Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Secret ACTA Treaty May Sport "Internet Enforcement" Procedures After All

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the why-so-serious dept.

Government 239

Andorin writes "Ars Technica writes about the recent work on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, and reveals that while the public does not have access to the text of the agreement, a handful of lawyers representing Big Content and numerous companies and organizations do. 'Turns out that... ACTA will include a section on Internet "enforcement procedures" after all. And how many people have had input on these procedures? Forty-two. ... Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) found out in September that the US Trade Representative's office had actually been secretly canvassing opinions on the Internet section of the agreement from 42 people, all of whom had signed a nondisclosure agreement before being shown the ACTA draft text.'"

cancel ×

239 comments

Senate likely to pass treaty (4, Insightful)

random coward (527722) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770405)

They seem to like to vote on things that no-one has read.

Who the fuck cares ? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29770423)

I the fuck don't :)

Re:Senate likely to pass treaty (4, Interesting)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770535)

Speaking of....

I CLEARLY remember an emergency session being called right after they went into recess a few years back (4-8 years ago I believe) because they passed a budget that contained a provision that removed privacy protections from tax return information.... and of course.... nobody read the bill.

Of course, as much as many hate the idea, it could be REALLY BAD for political figures, big businessmen etc, so they held an emergency summer session, and fixed it.

Anyway, I clearly remember it.... maybe my brain is broken in a way that makes it not interface seamlessly with google, but I can't find a single article or reference to this incident, which is too bad, because it is a link that could be really useful in say.... discussions like this.

Anyone remember this? Anyone have a link?

-Steve

Single point of failure (2, Interesting)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771145)

...I can't find a single article or reference to this incident, which is too bad, because it is a link that could be really useful...

Wipe it from Google, wipe it from history.

Re:Senate likely to pass treaty (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771235)

The only thing I could find was HR 1226, which was passed by the Senate on 8/7/97... this may or not have been during the August recess...

HR 1226 made it illegal for IRS employees to "browse" tax returns.

Re:Senate likely to pass treaty (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771325)

No way. It had to be more recent than this. (in 1997 I had just left HS, was in college, and my head was way too far up my own ass to care). I am pretty sure I know where I was working when it happened, which places it somewhere between 2000 and 2005... possibly somewhat later, but no earlier.

As far as I understand the law now, Law Enforcement can ask the IRS to review a return for fraud. However, the IRS (this is my understanding now, please correct me if I am wrong) can review it and decided fraud was committed or not. However, they cannot actually show the return itself to anyone, as the contents are protected.

-Steve

Re:Senate likely to pass treaty (5, Insightful)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770611)

Isn't anyone bothered by government asking commentators to "sign a non-disclosure agreement" about a proposed law disturbing?

This makes republishing a law that's "copyrighted" look like a free and open society.

Back-room, off-the-record, tit-for-tat haggling over laws' formation is bad enough as it is. The only possible reasons for this NDA are precisely the reason it should be blasted out over public loudspeakers.

Re:Senate likely to pass treaty (4, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770719)

Isn't anyone bothered by government asking commentators to "sign a non-disclosure agreement" about a proposed law disturbing?

Anyone else suspect that it won't be much longer before we just ignore the dictates that come from central authority utterly? I'm looking forward to it, personally...

Re:Senate likely to pass treaty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29770835)

Silence that dissident!

Re:Senate likely to pass treaty (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771331)

Anyone else suspect that it won't be much longer before we just ignore the dictates that come from central authority utterly? I'm looking forward to it, personally...

Excuse me, sir, but you'll have to come with me to the Re-Education Center.

Re:Senate likely to pass treaty (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29770865)

Isn't anyone bothered by government asking commentators to "sign a non-disclosure agreement" about a proposed law disturbing?

No, and anyone who is could only be motivated by racism.

Re:Senate likely to pass treaty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29770941)

What about the children? Won't anyone think of the children?

Re:Senate likely to pass treaty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29771011)

Only terrorists don't think of the children. Why are you a terrorist?

Re:Senate likely to pass treaty (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770665)

They want to send the Internet back to 42BC.... (basterdised content).

All they see is (devalued) Dollars, and (devalued) Euros in front of their eyes.

The uneducated politicians pander to these people, because they give out campaign contributions / BIG brown envelopes. Maybe we should start demanding politicians with REAL degrees who understand the REAL world, not worthless cr@p subjects like English, law, art, history that politicians seem to specialise in.

Re:Senate likely to pass treaty (1)

tagno25 (1518033) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770759)

They want to send the Internet back to 42BC.... (basterdised content).

All they see is (devalued) Dollars, and (devalued) Euros in front of their eyes.

The uneducated politicians pander to these people, because they give out campaign contributions / BIG brown envelopes. Maybe we should start demanding politicians with REAL degrees who understand the REAL world, not worthless cr@p subjects like English, law, art, history that politicians seem to specialise in.

English, Law, and History help so that you can see when a coup d'e'tat is imminent. That then allows you to run and hide in your bunker.
But seriously [most of] our current politicians are useless idiots that are almost as bad as a dictator

Freedom of Information Act (4, Interesting)

Akido37 (1473009) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770435)

I'm most curious as to why nobody's yet sued to see a copy of the draft treaty. It seems that "national security" is a bit of a stretch.

EFF asking people to ask for Senate Hearings (5, Informative)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770473)

It would be nice to see this linked from the article but.... the EFF has a page up to send your reps a request to call senate hearings on this issue:

https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=383 [eff.org]

I have been forwarding the link to everyone that I know, I recommend that everyone else who cares about transparency in the legal process to do the same.

-Steve

Re:EFF asking people to ask for Senate Hearings (5, Insightful)

mastahYee (1588623) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770877)

It would be nice to see this linked from the article but.... the EFF has a page up to send your reps a request to call senate hearings on this issue:

https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=383 [eff.org]

I have been forwarding the link to everyone that I know, I recommend that everyone else who cares about transparency in the legal process to do the same.

-Steve

This is super important, thanks for posting. I have also begun sending it to everyone I know. Can we get this as an update to the main article, please?

Re:EFF asking people to ask for Senate Hearings (1)

sweatyboatman (457800) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770997)

From TFEFF:

However, despite that, it is clearly on a fast track; treaty proponents want it tabled at the G8 summit in July, and completed by the end of 2008.

Apparently their definition of "fast track" and mine are significantly different.

Not that I don't agree with the EFF, just saying that maybe the breaks have been applied after all.

Re:EFF asking people to ask for Senate Hearings (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771097)

Maybe they have, or maybe they are just bickering over minor points? I don't believe its unusual for these sorts of negotiations to drag on.

-Steve

Re:EFF asking people to ask for Senate Hearings (1)

j-stroy (640921) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771213)

Hearings on what? "There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle." "That's some catch, that catch-22," he observed. "It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

Re:Freedom of Information Act (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29770481)

Any more of a stretch than it was during the Bush administration's hiding behind "national security" for 8 long years of freedom-strangling efforts around the world? Nah, I don't think so...

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. You got fooled againnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...

So much for transparency (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29770441)

So much for having a truly transparent administration. This president operates the same as all the others.

Re:So much for transparency (3, Insightful)

jhfry (829244) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770749)

This has nothing to due with the current administration. The ACTA was formed in 2007 and is an international organization. Sure the administration could try and force them to open up... but who knows how high on their list this issue is.

People seem to forget that Obama hasn't even been if office for a year yet. Very few presidents accomplishments are visible in their fist TERM let alone their first year.

If you work for the government, or even a large corporation, having the president say "We will do this" results in several months of people writing and implementing policies, changing the way things have been done, etc. Then you need to break the habits of folks who have been doing it differently for years. Finally you need to fix everything that no one thought of. I could be several years before Obama's transparency promise truely begins to be noticeable... though I have been reading of a lot of things that show of a shift in that direction since he came into office so the trend is in the right direction.

Re:So much for transparency (2, Insightful)

aicrules (819392) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770887)

Posting all versions of the Healthcare bill currently under consideration in a place where the public can review would be a start. His transparency promise will go the way of every other nebulous fuzzy warm feeling promise that gets made. "Read my lips! No new taxes!"

Re:So much for transparency (2, Funny)

salesgeek (263995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771233)

You missed the memo. This bill is perfectly transparent. It's so clear no one can see it. Just like a living room window that birds fly into.

Re:So much for transparency (1)

epee1221 (873140) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771401)

Is thomas.loc.gov not public enough?

Re:So much for transparency (1)

aicrules (819392) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771443)

Where are the reported five versions of the bill that are currently being whittled down to two?

The Administration and Congress are both worse (1, Flamebait)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771207)

but what really compounds the issue is that the Press is still enthralled with Obama and Co that they press on nothing. The Administration showed their hand, using their own people to bash news companies that report in a manner they don't like, while patronizing wholly sold out organizations like MSNBC.

What does that leave us with? A bunch of right wing talk show hosts? They are even easier to box than the traditional broadcasters because if they truly do become a threat they will diversified/regulated out of a job. Let alone the fact a few are just too grating to pay attention too.

We have gone from having watchdogs to having lap dogs and it shows. Hell it amazes me all the calls for information on this bill from people here who don't even blink at universal health care being crafted in just as much darkness.

The number is... 42? (1)

sys.stdout.write (1551563) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770469)

Coincidence?!

Yes.

Re:The number is... 42? (1, Flamebait)

sys.stdout.write (1551563) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770517)

Okay, but I have a serious point too: The "Big Content" and other companies are the ones that have a stake in anti-counterfeiting legislation, of course they are going to have primary input. If they were drafting an agreement seeking to protect whiny sensationalist articles on the Internet I'm sure Slashdot would be given advanced versions of the draft.

Re:The number is... 42? (2, Insightful)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770567)

If they were drafting an agreement seeking to protect whiny sensationalist articles on the Internet I'm sure Slashdot would be given advanced versions of the draft.

If you think this, you are wrong.

Re:The number is... 42? (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770687)

Okay, but I have a serious point too: The "Big Content" and other companies are the ones that have a stake in anti-counterfeiting legislation, of course they are going to have primary input. If they were drafting an agreement seeking to protect whiny sensationalist articles on the Internet I'm sure Slashdot would be given advanced versions of the draft.

What. The. FUCK?! I'm a citizen of a country covered by this treaty, I have a stake in this treaty. "Companies" are just groups of citizens, they are not actually citizens. Companies don't have a stake in this, it is the individuals who have a stake in those companies that do, as this will affect their profits. Does their right to profit trump my rights as a citizen? I think not, but you've got the unmitigated gall to call this a whiny sensationalist article and imply that we, the citizens, don't have a right to complain or even see this bill. What patronizing garbage. Companies shouldn't have rights, and they certainly shouldn't trump the rights of citizens. Companies should not get to dictate treaties to the rest of us. They shouldn't get preferential treatment, and you shouldn't go around kissing the ass of Big Content and telling the rest of us we need to bend over and take what's coming to us, you anti-democratic toady.

Re:The number is... 42? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29771269)

Surprise No one from Microsoft.
Isn't Windows the most counterfeited OS.

Re:The number is... 42? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29771285)

You tell him!

Re:The number is... 42? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771323)

The reality is, corporations are the ultimate form of citizenship. A morally void entity whose only purpose is to make money at all costs, free from individual responsibility.

Re:The number is... 42? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29771369)

I like the way you thing, but you went way too easy on him.

Re:The number is... 42? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771485)

Companies shouldn't have rights, and they certainly shouldn't trump the rights of citizens. Companies should not get to dictate treaties to the rest of us. They shouldn't get preferential treatment, and you shouldn't go around kissing the ass of Big Content and telling the rest of us we need to bend over and take what's coming to us, you anti-democratic toady.

Very well said, sir. Indeed.

Now if we can just get you to say this in front of every the legislators of every country in the free world, we'd all be better off. In fact, I'd like to add that not only shouldn't companies get preferential treatment or get to dictate the terms of treaties or other laws, but those very same legislators are supposed to be looking out for us, rather than taking money from them, which is how this mess got started in the first place.

And now you know why I've recently realized that I'm an anarcho-capitalist: the only way I can see to eliminate pigs feeding at the trough is to eliminate the trough.

Re:The number is... 42? (2, Insightful)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770821)

Okay, but I have a serious point too: The "Big Content" and other companies are the ones that have a stake in anti-counterfeiting legislation, of course they are going to have primary input.

Hate to break it to you, but not a single "Big Content" company would even exist in the first place without citizens of a country.

That places us citizens at the top of the food chain when it comes to what is best for us.

So no, it's not 'of course' they get primary input. They get LAST input.
That is why the outrage.

Remember, you might be a big media shill, but there are still more of us than you.

Re:The number is... 42? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29770879)

The "Big Content" and other companies are the ones that have a stake in anti-counterfeiting legislation, of course they are going to have primary input.

How do you know this, unless you have seen the treaty? The treaty is likely to result in laws that get applied to everyone, not just "big content." I'd even say that if the treaty ends up not applying to anyone except big content, then there's no point of the treaty at all. That's like saying health care reform legislation will only effect doctors, and that patients, taxpayers and insurance companies don't have to worry about it.

Re:The number is... 42? (2, Interesting)

Znork (31774) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771395)

Of course, from an economic view, IP legislation is very similar to taxation, except the tax rates on the specific monopoly products are set by private interests. (And with 5-20% efficiency, it's also a whole lot less efficient than most government run tax-financed programs).

IP isn't free. The wider it's applied and the harder it's enforced the more it costs the economy and IP is one of the reasons the west has difficulty competing with low-cost countries.

Just calling a taxation form 'property' doesn't make it so. So where's the representatives for those who will see their taxation burden increased even more?

Re:The number is... 42? (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770627)

Please, don't insult Douglas Adams.

I for one... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29770509)

...do not welcome our new corporatist overlords...

Oh, wait...they've been screwing us for the past couple of years...now where did I put my gun?

have you seen my representative government lately? (3, Insightful)

KidCeltic (130804) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770533)

I love my country, I hate my government (because it is no longer "my" government). We need a change. We need to break the stranglehold the Republican and Democratic parties have on the machinery of government. We need the populous to wake up and act...vote. Vote for repealing rights that the federal government has usurped from the state governments. We need to limit federal legislation of states and depend upon each state to make the decisions that affect the people that they know better than the federal government (you know, they way our founders intended it to be). I'm going to stop here and get ready for the onslaught of all of the knee-jerk, anti-American flames aimed squarely at me.

Re:have you seen my representative government late (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770625)

You sound like my kind of patriot.

I swear, NOTHING has radicalized my views, like reading about the ideals of the radicals that started the American Revolution and founded this country. Nothing has so quickly shown the current system to be one of utter hypocrites.

Frankly the only place I disagree is in that this would even be useful. I think my state, and the few that surround it, should all consider secession. Then we can go and sign our own treaties.

As was pointed out at the time, even on the republican side, the northeast voted 2 to 1 for McCain over Bush in primaries for the 2000 election. Thats the exact opposite from the rest of the country. I think its pretty clear that neither party really represents the interests of the North East.

An article from the 2000 election on this issue: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=6856 [wnd.com]

-Steve

Re:have you seen my representative government late (1)

cyber-dragon.net (899244) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770773)

And no federal government yet has represented California's interests. Hell we don't even get 80 cents on the dollar back in federal tax money, and what we do get is so wrapped in pork and idiotic regulations it costs almost as much as we get to use. Hell without the drain of the federal government California would be a profitable state (and yes, that includes if we hired our own army)

We are tired of subsidizing the rest of the country as they tell us we cannot live the way we want to.

Secession! *waits to get put on some watch list for speaking out against the fed*

Re:have you seen my representative government late (2, Funny)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770895)

Hmmm Northeast leaves.... and CA leaves (probably taking the rest of the west coast with it).... I have to imagine that the midwest/south would then split.

For some reason this leaves me with the image of Texas becoming the Lone Star State again and being overwhelmed by a rush of Mexicans looking to take their land back.... and that makes me giggle and want to see this even more!

-Steve

Re:have you seen my representative government late (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771227)

Canada would welcome the north east states as provinces btw. I'm sure at least Vermont would gladly be Canada's 11th province, and with New York being such a tax happy state, they would fit right into Canada too.

Re:have you seen my representative government late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29771349)

For some reason this leaves me with the image of Texas becoming the Lone Star State again and being overwhelmed by a rush of Mexicans looking to take their land back

Too late.

Re:have you seen my representative government late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29770907)

"This product contains chemicals that are known to the state of California to cause cancer."

Re:have you seen my representative government late (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770963)

And no federal government yet has represented California's interests. Hell we don't even get 80 cents on the dollar back in federal tax money, and what we do get is so wrapped in pork and idiotic regulations it costs almost as much as we get to use.

I hope you realize that's your own damn fault for voting for politicians that seek to expand Government.

Re:have you seen my representative government late (1)

aicrules (819392) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770653)

I agree. Though some state governments are almost as big and out of touch as the federal government with large parts of their constituency, there are no cases where the federal government is more in touch. Hopefully that will provide a small buffer between you and the flames. Actually, I'm not sure why you think you'll get flamed...unless it's by people who think that an equal measure of push back should happen at the state and local government levels who feel left out of your argument.

Re:have you seen my representative government late (1)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770707)

I don't think voting is going to be enough at this stage. I agree that the federal government needs to have its power diminished severely and be given back to the states. The problem is that most career politicians see big government as a way to increase their own wealth and personal power, and these people have built such safe districts for themselves that the chances of getting them voted out are slim to nil unless they do something bad enough to wake up the average uninformed voter. At this point, I'm afraid that the only way to save our country is with a revolution. People everywhere are certainly getting angry enough for something like that to happen, and their motivations stem from a true grassroots movement with no party involvement.

I know that there are some people here who love big government and are going to disagree with me, but so be it.

Re:have you seen my representative government late (4, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770777)

I'm going to stop here and get ready for the onslaught of all of the knee-jerk, anti-American flames aimed squarely at me.

So what you are saying is that any criticism of your ideas must not be well thought out, and must be anti-American. Wow.

Re:have you seen my representative government late (1)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770901)

No, what he's saying is that most critcism of his ideas have been, and unfortunately continue to be of the knee-jerk "love it or leave it" crowd who consider any critical assessment of the current government situation in the US to be unpatriotic and slander. That should shock you as much as it does me. The ACTA treaty shenanigans simply illustrate quite clearly we the people are no longer the boss. It's been that way for decades, but we're getting the bitter pill of the results of that coup only in the last decade or so. It was slow, deliberate, insidious, and illegal... yet we're stuck at the moment. If that's not frustrating to you, you're part of the problem.

Re:have you seen my representative government late (2, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771055)

incorrect:
"we the people are no longer the boss"
If that was true, they wouldn't need to hide it.

Re:have you seen my representative government late (3, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771173)

Really. Show me on single 'love it or leave it' comment directed at the state's rights types. It seems to me that we had eight years of the right wing claiming any dissent was unpatriotic, and we lefties should 'love it or leave it.' But now that the left is in power, they are whining that we are doing it to them. Even if we were, which we aren't, turnabout is fair play.

Funny thing, when the left criticizes the government, we are unpatriotic commies bent on destroying America. However, when the right criticizes the government, they are being patriotic. Our criticisms are 'knee jerk' while theirs are calm and rational. Do you not see the utter hypocrisy?

Re:have you seen my representative government late (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770783)

Hey, don't blame me. I voted for Kodos!

Re:have you seen my representative government late (3, Funny)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771089)

Why settle for the lesser evil?

Vote Cthulhu! F'tang R'ley!

Re:have you seen my representative government late (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770927)

You just got a Change(tm), with some free Hope(tm).

Re:have you seen my representative government late (1)

joeyspqr (629639) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771013)

IMHO, the problem with the "stranglehold the Republican and Democratic parties have on the machinery of government" is the result of corporate influence on those parties ...
"We need to limit federal legislation of states and depend upon each state to make the decisions ... "

when some corporations have revenue (and sometimes profits) greater than entire nations (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/business/worldbusiness/01iht-exxon.4.9679416.html [nytimes.com] ), state budgets (http://www.nasbo.org/Publications/PDFs/FSSpring2009.pdf [nasbo.org] ), and global influence, the various state gov'ts will be immune to this ... how?

Re:have you seen my representative government late (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771041)

Maybe you should get involved. You know actually go places and meet people.

It is our government, and I've seen it in action, i've seen it change, and it does.

Our founders intended the constitution to be adaptable.
States ahve rights, but the politician are afraid they might lose money so they just cave to the feds.
That is entirely different then the feds taking away states rights.

"anti-American flames aimed squarely at me."
see, that's your problem. you thing by my government means they should do what you say regardless of what most people want.

How has noone leaked this yet? (4, Insightful)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770559)

$100 to the first person to post the fully draft here or on wikileaks. Seriously we can leak SpiderMan movies, crack supposedly uncrackable digital encryption schemes and share giant files, but nobody is willing to post perhaps 60kb of text? IANAL but, Considering the type of legislation, leaking this sort of thing isn't likely to follow with litigation against the mole.

Re:How has noone leaked this yet? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770635)

the whole thing will be over once we do.

I can't believe Patry didn't remove his traces of it and send it to wikileaks for them to make further anonymous.

Re:How has noone leaked this yet? (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770655)

Considering the type of legislation, leaking this sort of thing isn't likely to follow with litigation against the mole.

Then you truly are naïve.

Re:How has noone leaked this yet? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771077)

since your examples our widely circulate it's not a fair comparison.. I can go to any store, pick up spiderman and put it on a torrent.

No Mainstream Media Coverage (4, Funny)

BabyDuckHat (1503839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770579)

The lack of mainstream media coverage of this issue is telling. They're not afraid to pass up a story if it's in their best interest to do so. I propose we force them to report on ACTA by kidnapping Kanye West, stripping him naked, tattooing "SETEC Astronomy" on his forehead, and launching him in a homemade balloon purchased by John Gosslin with the money he stole from Kate.

Re:No Mainstream Media Coverage (1)

tobiah (308208) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771047)

ha!

Re:No Mainstream Media Coverage (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771487)

The major news corporations report the news that they think will get them viewers, readers or listeners. The only possible conclusion from this is that not enough people in the US are interested in that kind of news.

*sigh* (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29770581)

You know the world's in trouble when the Business Software Alliance is at the head of a list of representatives privy to secret international treaties about the Internet that the US is going to sign off on.

ouch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29770593)

Holy shit! I'm having a flashback to the mid-90s... Clinton administration giving away our cable infrastructure to the content monopolies... the death of local ISPs...
Its my original realization that the two parties are identical!
WOW MAN, its all coming back so FAST
Something must have happened shortly after the election of 2000 that completely changed the way I look at government, for roughly eight years.
I'm suddenly overcome with a desire to vote for Ralph Nader.

Looking at the list.. (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770615)

I see 36 people who one one at all would miss.

Re:Looking at the list.. (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770633)

Oops, I meant "no one".

Re:Looking at the list.. (1)

griffjon (14945) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770697)

The list isn't accurate, because I'm pretty sure they would have to at least hat-tip to F. Kafka , expert on the process of making and enforcing laws using mysterious agencies and refusing to share the details about how one might go about breaking (or not breaking) the law.

How can this be secret? (3, Interesting)

raddan (519638) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770659)

I am no government scholar, but I was under the distinct impression that legislation was required to be made public. Am I wrong about this? Or is it the fact that ACTA is a 'treaty' make it substantially different? People signing NDAs to participate in the legislative process is not a good thing. Whose eyes are they shielding this from? Us?

Re:How can this be secret? (1)

cyber-dragon.net (899244) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770813)

A treaty is not legislation despite the fact once signed it acts as such. It's a little constitutional loophole the government loves to exploit.

Re:How can this be secret? (3, Informative)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770849)

Or is it the fact that ACTA is a 'treaty' make it substantially different?

Yes. It wouldn't become law until ratified by the Senate, and they are still in the stages of negotiating the draft text. Right now it's just a piece of paper, which apparently no one is allowed to see, despite FOIAs that have been filed, because both administrations have argued it's a matter of "national security." That's BS of course; the real reason is probably a combination of 1) public interest groups wouldn't like what was in the draft and 2) parties involved in the negotiation feel that opening up a draft text will impede honest negotiations.

Both of those are probably true, however I think that fewer people would be up in arms of the secrecy of the draft text if some public interest groups were among the stakeholders allowed to see it. As it stands now, the groups being allowed to see it are not at all representative.

Re:How can this be secret? (5, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770871)

It's actually a fairly old tradition that treaties are negotiated in secret. In most democracies, that's not supposed to be the point at which things are scrutinized. It's when you bring the treaty back that whatever branch of government responsible for ratifying the treaty does so and then the legislative branch passes laws to enact the treaty.

That's why I'm not exactly losing sleep yet. Before most countries sign on to it, there's going to have to be a debate. Even in the UK, where the Queen technically is the ratifier, an Act of Parliament is required, and her ratification is going to be based on the advice of Her Ministers. In the US, the Senate does the ratification, so the terms are going to be heard anyways.

like the PATRIOT Act terms were "heard"? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29771257)

Lately the Legislative branch of the U.S. Government has done a piss-poor job of actually reading and debating anything that has heavy support from industry. There is good reason for public interest advocates to be skeptical of the Senate behaving any better with respect to this "secret" treaty.

Re:like the PATRIOT Act terms were "heard"? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771355)

That may very well be. But treaties are almost always negotiated behind closed doors. It's been that way for centuries, and for a number of good reasons, most importantly because it allows for frank discussion. If every word the negotiators say and every draft of every clause is out there, it would make negotiations difficult, if not impossible.

I know this is hard for a lot of us, used to the idea that governments should practice disclosure save for matters of security or personal privacy, but a lot of folks seem to be under the impression that ACTA is somehow special as compared to other treaties, when in fact it is very much being done like other such agreements. The chief difference is that previous generations of negotiators didn't have to worry about WikiLeaks.

If the Senate is as bad as you say it is, then the whole debate is irrelevant anyways. If it's just going to rubber stamp the deal, then knowing what drafts of ACTA says isn't going to help very much. At some point, ACTA is going to have be seen.

Re:like the PATRIOT Act terms were "heard"? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771429)

And one additional thing. This isn't a "secret" treaty. A secret treaty is one in which the signers don't tell anyone (including their own citizens) that it exists. ACTA is not a secret treaty, these are examples of secret treaties:

frist pSot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29770713)

exa3tly what you've Or mislead the

Evens out in the end (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29770753)

That's OK. People don't abide by secret laws (by definition)

So since this will make me a criminal, and I can be punished for doing nothing defined as illegal, I might as well live it up and break all related laws. I mean, if I am to be imprisoned for years for breaking a law that isn't even a real law (a law has to be public to be followed and enforced) then I will ensure I perform all the crimes that I will be paying for with my incarceration.

Re:Evens out in the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29770937)

Don't worry, the law will be made public once it's been signed in for 100 years and it's too late to do anything about it.

Don't forget about Cybersecurity Act of 2009, too (4, Interesting)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770763)

That bill would allow the President to shut down the private internet in the event of an emergency--a phrase so broad as to allow any excuse he chooses--along with unrestricted access to data by the Secretary of Commerce under regular conditions. The EFF has an informative overview [eff.org] of the legislation. It's currently in a committee, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. Thankfully, the EFF has done a good job of keeping an eye on things like this.

Re:Don't forget about Cybersecurity Act of 2009, t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29770867)

I wonder how China will react after being told by the President of the United States that they must shut down their portion of the private internet.

Re:Don't forget about Cybersecurity Act of 2009, t (2, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771107)

Guess what?

The president has the authority to shut down every think else in the event of an emergence.
How many times ahs the president shut down a freeway? Airline traffic? phones?

Not very often. It would be political suicide to shut down anything where there isn't a clear public emergency that impacts specifically whatever he is shutting down.

Yes, t should be open. Lets not get paranoid.

Re:Don't forget about Cybersecurity Act of 2009, t (1)

Drunken Buddhist (467947) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771409)

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.

Re:Don't forget about Cybersecurity Act of 2009, t (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771515)

Nice. You mean it would be like China shutting various aspects of the Internet for National Day? I have a friend in Shanghai, and it's getting more and more complicated explaining to him why China is bad and the US is better.

we need a spy (2, Interesting)

cats-paw (34890) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770775)

to post something to wikileaks

And? Am I the only one who thinks (2, Informative)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770785)

They have been getting input from a good, broad selection of people? The corporate interests listed have legitimate interests, whether we like them or not. Others, such as the three representatives from Public [publicknowledge.org] Knowledge [wikipedia.org] , are EXACTLY who I would want representing various other interests.

Re:And? Am I the only one who thinks (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29770959)

You're a fucking moron.

It's not broad enough (4, Insightful)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771033)

Yes, the corporations listed have legitimate interests. Yes, it's good that there are three PK people and one person from the Center for Democracy and Technology.

However, four people total from PK and CDT are not enough to constitute adequate representation in the public interest. The reason KEI is making such a fuss about this is because there is a big concern in the access-to-medicines community that any ACTA treaty will include provisions making it easier for customs authorities to seize pharmaceuticals that are allegedly "counterfeit". There's a very active effort to confuse the distinction between counterfeit and generic medicine, and KEI and others are worried that ACTA will make it easier for shipments of generic medicines to be seized as they make their way between countries. This has already happened several times this year, and in no case that I am aware of have the accusations been substantiated - it's always turned out that the medicines are legitimate generics.

People from PK and CDT have no history of working on access to medicine or public health issues. None of the groups on that list seem to have any relation to public health issues, yet ACTA could have a very real effect on public health.

Failure (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29770859)

Sadly, the blame for this thing goes to everyone. You, me, Big-Content, our elected* Representatives, our 'bought' representatives... It spans across industries, from tech giants like Microsoft, and Google Inc. , to supermarket chains and hobby shops.

Ultimately, this breaks down to ideological differences on the future of information, and 'Copyrighted Content' (not mutually exclusive by any degree), and whether Capitalism, or Corporatism if you prefer, should remain superior to the rights of the public, and private citizen.

I could argue on end about how this really started when Corporations were given the same, and possibly more, legal rights than the individual citizen, but dissecting the historical evolution of this actually does a disservice, and distracts from the present.

The simple fact is, the rights of the individual citizen, be it public or private, if left up to the wills of the legal arm of the Corporate puppeteer, will be made subservient in every sector of society for the foreseeable future. Yes to a degree, that is the case now, but in the near future, any attempts to route, subvert, or even object the will of those who we so gladly pay of incomes to, will bring forth the hammer of the gavel to such degrees, that even infants won't escape innocence.

You've been warned before, and I warn you now. YOUR future is slipping away! Do you even recognize that?

ah yes here we go again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29770873)

Once again the government of the US screws all consumers on purpose and gives away what little rights to media we had left, to big business. Party affiliation has no meaning once the $ is on the table.

Hitchhiker's Guide... (1)

JeffSpudrinski (1310127) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770885)

Am I really the first one to point out the obvious reference to "42" and the "Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy"? "42" is the answer to everything, you know (it worked surprisingly often in calculus).

Or did I just miss an earlier reference...?

-JJS

What are they hiding?! (2, Insightful)

KwKSilver (857599) | more than 4 years ago | (#29770957)

If ACTA has nothing to hide, why are they hiding. All this secrecy suggests that it is loaded with anti-freedom, corrupt, vile and unconstitutional provisions. What does this pile of ... "stuff" ... do repeal the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta (insert your nation's equivalent here)? Anyone who values whatever freedom they have should be raising a stink.

Re:What are they hiding?! (3, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771119)

I wold imagine they want to keep the lid on the techniques they are looking at for anti-counterfeiting.

I am definitely not a lawyer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29771159)

...but could someone please explain to me how, apart from any concern over contempt of democracy, we are supposed in the future to abide by laws we don't even have the right to read?

Re:I am definitely not a lawyer... (4, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#29771461)

...but could someone please explain to me how, apart from any concern over contempt of democracy, we are supposed in the future to abide by laws we don't even have the right to read?

Because it isn't a law yet. You do understand how treaties work, right? Treaties are negotiated, then, if agreed upon, ratified by the signatory nations, and then after that's all done, legislation is passed in each country that has ratified the agreement which gives the treaty the force of law. In fact, even after agreement has been met, treaties can be rejected. That's what happened to Woodrow Wilson in 1919 when he went back to the Senate with the League of Nations, and they sent him packing.

Don't they teach any kind of civics courses in high school anymore?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...