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!

EU Commission: CETA 'Totally Different From ACTA'

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the a-rose-by-any-other-name dept.

Government 112

itwbennett writes "Slashdot readers will remember the hullaballoo that arose yesterday over a leaked version of CETA containing key clauses that were 'nearly identical to ones found in ACTA.' Now the European Commission is saying you shouldn't believe every leak you see and that the 'language being negotiated on CETA regarding Internet is now totally different from ACTA.' Well, maybe with the exception of language that appears in both CETA and ACTA but didn't 'originate' in ACTA and therefore doesn't count."

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

Well, yeah. (5, Funny)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625253)

It has an E instead of an A. That's good enough, right?

Re:Well, yeah. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625471)

I don't believe in America! I don't believe in it!

Barack Obamaness.

Re:Well, yeah. (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40626227)

The C has also been moved to the front of the name. Totally different thing.

Re:Well, yeah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40626593)

I'm wondering, where did BETA go? And is CETA final?

Re:Well, yeah. (3, Funny)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#40627005)

Not necessarily, but CETA are endangered. They may call upon PETA to protect CETA.

Re:Well, yeah. (1)

SatanClauz (741416) | more than 2 years ago | (#40627507)

It's good to know there are people on this planet that have just as messed up of brain that I do.

That was my absolute first thought, too, when I read the title.

European comisars (5, Informative)

boorack (1345877) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625257)

What a bunch of fucks. It seems that we won't get rid of attempts of pushing more or less fascist copyright regulation (with censorship attached) until we get rid of them.

Re:European comisars (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625415)

Why yes, but especially this De Gucht guy seems particularly bent on defending the position of certain large American industry organisations. Though that's still a bad one in a sorry lot; he might seem the black sheep but the rest of the flock sure ain't white either.

Re:European comisars (5, Insightful)

umghhh (965931) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625489)

the good thing about that is that they show to everybody what bunch of fucks they are. The bad thing about this is that this hardly matters. It is as with kids - if t hey ask seemingly innocent question long enough they get an agreement not because we really agree but because we are tired of being asked the same question all t he time. The other problem there is that this is complex matter that does not affect lives directly so there is no majority that would go to EU Parliament with sticks and ropes to hand those assholes. I'd say - hang them all as they do not understand.

Re:European comisars (5, Informative)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625645)

Don't confuse the EU Parliament with the EU Commission; the former are elected and do a pretty decent job of being representative of their constituents, the latter are unelected and do a pretty decent job of being representative of anyone who pays for lunch.

Re:European comisars (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40626447)

Don't fall into that trap. Who appoints them? I don't know, but my guess is EU Parliament? Then they have the power to remove them and appoint someone different, therefore the problem and fault lies there. They try to pull the same crap here in the US ("Blame the unelected bureaucrat, it isn't our fault he's going so badly!") but rarely are these appoints for life (here in the US the only ones I know of are for the Supreme Court and there is a reason for that) so they can be replaced, and therefore any harm done by them is the direct responsibility of the elected official who can remove them, even if someone else originally did so.

Re:European comisars (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40626757)

Don't fall into that trap. Who appoints them? I don't know

And there's the reason why it's not worth reading the rest of your post. Why not educate yourself? The European Commission is appointed by the European Council, which is comprised of the heads of state of the various members. The indirection between them and the people you elect is huge. In the UK, for example, you vote for a Member of Parliament (MP). The party with the most MPs selects the Prime Minister (modulo coalitions), who is then the UK representative in the European Council. He, along with the other members, is responsible for appointing the members of the European Commission. So, my influence on the Commission is that I vote for someone who may have a vote for the person that has a vote to appoint the person who is supposed to represent me. In contrast, I have 4 MEPs who are supposed to represent me, of whom one is someone I respect and who I can rely on to act in my interests and the others presumably act in the interests of other members of my constituency.

Re:European comisars (5, Informative)

henni16 (586412) | more than 2 years ago | (#40626839)

To quote wikipedia:

One of the 27 is the Commission President proposed by the European Council[..] and elected by the European Parliament.
The Council then appoints the other 26 members of the Commission in agreement with the nominated President, and then the 27 members as a single body are subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament.

So the parliament has an all-of-them-or-nobody right of approval for the whole commission whose members are picked by the heads of the member states' governments .

Re:European comisars (1, Flamebait)

LittleImp (1020687) | more than 2 years ago | (#40626647)

The EU Parliament is corrupt as hell too. It is basically a retirement home for politicians that their country has no use for anymore. Obviously because they do such a pointless job they need shitloads of money to do it.

Re:European comisars (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40627275)

No. You're thinking of the Commission. (Yes you are!)

Re:European comisars (5, Informative)

lordholm (649770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40627343)

This had maybe some point of truth to it in the 1970s when the EP was not directly elected. Most of the MEPs these days are pretty serious about what they do and becoming a MEP these days is not something that you get to become because you have been a politician for all your life.

Many MEPs are also fairly young career MEPs such as for example Fjellner, Alvaro and in 't Veld. They choose to become MEPs (or rather to try to be elected as MEPs) because they where seriously interested in the EP politics.

It is not 1970 anymore.

Re:European comisars (1)

Nyder (754090) | more than 2 years ago | (#40626645)

.... It is as with kids - if t hey ask seemingly innocent question long enough they get an agreement not because we really agree but because we are tired of being asked the same question all t he time. ....

That makes you a very crappy parent.

Re:European comisars (2)

mrt_2394871 (1174545) | more than 2 years ago | (#40626855)

...It is as with kids - if they ask seemingly innocent question long enough they get an agreement not because we really agree but because we are tired of being asked the same question all the time...

Yes, but I can't send the Commission to its bedroom to think about how it chooses to communicate with me.

Re:European comisars (2)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#40628193)

It is as with kids - if t hey ask seemingly innocent question long enough they get an agreement not because we really agree but because we are tired of being asked the same question all t he time.

When my kids do this I tell them if they ask again it is going to be time to go sit in the the time out char and when they do ask it again they go right in. It cures them of that problem after only a couple of times. Too bad we can't do it with politicians, as it requires swift immediate action. Maybe if they got voted out of office more often it wouldn't be but they count on constituents having the memory of a gold fish.

Re:European comisars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625821)

We will never get rid of them because they are unelected. That's one of the reasons for example, that the Tories in the UK hate Europe.

Re:European comisars (3, Interesting)

lordholm (649770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625957)

The Tories are against all measures that would make the commission either directly elected or appointed by the European parliament. So they are not really the best people to refer to in this question.

The reason that the tories hate Europe is that they want their own empire back; complaints about that the commission is not elected are just easy points to sell their ideas to the public, however the Tories fail to see that complaining about this and doing something about it will work against their own policies; so they rather keep the status quo in order to be able to continue bitching about it. And indeed, the European federalists have complained about this for a long time as well, but they actually want to solve the problem.

Re:European comisars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40626023)

So, no way to dismiss legislation with prejudice (can't refile the same or similar for X number of years)?

Re:European comisars (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 2 years ago | (#40627429)

Meanwhile, here in Mexico, the federal government of lame duck president Felipe Calderón, just signed ACTA [] , ignoring a Senate resolution to reject it.

So? (4, Insightful)

coder111 (912060) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625269)

European Commission are corporate whores. They don't really care about wants and needs of the people and never ever had. How is this news? They had same kind of "screw everyone, we'll do what we want" attitude when it came to software patents several years ago.


Re:So? (4, Funny)

gruntkowski (1743014) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625403)

'Mother should I trust the government?'
Pink Floyd was soooo right.

Re:So? (2, Insightful)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625529)

They are basically unelected drones with over reaching powers. Until EU starts functioning like the USA with some degree of "responsibility to your constituents" we are screwed.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625715)

I'm .... and I support this message.

Re:So? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625779)

You don't want to function like the US either. All that means is their "responsibility" is to whichever lobbyist pays them the most while they make empty promises to the supposed "consituents" they serve and still do whatever the heck they want as long as it gets them a nice big donation.

Re:So? (5, Informative)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625981)

Are you kidding me? The problem with the EU Commission is that it's *too much* like the US government. You think the US 2-party system has ANY accountability to the voter whatsoever?

Re:So? (5, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40627243)

You think the US 2-party system has ANY accountability to the voter whatsoever?

I've always thought it would be kinda interesting to follow an idea from ancient Athens: After someone holding political office had his term end, he was immediately put on trial for his actions while in office, and could be personally punished for those actions (e.g. a treasurer who was caught embezzling funds could have his own property confiscated).

Re:So? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40627591)

Do you know why this will never happen? Because it is the people who would be subject to this scrutiny that have to vote the law through, and why would they? This is the problem with representative democracy as it stands today: the people who make the rules have learnt how to bend the rules to their own advantage. Anyone who make it in politics is a career politician who has no knowledge of how it is to work for a living in the real world.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40628309)

They are basically unelected drones with over reaching powers. Until EU starts functioning like the USA with some degree of "responsibility to your constituents" we are screwed.

Im waiting for the USA to do the same.

Re:So? (-1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625687)

European Commission are corporate whores.

Um, they rejected the first one. I don't recall the USA rejecting anything the MAFIAA has proposed to them.

Re:So? (3, Informative)

Q-Hack! (37846) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625761)

You mean lik SOPA?

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40627857)

SOPA was rejected because it would affect other countries... countries powerful enough to give the middle finger to the US and even take control of the internet away. If SOPA dropped a Russian or Chinese site due to a US item, it could be considered an act of war.

That is why SOPA was dropped -- it made people who actually had some sway worried.

Re:So? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625845)

Um, they rejected the first one.

No, they most certainly did not. That was the European Parliament and not the Commission.

I don't recall the USA rejecting anything the MAFIAA has proposed to them.

That appears to be true, and is unfortunately also more or less true for the European Commission. It's quite sad, really, to put it (very) mildly.

Re:So? (4, Insightful)

sFurbo (1361249) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625859)

Do you mean ACTA? In that case, it was the European Parliament that that rejected that. Apparantly as a part of their continued effort to wrestle power from the Commission.

Re:So? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625873)

No, the Commission did not reject ACTA, the Parliament and the subcommitties did. You know, the people that are actually elected.
The commission were the ones that in secret negotiated this crap while refusing to let anyone know what was in it.

Re:So? (5, Insightful)

lordholm (649770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625991)

The commission did not refuse, they kept asking the other parties to open up. However the US and Japan refused to open up the negotiations. The US claimed that national security was at stake.

Not that the commission handled things that good, and Karel's actions following the MEPs rejection is clearly a reason to sack him.

I would like to ask MEPs: Please subject Karel to a very intense smacking in the EP and if he does not amend his ways, fire him. Yes, I know that de jure you have to fire the entire EC, but you could just tell Barrosso, that he and the others will loose their jobs unless Karel is sacked.

Re:So? (2)

Nyder (754090) | more than 2 years ago | (#40626693)

...The US claimed that national security was at stake.


In way it is, because if they keep trying to pull this shit over us, people might start taking the streets and doing some serious protesting.

It's time for a new government, completely, our old one is broken and can not be fixed.

They should be scared, because as much as I don't care for violence, I see a need for a bunch of people to forcefully removed from office and put in gitmo (ya, you should of closed it Obama, now enjoy your stay there.)

Oh shit, now I'm on some government list as someone to watch.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40626717)

The US claimed that national security was at stake.

Did they fear a revolution if the contents of ACTA became known?

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40626109)

How does this get modded "4" insightful when it's completely wrong!

They're a sleezy pickup artist (5, Interesting)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625273)

The ACTA/etc folks are just like that sleazy guy in the bar.

They have "negs", designed to make you feel bad and insecure about yourself. Piracy is costing the American economy billions. You're the most beautiful woman/man in this bar. You wouldn't steal a handbag. Of course I have no STIs. You wouldn't steal a car...

They'll buy you drinks and they'll tell you any lie you want to hear. They're an astronaut. They drive a Porche. The wording of CETA is totally different from ACTA.

They'll lie out their arses no matter how many times you say no, because all they need is one yes and they've fucked you.

Re:They're a sleezy pickup artist (4, Funny)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625279)

Oh and take it from me, those ACTA guys say they'll call you in the morning and do breakfast but they never call. :'(

Re:They're a sleezy pickup artist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625919)

At least not until the 3rd strike, and then they send the cops instead and say you were abusing them.

Re:They're a sleezy pickup artist (5, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40626413)

those ACTA guys say they'll call you in the morning and do breakfast but they never call.

That carries a ten-year jail sentence in Sweden.

Re:They're a sleezy pickup artist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40627029)

The only problem's the sort that'd throw ya in prison that're doing it...

Re:They're a sleezy pickup artist (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40626547)

They're worse. They won't get off your couch, plunder your fridge and demand you buy them more drinks. Once you're broke, they tell you about their STD's and that they don't want to see you anymore because now "you're sick too".

Re:They're a sleezy pickup artist (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40627445)

How do you drive a Porche [] ? Or is that some old french car that I don't know about?

well, now we show them that we protest in Europe.. (2)

acidfast7 (551610) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625315)

and make sure they don't get elected again. meet in the city center in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... oh, and somebody bring those "fireworks" left over from Euro 2012

Re:well, now we show them that we protest in Europ (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625445)

You must be mistaking the EU for a democracy.... the European Commissioners are not elected but appointed and things have to get pretty extreme before they can be held accountable

Re:well, now we show them that we protest in Europ (4, Informative)

acidfast7 (551610) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625591)

I never said it was a democracy. However, when one looks up an EU Commissioner, the first three pieces of information are State, Party, and Name. When you don't vote for the party, the individual has no power. And, when you have 5-7 parties/country, each really wants to keep their percentage of votes, so they'll keep "their" Commissioner in line or face the consequences at the polls. A protest just gets the message across in a more rapid manner.

Re:well, now we show them that we protest in Europ (2)

sFurbo (1361249) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625889)

Aren't you talking about the European Parliament? They are directly elected from the countries, and they are the ones who rejected ACTA. The commission, on the other hand, is picked by the governments of the individual countries (IIRC), which makes them two steps removed from direct elections. Much of the politics of EU for the last half decade or so has been the parliament wrestling power from the commission and bureacrats.

Re:well, now we show them that we protest in Europ (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625895)

No no, this is completely wrong.
It does not matter how many votes the party has. The commissioner is in his/her seat and makes the decisions.
Each commissioner has a working field, so it is not that they are deciding together and outvoting eachother.

Commissioners are appointed in a "we from this country grant that country the commissioner for xxx when we can get the one for yyy" fashion,
and then internal to the country a suitable person is found in the circles of retired politicians.
These politicians usually have done everything during their political career to get the attention of big business.

Re:well, now we show them that we protest in Europ (2)

FhnuZoag (875558) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625905)

Commissioners aren't life positions. The previous commissioners lasted respectively 5 years, 1 year, 4 years, 1 year, 1 year. Gucht came in during 2010. Presumeably when everyone runs out of patience with him, he might be persuaded to go spend some time with his family.

Re:well, now we show them that we protest in Europ (1)

FhnuZoag (875558) | more than 2 years ago | (#40626941)

It can't be *that* extreme if the last few guys to hold this position lasted an average of 2 years.

Didn't take long.. (2)

PerformanceDude (1798324) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625323)

Honestly, I am surprised they tried again this quick. Normally the politicians let such a controversial issue die down and then slips it under the radar when no-one is watching. This will be interesting to watch....

Re:Didn't take long.. (3, Insightful)

Sasayaki (1096761) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625341)

Normally bills that get rejected due to public outcry become riders on other, more socially acceptable bills.

I though it'd be the "Love Your Nation Act: Money For Bridges, and Orphans, and Puppies, and ACTA, and Rape Crisis Centres" act.

You wouldn't vote against money for bridges, orphans and puppies would you? And what are you, some kind of sick rapist who wants your victims to suffer?

Re:Didn't take long.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625555)

LYNAMFBOPARCC? How can you pass something named that?

Re:Didn't take long.. (4, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625721)

And that is more or less what this thing has become: a rider. The controversial IP-related clauses from ACTA are getting shoehorned into an otherwise normal trade agreement. They hope that MEPs will not reject the entire deal because of a "bad but small part", to paraphrase one MEP who said she isn't sure whether or not to reject the CETA if the ACTA clauses get tacked on. But that's exactly what MEPs should be crystal clear on: if they reject an agreement, they must also reject anything that has the agreement tacked on as a rider. There's good reason to be clear on that right now; it means that the people negotiating CETA know that they should not add the ACTA stuff if they want to have any hope of the agreement passing parliament. And it is pretty much the only way MEPs can effectively influence the contents of the agreement.

It's interesting to note that some MEPs might actually fall for this; they do not want to reject a good agreement because of one bad rider, no matter how hard they opposed ACTA. "Sure, I am not too happy about this clause regarding our firstborn, but on the whole this deal with the devil looks pretty sweet".

Re:Didn't take long.. (4, Informative)

sFurbo (1361249) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625899)

The European Parliament have been pretty stubborn about such things before, e.g. refusing to accept the entire commission because of one or two unacceptable elements.

Re:Didn't take long.. (0)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625911)

It's the American Way. Why do you think they have the USA PATRIOT Act? It's almost as bad as "Vote Republican for Jesus" in the Bible Belt; Utter, utter FUD.

Re:Didn't take long.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625365)

Honestly, I am surprised they tried again this quick. Normally the politicians let such a controversial issue die down and then slips it under the radar when no-one is watching. This will be interesting to watch....

EU Commission Lackey: ACTA has failed. We need to start again.
Corporate Overlord: Just get it done, now!
Lackey: It is too soon!
Overlord: Do it or else you are fired!
Lackey: You can't fire me. I work for the people.
Lackey and Overlord: Ha ha ha ha ha!

Re:Didn't take long.. (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625391)

Meus subcriptio est nocens Latin quoniam bardus populus reputo is sanus callidus

If I'm not mistaken, something along the lines of:
"My signature is bad Latin because stupid people think it sounds clever."

Re:Didn't take long.. (3, Interesting)

FhnuZoag (875558) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625917)

I think that's a pretty inaccurate view. IIRC, what actually happened was that this bill was drafted back when ACTA appeared to be succeeding, and so ACTA was used as a template for it. Now that ACTA has failed though, expect to see some serious revisions, or else this bill will never make it through parliament.

Eurovision song contest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625335)

Well given the wording is/was the same, it's being negotiated by the same parties with the same lobbyists in the same secret way how can the outcome be any different?!

The problem here remains, the EU Commission is appointed not elected. It does not answer to the electorate. The way its chosen is akin to the way the Eurovision song contest is decided. All politics and national loyalties and favour buying and nothing to do with the best songs.

You can't even fire your national government for choosing Barroso, because it's not like you know whether the opposition will fire him or not. Its a vote among the National leaders. If Barroso has pushed enough unpopular legislation through the EU for enough governments then he will be chosen again.

The fundamental problem with the EU is the EU Commission, and ACTA 2 shows this.

At no time should ACTA have ever morphed from the counterfeit treaty to a copyright treaty, the EU Commission went out of it's mandate, and yet there was no way to stop them. Even now the EU Commission believes that if it can get the ECJ declare the treaty compatible with human rights legislation, that somehow it's still OK to drive it through over the elected government.

Endlessly undermining Europes core freedoms, endlessly siding with foreign lobby groups and foreign powers, endless politics and game playing, and you don't even get to vote him a 'null point'.

Of course it is (1)

jmerlin (1010641) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625343)

Because 'CETA' !== 'ACTA'. Next article, please!

Re:Of course it is (1)

t0y (700664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625853)

But 'CETA' == 'ACTA'.

Re:Of course it is (2)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 2 years ago | (#40626127)

But 'CETA' == 'ACTA'.


Re:Of course it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40626697)

You're both wrong

int *CETA = &ACTA ;

The Gentleman's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625349)

1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum..

There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a 'uncontrolled forum.'

Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING'

If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by 'forum sliding.' In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to 'age.' Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a 'forum slide.' The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a 'forum slide' and 'flush' the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting 'slides' down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.


A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the time at is 'consensus cracking.' To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger 'evidence' or disinformation in your favour is slowly 'seeded in.' Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then 'abort' the consensus cracking by initiating a 'forum slide.'

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.


Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive environment a 'show you mine so me yours' posting is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered. An example is to post your 'favourite weapon' and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon. This same method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your favourite 'technique of operation.' From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from their activities.

Technique #5 - 'ANGER TROLLING'

Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes - without the requirement to 'stage' a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to 'lead' the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you 'do not care what the authorities think!!' inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution.


It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable postings - and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the 'ultimate victory' as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a 'honey pot' gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes.


Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. At this point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal precidence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline. This is not desirable as it then leaves the enforcement agencies unable to track the percentage of those in the population who always resist attempts for control against them. Many other techniques can be utilized and developed by the individual and as you develop further techniques of infiltration and control it is imperative to share then with HQ.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial.

Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo.

With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.

c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)

One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?

1) The message doesn't get out.
2) A lot of time is wasted
3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged
4) Nothing good is accomplished.

FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they have phoney activist organizations established.

Their purpose is to prevent any real movement for justice or eco-peace from developing in this country.

Agents come in small, medium or large. They can be of any ethnic background. They can be male or female.

The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on the spies and saboteurs.

This booklet lists tactics agents use to slow things down, foul things up, destroy the movement and keep tabs on activists.

It is the agent's job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control.

In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:

"You're dividing the movement."

[Here, I have added the psychological reasons as to WHY this maneuver works to control people]

This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of "dedication to the cause." Because of their often declared dedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he or she - being truly dedicated to the movement - becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that "on purpose." It's amazing how far agents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly declares their dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent, they will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: "they did that unconsciously... they didn't really mean it... I can help them by being forgiving and accepting " and so on and so forth.

The agent will tell the activist:

"You're a leader!"

This is designed to enhance the activist's self-esteem. His or her narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist.

This is "malignant pseudoidentification." It is the process by which the agent consciously imitates or simulates a certain behavior to foster the activist's identification with him/her, thus increasing the activist's vulnerability to exploitation. The agent will simulate the more subtle self-concepts of the activist.

Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.

The goal of the agent is to increase the activist's general empathy for the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist's self-concepts.

The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of "twinship". It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of their agent/handler.

The activist's "felt quality of perfection" [self-concept] is enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the agent through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim's own narcissistic investments. [self-concepts] That is, if the activist knows, deep inside, their own dedication to the cause, they will project that onto the agent who is "mirroring" them.

The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agent shares this feeling of identification and bonding. In an activist/social movement setting, the adversarial roles that activists naturally play vis a vis the establishment/government, fosters ongoing processes of intrapsychic splitting so that "twinship alliances" between activist and agent may render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the activist. They literally "lose touch with reality."

Activists who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a good idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and consciously perceive themselves (accurately, as it were) to be "helpers" endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to the affective (emotional) simulation of the accomplished agent.

Empathy is fostered in the activist through the expression of quite visible affects. The presentation of tearfulness, sadness, longing, fear, remorse, and guilt, may induce in the helper-oriented activist a strong sense of compassion, while unconsciously enhancing the activist's narcissistic investment in self as the embodiment of goodness.

The agent's expresssion of such simulated affects may be quite compelling to the observer and difficult to distinguish from deep emotion.

It can usually be identified by two events, however:

First, the activist who has analyzed his/her own narcissistic roots and is aware of his/her own potential for being "emotionally hooked," will be able to remain cool and unaffected by such emotional outpourings by the agent.

As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second event will occur: The agent will recompensate much too quickly following such an affective expression leaving the activist with the impression that "the play has ended, the curtain has fallen," and the imposture, for the moment, has finished. The agent will then move quickly to another activist/victim.

The fact is, the movement doesn't need leaders, it needs MOVERS. "Follow the leader" is a waste of time.

A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved discussions.

Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:

1) To disrupt the agenda
2) To side-track the discussion
3) To interrupt repeatedly
4) To feign ignorance
5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.

Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.


Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ....

1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites)
2) Print flyers in English only.
3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares.
4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support
5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing.
6) Confuse issues.
7) Make the wrong demands.
Cool Compromise the goal.
9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone's time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist's work.


1) Want to establish "leaders" to set them up for a fall in order to stop the movement.
2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble.
3) Encourage militancy.
4) Want to taunt the authorities.
5) Attempt to make the activist compromise their values.
6) Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be non-violent.
7) Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.


1) Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything.
2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data).
3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend.
4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.


Legitimate activists do not subject people to hours of persuasive dialog. Their actions, beliefs, and goals speak for themselves.

Groups that DO recruit are missionaries, military, and fake political parties or movements set up by agents.


ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.

At this point, if you are NOT under surveillance, you are not a very good activist!

Scare Tactics

They use them.

Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, getting close to disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them (via psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement and give false testimony against their former compatriots. They will plant illegal substances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will plant false information and set up "exposure," they will send incriminating letters [emails] in the name of the activist; and more; they will do whatever society will allow.

This booklet in no way covers all the ways agents use to sabotage the lives of sincere an dedicated activists.

If an agent is "exposed," he or she will be transferred or replaced.

COINTELPRO is still in operation today under a different code name. It is no longer placed on paper where it can be discovered through the freedom of information act.

The FBI counterintelligence program's stated purpose: To expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and otherwise neutralize individuals who the FBI categorize as opposed to the National Interests. "National Security" means the FBI's security from the people ever finding out the vicious things it does in violation of people's civil liberties.


Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")

4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.

6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.

15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

How Many Times are they going to do this ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625419)

First ACTA, then CISPA, now CETA ? What Next ?

They are playing a tiring game. I for one will not stand for censorship of our Internet. I will go to the streets if this passes and let them know.

EU seems to be a way to unify all countries and enforce these damn censorship and control laws anywhere. Only way to break EU is to go our own way and break free from the chains. All they can do is try and test us, but if we come out unified as the People, they cannot do anything, as we are the majority.

on confidentiality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625421)

the big problem with both CETA and ACTA is the fact that they are negotiated in secrecy and would then imposed on everybody (ratification by the same people who designed it).
This is not a democratic process.

Wouldn't Be a Problem (5, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625457)

you shouldn't believe every leak you see

You know, that wouldn't be a problem if you would show the citizens the treaties you are considering subjecting them to.

Re:Wouldn't Be a Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625825)

You know, this comment came as a complete surprise to me. I suppose that shows how indoctrinated some of us are. Legislators who don't even use difficult language and too long documents to hide their actions, but hide it with force should be thrown out. Instead they have a system now I suppose that this is their "lawful right".

Re:Wouldn't Be a Problem (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40626753)

Exactly. If they want to prove that thereal treaty is different, then show it to us.

CETA (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625463)


That is all.

They changed the font. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625473)

It's clearly different.
Just look at the font!

EU Commission MUST resign. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625477)

This is outrageous. This is NOT democracy. This pisses over all European values and laughs while doing so.

The European Parliament must demand that the EU Commission resigns immediately!

They have done it in the past, and they can do it now. This behaviour is simply UNACCEPTABLE.

The European Parliament MUST keep on fighting the EU Commission for as long as those paid saboteurs are intent on turning this planet into a giant prison where all pursuit of culture creation, happiness and quality of life is subservient to the profit motive.

Re:EU Commission MUST resign. (1)

lexa1979 (2020026) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625805)

I totally agree with this, but the whole Parliament has to agree also... Do we simply begin by sending them email or directly calling them (maybe [] will be available soon, as it was for ACTA) asking for them to get rid of this screwing commission ?

Teher is nearly no difference at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40625617)

Here is an table with comparison:

So the wording has been copy-and-pasted? (3, Funny)

Laglorden (87845) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625769)

So, the wording that appears in both documents have been copy-and-pasted from somewhere else?

Sorry, I mean, the words have been STOLEN from another source, those filthy filthy pirates!!!

Meh (2)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625851)

Sounds like usual '**** off, we know what we are doing, and errr, we didn't copied ACTA text there, it just happened to to be there! So, nothing to worry about, no ACTA!' when someone is caught red-handed. And sorry, no official draft available for everyone to analyze - no trust.

Sure... (2)

xSander (1227106) | more than 2 years ago | (#40625969)

Politicians always tell the truth, especially when it's about secretly negotiated treaties, right?

Re:Sure... (1)

Kergan (780543) | more than 2 years ago | (#40626385)

First rule of politics: never believe anything until it's officially denied.

This is why... (4, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40626029)

...we need actual penalties on politicians who undermine the constitution and such likes.

Right now, they can try, try again until it gets through, because being a politician is one of the few jobs where failures have no consequences whatsoever.

Ah, you'll now say, "but come next election..." - obviously, that's not how it works. Next election, people will vote again based on posters and TV spots, not on a performance evaluation. Everyone knows that, including the politicians.

Re:This is why... (1)

geekymachoman (1261484) | more than 2 years ago | (#40626329)

Politics is a force that's moving into some direction. Politicians are just faces that speak for that force. I have no idea what it is, but I know politicians are not important. Look at the last 12 years in US. In reality, nothing changed, it's just following the flow, and things are happening and ending naturally.. one dude is not influencing those changes in any way.

Or look at the fcked up countries. In those, you have politicians that are really in power. In those cases, they run the country solely for personal interests.

In communists countries you can point a finger at someone when things go bad. Now in "democracy", when you point a finger at someone he gets replaced by another guy. Then you point a finger at him, then he gets replaced. Then you point finger again, then that guy get's replaced. And the things stay the same.

If you people had "ANY" honest politicians and if I'm wrong in my previous sentence, that guy would be on a function for life, eg. president for life, not just one or two terms. Why not if he's doing his job well ? The absurdity of "but come next election..." is that every 4 year people say that, and nothing changes, then they say it again.. and again and again...

I propose people hang every politicians, together with his/her family, if he betrays and/or twists, in any way, ideas he propagated to get to the power.
Why not ? There's a death penalty.. right ? Biggest penalty should be for politicians that manipulate and lie their own people, for personal/corporate/masters/whoever interests. In few years time there either wouldn't be any more politicians, or you would only have those few genuine ones.
The problem with this is that the system would fall apart, since it's based on bullshit anyway.. we don't know how to live in anything else other then BS. - Taken from G. Carlin bit.

Re:This is why... (2)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40626703)

Politicians are just faces that speak for that force.

Wrong. That is part of the whole picture. A single politician is just a face. But their entire profession is that force.

It's not an accident that in most western countries the two major parties have become pretty much identical. It's not a coincidence that they get closer and closer to an even split in votes. This is the system that guarantees them the maximum reliability and predictability.

Re:This is why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40626861)

I keep voting and voting, but no matter how many time I try, the one that gets elected is a politician.

So what if they're the same? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40626117)

Those lines could have been written by a highschool student!

In the words of The Who (3)

Jahta (1141213) | more than 2 years ago | (#40626241)

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

-- from (the aptly titled) Won't Get Fooled Again

Different Language (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40626445)

Entirely different language. Since Canada has two official languages, this statement is completely true and accurate. It will be in English and French.

Secret negociations (3, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#40626471)

As long as they will insist on negotiating without transparency, it will be fair to criticize the process and to base our opinion on leaks.

Countering it would be easy : be open ! Is it that hard to understand ?

Carefully reworded, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40626527)

We won't be fooled that easily.

On the other hand, if the current wording is different from the old ACTA version, then why not let the public see the actual words of the treaty so we can judge for ourselves before our representatives start signing it?

We've got TWO parliaments on either side of this deal. Why the hell don't ALL our representatives get a look at it, and the general public too? Why do we have to rely on potentially inaccurate leaks? Oh, that's right. Because we don't fricking have anything else to go on. Fix that problem. Then we'll talk.

"Don't worry, it changed." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40627517)

So. The fact that it STARTED the exact same as ACTA means you are trying to pull the same bullshit all over again. I'm embarassed the C in CETA means Canada, (the government of who knows fully well that it's going completely against the will of the people).

Dear EU Commission (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40627761)

our brand new protest is totally different from the ACTA protest.
It's more angry.

Copyright Term EXTENSION (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40628017)

Why they don't talk about is that -completely against currrent beliefs- the EC is trying to force a 20-year copyright term extension on Canada, from the Life+50 to Life+70.

It should be obvious this does not benefit the artist; a potential dollar discounted 51 years even at a 2% compound interest rate is not worth much today.

It does benefit the large Copyright warehouses, since owning Intellectual Property is free - there is no intellectual property tax - you can fill your warehouse to the rim.

But for the Canadian citizens who just acquired an e-reader and are back to reading books instead of sitting in front of the tv are now either (1) having to delete 20 years' worth of books from their devices or (2) hope they can find some more books as for the next two decades there will be nothing added to the existing Public Domain in Canada.

Note that TPP is also pushing for term extensions.

Totally Different (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 2 years ago | (#40628019)

In the last one, they hit you over the head first and then take your wallet.

In this one they take your wallet after hitting you over the head.

See? Totally different!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?