Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Post-ACTA Agreement CETA Moving Forward With Similar Provisions

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the they-just-never-give-up dept.

Electronic Frontier Foundation 136

rrohbeck writes "From eff.org: 'The shadow of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is back in Europe. It is disguised as CETA, the Canada-European Union and Trade Agreement. A comparison of the leaked draft Canada-EU agreement shows the treaty includes a number of the same controversial provisions, specifically concerning criminal enforcement, private enforcement by Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and harsh damages.'"

cancel ×

136 comments

You can't win... (4, Insightful)

rsilvergun (571051) | about 2 years ago | (#41664757)

they've got full time jobs doing this sorta thing. I suppose you could hire someone to fight on your behalf, but who's got enough disposable income for even that. Basically, if you're rich enough to fight ACTA you're probably rich enough to a) not care and b) benefit.

Re:You can't win... (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#41664809)

I suppose you could hire someone to fight on your behalf,

It is called "voting," at least for those of us who can vote. In this case, that means voting for a politician who is not bought and paid for by the copyright lobbyists, so if you are an American, you can forget about the major parties.

Re:You can't win... (4, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about 2 years ago | (#41664833)

It is called "voting," at least for those of us who can vote.

Voting is a very delayed response mechanism. By the time election round comes -- a) you forgot about the issues, b) the official got a cushy new job and will leave anyway and c) the competitor is even worse.

We desperately need an easy-to-initiate vote of no confidence. So that X people sign a petition/vote and then the politician gets recalled and banned from running for a year

Then those bastards would step carefully, at least on things that are universally hated.

Re:You can't win... (2, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41664927)

So we need a Constitutional Amendment that calls for a vote 30 days after every new law is passed allowing a veto by the people (peto). Don't like the budget? Vote it down. Don't like th treaty? Peto it. Any politician voting yes on 3 things petod in a year has voting rights removed for the rest of his term (and is expected to stand down to allow a special election elect someone with voting rights to represent his constituents). No reason why we can't elevate the people to the 4th branch. We finally have the tech for instant on-line voting. Bonus if we could get that done with vote tracibility. Know how your neighbors voted, if you wish. If you aren't comfortable with that, then don't vote like a jackass. Open voting is what the country was founded on. The first signature on the Declaration of Independence wasn't Aye (Anonymous).

Re:You can't win... (2)

stanlyb (1839382) | about 2 years ago | (#41664959)

Actually, it is really very simple:
1.All the politicians are elected based on their programs.
2.They come to power, and forget all the promises.
3.SOLUTION: Make them pay for breach of contract. WOW, i am genius.
3. PROFIT.

Re:You can't win... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41665585)

Push a Truth in Advertising law with stiff fines. That would work in many degrees.

Re:You can't win... (1)

klingers48 (968406) | about 2 years ago | (#41666077)

This is a nice idea in theory... But never underestimate the audacity of politicians. In the late 1990s Australian prime-minister re-negged on about half his election promises within a few months of taking office and quite glibly coined the phrase "That was a non-core promise."

Re:You can't win... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41666615)

In the late 1990s Australian prime-minister re-negged on about half his election promises

I believe that the word you were looking for, sir, was reneged.. I certainly appreciated your effort though :)

Re:You can't win... (3, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#41665003)

I really like this idea... I suppose that makes me a peto-phyle.

Re:You can't win... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41665089)

Open voting is what the country was founded on.

The flaws in this way of thinking have been pointed out time and time again. Knowing how someone voted just isn't necessary.

Re:You can't win... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41666025)

Yeah, until there is a ballot box that inclusion results in a win for candidate A and exclusion of that box gives B the win. In the recount, someone notices there are more ballots in that box than eligible voters. Do you include or exclude the box after it is confirmed to have invalid votes in it? If you discard it, you invalidate all the votes from the people that were validly placed, if you include it, then you necessarily include invalid votes, and either way changes the ourcome of the election.

That problem has never been solved, and with closed ballots can never be solved.

Re:You can't win... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41665217)

I like it, but I don't expect it will pass congress or the house of reps.

Re:You can't win... (1)

dns_server (696283) | about 2 years ago | (#41665287)

Electronic voting usually has one of the following two flaws:
1. People know how you vote, bad know how you vote and can use this to find where you live and could kill you or cause problems.
2. No one knows how you vote, this removes traceability and can lie about the results.

These are not likely to be problems in the USA unless it is something controversial like evolution, gay rights etc. where you will just loose your job.
But having such a system in place means the rest of the world will copy and implement it badly where they do round people up to remove opposition.

Re:You can't win... (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41666045)

#1 is possible now in most places with absentee balloting. Theoretically, your boss could get 100 absentee voter forms, and fill them out for all the employees, then have everyone sign them in his presence and then he sends them. On vote day, everyone is required to get to work early (before the polls open) and stay late (after the polls close) so that they can't dispute an absentee ballot. Tampering, easy, and available today. There haven't been reports of such problems in the US, so likely, even with completely open systems, there wouldn't be.

But yes, other places take the US system and do it poorly. That's why there are so many UN forces needed for vote validation. The incumbents pre-vote all the ballot boxes. The votes of the day aren't counted, or are counted after 10,000,000 ballots are pre-stuffed in the bottom of every box. That, and voting is a shooting offense if you are in the rebel territories - which was the reason open ballots were abandoned in the US. The southern conservatives were harassing voters. Until the Civil War, open balloting was used, and it was a much better success for the first 100 years than closed balloting was for the past 100 years.

Re:You can't win... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41666507)

But having such a system in place means the rest of the world will copy and implement it badly

Have no fear, rest of the world is actually ahead of you, not copying you. Estonia already uses internet voting (and it works). Several countries are running tests with different types of electronic voting. Most european countries even have saner election systems than you do in the states.

Re:You can't win... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41666359)

How about a line-item peto? Might cut down on some of this practice of adding porkbarrel or otherwise harmful riders to otherwise benign legislation.

So get involved in the primaries and a party. (3, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 2 years ago | (#41665049)

By the time election round comes -- a) you forgot about the issues, b) the official got a cushy new job and will leave anyway and c) the competitor is even worse.

Why the hell are you waiting for the general election. You should be voting in the primaries, at least. Your rep doesn't vote the way you want? Deny him renomination for his party's slot on the ballot.

If you're really serious, get involved in a party's other activities. Become an officer, a delegate, etc. And be aware that it's a WAR, not a bunch of nice people playing by the rules. You have to hold their feet to the fire at all stages.

Re:So get involved in the primaries and a party. (3, Informative)

codegen (103601) | about 2 years ago | (#41665705)

Did you miss the part about this being in Canada? We don't have primaries, and the next federal election is several years off.

Re:So get involved in the primaries and a party. (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 2 years ago | (#41666831)

Did you miss the part about this being in Canada? We don't have primaries, and the next federal election is several years off.

Yes I did miss it.

So run yourself. Parliamentary systems have the advantage that you can have real power without selling your soul to your pick of the top two parties. Let your neighbors get to know you and you might find it a lot easier than you think.

Re:You can't win... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41665231)

IMHO, what should happen is that politicians receive variable bonuses up to their market value (i.e. what corporations pay to sway them). This bonus is voted upon every quarter by their constituents. IMHO, this sort of financial incentive and voter feedback mechanism would encourage the right sorts of behavior both from politicians and from citizens. It also would stand a chance of getting passed, since it helps politicians, unlike the more appropriate measures (e.g. term limits, penalties for corruption, penalties for ignoring constituents).

Re:You can't win... (2)

ldobehardcore (1738858) | about 2 years ago | (#41665805)

Wait... WHAT?!

Are you saying that
1.) We'll somehow figure out what corporations and deep pocketed donors are secretly willing to pay politicians in order to BRIBE them.

2.) Then if we like what the same politicians do, just pay them the same amount?

3.) Then after they finish their terms in office, move into the revolving door and work in the cushy, high paying jobs they were promised by lobbyists, while still having a strong influence on the government where they built up their contact books?

This is a terrible idea. What you suggest is not an incentive in any way to do the right thing. The politicians will push through the exact legislation the lobbyists want using earmarks and tacking on other changes to unrelated bills at the last minute. They'll publicly proclaim that they're fighting the good fight. After they're done, they'll just be paid twice as much as what they're currently paid by lobbyists, for doing what's already being done by every Congressperson today.

What a fantasy.

Or did you have a different idea and I misunderstood you? If so, please elaborate, as I'm perfectly willing to listen, as long as it makes sense.

You can win in Switzerland (4, Informative)

MrSteveSD (801820) | about 2 years ago | (#41665305)

In Switzerland the people can instigate referenda and overturn government decisions. It takes about 100,000 signatures to trigger a referendum on an issue.

Re:You can win in Switzerland (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41665815)

Thanks for the trivia. Nations that matter have more people in their minor suburban areas.

Re:You can win in Switzerland (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | about 2 years ago | (#41666041)

This sort of arrogance is precisely why the rest-of-the-world hate Cowardia and their foreign policies.

Re:You can win in Switzerland (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41666511)

Are you saying you are too stupid to change the required number of people, or what?

Re:You can't win... (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41665801)

We desperately need an easy-to-initiate vote of no confidence.

I don't think that's a good idea. Elected representatives shouldn't be yanked on a whim anymore than laws should be passed on them. Governmental action should be deliberate, carefully considered, and with many opportunities for feedback, criticism, and discussion. The opinion of a population changes rapidly, only to return to how it was before a short time later. If a law or action is undertaken on a 'whim', that becomes the prevailing law or process, because of a short emotional peak, not out of a sustained and heartfelt desire for change. It should take sustained pressure to bring about a social or political change, and the process should be deliberate. Once a year is plenty often for the people to assemble and organize for political change... we do not need voting to be a daily affair. Today, prayer in schools is popular. Tomorrow, it's yesterday's news. The day after that, muslims shouldn't be able to build their churches... and a week later, nobody gives a damn anymore. If we give in to these temporary outbursts, our government would be in endless chaos.

There's a lot to be said for turtling along... even if it does occasionally frustrate the hell out of you.

Re:You can't win... (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | about 2 years ago | (#41666635)

It's allowed here in Arizona as well, and rarely used.

Re:You can't win... (1)

Captain Hook (923766) | about 2 years ago | (#41666747)

Governmental action should be deliberate, carefully considered, and with many opportunities for feedback, criticism, and discussion.

In theory I agree, but it doesn't look like thats how it works from the outside.

It doesn't feel like our representatives are representing us in pretty much any decision these days and so clearly more control by the population over the representatives is needed beyond getting to vote them out every 4-5 years by which time the policitians have got do nothing jobs lined up with the corporations they helped during office and the new guys you vote in are just a slight different shade of the same color.

Re:You can't win... (0)

udachny (2454394) | about 2 years ago | (#41664909)

Voting? What, you still believe in nonsense like that?

It's called lobbying. In a corrupt system the only way to fight for yourself is by the mechanisms that are provided by the system.

As long as the people vote for 1 or the 2 sides of the same coin, nothing at all will change voluntarily, and people are really really really stupid for the most part, so it's not like everybody will all of a sudden switch to Libertarian principles of freedom.

Thus it's actually called lobbying, which means bribing.

Re:You can't win... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41664921)

Yeah voting doesn't work. Lobbying works.

Also won't work (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | about 2 years ago | (#41664953)

because only the major parties have the money to win. You need money for mass media. To get a message out and to hone that message to perfection.

What America really needs is to start moving back to the left. Conservativism has made progress a dirty word. We're panicking about jobs while automation is making the concept obsolete.

But I doubt you'll see that. More likely you'll see a gradual slide into dark ages.

Re:Also won't work (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#41666793)

Progress is a dirty word when it means ever crushing control and power being wielded by the federal government and spending without any control.

The major parties have the money because they are household names. They became this because they participate in state and local elections and hold seats close to home. If the minor parties did the same, they would or could be in the same position. However, if you think being president is all that matters, you can forget about third parties because they won't be effectual without a congress to support them.

Re:You can't win... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41665017)

Hello betterunixthanunix. I see you are not familiar with the Canadian electoral system. Our prime minister, with less than 40% of the popular vote, nonetheless rules with absolute power. Voting doesn't have a lot to do with it.

The problem is to get this out to the people. The media are firmly in the hands of the Content or Copyright Industry. They have no interest in bringing that up. They'll report on the cost of extending pharma patents, but are absolutely numb on copyright militias, and copyright term extensions (for Canadians).

If tens of thousands would hit the streets in Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, etc. something might change. But that won't happen.

Re:You can't win... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41665835)

Nobody gives a fuck about Canada. All ten of you posting from Canada should stop with your "As a Canadian..." posts because you're pretty much alone. No one cares, just as no one cares about "As a Belgian..." or "As a Honduran..." Just count yourselves lucky the Yanks haven't rolled tanks toward Ottawa, yet. Looking at a map they've got a combat-ready division only, what, four hours at speed limit from Parliament? With two bridges to cross? Oh, Canada.

Re:You can't win... (2)

qbast (1265706) | about 2 years ago | (#41666619)

Dear Canadians, could you please burn capitol AGAIN? It looks like US idiots need a little reminder every now and then.

Re:You can't win... (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#41665271)

Good luck with that. We've been working on it for 200+ years. Maybe we'll overcome an uninformed public that tends to vote based on selfish gain or fear, some day. And maybe it'll overcome the issue of any viable candidate only being viable if he has been vetted by the same aristocracy that essentially has to throw the bulk of their support behind the two parties every election, ever (when both of the dogs in the fight belong to you, it's pretty impossible to lose). One of these days. Yep. All we need to do is vote the right guy(s) in this time around and everything will totally change.

This is the same line of bullshit that gets fed to people with these "vote or die" campaigns. This naive, insincere, undermining, pointless noise of "no matter what, you need to vote -- that's your civic duty -- even if you're stupid, ignorant, selfish and voting based on who smiled more on stage, hold your head up high because you did your good deed for the year by scratching in a check-box!".

The fact is that those lobbying against freedom, liberty, self-determination, and basic sanity do so with a massive war-chest and a full-time dedicated army of lawyers, politicians, corporations, marketers, journalists, and others behind them. The citizens who are impacted by this are too busy working to pay their bills and pre-occupied with their families, sports teams, television shows, and the general bullshit and obligations of life to even be well-informed, much less active in any way (even voting) and only the smallest fraction -- in comparison to those eroding all of these things against our interests -- are in some way able to dedicate themselves full time against this.

Ultimately, these obstacles are insurmountable. Even if we are capable of the never-ending vigilance required by citizens and society to protect their rights from being stripped, we never will. And those lapses in-between moments of national-giving-a-fuck-outcry are ideal for these ever-vigilant attackers to gain ground. In the end, they will always win. The only hope against them is to maintain technological superiority and hope that it can somehow always outpace the law, which I also fear may be coming to an end, eventually (as opposed to the current status where many things escape existing laws, because they were devices to focus on things like print or VHS tapes).

Re:You can't win... (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 2 years ago | (#41665285)

You can at least fire every incumbant. After that demand that lawmakers either eliminate lifetime pensions for politicians (retroactively of course) and if they do not, fire them next election. Keep doing that until would-be career politicians realize that a) they work for us b) we are the boss and c) if they want to keep working for us, they need to remember that the making of a great leader is a servant attitude, not a royalty/celebrity attitude.

Re:You can't win... (1)

gmanterry (1141623) | about 2 years ago | (#41665841)

You can at least fire every incumbant. After that demand that lawmakers either eliminate lifetime pensions for politicians (retroactively of course) and if they do not, fire them next election. Keep doing that until would-be career politicians realize that a) they work for us b) we are the boss and c) if they want to keep working for us, they need to remember that the making of a great leader is a servant attitude, not a royalty/celebrity attitude.

I mailed in my early ballot today. The problem we voters face is the parties recycling candidates. Here in Arizona almost 100% of the names on the ballot are people who have no clue what a 'real job' is. They run for one office and when term limits make them move on, they run for another. The same jerks recycled year after year. Their names become so common that they are elected to the new office because the populace all recognize their names. We NEED new ideas and honest people to run for office. The idea to throw everyone in office out is impossible. Everyone running for office is a career politician, recycled, bought and paid for crooked party hacks. Voters have zero, ziltch nada choice. It seems every cycle we are offered the choice of either Charles Manson or Jeffery Dalmer.

Voting doesn't work (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 2 years ago | (#41666871)

The Dutch voted no to Europe in a referendum, so all the parties ignored it, renamed the treaty and passed it anyway.

The only way to fix the issue is to get rid of the party system and introduce abinding referendum that is then enacted by businessmen who do what they are told and not what they believe.

Because at the core of the fault with the party system is that all politicians believe. Not in a religion but in their ideology and all ideologies are wrong 99% of the time. You can't run a country on the idea of how things should be, you need to run it with how things are. Doesn't matter what you believe in, it is wrong. The free market? Doesn't work without at least some oversight. 5 year plans? Don't work without at least some short term free market system to keep things dynamic.

And you can't change the system because will be to scared of loosing their vote buyer. In the Netherlands the biggest one is the mortage tax deduction. It is a hot potato that could easily turn one of the richest nations on earth into one of the poorest if it collapses but nobody can touch it because any party that dares to even suggest reform will loose the election.

Re:Voting doesn't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41667015)

In the Netherlands the biggest one is the mortage tax deduction. It is a hot potato that could easily turn one of the richest nations on earth into one of the poorest if it collapses but nobody can touch it because any party that dares to even suggest reform will loose the election.

I totally agree.

It's an especially difficult political problem, because if slightly more than half of the voters own their house (and are therefore subsidized every year by the people who don't own their house), then there is hardly ever a majority to change the law and gradually get rid of that abomination.

The effects of the law are difficult to see, if half of the people around you think it's normal.
But currently there are a lot of smart young people working their asses off to provide a mortgage income to the banksters for 30 years of their life, instead of working their asses off for 10 years and just buying a free-standing home outright, which is normal in all surrounding countries except the UK.

But the Dutch don't look at what life is like in Belgium or Germany; they look at their cultural example the UK, see that the house prices are astronomical there as well, and assume it's just a "fact of life".

I believe it also causes a lot of hate toward asylum seekers, because they get given cheap houses (the Netherlands is too cold in winter to live in tent camps) which whisks those houses away from the market, so that e.g. a family of factory workers will have to try to save up € 150 000 somehow, or get chained to a mortgage for the rest of their working lives, to the great merriment of the banksters.


If you live in the Netherlands and are sick of reading Funda every day seeing that there is a ruin somewhere in east-Groningen that you might be able to afford with help from your bank, I have a tip: convert € 1 = SEK 8.6 and visit http://www.hemnet.se [hemnet.se] and type in bostadstyp = villa (freestanding house), pris max = 1 300 000 (approx EUR 150 000), boarea min = 200 m^2 (why live in a small freestanding house?) . 444 hits.

Re:You can't win... (4, Informative)

TrueSatan (1709878) | about 2 years ago | (#41664983)

There are many organisations already working on behalf of ordinary people in cases such as this...the summary already has highlighted one such in the most excellent EFF but there are a number of others who are charitable donation funded and the like so negating your belief that huge wealth is needed to have voices on our side in this, and other, conflicts with the corporations who seek to enrich themselves by removal of our freedoms and liberties. I'll offer a small selection of such organisations below: https://www.eff.org/ [eff.org] http://ffii.org/ [ffii.org] http://www.publicknowledge.org/ [publicknowledge.org] http://keionline.org/ [keionline.org] http://infojustice.org/category/trade-agreements/ [infojustice.org] http://www.article19.org/ [article19.org] http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ [openrightsgroup.org] http://www.edri.org/ [edri.org] http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ [michaelgeist.ca] The last link is to Professor Michael Geist a prominent a noteworthy intellectual and activist in the field. All the above worked diligently to stop ACTA.

Re:You can't win... (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#41665291)

All the above worked diligently to stop ACTA.

For some reason, governments are allergic to consumer advocate groups and sunlight.
Which is why those groups were never invited to the ACTA negotiating table and will never be invited to participate in negotiations for any other copyright-related treaties.

I am a stakeholder in my country and I should not be frozen out of the process that creates my laws.

Re:You can't win... (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 2 years ago | (#41665641)

Which is why those groups were never invited to the ACTA negotiating table and will never be invited to participate in negotiations for any other copyright-related treaties.

This is a rights issue and negotiating or concessions are not required. Quite simply - take your CETA and fuck off!

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 2 years ago | (#41665073)

You can't win...they've got full time jobs doing this sorta thing.

Which is why you can't go to sleep after you win the first battle. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Tyrants are the moles in a very high stakes whack-a-mole game.

Thanks, EFF, for keeping track of these bloodsuckers.

Re:You can't win... Oh, but you can. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41665093)

It's like answering to trolls (orarguing with an idiot, to cite the first recommendation bout the issue).

If rich nations had an economy based on bacon, you can rest assured:

a) bacon would only be produced by them or under their supervision (and control);
b) independent bacon producers would be called "pirates" (because they would be stealing the rich nations profits!) and
c) you'd have lots and lots of treaties to ensure the rich nation laws would propagate into other countries.

So, what is the solution?

Simple: don't play this game.

Create an independent designation and organizations for trade of indeependent media, free by default -- which require explicit prohibition to be made impossible to copy.

The law we have now is: things can be copied, unless there are restrictions (like copyright).

They want to make it work backwards: the general rule will be don't copy anything -- unless you're authorized to do it... on a case-by case analysis.

It's songs now. They want to cut a slice on any transfer, just by making illegal the transfers they don't supervise. Then it will extend to software and ultimately to any transfer of knowledge.

It looks like fiction wants to become real.

Re:You can't win... (1)

citizenr (871508) | about 2 years ago | (#41665883)

they've got full time jobs doing this sorta thing. I suppose you could hire someone to fight on your behalf, but who's got enough disposable income for even that

Iv hear East European henchmen are quite cheap and will "take care" of any problem swiftly.

time for some more murdering of politicians (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41664767)

just start beating them up and on mass rioting near there homes and where they live
time for chaos they want to make it hard for us lets really give them a fucking taste of democracy pitch fork style.....

Re:time for some more murdering of politicians (2)

cas2000 (148703) | about 2 years ago | (#41664943)

It's not the politicians who need murdering, politicians are just the stooges, it's the lobbyists and lawyers, and CEOs of mega-corporations, and shareholders with significant shares of same.

They need to understand that declaring war on the people of the world has direct personal consequences that are not excused just because they're acting as the agent of a monstrous inhuman artificial life-form.

(note for cretins who want to take this as a serious call to action: it is not. It is is a sarcastic reaction against idiotic blaming of 'da ebil gubmint' for evil shit done by *corporations*. governments are not the source of all evil. I'm not saying that some CEOs etc don't deserve a bullet to the head, just that this post is sarcasm, not incitement)

Re:time for some more murdering of politicians (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#41665025)

No one is to blame. Each plays their parts. Each serving their own interests. None of them can do any of it alone.

The story of the DMCA is a perfect example of deep, dark corruption at play though. There is no escaping that it can't happen without corrupt politicians willing to sell out the rights of the people.

While I can't advocate violence as I can't imagine myself participating in such a thing, if I were to pick up a news paper to find some sort of news story where citizens responded to this type of corruption against a politician or a business interest, I would not be... uh... what's the word... disappointed? upset? I don't know what the best words might be, but I can say I would certainly understand the motivation behind it.

Re:time for some more murdering of politicians (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#41666139)

It doesn't have to be violence against the person. Spell out dog raper on their lawn in gasoline and light it. Or build a dog crap bonfire in their driveway. If that doesn't work, pelt them with the dog crap directly. Trash their cars and brick their windows. Make it a living hell to be a corrupt politician/CEO/major investor.

Be creative, mail them a fart in a ziplock bag.

No joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41665733)

In the 1800s politicians would either be tarred and feathered or simply shot for way less than our so called elected leaders get away with today.

Vote statist citizens! More taxes! More Obama! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41664795)

You have been allocated a limited number of days to live, your time is your very life.

The only way a man earns money is by producing something - by his labor. Your labor costs you time, that is part of your life.

When the state confiscates your money, they are literally stealing your life.

Not exaggeration, no double talk. The state means to enslave you and they are doing a pretty good job of it!

Re:Vote statist citizens! More taxes! More Obama! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41664835)

Oh look!

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-we-got-back-every-dime-bailout-cbo-bailout-will-lose-24-billion

"President Barack Obama said on Thursday that “we got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system."

According to the Congressional Budget Office, however, the government will lose about $24 billion on the bailout."

Vote for president liar and become more poor! Do it citizen, do not think for yourselves, vote statist!

Re:Vote statist citizens! More taxes! More Obama! (1)

Aryden (1872756) | about 2 years ago | (#41666463)

CNSNews.com was founded by L. Brent Bozell III on June 16, 1998, under the name Conservative News Service and the domain name conservativenews.org.[3] According to Bozell, the website would "report news ...not touched by traditional television news outlets" and "fill the growing news void left by the establishment media in their chase for the sensational."[3] On its first day of operation the website had 61,000 hits.[3] The name "CNSNews.com" was first used on June 15, 2000.[4] As of 2007, CNSNews.com described its role as serving an audience which puts a "higher premium on balance than spin."[5] "In response to these shortcomings, MRC Chairman L. Brent Bozell III founded CNSNews.com in an effort to provide an alternative news source that would cover stories that are subject to the bias of omission and report on other news subject to bias by commission. CNSNews.com endeavors to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story and debunk popular, albeit incorrect, myths about cultural and policy issues." [5] CNSNews.com's motto is "The Right News. Right now."[6] CNSNews.com's editor from 1998-2005 was Scott Hogenson, who took a leave of absence in November, 2003 to serve as the director of radio and online operations for the Republican National Committee in the 2004 election cycle. Hogenson's leave of absence expired on November 15, 2004 when he returned to CNSNews.com in his original capacity. CNSNews.com has staff in Washington, D.C., London, Jerusalem and the Pacific Rim. Editor-in-chief David Thibault (deceased) became top editor in April 2005 when Hogenson accepted an appointment as a deputy assistant secretary for the U.S. Department of Public Affairs. Thibault died on July 20, 2007 as a result of complications with his cancer treatment.[7] Terence P. Jeffrey became editor-in-chief in September 2007. Jeffrey was and remains an editor-at-large for the conservative weekly newspaper Human Events. He wrote editorials for The Washington Times from 1987–1991 and was research director for the presidential campaign of Patrick J. Buchanan in 1992. Jeffrey was Buchanan's national campaign manager in his 1996 campaign. Under editor David Thibault, CNSNews.com questioned the validity of the circumstances in which Democratic Rep. John Murtha received his purple hearts as a response to Murtha's criticisms of the U.S. War in Iraq. The Washington Post and Nancy Pelosi have commented that this approach is similar to the tactics of the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, which opposed John Kerry's candidacy in the 2004 election.[8]

Thanks Wikipedia!

CETA is wonderful. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41664797)

I support it 100% and hope it passes immediately.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41664805)

It's a good thing that the copyright has expired on that Shakespeare quote otherwise they'd be after me.

Re:Once more unto the breach, dear friends.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41666255)

Well - for now my friend, for now....

SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41664819)

Shove that up your ACTA and watch the CETA flow !!

Again Canada??? (0)

stanlyb (1839382) | about 2 years ago | (#41664849)

These Canadians, why do they continue to act like a back stabbers to the freedom, why? And there was a time when it was the opposite...

Re:Again Canada??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41664903)

Makes me wish that we quebecois hadn't just voted in a government that plans to delay another sucession vote for a decade. I'm even an English speaker from an English neighborhood in Montreal, and I would prefer to be in an independent francophone Quebec than continue as a citizen of Canada as more of these American-style policies are rammed down our throats by Ottowa.

Re:Again Canada??? (0)

stanlyb (1839382) | about 2 years ago | (#41664951)

Do you remember this guy, from Quebec, who was the prime minister, and who was friend with Castro, even when the whole world was just this close to nuclear war, but he did not give up his friends, no matter what. It is really funny that he was more Canadian than most of the Canadians in our government...

Re:Again Canada??? (0)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41664941)

They have to protect Degrassi High.

Re:Again Canada??? (1)

dryeo (100693) | about 2 years ago | (#41665229)

We have a right wing government now and they have a majority

Re:Again Canada??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41665389)

Except the majority of voters DID NOT vote for them.

That, in a nutshell, is why I don't bother voting at all. I cannot find a logical reason why it is a good idea to let someone with 30 some-odd percent of the popular vote control 100 percent of the power in government. It makes no sense.

Re:Again Canada??? (1)

SuperMooCow (2739821) | about 2 years ago | (#41665495)

...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Blame Canada! Blame Canada! (4, Funny)

amorsen (7485) | about 2 years ago | (#41664863)

Before somebody thinks of blaming us.

War on drugs (4, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41664885)

Guys, I'm gonna make it easy for you: You can't possibly follow all the laws. Everyone is a criminal. And it's been that way for a long time now -- they've had a reason to get rid of anyone they want for a long time now. And who's they? Well, them, you know, the guys, the illuminati, the conspiracy, the wizard of oz, whatever. People who are more powerful than you. Accept this.

Following the law is no longer a measure of ethical behavior, and neither is violating it. This is just part of the typical evolution of societies -- Rome had the same problem, right before the Visigoths came marching over the 7th hill. Laws grow increasingly complex, eventually strangling and murdering the very things it was instituted to correct. And then, out of the ashes, comes a new society, that advances to the butter zone, reaches its golden age... and then murders itself.

No matter where you are in the cycle, the answer has always been the same: Do what you feel is right, for you'll be punished for it anyway. The law has never been there to guide the behaviors and actions of a moral and ethical person... it exists solely to educate unethical and immoral people on how to go about their business without getting noticed. That's why ethical people don't say "But it's illegal!" -- they say "That's wrong." The only people who place a high importance on the legality of a thing are the unethical... and if they have a modicum of power and wealth, then they're probably busy passing laws to rob Peter to pay Paul, and trying to convince others that legal = ethical.

Don't buy their story: Do what you feel is right, and fuck the law.

Re:War on drugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41664991)

There is nothing wrong or unethical about violating the law. The laws are unethical in many cases. In order to get by without being persecuted one must some times comply or hide. That is not because ones actions are unethical. It's because someone else's are unethical. Society at large persecutes a lot of different groups. Unfortunately a lot of these groups have individuals in them which would rather be persecuted than work together at overcoming the persecutors. What happens more frequently than not is a group with scape group a segment of there very own group! It's quite fucked. Particularly when you hear it from people within a group where every person is violating the law.

Re:War on drugs (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#41665187)

The GP didn't imply that there is a relation between lawfulness and wrongness. Actually he not so subtly implied the exact opposite, that the two things are different concepts and should not be confused with each other, idea that I completely agree with, by the way.

Re:War on drugs (3, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41665311)

The GP didn't imply that there is a relation between lawfulness and wrongness. Actually he not so subtly implied the exact opposite, that the two things are different concepts and should not be confused with each other, idea that I completely agree with, by the way.

Why the hell do I attract rational and well-reasoned posters like you from time to time, despite my best efforts? I don't want you to see the logic here! I want you to fly into a frothing rage, saying how I'm oppressing some off-beat political view of yours, making giant leaps to conclusions, twisting my words, and typing in all caps with at least three exclamation points in your 15 paragraph masterpiece. Yeesh, this is slashdot... we have standards here.

I appreciate your support, but if you really want to help me out, go throw out some catch phrase in an argument... like "correlation is not causation", or imply some esoteric logical fallacy like I'm making a "straw man" or an "ad hominim" attack. If you're feeling particularly supportive, I haven't seen anything digging into my gender or sexuality in awhile and I'm really growing concerned about the overall quality of posts from my detractors! :) But above all else, you have to display a vague sense of intellectualism, implying that you're smarter than me, and making thinly veiled personal attacks. That's really what I'm looking for in a detractor.

Thanks again! Look forward to the hate mail. :D

Re:War on drugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41665005)

Amen brother!

Re:War on drugs (4, Informative)

Yvanhoe (564877) | about 2 years ago | (#41665011)

Accept this.

No. Don't. Organize. lobby. If you can't give time, give money to the applicable non-profit : EFF in US, Quadrature du Net in France.

Our ancestors fought and die for democracy. We have it much easier : we just have to work one or two hours a week to maintain it.

Re:War on drugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41665101)

"Chairman! Our workers have organized and are threatening to outbribe us! We'll never get the legislation we want now, we're doomed..."

"So pay them less. And didn't I tell you not to bother me with your catastrophizing until the 19th hole? I've half a mind to give our caddy the rest of the day off."

Re:War on drugs (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41665113)

Our ancestors fought and die for democracy. We have it much easier : we just have to work one or two hours a week to maintain it.

And we haven't lost it. In fact, democracy is what has accelerated the problem: How many well-meaning lawmakers and citizens have clamored for "tougher laws" after a high-profile incident? Those tougher laws often remove critical elements of criminal law and due process, as well as tougher punishments under the (false) statement that it'll act as a deterrent. In truth, those tougher punishments aren't there as a deterrent, but as retribution. A critical element of our judicial process is satisfying the public's idea that the criminal "got what he deserved", which is in sharp contrast to the idea of rehabilitation or restitution. The democratic process results in a lot of people's emotions being used as the basis for justice -- but there's a fine line between justice and vengance, and when you have a democracy, it tends to fall more on the side of second than the first.

These problems can be fixed; But it won't be through fighting or dying for our country, nor will it be through blind faith in democracy. To achieve the changes needed, unneeded complexity must be removed. Control must be ceded. Our understanding of the problems need to be improved, and our personal interest and emotions removed. That is a lot harder to do for your country than taking a bullet for it -- it's easy to die. It's harder to change how we live.

Re:War on drugs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41665151)

Comment removed.

Re:War on drugs (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#41665203)

We don't have it easier. If anything we have it much harder. The illusion of democracy in which we live today is a much more immutable beast than any kind of authoritative regimen.

Re:War on drugs (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41665263)

We don't have it easier. If anything we have it much harder. The illusion of democracy in which we live today is a much more immutable beast than any kind of authoritative regimen.

It's not an illusion; we really do have democracy. But that doesn't mean we don't also live in a police state. And a lot of it is because we're a democracy, not in spite of it. We threw away trillions of dollars and our civil liberties willingly to combat terrorism -- that was popular opinion after 9/11, and it still holds a slight majority today. Nevermind that we didn't have to do either, that there were more effective and cheaper options available. Democracy doesn't prevent mass-stupidity and hysteria... if anything, it reinforces and amplifies it. The greatest thing about democracy is also the worst thing about it. While we have freedom of speech, we also have anti-gay legislation on the books. We have the right to vote, but the candidates we vote for were bought and paid for by corporate interests, not us. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point; Democracy is just a method of selection. It does not give any promises about the selection itself; We can vote ourselves into an oppressive government just as well as a military dictator can create one.

Democracy promises the vote: It does not make promises about the result.

Re:War on drugs (4, Interesting)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#41665443)

Well, maybe I can do a better job of antagonizing you here than in the previous post. I will apologize in advance if I fail to be obnoxious enough to attend to your tastes, though. :(

Real democracy belongs to the realm of fantasy, together with ideas like free market and communism. They are ideas that have the common flaw of ignoring human nature.

Communism ignores selfishness and the need of desire and ambition as driving forces to achieve goals.

Free market ignores the ability of human being to organize themselves in groups and to create oligopolies and monopolies.

Democracy ignores human nature to follow. Most people are more suited and more willing to follow than to rule. The "rule of the people" inevitably ends becoming the rule of a few people who can best herd them, and when these people come to power, laws and bureaucracies are increasingly created to keep them and their peers in power.

Personally I think democracy has one and only one redeeming trait. By design it needs lots and lots of laws and lots and lots of cooperation to work. Its own complexity makes any significant change to come slowly which is good if things are going well. That is why democracy works very well in developed countries, because it makes difficult to change what is working into something else.

Re:War on drugs (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41665547)

Well, maybe I can do a better job of antagonizing you here than in the previous post. I will apologize in advance if I fail to be obnoxious enough to attend to your tastes, though. :(

Aww, don't be sad! I was just being snarky. It was a backhanded compliment.

Re:War on drugs (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#41665571)

I will try all caps next time regardless. If I fail in content I can still look forward to achieve it in form! :P

Re:War on drugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41666545)

We have the right to vote, but the candidates we vote for were bought and paid for by corporate interests, not us. I

Democracy promises the vote: It does not make promises about the result.

You know, that's corruption. It's not a democracy if your politicians aren't representing your interests. Last I heard your corporations can't vote, right? It's really not a democracy if your votes don't matter. Dictatorial states have also held elections. Sometimes there is only one person to vote for, sometimes there really are choices, just somehow the one in power gets 106% of all votes. Russia seems to just switch two persons, so they aren't quite on par with your puppet mastery yet. You don't have politicians, you have corporate puppets. Vote for anyone, doesn't matter, it's the same master handling them all. It's _NOT_ democracy.

No. Don't accept. Organize (1)

openfrog (897716) | about 2 years ago | (#41665603)

Just got out of mod points, when I needed the most...!
Please mod parent up! Grandparent got modded +5 insightful with a defeatist tirade.
The parent got it right.

Re:War on FARTS (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41665175)

Fucking Arsole Retarded Twit Shitheads
like you whom bend over and are part of the problem in fact YOU are the enemy and in fact most of the people like you if we really traced you back work for what you say you cannot fight....

freedom is not free we must always know when to self sacrifice for it for the betterment of all. THIS CRAP DOES NOT HELP MANKIND and ONLY HELPS A FEW GREEDY IDIOTS.....

Re:War on drugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41665181)

Everyone's a criminal, but only those that piss off the elite get punished.

Re:War on drugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41666213)

This is just part of the typical evolution of societies -- Rome had the same problem, right before the Visigoths came marching over the 7th hill.

I can't see these goths coming over the hill right now, so I'm off to patent these newfangled "Invisigoths" so I can sue them for infringement on my patents.

Angry, axe-throwing barbarians follow the laws, right?

Re:War on drugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41667083)

That's very profound.

We're pretty far down a very misguided path when copyright infringement can be re-branded as piracy and there is so little outrage. I fully expect it to be criminalized here as it has been in Japan and wonder how long before we have amputations meted out for repeat offenders and executions for truly incorrigible downloaders.

I can almost remember when punishments would fit the crime. It does seem that we're determined to adhere to the historic cycle and watch our society collapse from within. How sad.

They'll never die. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41665083)

They'll never die. They'll never forget. They'll never forgive. They'll never give up.

It's their law, and if you want to stay, you are going to get buried under reams of paperwork.

The price of freedom... (2)

Dutchmaan (442553) | about 2 years ago | (#41665155)

...is eternal vigilance. Seems to ring pretty true.

Re:The price of freedom... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41665173)

Freedom is dead. Move on.

Re:The price of freedom... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41666663)

Is that you, Jack Valenti?

If this is ever stopped... (1)

supersloshy (1273442) | about 2 years ago | (#41665177)

If this is ever stopped, then the article title for it should be... CETA Sings The Blues

YEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHH! [wikipedia.org]

Tyranny through experts (1)

slashrio (2584709) | about 2 years ago | (#41665527)

That's the work-around they've found around democracy (first, and then) freedom, and they are applying it now, going full-throttle.

is anyone surprised? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41665679)

Anyone? C'mon. Someone's gotta be surprised by this news.

We go around again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41665861)

The Canadian Government tried to push crap like this through 1 year ago. They ignored the outcry till it hit them. They need to be shown why this is bad (again).

What the hell Canada? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41666215)

"We want.. more money!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY6fp95uGfM [youtube.com]

They've finally found a reason!

-AC

Solution already ongoing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41666223)

As Bits of Freedom (a Dutch EDRi [wikipedia.org] member) wrote last month [www.bof.nl] .

Obvious cheating. (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41666331)

How, in a democracy, does one go about passing a highly unpopular law? Easy: One simply does it in secret, making no announcements and not revealing the purpose or text to any but a select few. The public cannot oppose what they do not know about.

Re:Obvious cheating. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41666907)

You mean like how the australian government is witholding the draft of the new data retention laws that a good percentage of the population despises and most of the rest don't know/care about (possibly because they have not seen the draft law)?

The laws which are expected to be tabled and then passed into law without review?

Dupe? (1)

xSander (1227106) | about 2 years ago | (#41666633)

Isn't this basically a dupe of the story I submitted back in July? [slashdot.org]

Not that the public shouldn't be reminded again. CETA and other ACTA clones need to die.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...