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!

ACTA Document Leaks With Details On Mexico Talks

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the tinfoil-hat-engaged dept.

News 87

An anonymous reader writes "A brief report from the European Commission authored by Pedro Velasco Martins (an EU negotiator) on the most recent round of ACTA negotiations in Guadalajara, Mexico has leaked, providing new information on the substance of the talks, how countries are addressing the transparency concerns, and plans for future negotiations. The document notes that governments are planning a counter-offensive to rebut claims of iPod-searching border guards and mandatory three-strikes policies."

cancel ×

87 comments

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

Three strikes policies? (3, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31170124)

Man, that buzzword just keeps coming up. Can you imagine if baseball was based around 4 strikes instead of 3?

Re:Three strikes policies? (4, Funny)

Whalou (721698) | more than 4 years ago | (#31170350)

Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceedest on to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then thou become naughty in my sight, and thy internet connection shall be snuffed.

Re:Three strikes policies? (1)

macragge (413964) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176164)

Is it an African Strike, or European?

Re:Three strikes policies? (1)

Conchobair (1648793) | more than 4 years ago | (#31170464)

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action." - Auric Goldfinger

Re:Three strikes policies? (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#31170472)

I refer you to the Sept 16, 2009 game [go.com] between the Angels and the Red Sox, where Nick Green got 5 strikes before walking?

Re:Three strikes policies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31171144)

It has more to with the being able to get a strike with little to no evidence and thing that this makes for a very easy DOS to pull off.

and the lack of court is very bad thing and can BE USED TO TAKE THE 1ST away form PEOPLE.

Re:Three strikes policies? (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 4 years ago | (#31171600)

I'm also fine with the concept of a 3-strike law...
As long as a strike involves a warrant, charges, a trial, forensic evidence vouched for by experts, and a conviction.

The ISP whining about how it's clients are using what they paid for is just a bunch of foul balls.

Re:Three strikes policies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31181834)

The it would be called something else, like the three wishes policy.

Sounds on the up and up (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31170170)

Uniformity of procedures.

Guess we were all worried for nothing.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (5, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31170196)

Uniformity of procedures.

Guess we were all worried for nothing.

I wouldn't relax yet. A controlled leak to discredit critics is quite likely.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (2, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31170352)

That's the problem with conspiracy theories - there is no real way to tell about these until more evidence surfaces or the entire thing is revealed.

I mean, I agree, it would make a lot of sense for them to 'leak' this kind of info, to help qualm all the clammer about it.

However, the only evidence to support them doing so is just that it would be a good idea for them to do so.

So you can never really tell. I'm not betting on one or the other just yet.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31170448)

...to help qualm all the clammer about it.

Two non-words in the same sentence, not bad.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31170522)

...to help qualm all the clammer about it.

Two non-words in the same sentence, not bad.

You should read some Lewis Carroll and really blow your mind.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31171192)

Lewis Carroll meant to do it. I'm not sure the parent did.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (2, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#31170930)

...to help qualm all the clammer about it.
Two non-words in the same sentence, not bad.

Um... Those are all words (although they are verbing one of them).

They are obviously trying to make every part of the person who harvests clams have apprehensions.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (1)

wtbname (926051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31170994)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/qualm [merriam-webster.com]

It's a word, he just didn't use it right.

So quit your clammering.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31171046)

I have no qualms with misissuing words or non-words. And you shouldn't neither. English is beautiful in the way that you can butcher syntax and grammer all to hell, and the message will still usually be understood.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31171550)

grammAr!
I hate when people make that mistake...

Re:Sounds on the up and up (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#31173840)

That was no mistake. You just didn't know that Monkeedude1212 is a zealous supporter of the Anti-Pirate Association of America.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (1)

fedos (150319) | more than 4 years ago | (#31174880)

Leave me poor grammer alone! What did she ever do to you?

Re:Sounds on the up and up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31170996)

The only word I found that wasn't really a word was clammer, which is just misspelled clamor. Qualm is a perfectly valid word, and 'qualm the clamor' is a perfectly valid way of saying what he is trying to say.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (2, Informative)

piojo (995934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31173832)

'qualm the clamor'

"Quell the clamor"

Re:Sounds on the up and up (1)

ffreeloader (1105115) | more than 4 years ago | (#31175232)

Ummmm.... If you're going to defend something at least get your defense right.

Qualm does NOT mean to try to quiet a disturbance, commotion, or person. You're thinking of calm, as in "to calm someone down".

Here is Webster's definition qualm.

Main Entry: qualm
Pronunciation: \kwäm also kwom or kwälm\
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: circa 1530

1 : a sudden attack of illness, faintness, or nausea
2 : a sudden access of usually disturbing emotion (as doubt or fear)
3 : a feeling of uneasiness about a point especially of conscience or propriety

It is sometimes used in the following manner: She had qualms about the honesty of the action. Here's a sentence using both calm and qualm: She had to rationalize her actions to calm her qualms of conscience.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31171222)

Or just stop correcting people. all you trolls really should find something better to do with your time. Find a life, meet a girl, go out and do something like see the sunlight. Shitheads.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179368)

It's the people like us that are the reason "i totaly lurned about bnjmin frkln in school 2day"

won't be taught as proper English 100 years from now.

We're part of the natural selection process for language so it doesn't become flat-out retarded and indecipherable.

As already pointed out: wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31172658)

As already pointed out: wrong. Though he DID misspell (though this could be a localisation of the spelling).

Qualm. A nervous thought or worry. "I have no qualms with your investigation of me. I shall be exonerated".

Clamour: Great and random noise. "The entire tray fell down the stairs with a clamour that awoke the house".

Just because you don't know the words doesn't mean they don't exist.

And pointing out a wrong "no such word" rather redounds (there's another new word for you) upon you.

Re:As already pointed out: wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177484)

So what precisely does "qualm all the clammer" mean?

Re:Sounds on the up and up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178892)

While 'qualm' is a word, I believe he was looking for the word 'quell'. Clammer is correct, though. Unless you're talking about 'about', I'm dubious about that one and so I never use it.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31171662)

That's the problem with conspiracy theories...

When a small group of people really are secretly conspiring against you, a conspiracy theory actually have a rare opportunity of becoming a theory in the scientic sense.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (1)

GasparGMSwordsman (753396) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177344)

That's the problem with conspiracy theories - there is no real way to tell about these until more evidence surfaces or the entire thing is revealed.

I agree, that is why the sensible people who founded the U.S. Federal Government did so in an open manor, subject to outside scrutiny and criticism. My question is why is our government not handling the treaty negotiations in a similar manor? Regardless of what is in the treaty, there is no excuse for not being an open process.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31173808)

Speaking of leaks...do federal judges need security clearances?

Re:Sounds on the up and up (5, Insightful)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#31171350)

Really? What exactly does "ACTA" stand for again? Oh right - "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement". Which means that they should be talking about counterfeiting, right?

So tell me - in a trade agreement that is supposed to deal with counterfeiting, why are they talking about penalties for file sharing?

Now, if it was dealing with mass for-profit media duplication with the intent of passing off the product as the original, that would make sense.. but they're not. The discussions are about "three strikes" and other bullshit to combat file sharing.

What exactly does file sharing have to do with counterfeiting?

Re:Sounds on the up and up (4, Insightful)

molo (94384) | more than 4 years ago | (#31171756)

They equate it all under the umbrella of IP enforcement. They're talking about counterfeit goods (trademark violation), not counterfeit currency.

In my opinion, if you consider getting digital material from a non-official source, its still the same material. Its copyright infringement, not counterfeiting.

They want to label it all counterfeiting because it is much harder to take a reasonable stance against counterfeiting. Its victory by redefinition.

-molo

Mod Parent Up (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31172384)

Insightful analysis of the use of the word counterfeiting.

It isn't counterfeit goods either. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31172742)

It isn't counterfeit goods either. It isn't pretending to be "Hit me baby one more time" but turn out to be a monologue on how piracy is killing music (this is counterfeit and is done by the labels).

Neither is it being pronounced as the property of the sharer. Unlike several claims against websites hosting their own content that merely shares a name with a pop song. That too has been done several times by the labels.

So if this is what ACTA is about, then the labels are in trouble.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31175736)

They want to label it all counterfeiting because it is much harder to take a reasonable stance against counterfeiting.

Why not call it child porn then?

Re:Sounds on the up and up (1)

molo (94384) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176552)

Don't give them any ideas.

-molo

Re:Sounds on the up and up (0)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31171868)

So tell me - in a trade agreement that is supposed to deal with counterfeiting, why are they talking about penalties for file sharing?

Counterfeiting is fundamentally about trademarks and copyrights.
That's why they're talking about copyright infringement over the internet aka file sharing.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 4 years ago | (#31172748)

No, counterfeiting is fundamentally about fraud -- claiming something is other than what it is.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (2, Funny)

Znork (31774) | more than 4 years ago | (#31172988)

And ACTA is fundamentally about protecting monopolists from competition. Does that make ACTA a counterfeit trade agreement? As IP can certainly be considered a kind of fraud it certainly would be somewhat fitting.

Bullshit (2, Interesting)

schon (31600) | more than 4 years ago | (#31173378)

Counterfeiting is fundamentally about trademarks and copyrights.

That sentence is complete and utter bullshit.

If it were true, then why do we have counterfeiting laws? Why not just prosecute under trademark and copyright?

If it were true, why do we talk about counterfeit money, when money is neither trademarked or copyrighted?

If it were true, why is passing off a fake DaVinci counterfeiting?

As Entropius said - counterfeiting is primarily about fraud. It can deal with trademark infringement if the product is marked, and it can deal with copyright if (as I said) the copyright infringement is large-scale for-profit copying with the intent to pass it off as the original. But it's fraud that makes it counterfeiting, not the trademark or copyright status.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31172198)

Really? What exactly does "ACTA" stand for again?

Anti-Consumer Trade Agreement

Re:Sounds on the up and up (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31174012)

Simple.

They both compete with entertainment industry profits.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176330)

They're trying to use weasel words to lump file sharing and counterfeiting together so they can take advantage of preexisting laws and treaties involving siezing goods that are "about" to have counterfeit logos put on them, property forfeiture, and the like.

Not to mention that it's far easier to make a case for counterfeit goods (think food, medicine, etc) to be a matter of national security (and thus above hte rule of law) than it is for a little unlicensed copying.

It's bullshit, of course, since a bit-identical copy is, in fact, bit-identical, but there you go.

I'm also somewhat reminded of that screwed up law in France where you can't sell name-brand things on eBay without violating "counterfeiting" laws because you're not a licensed dealer.

Re:Sounds on the up and up (1)

okooolo (1372815) | more than 4 years ago | (#31178092)

oh c'mon .. trade agreement is just a broad umbrella for all kinds of laws that often have nothing to do with the name.. just like any other acts (ie patriot act)

show me what's on the table (5, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#31170372)

Until they show me what's on the table, I will not consider anything rebutted. The politicians can say all they want that xyz is not in the proposed treaty, but until they show me what is actually in the treaty, I won't believe them. Politicians often say that something is not in a bill or treaty or other document imposing government regulation and when you read the document, sure enough it isn't there. However, when you analyze what is there you discover that, while what they told you wasn't there isn't, the stuff that is there allows for them to just implement it at any time in the future that they choose without any further public notice.

Re:show me what's on the table (2, Interesting)

VShael (62735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31171400)

Yeah, same thing applied to the Lisbon treaty. The politicians kept insisting that x,y,z, wasn't in the treaty.
They ignored the part that said the Treaty could be modified IN ANY WAY in the future without the need for re-ratification.

Re:show me what's on the table (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31171620)

The politicians can say all they want that xyz is not in the proposed treaty, but until they show me what is actually in the treaty, I won't believe them.

Not to mention we have conclusive evidence, right in our faces, of US government still acting in bad faith: DMCA has not been repealed. They can lie all they want about ACTA being harmless, but failure to undo the previous damage shows that being harmless isn't on the government's agenda.

If ACTA wants credibility, they should leak that ACTA signatories who have anti-circumvention provisions in their laws, will be in noncompliance of ACTA and won't have international copyright protection in countries that do adhere to ACTA. That would go a long way toward both protecting consumers and copyright holders. DRM is the biggest creator of piracy right now. Get rid of it, and pretty much everyone wins except the war3zd00ds.

Re:show me what's on the table (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31173432)

Here's an easy fix. STOP STEALING SHIT! If people would stop stealing shit like a serial rapist, they wouldn't feel the need to lock things down as if it were their daughter's chastity.

AND YES, PIRATING IS A FORM OF THEFT! Want to argue? Then you'd be wrong. Go steal some stocks or bonds from a company and see how they feel about it after you've devalued their company. You won't find anyone who doesn't call people committing this crime a theif - and yet its EXACTLY like pirating.

Pirates are thieves. Period. End of discussion.

Want to fix the NEED for draconian laws? Start treating pirates like the thieves they are.

Re:show me what's on the table (1)

DamnStupidElf (649844) | more than 4 years ago | (#31174174)

AND YES, PIRATING IS A FORM OF THEFT! Want to argue? Then you'd be wrong. Go steal some stocks or bonds from a company and see how they feel about it after you've devalued their company.

Generally when that happens the government bails you out because you're "too big to fail."

Re:show me what's on the table (2, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31175898)

Here's an easy fix. STOP STEALING SHIT! If people would stop stealing shit like a serial rapist, they wouldn't feel the need to lock things down as if it were their daughter's chastity.

If people weren't pirating the shit the companies would still pretend they did because pirates are an easy way to claim that your product is appealing and you only need some technical measures to increase your revenue instead of admitting that the appeal of your product is limited and you need to branch out to see any further increase in revenue.

Treason (2, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176236)

Secret laws are a slippery slope that eventually encourage lawlessness and act against the interests of the citizenry. Why should any citizen obey the laws they do know, if they can always be punished severely for breaking laws they aren't permitted to know about? It's unconstitutional in most places, and especially the US that is founded on rule "by the people for the people". Anyone enacting these laws should be brought up on charges of treason, as should anyone attempting to enforce them. Quite ironically, there are probably anti-terror laws that apply too.

Solution (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31170542)

A good counteroffensive to rebut these claims would be to remove all the secrecy and let us see what's going on

Re:Solution (5, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31171158)

I think the thing here is this is a copyright treaty, they talk about secrecy being required for national security and I just don't see how debate about copyright law being public could possibly pose a clear and present danger.

The opacity of this whole process is proof enough that its not expected to be a popular body of law and probably is does not promote the general welfare but rather those of specific few. I don't think we need to see whats in to be opposed.

Re:Solution (1)

Jawn98685 (687784) | more than 4 years ago | (#31173770)

IThe opacity of this whole process is proof enough that its not expected to be a popular body of law and probably is does not promote the general welfare but rather those of specific few. I don't think we need to see whats in to be opposed.

So..., business as usual, then?
If you have enough money, you can buy from a government anything you want; business contracts, regulations, exceptions from regulations, even war (a real, "shooting" war) on "enemies" whose policies threaten your profitability. In the U.S. no individual would get away with such "tyranny", but corporations can and do, all the time, because "What's good for business, is good for the American people. Anything else is socialism. Now shut up and grab your ankles..."

A good one yes. (2, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31171372)

If my own government is anything to go by (Netherlands) then the counteroffensive will be "you just don't understand it". The time politicians felt accountable to the public has long gone.

Mind you, the public keeps voting for the same guys over and over.

The biggest scammers are the media, in Holland you got something called to "kiez wijzer", a site that records the various parties (yes America, you can have more then 2) election PROMISES and ask you how you feel about various issues and then gives a recommendation. It is actually fairly fair, except that the attentive reader will have noticed I said PROMISES. It does NOT base its advice on YOUR preferences and a parties PAST behavior. So the advice in on what parties say they will do, not what they have done. And almost every falls for it.

Re:A good one yes. (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31173966)

Who else are we supposed to vote for?

Corporate america has them all in their pockets from the get go.

If there ever was an honest politician he'd never even get to the primaries before getting the living crap smeared out of him by special interests hell bent on protecting their political might.

Re:Solution (3, Insightful)

xOneca (1271886) | more than 4 years ago | (#31175442)

They say 'downloading is killing music.' A few days ago I heard someone that said 'it's like saying that downloading porn is killing sex.'

Same old stuff (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31170576)

So its still a one sided document being written up by those in the big industries and no input from anybody this document will most likely effect, the people. They are trying to control and impact technologies they don't understand in the least. I mean if they actually had real knowledge of the technology they were trying to control they would realize that they should be using this to their advantage instead of trying to stop it.

Re:Same old stuff (1)

boarder8925 (714555) | more than 4 years ago | (#31172994)

The problem is that they understand the technology all too well. They know what it could mean for their control on media production and distribution, so they want all these lovely harsh penalties. And to anyone who brings up independent media, please. Very little of that stuff makes an impact. People want their big-name productions like Transformers 2 and the latest Britney Spears album.

Great! What's in it about patents?? (0, Troll)

H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) | more than 4 years ago | (#31170912)

Make a backup. We don't want another case like Wikileaks, where a leaked draft goes online and then the site comes down for planning and doesn't come back up.

Whatever's in there about patents, please make notes here:

* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement [swpat.org]

Thanks.

Re:Great! What's in it about patents?? (1)

Larryish (1215510) | more than 4 years ago | (#31171270)

How much bandwidth was wikileaks even using?

Re:Great! What's in it about patents?? (1, Troll)

H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) | more than 4 years ago | (#31174862)

Bandwidth wasn't the problem. They need funding to keep going, so, to show how essential they are, they took everything off line and said they'll keep it off line until they receive enough donations to keep going. They hoped to be back on line by January 18th, but they're still off line.

I think it's a tactical blunder. They even broke all their links - instead of being redirected to a "we need donations", you just get a 404! Messers.

Re:Great! What's in it about patents?? (1)

Larryish (1215510) | more than 4 years ago | (#31174998)

Sounds like a bureaucracy to me.

Too bad.

Re:Great! What's in it about patents?? (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | more than 4 years ago | (#31171718)

Actually, this is the ideal sort of thing for bittorrent. Collect everything, pack it up, and start seeding. Post links. I'll be pitching in at 5:20pm.

They are "committed to conclude ACTA in 2010" (3, Interesting)

phypsilon (140518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31171278)

The document is very sparse on details. They seem to be negotiating four topics:
1. civil enforcements
2. customs
3. internet
4. transparency (wtf??)

But the most interesting quote is: "Parties remain committed to conclude ACTA in 2010."

Property rights for me, none for thee (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 4 years ago | (#31171418)

I'm a big supporter for copyright in principle, but I have no sympathy for the big content companies losing money left and right to pirates because most of them are by anti-property rights leftists and are constantly harping on "Capitalism is bad, mmmmkay?" If things were philosophically balanced where the little guy's property rights were as rigidly secure as big corps' IP, and those same big corps didn't spew out an anti-property rights, anti-"rich" mentality, I might have some mercy for them getting more aggressive in protecting their rights.

Re:Property rights for me, none for thee (1)

Bruha (412869) | more than 4 years ago | (#31171506)

So you're saying Republicans do not pirate content?

If so I got some shore front property to sell ya.

Re:Property rights for me, none for thee (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31172422)

No, he didn't say anything even faintly resembling that. WTF happened to make you so defensive, that you had to dishonestly twist his words?

At worst, he said that some lefties violate copyright for some bullshit reasons, and IP holders have reacted to this by purchasing laws that fuck everyone (everyone includes bullshit righties, non-bullshit righties, bullshit lefties, and non-bullshit lefties). So get your panties out of a bunch, asshole, because he's right.

As long as it's illegal (thanks to DMCA) for me to play or otherwise use (in a way that doesn't violate copyright) a disc that I bought instead of pirated, the laws are bullshit and the big content companies deserve jack shit in terms of sympathy. I'm going to pirate until it's legal for me to buy+use, and if the companies don't like that, they can either stop using DRM or purchase a DMCA repeal.

Copyright laws that don't include fair use, aren't copyright laws that anyone ought to bother respecting. And if some crybaby cries that people aren't buying their crap, maybe they ought to rethink their decision to bribe our government into outlawing fair use, instead of just crying louder. Their crying is just annoying and doesn't elicit any sympathy from the left nor the right.

Re:Property rights for me, none for thee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31171736)

I have no issue with companies doing what they can to make a buck. But when they take precious resources from our government (the one we "voted" and pay taxes for) on bullcrap like this when we need to be focused on JOBS JOBS JOBS I have to draw the line. There are already laws for stealing crap...let the companies go through the normal channels to prosecute the thieves. But to hijack our government for BS is STOOPID!

Maybe we should put bullets in electronics so we can get someone like the gun lobby to protect peoples rights. It's funny how much noise we hear from the right regarding guns when governments talk about new gun laws, but it is perfectly OK to allow companies to pay for laws to be created that treat ALL people like criminals and invade our privacy. I guess constitutional amendments with numbers greater that 2 don't really count.

I think... (1)

DemonBeaver (1485573) | more than 4 years ago | (#31171428)

... I'll start investing in MicroSD chips... lets see border guards search me for those!
Bastards...

Re:I think... (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 4 years ago | (#31174092)

I'd be careful not to put them anywhere you don't want to be searched. Just sayin'...

My New Bumper Sticker (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#31171448)

Every time a politician lies, I buy another gun.

Re:My New Bumper Sticker (2, Funny)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176006)

They don't make that many guns.

I've got a better one for you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177228)

My New Bumper Sticker...Every time a politician lies, I buy another gun.

This says the same thing more concisely:

"I'm a fucking nutcase."

Re:My New Bumper Sticker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177308)

so basically you have enough guns to equip a very large army.

Re:My New Bumper Sticker (1)

Aklyon (1398879) | more than 4 years ago | (#31187914)

army? make that legions of armies if you want to be correct.

Rebut? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31171556)

"The document notes that governments are planning a counter-offensive to rebut claims of iPod searching border guards and mandatory three strikes policies."

A) so, are the claims true or not?

B) if they released the fricking document in the first place, they wouldn't have to "rebut" (supposedly) false claims. They could just refer people to the document.

C) until I see the actual document I won't believe whatever "rebuttal" they are cooking up anyway.

I'd like to see more (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#31171852)

Like an analysis as to whether ACTA will block evidence discovery in support of foreign trials.

why wont this one world order (1, Flamebait)

nimbius (983462) | more than 4 years ago | (#31172368)

just hurry up and die already. if the same fervent effort were applied to research, development, and innovation of pirated products as was applied to relentlessly combing the globe with jackboots and bayonets in a systematic attempt to pre-exterminate all general interest yet inability to consume monetarily, im certain i would have a music player that did what i wanted and needed it to do, a video medium that didnt treat me like a car thief, and software that didnt have to send half my computer to its corporate headquarters before i got to use it.

Re:why wont this one world order (3, Insightful)

Renraku (518261) | more than 4 years ago | (#31175242)

The biggest problem with 'one world order': Where does one go when they don't agree to the policies set forth by the one world order? What if I want to smoke a joint but it'll mean the death sentence if I do? What if they start basing their laws on Christian teachings, but I'm not Christian? What if I want to start a business somewhere the won't require me to hire equal numbers of all different races? I can't, because if the one world order decides it should be, then the world will be just that.

I don't mind countries forming defensive pacts or trade agreements. What I do mind is letting the people that can profit from those laws decide what should go in them.

New Zealand situation (3, Funny)

shermo (1284310) | more than 4 years ago | (#31176312)

New Zealand recently proposed our own version of the anti file-sharing law. It had a 3-strikes and you're out provision, but it was so convoluted that it would never actually get to disconnecting someone as it is currently written. I figured that it was just included to appease our American overlords, and it seems as if I was right.

I wrote this letter

Dear [New Zealand Prime Minister]

I notice that our country has joined the latest international fad and is implementing our own version of the three strikes policy to deter potential file-sharers.

However, as I'm sure you're aware, no one in New Zealand plays baseball. So, I propose the following changes:

The word "strike" is replaced with the word "wicket".
You only have one "wicket". So if you are accused of file-sharing once, you are 'out'.
You don't actually go to jail until 9 of your good friends have also been accused of file sharing.
There is a neutral party which can review any decisions. (I think this may have been called a 'judge' at some point, but I would rename it to 'third umpire').

These changes satisfy the intention of writing laws based on popular sports rules, but they add a nice "kiwi" touch.

Yours Sincerely, ...

I never got a reply :(

Re:New Zealand situation (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#31179700)

Nice, I much prefer the AFL solution.

The blood rule is the only thing that can pull you from the field. You also get to abuse the judge (umpire) and hip and shoulder the other file sharers.

Re:New Zealand situation (1)

LuNa7ic (991615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31180560)

Oh, if I had mod points...

Non-military secrets have no place in representati (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31177532)

Non-military secrets have no place in representative governments.

Every committee chamber needs a C-SPAN camera broadcasting and the ability to share the documents being discussed so we can keep our eyes on these .... "representatives."

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?