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!

EFF and PK Reluctantly Drop Lawsuit For ACTA Info

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the ours-to-know-and-yours-to-find-out dept.

The Courts 150

mikesd81 notes a press release on the EFF website that begins "The Obama Administration's decision to support Bush-era concealment policies has forced the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge (PK) to drop their lawsuit about the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Federal judges have very little discretion to overrule Executive Branch decisions to classify information on 'national security' grounds, and the Obama Administration has recently informed the court that it intends to defend the classification claims originally made by the Bush Administration. ... Very little is known about ACTA, currently under negotiation between the US and more than a dozen other countries, other than that it is not limited to anti-counterfeiting measures. Leaked documents indicate that it could establish far-reaching customs regulations governing searches over personal computers and iPods. Multi-national IP corporations have publicly requested mandatory filtering of Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material, as well as the adoption of 'Three Strikes' policies requiring the termination of Internet access after repeat allegations of copyright infringement, like the legislation recently invalidated in France. Last year, more than 100 public interest organizations around the world called on ACTA country negotiators to make the draft text available for public comment."

cancel ×

150 comments

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

Yay! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28408981)

Another victory for transparent democracy

HIP HIP...
HIP HIP...
HIP HIP...

Why no HURRAHs?

Re:Yay! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28409557)

Chains we can believe in!

Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28408991)

ACTA will mandate software patents, criminalization of copyright infringements, censorship lists, data retention. States that today resist such measures due to local democratic pressure will be able to cite "Obligations under International Law" as an excuse to move towards eFascism. The goal is to send 4chan, piratebay, and anyone else who offends the powerful to jail.

This is a major campaign in the war on the future, by the past. Winning this war will push the digital majority towards adulthood.

Bring it on, I say!

Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement (2, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409039)

Sooner or later it's all going to come down to whether you are willing to risk death for your cause as the Iranian protesters are. Do you believe that the sociopaths in $COUNTRY's legislative branch (in America, the chief executive is but a puppet) are going to cry crocodile tears rather than spend the contribution money to remodel their bathroom?

You will die an honorable death, dishonored and labelled a terrorist.

Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement (1, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410007)

I know many things worse than death.

So I say, bring it on!

I my plan is successful, I will be able to battle a small government (not on any front you may think about now) in some years anyway.

Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement (4, Insightful)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410703)

*sigh* Where is my +1, Deluded mod anyway?

Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28409223)

During the election, about 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin. See the exit-polling data [cnn.com] by CNN.

Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable.

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.

At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data [cnn.com] for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.

Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.

African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin is quite acceptable by the standards of today's moral values.

Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409453)

Am I understanding this ACTA thing correctly; is this a law that cannot be judged?

Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409545)

It's an international treaty. This is a major sign of the global dark forces at work, some say. Perhaps it's not that Obama is catering to the interests of those who want this, but rather that he has no choice but to capitulate or has no courage to fight it. One thing is certain: we will never know. But the non-government invite list is rather telling of what is to come. Perhaps the movie "Idiocracy" isn't such a stupid movie after all.

It's an international treaty MADE by the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28409767)

Which kind of makes it irrelevant that it's international: it's what the US wants OTHERS to do.

Would be funny if the Swedes DID manage to get it, though.

"Land of the free" my arse!

Re:It's an international treaty MADE by the US (4, Insightful)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410187)

I think by "what the US wants", you mean "what certain interests in the US wants but can't get enough to support in Congress to get". As powerful and wealthy as these people are, the draconian measures are *not* something that most people in the US wants. That's why they are using this "secret treaty" technique to try to get their rules put in place.

Re:It's an international treaty MADE by the US (3, Insightful)

Reziac (43301) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410835)

Since when is our government supposed to be doing the bidding of outside forces, rather than the will of The People??

How did we let things get this far out of The People's control??

Well, I can tell you... it boils down to the old saw, "He who robs Peter to pay Paul is assured of Paul's support." Once there are more Pauls being paid than Peters being robbed, the country is lost.

Re:It's an international treaty MADE by the US (1)

perlchild (582235) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411041)

A free meme for you: "You must be new here" (or there actually since I'm in a neighbouring country).

I think a democracy that signs a secret treaty with its neighbours stops being a democracy. I doubt it's the first such secret treaty, draw your own conclusions.

Re:It's an international treaty MADE by the US (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411227)

Should I face north before I wave hello? :)

I agree with you entirely. When the gov't starts keeping secrets from the people, you're already long past being in trouble.

Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410021)

Hey, that movie was a great comment on today's civilization. I would call it an important film.

Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28411213)

It's an international treaty. This is a major sign of the global dark forces at work, some say. Perhaps it's not that Obama is catering to the interests of those who want this, but rather that he has no choice but to capitulate or has no courage to fight it. One thing is certain: we will never know. But the non-government invite list is rather telling of what is to come. Perhaps the movie "Idiocracy" isn't such a stupid movie after all.

If Obama is caving on this, maybe it's time to think about an impeachment campaign?

Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement (1)

Inner_Child (946194) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411595)

If Bush wasn't impeached (then tried and hung, but that's my personal dream) for war crimes, what the hell makes you think Obama would be impeached for this?

Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement (5, Informative)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409567)

There is still a way to get the document, the EU Public Access to documents reform [europa.eu] .

I wonder if the Swedish Presidency will move forward with this.

Still fighting? (4, Insightful)

siloko (1133863) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409503)

This is a major campaign in the war on the future

Am I the only one who thinks the war is already won? You can not put the majority of a country's population in jail. The culture of the internet has already changed the game and no matter how many laws are passed, lawsuits are won, technology and attitudes are already ahead of those that seek to put the genie back in the bottle.

This just smacks of desperation. The powerful seem to be busy enacting policies which they hope will change attitudes whilst the rest of us are busy ignoring them and getting on with our lives.

Re:Still fighting? (5, Insightful)

Meneth (872868) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409885)

Out victory may be inevitable, but the war isn't over yet. Until it is, it will continue to do damage.

Re:Still fighting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28410229)

I begin to think that, as the message still seems to be getting lost, it's time to resort to drastic retaliation. Perhaps lynching elected officials will be more effective, they don't seem to listen to anything else that isn't written on hundred dollar bills.

Re:Still fighting? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411659)

If we're going to start killing people can't we go for the marketers first?

Re:Still fighting? (2, Informative)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410233)

That is the attitude that may cause us to loose. Freedom can only be obtained and maintained with vigilance. We must never think its impossible to be deprived of our freedom and must always remain wary of those who would seek to curtail it. The war is never over so long as overly ambitious and overly greedy individuals exist.

Re:Still fighting? (1)

siloko (1133863) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410535)

Freedom can only be obtained and maintained with vigilance.

Agreed. I'm not arguing against vigilance. I'm simply pointing out something which to me is a matter of fact. I have nothing against those who want to organise petitions and demonstrations, who write to their representatives, who post on slashdot etc., all with the aim of eroding apparently draconian intellectual property laws. But I think these laws will die anyway.

Go and fight the fight and sleep better for it, it's just that from where I stand society will progress despite the laws and despite the demonstartions because both are being undertaken by a minority whilst the rest of us already embody the changing attitudes which the power of the internet and technology in general have facilitated.

Re:Still fighting? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28410277)

As I understand, America's primary export is information. We don't export oil, steel, plastic toys, electronics, etc. Maybe we export some corn or something, but digital content of every variety is what we really offer the rest of the world.

Therefore, it is clearly in the interest of America's economy, and America's status as a strong Global power, for there to be worldwide buy-in to very strict information-control (ie copyright) policies, and very strict enforcement.

A world where information is free is a world where America is poor.

Of course, the fact that this wealth depends on things that clearly do not make sense (introducing tremendous, and obviously bogus, artificial scarcity) and assumptions that clearly will not be true in the future (other countries will never be able to produce digital content as well or as much as we can), means nothing to the politicians that are making these decisions. They see a problem right now, and they see "eFascism" as the best way of solving that problem over the period of time that they will retain office while also pleasing their wealthy campaign supporters. From their perspective, it is the obvious choice (and the people be damned, as usual).

There may even be some politicians who honestly believe this solution is sustainable in the long term...such are not competent to hold office, though that won't stop them.

I find the situation quite depressing.

Re:Still fighting? (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410873)

Maybe we export some corn or something, but digital content of every variety is what we really offer the rest of the world.

What the US has to offer to the rest of the world is oil through USD, which is incidentally the only thing keeping the economy alive since Nixon declared bankruptcy in 1971.

On a related note, Saddam offered to sell oil for EUR too, just before his army started disappearing.

Re:Still fighting? (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410407)

Am I the only one who thinks the war is already won? You can not put the majority of a country's population in jail.

Yes, you can. You can turn the whole country into a prison and get half the inmates watching the other half. Read _1984_, or for a more convincing example, consider the German Democratic Republic (East Germany).

Re:Still fighting? (1)

siloko (1133863) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410591)

Ok, well your first example is a work of satirical fiction. Granted there is something to be learntt from it but it is not a case in point. Your second example, though genuine, did not happen in a world where the internet abounds. This discussion has come about precisely because the internet has changed the game, precisely because the power that governments and corporations have over us is dwindling, and ACTA is an example of a panicked and defeated response to a society which is leaving the traditional power brokers behind.

Re:Still fighting? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411697)

The GDR didn't operate just by censorship, the GDR operated mostly by having spies everywhere and being able to spot dissent fairly quickly, then crushing it. The internet lets you communicate with others but the StaSi would still catch you and make your friends afraid of continuing your efforts.

Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement (5, Insightful)

pallmall1 (882819) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409515)

ACTA will mandate software patents, criminalization of copyright infringements, censorship lists, data retention.

You don't really think Big Media supports Obama for free, now do you?

Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28410251)

Many voters under 30 thought Obama was Cool.
This is so uncool, that dude, you wont be so lucky come BOTH elections and donations.
Voters do notice when you mess with out online experiences - .
Carry on the work of GW, well who would have thought... Vote no to software prostate bill.

Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410185)

Since when does the US care about international law?

Re:Anti-Internet Freedom Agreement (3, Informative)

Znork (31774) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410349)

Since always. The government is just very selective about what international laws it cares about, and very picky about who it applies them to.

ACTA is a typical example of forum shopping tho; when the interested parties cannot ram their desires through WIPO or even the WTO any more, they start up yet another forum. So of course the US is going to care; it's made to order legislation created outside the democratic process and perfectly usable against its citizens, without having to take much of the blame.

It's the legislative process gone global, and moved out of reach of democracy.

Look at Iran for an example (0)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409013)

The bloodshed and violence going on in Iran right now is precisely what happens when you pit a corrupt government against a small band of rabble rousers. Let it be clear that I am not saying that the protesters in Iran aren't justified in protesting the elections, or even that the violence against them is in any way justified. The deaths are senseless and tragic. In the current situation, there is no good solution that wouldn't throw the entire country into a bloody civil war.

But the early protests were not violent. It wasn't until a few violent protesters lashed out against government forces, as was also the case in Seattle and Milan, that the true revolt began in earnest.

There are many who believe that an energized, educated citizenry is crucial to a free society. But I'll tell you now that a lethargic, dumb citizenry is the true key to both freedom and affluence. Energy and knowledge lead to discontent, and discontent leads to violence. Lethargy and ignorance preserve the status quo which is typically comfortable for all involved.

When the EFF tries to play gotcha with the Bush Administration, in their minds they are doing the right thing. However pure their motives, their methods are not thought through. Like children on the playground, they only look at today and their own goals.

Whatever is in those documents is useless. We face our current situation as reality, not because someone once wrote something somewhere in confidential documents. Lobby to change the laws, which are public for all to see. Don't foment anger because there is no peace at the end of that road.

Re:Look at Iran for an example (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28409107)

Good troll, my man. I even planned a response before I chuckled and clicked the "back" button.

Re:Look at Iran for an example (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28409133)

There are many who believe that an energized, educated citizenry is crucial to a free society. But I'll tell you now that a lethargic, dumb citizenry is the true key to both freedom and affluence. Energy and knowledge lead to discontent, and discontent leads to violence. Lethargy and ignorance preserve the status quo which is typically comfortable for all involved.

wtf? "dumb citizens are the key to freedom". are you one of the "dumb citizens"?

"knowledge leads to discontent"? Perhaps: oppressive governments lead to discontent.

You are either deluded or a troll

Re:Look at Iran for an example (3, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409149)

Energy and knowledge lead to discontent.

A full belly is enough for most people.

Re:Look at Iran for an example (3, Interesting)

Reziac (43301) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410945)

That's something I've pointed out before -- you don't get revolution unless a significant part of the population (I'd guess about half) are actively starving, and have nothing left to lose. And that's why real revolutions have always been bloody, and haven't necessarily made things better for the starving (frex, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution).

America is nowhere near that point, and probably never will be. However, with the increasing interest in states' rights, secession is not out of the question, and in today's world it would be damned hard to justify a shooting war to prevent it -- it would be seen as imperial rule preventing the Will of the People from being expressed in their choice of government.

Re:Look at Iran for an example (1)

Zarluk (976365) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409273)

No! He's being SARCASTIC (I hope).

Re:Look at Iran for an example (1)

Philip_the_physicist (1536015) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409995)

Better a gram than a damn.

Obama for 2009 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28409023)

Corporatism we can believe in!

National Security? (5, Insightful)

grahammm (9083) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409045)

How can the non-disclosure of the terms of an international treaty be justified on national security grounds?

Re:National Security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28409081)

Cause we'll lynch all those involved

Re:National Security? (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409147)

Because "national security" depends on America being able to control the world with our shitty pop culture.

Foreigners are hooked on it. When they get it for free, our influence and our revenue streams, along with the ability to defend ourselves, go bye-bye.

Re:defend you from what (1)

CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409589)

OMG we cant stop the downloading OMG

revenue streams, since when is art and culture supposed to be a way for LAZY artists to sit on there collective butts for 120 years a RIGHT

the RIAA and MPAA are acting like economic terrorists.
THAT'S right your waging a war OF terror on the entire world and that's whats going to be said more and more.
I'd say go out and toor more but we know they are so corupt they even sclp there own tickets dont they.

and is 500 million for a film ( aka batman ) NOT ENOUGH?

Re:National Security? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410059)

Well, I can tell you, this changed nearly completely, since the beginning of the Bush era. Most people in whole Europe (NOT a country btw.) do not blindly side with the USA anymore. Even with the traditional media working hard to reinstate that state.

Re:National Security? (1)

Nexus7 (2919) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411537)

Ask Slashdot, I suppose, but what is the state of free music (that the artistes release on to the internet)? I know there are streaming radio stations, and there are videos on YouTube, etc. But is there a cultural matrix in which these are embedded? In other words, can one get, say, a smartphone, and listen to internet radio all day long (or all commute long), get the music, and news, traffic, and weather, and all the time consume only unencubmered content?

I suppose, with a smartphone, traffic and weather is a few click away, but at least music? Is there a directory of these things, or does one accidentally stumble into isolated sub-cultures?

Re:National Security? (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409173)

That could even be. If it was a treaty on, say, a common defense strategy, or a military proposal. Even a joint attempt to increase cooperation in crime fighting. But how can a treaty on COPYRIGHT be about national security?

Re:National Security? (4, Interesting)

anonieuweling (536832) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409311)

It confirms their agenda.

Re:National Security? (2, Interesting)

siddesu (698447) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409575)

Propaganda and convenience. Hollywood's been manufacturing the propaganda for the US gubermint for a long time. Small wonder the gubermint will throw them a bone back when asked. And covering it under "national security" totally removes any need to _work_ to justify the law.

Re:National Security? (5, Insightful)

Ocker3 (1232550) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409637)

because if we knew what they were putting in it, we'd start protesting like it's Tehran?

Re:National Security? (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409693)

But how can a treaty on COPYRIGHT be about national security?

By _securing_ our _nations_ income by charging for the same item a few tens of times over and making it a crime if you don't willingly let them steal that money?

Yea, no, its just BS :/

Re:National Security? (3, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410037)

They can try to charge all they want. I don't know anybody who still buys music. Most of them could not even play it back anymore. Much less would be able to change their mind.

ACTA is a supernova. But a supernova still annihilates the star it comes from. It's the death cry of a dying industry.

Re:National Security? (1)

icomxwing (1577893) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409701)

in Soviet Russia vodka drinks YOU

Re:National Security? (4, Funny)

ms1234 (211056) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409281)

You have to accept the EULA first. Then you can read it.

Re:National Security? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410905)

http://www.sjgames.com/secret.html

Seriously though, we need some federal judges with a security clearance beefy enough to see this "national security" bullshit for what it really is.

Change... (5, Insightful)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409049)

I could use some :(

Re:Change... (1)

noz (253073) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409297)

It's as good as a holiday. :P

Re:Change... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28410281)

It's as good as a holiday. :P

'Cause it only lasts for one day? It certainly did in Obama's case :D

C.H.A.N.G.E., staring the most unqualified/puppet (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28409521)

See this image [google.com] if you don't understand that the election of Barry Sotoro was nothign more than racism in action by the uneducated mass of people that having nothing to do in a day of life other than apply for the same kind of free-money grants sold by Kevin Trudeau rather than create a useful productive job for themselves. I'm talking about people so-low that they wouldn't even know they could be out in a dirt-field sowing seed or grooming sheep, that is how low. Yea, I'm talking about all of you that thought you Can. Help. A. Nigga. Get. Elected.

Re:Change... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410071)

Here are some new clothes. Change into them. :)

*gives santax pirate clothes*

WTF (1)

Godji (957148) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409127)

I don't understand how it is legal to enact a law whose text is not public. Somebody please explain!

Re:WTF (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409157)

Oh, it will be made public. About 5 seconds before the vote so nobody, not even the senators (or congressmen, I don't know which is responsible for that in the US legislation) can read it. Or act against it. Or at least point out to those that should vote for or against it where the pits lie.

Bluntly and honestly, if I was a politician, I'd be strongly against it on these grounds alone. If a law is suggested with so much secrecy, it can only mean that I'm going to be bullshitted into voting on something that I won't support.

Re:WTF (3, Interesting)

matsoo (1524273) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409215)

That is probably exactly what will happen, and when people acctually gets a chance to read the law and start protesting against it, they already have a set of cosmetic changes ready to make it appear more resonable. It i exactly what happen with the last three laws that are supposed to protect us from internet terrorism where I live.

We seen this happen quite a few times now, and still people in general does not seem to wise up to this after the fact "door in the face" tactic.

Re:WTF (2, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409253)

About 5 seconds before the vote

What vote?

This treaty is so important, and so secret, that it will be enacted by "Executive Branch Decision."

There are probably plenty of "secret treaties" already. We just don't know about them because, they are . . . well, secret.

"Negotiating secret treaties with foreign countries." That sounds just grand.

"Hey what law have I violated?"

"Sorry, can't tell you. It's secret."

The conspiracy folks will have some fun with this.

Re:WTF (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409401)

Well, SOME day it will be made public. This ain't a law that concerns nations or adds something on top of a law that already outlaws something. I.e. it's not a ban on nuclear weapons with more than 100MT yield (which would probably not affect a normal person because any nukes are already illegal for them). It's something that will affect us in some way.

So eventually we will hear about it. When it's too late to actually do anything against it, of course.

Re:WTF (4, Insightful)

frieko (855745) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409897)

The US can't enter into a treaty without Senate ratification, even if the president signs it. That being said, they might not look up from kissing Obama's ass long enough to take their paperweights off the 'yes' button.

Re:WTF (3, Interesting)

Sparx139 (1460489) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409363)

I'm not sure what the situation is in America, but the Australian Government seems to be covering its bases in this information page [dfat.gov.au] , saying "This decision to participate in negotiations does not bind Australia to join any subsequent treaty" and "Taking part in the negotiations does not oblige Australia to join any resulting treaty."
When the details do come out, and the public starts to scream about it, the Aussie government are likely to back away from it. I'd guess that other involved countries will take a similar stance. I mean, what are we? Iran?

Re:WTF (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410091)

Don't insult Iran. They are bad, but not *that* bad. :P

Re:WTF (1)

notarockstar1979 (1521239) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409435)

They're paid to vote for it. Well, the Democrats are. Depending on the exact wording and how much it has to do with war and oil, the Republicans may be paid to be for it as well. Libertarians will hate it because no one is paying them.

Re:WTF (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410877)

And this differs how from the majority of legislation being passed today?? Do you really think it's ANY different for routine bills, which hide unpalatable special interest laws under 900 pages of impenetrable legalese, then are presented to Congress with only a few days to consider them??

As downsizedc.org says, bills should both be single subject, and required to be read publicly and in full well prior to any vote. This should be equally applied to treaties, since they are effectively laws that We The People are forced to live with.

Re:WTF (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28409513)

It's not a law, it's an international multilateral agreement. This is better than a law because it creates the obligation to enact law, without all the fuss of democratic discussion. There have been many examples, some good, some bad.

In Europe the TRIPS agreement (which ACTA in part replaces, since TRIPS has been hijacked by troublesome BRIC - Brazil, India, China - countries) has often been used as an excuse for software patents: "TRIPS obliges patents on software and genes".

Same in the UK with data retention: law was quashed by Parliament in 2005, then the Blair govt. got it pushed through the EU with minimum discussion ("terrorism, crime and child porn" was the justification), and then six months later got it through the UK parliament with almost zero discussion. 180-degree U-turn.

ACTA is like this: "treaty-washing" of legislation that would never pass at the national level.

Please put pressure on the EFF to restart this. It is a major, major threat to global Internet freedom.

Re:WTF (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28409651)

Apparently the EFF got to a legal roadblock over this national security claim that it had no way of contesting in court. National security claims are precisely the type of abuse of power this administration claimed it was going to be curtailing. Eventually the text of this international law will have to be released - if it isn't leaked first.

Re:WTF (0, Troll)

blitziod (591194) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410963)

oh yes a leak!! I am hoping for a nice shamefull leak..something that looks so BAD for the current administration. Something that shows the true colors of the democrats and how, regardless of their brand image, they are even worse than bush. Any republican loyalists out there reading who have access to this, head my call. Do your country a favor. Get this out in the open yes...doom these current C*cksuckers. Show what the president is hiding, please.

'-MY- party is the actual saviour!' and other lies (5, Interesting)

neomunk (913773) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411257)

The party flag you're waving seems to have flapped in front of your eyes.

One more time, for the slow kids... BOTH MAJOR U.S. PARTIES ARE CORRUPT. The Republicans are going to vote for this just as surely as the Democrats will. You and your "loyalist" (remember where we've used that word before, historically?) friends are just as slow on the uptake as the people who still think that Obama represents some kind of "change". Our only hope as a nation is to band together and shed ourselves of both infected limbs. Unfortunately the "my party is better than your party" games are apparently too fun, and will continue until we are inconsequential at best.

I know you don't want to hear it, and you've got "but but but" trembling on your lips, but it's so obvious that people really have to WANT to believe in their party to avoid seeing the (very thinly veiled) truth. The simple fact is that, like the Democrats before you, hoping that YOUR party is going to come to the rescue is the utmost in childlike naivety. Hell, it was even oh-so-slightly understandable from the Democrats, because at least that party was PRETENDING they were going to change to course of the nation, no matter how transparent that lie was (voting records are more indicative than speeches), you Republicans have nothing to offer by way of rhetoric other than "the Democrats suck" and some vague and uneducated mumbling about communism.

In short, stop the Republican trumpet call, it will do nothing but fail you, just as it failed you with Bush, just as the Democrats were failed by Obama and Clinton. The partisan squabbling does nothing other than to cement the control of those who don't give the slightest thought toward neither your wellbeing nor your freedom.

Re:'-MY- party is the actual saviour!' and other l (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 4 years ago | (#28411359)

I've no mod points and wish I did. Excellent post.

Everyone, the voting doesn't end. It's all a SHAM. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28409573)

Vote this, vote that, immoral vote this, unlawful vote that; can we proceed with any of these? Why do the delegates keep appearing? Why does Congress continue to assemple on such ill-behaved matters that are neither necessity or productive? VOTING IS ONLY IN SIMULATION. It's up to the execution to decide. I'll tell you why:

BECAUSE THEY ARE THE PROBLEM, AND GAINING YOUR REPRESENTATION JUST PUTS A STRAWMAN IN THEIR CHAMBERS TO PUT A BULLSEYE UPON TO BLAME YOU FOR ALL THE BAD DECISIONS THEY MAKE.

Cops do it, Army and Navy does it, telemarketers do it, grocers do it, IRS agents do it. They just want to represent you: into the grave you go! They just want to make bad decisions on your behalf, without recourse to them.

HANG THEM HIGH! SLICE THEIR LOWER-ABDOMEN BEFORE THE STOP IS KICKED-OUT UNDERNEATH THEM. IF YOU DON'T HANG THEM IN FRONT OF THEIR FAMILY AND CHILDREN, THEN NONE WILL HAVE A DECENT RESPECT FOR THEIR NEIGHBOR.

U.S. Congress is stuck on the Law of the Jungle, where there is a 5-to-1 vote always agreeing that Gang-rape is favorable. Where in reality can people decide to vote on an issue, regardless of Natural law?

VOTING IS INSURRECTION. VOTING DOESN'T OCCUR IN NATURE, BECAUSE IT'S ALL ARTIFICE. WHEN YOU VOTE FOR SOMTHING TO BE DONE THAT MANIPULATES THE STORED VALUE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS' PROPERTY, THEN IT VIOLATES THE 10 COMMANDMENTS. LOOK IN THE BOOK OF JOSHUA OF A KING JAMES BIBLE 1611, BECAUSE THE ONLY TIME ISRAEL EVER VOTED WAS TO COMMIT AN OFFENSE: HOW TO AGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER TO OPTIMIZE THEIR WRONG-DOING TO THEIR FAVOR.

Barack HUSSEIN o'Bama is not the first black African President; he's perhaps the 13th after the 1st ten mollatos prior to 1776, then mollatos Washington and Jackson and Abraham Lincoln. The 14th Amendment to Constitution of the United States secures voting as a practice for insurection and rebellion!

Re:Everyone, the voting doesn't end. It's all a SH (1)

vivaelamor (1418031) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410097)

Please go back to troll school and find out what a strawman is.

Re:WTF (2, Insightful)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409671)

I don't understand how it is legal to enact a law whose text is not public. Somebody please explain!

It isn't legal.

That hasn't appeared to be a requirement for our government to do something for some time now however.

what is probably in it (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28409161)

if it is anything like the bank secrecy act it is probably .... like what they do for money now, but applied to 'intellectual property'. and full of the following:

specific indications of what should 'trigger' investigations of people, and/or their transactions, i.e., certain amounts of certain types of IP put through within a certain amount of time.

requirements to 'report' all transactions over a certain amount to government authorities... ie in money its , say, 3,000 $... in data it might be, 1 terabyte or something.

the illegalization fo trying to 'avoid' aforementioned 'reporting requirements'. IE, in money, if you separate out your transactions into smaller ones, it doesnt have to be reported to the government... its illegal, so... in data maybe they will say 'you cant split up a 5 TB file into smaller pieces to avoid reporting'

requirements about proof of identity for anyone performing transactions of certain amounts. ie, you have to prove youre a citizen or something before you can transfer a large file, with a photo ID or some other proof.

gag orders against all government and corporate employees who are responsible for reporting these suspicions to the federal government department in charge of the program. ie, these workers cannot discuss anything they report with anyone, including coworkers, or they will be in violation of law and subject to punishment.

add in a bunch of international crap to this...

maybe some standradization on what is in the reports... banks in the US have standard forms to fill out to report transactions over certain amounts to the government.

there is also the state department list of countries you cannot trade money with or whatever. well, now they will probably apply that to data too, or something.

who knows what other crazy shit they will put in here. it is absolutely ridiculous though to keep it a secret.

the trouble is that Mark Felt types dont usually work in huge corporations... not a lot of leakers on the board of goldman sachs or microsoft.

Re:what is probably in it (1)

Mprx (82435) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409275)

File size isn't all that useful, because the ratio of copyrights to bytes is so variable. Eg. downloading the Atari 2600 romset infringes a huge number of copyrights in a very small size.

Re:what is probably in it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28409325)

They want to control everything!

Form F 90- TD 22.1, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts

  US law (money laundering) requires that US person complete and file this information report with the US Treasury if at any time during the calendar year they had an aggregate of $10,000 US dollars or equivalent in foreign bank account(s). So, even if you had less than $10,000 in two or more foreign banks, but the total of all these accounts exceed $10,000 at any time during the calendar year, you would be required to file the report.
Note: A US Person includes a citizen or resident of the United States, or a person in and doing business in the United States. The term "person" includes individuals and all forms of business entities, trusts, and estates.

Meet the new boss (3, Insightful)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409373)

Same as the old boss. Almost [youtube.com]

Obama is just a tool as any other president (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28409445)

He'll be better than GWB (heck, even my cat would be) but he still has orders to execute. For those who live under a rock, keep in mind that the US President decides absolutely nothing: he jumps when the Congress says to jump, and the Congress says "jump" when the financial/economic oligarchy that rules the western world says "tell him to jump". If we as a whole don't change tha way the economic world got corrupted until today (ie, corporations being more important than people) we shouldn't expect a single human, be it the US President, to do anything good.

Re:Obama is just a tool as any other president (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28409659)

He'll be better than GWB (heck, even my cat would be) but he still has orders to execute.

Not much better, with a near filibuster proof D congress we're going to see some crazy stuff get passed.
Gridlock in government is good, it forces compromise and lessens the amount of crap in each bill (lest someone wants to be accused of adding "pork" to a bill).

When we lose the mild protection of a two-party system all that goes out the window as the ruling party tries to pass as much crap as possible while they're in power.

Re:Obama is just a tool as any other president (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28409893)

Gyafu!

Hobbists Are So Screwed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28409559)

The ACTA isn't a concern for p2p software use exclusively. Copy-right protected material for the general use of non-profit will be considered illegal. As you can see, the issue already contested. Although the law currently to date has given a verdict as to the legality of the issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hla7KMY8OFA [youtube.com] , http://www.animemusicvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60255 [animemusicvideos.org]

So exactly how much money... (3, Interesting)

macraig (621737) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409581)

... did the Obama Campaign receive from IP holders? Was it a landslide enough to help him get elected, I wonder?

Between having so many "friends of the RIAA" in the Department of Justice, VP Biden bragging that Big Media will love the new Copyright Czar, and this continued tight-lipped-ness about ACTA, I think it's pretty damned clear what Obama's REAL agenda will be for the next four years.

All of you fools that thought Obama was the Messiah screwed-up: you voted for Judas instead. The real Messiah might have been Dennis Kucinich, and coincidentally he got crucified... both by the DNC *and* voters.

Re:So exactly how much money... (2, Interesting)

vivaelamor (1418031) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410241)

I'd never even heard of Dennis Kucinich (though I'm not american so cut me a bit of slack), just looked him up and although I would agree with most of his policies, I think the big vote killer is his anti-handgun stance. On a purely populist level it would mean the campaign would mostly be spent trying to explain to americans why it would be justified and on a more political level it contradicts some of his other policies from the view of a lot of liberals. I think the main reason Obama got such widespread support was he didn't actually look like he was going to make any radical changes beyond undoing what the last government did.

I think that is a good example of why the system is flawed more than the candidates.. no one is going to have a perfect set of policies and the voting system in american is very much centered around the presidential candidates policies. The idea that one man is running a country is plain unrealistic yet that is how they market it and how it tends to work out in the guise of party politics. We have similar issues in England and we're a hell of a lot smaller. The candidates keep talking about proportional representation but I'd be surprised if most of them know what that would really be, they tend to use it like a buzzword. Our recent expenses scandal showed just how unwilling they were to get their own house in order before considering what would work for the country.

Hobbyists Are So Screwed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28409609)

The ACTA isn't a concern for p2p software use exclusively. Copy-right protected material for general non-profit use, will be considered illegal. As you can see, the issue already contested. Although the law currently to date has not given a verdict as to the legality of the issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hla7KMY8OFA [youtube.com] , http://www.animemusicvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=60255 [animemusicvideos.org]

Get a load of that bullshit. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409689)

'state secret' 'bush era policy'. we dont give a crap. this thing is not something related to internal affairs or security. its being FORCED on every country. and it affects citizen's individual rights, personal freedoms. if american legal system is SO stupid as to allow a law that no citizen has seen to be forced upon citizens, europe isnt that stupid. it will be sued and obtained in europe, and probably Eu will pull the plug on it.

Re:Get a load of that bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28409791)

europe isnt that stupid. it will be sued and obtained in europe, and probably Eu will pull the plug on it.

Oh, yes it is. The EU is just as much for overbearing "Intellectual Property" (gagh, I choke on the term) regulation as the United States is, and for the exact same goddamn reason. That is, people who have power, money and control, who want to keep what they have, and take even more. The EU's handling of software patents taught me that much. So, you're a fool if you expect any better: the same forces are at work in the European Union as here in the U.S.

Re:Get a load of that bullshit. (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410383)

DG Trade, it is a conspiracy of trade policitians.

See bilaterals.org for more.

Re:Get a load of that bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28410359)

The EU? Are you on drugs? Do you live in honey bunny happy land? This treaty is an example as to exactly how the EU itself words. The EU is an institution to enforce the passing of laws that would never be possible on a national level.

It's not like they are actually helping us citizens and publish the drafts. They are blocking any attempt to publish them as well.

Plus the EU is so deep up the US' bottom, they'll blindly agree to ANYTHING. Just look at recent EU-US terror, data exchange, etc. treaties.

Back door to legislation w/o democracy (1)

Cacadril (866218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28409711)

If the aim of negotiations is a binding treaty, this is a back door to legislation without democratic control.

Has the general public ever had the use of reason? Secrecy is justified in two kinds cases. Protecting the privacy of individuals, and protecting military installations, weapon systems, response plans, etc. But none of these cases are of legislative nature. Why is it at all possible to pretend legislative or quasi-legislative preparations need secrecy, and get away with it? It is a blatant inconsistency in terms. It ought to completely discredit whoever forwards it. It should have elicited unanimous uproar from the congress...

Good grief.

THIS Fp FOR GNNAA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28410143)

Meet the new boss... (2, Informative)

PinchDuck (199974) | more than 4 years ago | (#28410239)

Change you can believe in, but not really expect. Thanks for limiting our freedoms and working for big business, Democrats! You're just as bad as Bush.

Pirate Wars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28410345)

So, After ACTA passes and the civil unrest sparks the Pirate Wars of 2013, we'll have a cool pirate decal as banner and logo. that's good enough for me.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28410513)

A revolution every 200 or so years is a good thing for democracy.. it reminds the government that it is the people, not cabals that decide the fate of the country.

light of view is the best policy disinfectant..

()

Hey, EFF! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28411019)

Hey, EFF, come back! YOU'RE NOT DONE YET.
                                             

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?