign a treaty. Failing that, you can get 5 judges to interpret it away (as in the recent decision allowing states to seize private property for any economic purpose).

Re:Constitution easy to subvert (2, Informative)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551627)

anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


And how exactly does that allow a treaty to remove a part of the constitution? (Crappy politicians defining words however the hell they want aside)

See also Reid v. Covert [wikipedia.org]

Re:Constitution easy to subvert (3, Informative)

salesgeek (263995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551893)

Any provision of the constitution can be done away with by getting 51 Senators and the President to sign a treaty.

FALSE. Treaties have the same strength as a law passed by congress, but are not exempt from the Constitution.
"Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision." -- Foster vs Nelson

Re:Constitution easy to subvert (1)

OfficeSupplySamurai (1130593) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551901)

You skipped the beginning and thereby completely misrepresented the meaning:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The constitution and the treaties together are the supreme law; treaties most certainly do not overrule the Constitution. If you include the whole bit and observe punctuation, you see the end means all judges are bound by both and nothing in the Constitution or state laws can unbind them.

Disclaimer: IANAL

Re:Constitution easy to subvert (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551937)

No they cannot. Un-Constitutional treaties conflict with the Constitution, which is itself more potent than any mere law. It is in fact the creating statement of the government itself, and no mere law can contradict it and remain standing.

Un-Constitutional judicial rulings are void, even if today's generation of judges, executives and legislators are too anti-American to be governed by that simple fact. It's just "might makes right", and not actually right or just. And likely to eventually be overturned, as those kinds of miscarriages of justice generally are through the course of American history.

Unless we just grumble and accept it. In which case it'll all stick. And we'll deserve it for our own failures to create a just government.

Re:Constitution easy to subvert (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551987)

No, you're reading it wrong. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land; below that is federal law and treaties, which are both at the same level (and there's a last-in-time rule, so if a federal law and a treaty conflict, the newer one will trump); below that are state constitutions, and below that are state laws.

The clause you miscited is merely saying that (among other things) treaties are superior to state constitutions.

As for Kelo, I still fail to see the big deal with that, but that's neither here nor there.

Re:Illegal Search and Seizure (1)

quarrel (194077) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551481)

IANAL but I believe its been covered else where - the bill of rights gives rights to US citizens. This won't help a Canadian popping over to see the bad side of Niagara falls with their ipod.

--Q

Re:Illegal Search and Seizure (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551767)

Well, I think they use our Bill of Rights as toilet paper over there in Gitmo... So, we, as US Citizens, have the right to remain silent. Anything we say can and will be used against us on a tribunal. And whatever we don't say, they will take out from us through Waterboarding...
Anyways, this law will just give one more reason for the TSA a**holes to seize more property from us before we board planes.
Is there a free country somewhere? I think I am moving to Brazil... They have no RIAA, and they pretty much download everything illegally over the Internet.

Re:Illegal Search and Seizure (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551849)

Rights are universal. Whether the US government is obligated to protect the rights of anyone other than a US citizen is a matter of much debate, all inconclusive. But abusing those rights of any citizen makes a mockery of liberty. At the hands of a US government employee under official orders, such a mockery makes a travesty of the basis of the US government as a government created by American people to protect those rights.

Re:Illegal Search and Seizure (4, Insightful)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551489)

Didn't you hear? The Constitution doesn't mean anything any more. From free speech, to firearm rights, to search and seizure. But it was nice while it lasted.

Re:Illegal Search and Seizure (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551983)

It still means everything to me. I'm not conceding our homegrown tyrants their ultimate victory by conceding them the Constitution, even if they have the upper hand for now.

Re:Illegal Search and Seizure (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551495)

Doesn't apply at border crossings. In fact pretty much all your rights go out the window there.

Re:Illegal Search and Seizure (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551895)

That doesn't mean the abuse of your rights at the border is right or just. Just that it's a more likely place for abuse.

Re:Illegal Search and Seizure (2, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551935)

Never said it was. In fact, I consider the mere existence of the border to be a grave injustice to all. Freedom of movement is as paramount as all others.

Re:Illegal Search and Seizure (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551531)

Amendment IV
There are a handful of exceptions to the 4th Amendment.
exigent circumstances
search incident to a lawful arrest
the automobile exception
-the container exception (containers in an automobile)
plain view/feel

And the one that matters in this case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception [wikipedia.org]

At the border, the only search that requires probably cause is a "non-routine" physical search. Which basically boils down to anything more invasive than a pat-down of your body.

Re:Illegal Search and Seizure (1)

servognome (738846) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551555)

It all comes down to the definition of unreasonable.

Re:Illegal Search and Seizure (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551957)

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, ...

... does not applies in Canada.

Selling Tickets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551337)

Selling tickets on the "Get Me Off This Rock" shuttle, leaving as soon as possible!

Knee jerk reactions from a moribund industry that couldn't find innovation if it was hanging off the Sears tower with a 500 foot long neon arrow!

I am no political scientist (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551359)

But these things seems to be somewhat against the idea of a democracy at this point.

Re:I am no political scientist (4, Insightful)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551467)


It is just more stupid American foreign policy.

Just today I read that the the drug war fuelled by America's love of cocaine and marijuana is resulting in thousands of people getting killed in Mexican gang wars over smuggling routes, yet the US War on drugs policy persists, keeping the black market trade the biggest and bloodiest industry in the world.

On the north border they want to remove the rights of people just to make a few cocaine snorting media exec's happy.

And we have seen what US foreign policy has done to the middle east.

Its no wonder so many people hate the US, their politicians have systematically contributed to most of the crap that is currently going on in the world all in the name of consumerism and captialism. Its not about democracy at all, its all about how cheap their gas is and what boat they can buy with their annual bonus.

Re:I am no political scientist (4, Funny)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551717)

Oh come on. Just because something doesn't work the last twenty times you've tried it doesn't mean it damn well shouldn't.

Re:I am no political scientist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551583)

So was the result of the 2000 election.

A few links. (5, Informative)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551365)

Regarding the matter, some additional source material for consideration:


A couple of these links are several months old; this has been brewing for awhile, and action needs to be taken now to stop it.

My God!!! (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551451)

Can we just stick all the music and movie industry execs in prison now and have done with it, rather than having to shoot all those politicians later? I mean, it would save several years and a lot of trouble.

Let 'em review (2)

Muledeer007 (1127983) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551453)

I say let'em review every single electronic device we have, ipods, computer, phone, hearing aid, pace maker and watches. It will take a week to cross a border or take a plane -- the economic reality is a far greater deterrent to this kind of ludicrous action than all the belly-aching complaints. Mule

Re:Let 'em review (2, Insightful)

Txiasaeia (581598) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551599)

You seem to think that this would be a problem for US Customs. I travel to the US by car once every two weeks or so, and it doesn't matter to them if they need to hold up a car for five seconds or five minutes; their shift ends when it ends. It's more work for each individual traveller to the States, but all in all, it's still a day's worth of work to the average customs officer.

We sure are getting a lot of mixed signals (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551475)

from [slashdot.org] Canada [slashdot.org]

this is maddness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551497)

As an avid traveller both business and personal this is just getting too far.

Think ill just carry a deck and vinyl from now.

Time for Stephen Harper to go. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551515)


It'd be nice if this minority government would have an election forced so we could get rid of Stephen "Little George Bush" Harper and his Conservatives. It's no coincidence that all these "Canada trying to get X law put it" stories are coming around now that they're in power.

I hope they pass it (1)

GregPK (991973) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551527)

Cause you know the court is going to declare it unconstitutional.

Re:I hope they pass it (3, Insightful)

lena_10326 (1100441) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551713)

Cause you know the court is going to declare it unconstitutional.
The constitution is no longer law. It's a softly spoken suggestion.

seX with a goat (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551667)

all servers. C^oming The Cathedral Other members in also dead, its

I'm gonna call Steve Jobs (1)

linhares (1241614) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551677)

Then again, he might tell me that I should get an iPod for the US, and another one in Canada. The same goes with all my music.

well then... (1)

riprjak (158717) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551751)

... looks like its time to buy a travel ipod to go with that travel laptop.

Of course, pity the person who legally format shifted music they own in accordance with various fair use or national copyright doctrines around the world.

Or pity the person who legally purchased mp3's without drm; unless they carry all of their purchase reciepts with them!

How can they tell? (1)

Zemran (3101) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551763)

My MP3s do not have 'skanky' stamped on them. If I rip one of my CDs it is OK, but if I have a rip of someone else's it does not get stamped 'illegal'. They will just guess, and based on the fact that there is unlikely to be anyone with an iPod full of legal tunes, they can just collect iPods for their friends and families.

So where should Linux Symposium be held now? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551777)

I seem to recall that Alan Cox, and probably others, were so disturbed by the DMCA in the US that they vowed never to visit the US again. So, the Linux Symposium has been held in Ottawa for some time.

Will this force Linux conferences to be held outside the US, Canada and the EU? Of course Alan Cox lives in the EU. It really makes one not wish to even travel through the region, which is pretty difficult if you think about air travel hubs, etc.

Bombs maybe, MP3s NO! (2, Insightful)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551779)

When will we get a notion of priority in this sick world? We've got so many issues in this world, much to do with security and protection; Please tell me why pirated music will take priority when our current ACTUAL border security is a joke? I'm imagining a scene where some guy is getting shook down for copied music while hoodlums rape a woman nearby unquestioned. Lets get a list of frikkin priorities here.

Re:Bombs maybe, MP3s NO! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23552009)

I'm imagining a scene where some guy is getting shook down for copied music while hoodlums rape a woman nearby unquestioned.
Hey, whatever gets you off. You're probably gay if you fixate on raping the guy. (Hope this helps.)

Pity... (0, Flamebait)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551783)

Pity we can't have the RIAA keeping the Mexicans out on the Southern border, and the Muslims out on the Northern border.

sadly the government runs us. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551791)

what ever happend to the people putting fear into the government ;\

Terrorism (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551797)

The only thing that surprises me about this is that the agreement doesn't have "Anti-Terrorism" in the title.

Our Prime Minister (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23551887)

is a fascist asshole.

Apple, I see a business opportunity (1)

eggman9713 (714915) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551945)

Sell a new version of iPod software that encrypts your iPod's contents with a password, then you don't have to give them the password because of that recent Supreme Court ruling, where being forced into giving up an encryption password is not allowed under the 4th amendment, assuming the US Constitution is still in effect by then, not that I believe it is in force now.

redundant issue (2, Informative)

uniquegeek (981813) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551947)

There's already a system for dealing with illegal material, and there are very good reasons for requiring a warrant for such searches. The issue in question is already covered. Is this nonsense really necessary?

Secretly negotiating, hmmm? (1)

Gorlash (957166) | more than 6 years ago | (#23551993)

I get the impression that someone may not understand the meaning of the word "secretly"...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?