Slashdot Log In
EU Council Refuses To Release ACTA Documents
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:58 PM
from the mine-mine dept.
from the mine-mine dept.
CaptSolo writes "The EU Council refuses to release secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement documents, stating that disclosure of this information could impede the proper conduct of the negotiations, would weaken the position of the EU in these negotiations, and might affect relations with the third parties concerned. The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure requested these documents last week. FFII's response questions ACTA's secrecy saying: 'The argument that public transparency regarding 'trade negotiations' can be ignored if it would weaken the EU's negotiation position is particularly painful. At which point exactly do negotiations over trade issues become more important than democratic law making? At 200 million euro? At 500 million euro? At 1 billion euro? What is the price of our democracy?'"
Related Stories
[+]
Concerns About ACTA In EU, Canada 75 comments
Elektroschock writes "An EU document on the Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty was leaked. The main purpose of the trade agreement is to impose the European enforcement measures for IPR infringements on the US and emerging economies, widen the enforcement measures to include criminal sanctions for patent infringements, and introduce internet content filtering measures. Civil society groups such as the FFII criticize the ACTA process because negotiation documents are not made publicly available by the governments. The EU document ('fact sheet') from the EU Trade Commissioner explicitly mentions: 'Internet distribution and information technology — e.g. mechanisms available in EU E-commerce Directive of 2000, such as a definition of the responsibility of internet service providers regarding IP infringing content.'" And an anonymous reader adds Michael Geist's push for more transparency around ACTA negotiations in Canada.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Just tell us already! (Score:5, Insightful)
weaken the position of the EU in these negotiations
For the sake of government transparency, I say it's worth it.
might affect relations with the third parties concerned
For the worst, I hope.
Re:Just tell us already! (Score:5, Funny)
Questioning the council leads to fear, fear leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Questioning the council leads to fear, fear leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side.
Ahh so all roads lead to the EU Council then.
It's not democratic. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's closed-door rulemaking the old-fashioned way.
Democratic nations should be petitioning against the negotiations and attempting to recall council member representatives on that basis.
Before it's too late...
Re:It's not democratic. (Score:5, Insightful)
it is democratic as long as the people doing the negociations are democraticly elected. That is called representative democracy. "We the people" can punish the leaders if they f- up by not re-electing them.
No, that's not how the Dutch or other European democracies work. We have a system whereby you have a government and a parliament (with one or two chambers). While both the people in parliament and in the government are democratically elected, the job of the parliament is to scrutinise the government. It's all part of the checks and balances.
The problem with the ACTA is that the national parliaments have no access whatsoever to the texts under negotiation, and hence are unable to perform their jobs as representatives of the other citizens.
It is this leaking that shifts the balance away from the electoral result, So actually i believe that leaking does more harm to the democratic process than the fact that they do it behind closed doors.
That's only true if you believe that a representative democracy means that you "cast your vote and then forget about everything". That's a very naive and unrealistic view. Voting is only a part (but an important one) of what is necessary to make a representative democracy work.
Constant scrutiny and input from the general public is desirable and I dare say required to keep things functioning properly. After all, the people in government and parliament are not supposed to and cannot rule from an ivory tower, just decreeing what is "best for the populace", without any external input.
They are elected to represent us, but that does not mean that from that point on they will automatically always possess all necessary knowledge to decide about anything that matters. They regularly have to inform themselves about topics they don't know everything about.
So how should they inform themselves? By looking at studies and talking to experts. Studies are written by people and experts are also people. Inevitably, you are going to get some bias. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that they get input from an as broad as possible group of people so that they get an as complete as possible picture (rather than just the picture that one or other special interest group wants them to see).
Hence, public scrutiny and awareness about what is going on is of paramount importance to avoid lock-ins by special interest groups. That doesn't mean it is easy to avoid this, but it is a necessary precondition.
The European Court of Justice recently still stressed the importance of openness in law making in its ruling in the Turco case [europa.eu]:
Openness in that respect contributes to strengthening democracy by allowing citizens to scrutinize all the information which has formed the basis of a legislative act. The possibility for citizens to find out the considerations underpinning legislative action is a precondition for the effective exercise of their democratic rights.
Parent
I Know!! (Score:2, Interesting)
We can just ask President-Elect Obama to publish it after he gets sworn in! He's all about "Change", right?
Right?
-Strat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Canada is also a part of this RIAA farce.
This is big media taking the biggest stance yet against the free flow of information on the internet.
This benefits big business, not voters, nor likely the artists as history shows.
How best to make this stuff public? Hopefully someone will get a copy out to wikileaks.
Also perhaps a list of politicians who are directly (or indirectly?) involved in this deal should be published to shame them into coming clean..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and Parliaments cannot see what is negotiated there, they don't even know the precise mandate of the Government to conclude this agreement and Eu bureaucrats admit that the objective is to impose IP enforcement regulation on "trade partners". According to EU officials part of it are civil and criminal sanctions for IPR enforcement and internet content filtering. The directive for criminal sanctions is currently stalled in the EU-Council because the EU level has no competence for that and the proposed m
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it's the state designator for the People's Republic of Eugene? Has it finally declared UDI from the rest of Oregon?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that he's president-elect of America, which, last time I checked, wasn't a member of the EU.
Last I checked, America was also involved in the ACTA negotiations. Wouldn't the US State Department have copies of such an agreement he could release if he so chose? As a matter of fact, isn't America one of the biggest, if not *the* biggest, proponent of some of the most egregious and draconian parts of this agreement? Could he not instruct the US State Department to change terms that the US put in?
Besides,
Re:I Know!! (Score:4, Informative)
How about this? [opensecrets.org] He was only in the Senate for 3 of those years, yet he still managed to rank second!
Or maybe this? [abcnews.com]
Or this? [greenchange.org]
I could go on all day, but what's the point? You're just going to make up some ridiculous excuse.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Guess who got $0 from those PACs?
And no,
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
holy FUCK are you naive little man.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because then things get complicated, and you have to actually compare things.
I do really hate how people keep talking about stuff as a binary thing, when there are a variety of options.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or in other words... (Score:4, Funny)
All your rights are belong to us.
Somebody set up us the bomb (and the people actually voted for them!)
You have no chance to survive make your time. Ha ha ha ha ....
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused (Score:3, Insightful)
democratic law making?
the EU
Can someone explain the relation, please?
Simple (Score:2)
It only takes one word: antithesis.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh stop it. I know it's a popular meme, but it's not much more than that. The european union is a democratic institution and always has been. Yes it has its faults, but it has become more democratic with time. Unlike some other federations that shall remain unnamed, like the USA.
I'd also argue that the EU has brought more democracy to the world since the 90s than any other state or organisation. The expansion of the EU and the often just the prospect of it, has brought democracy to eastern europe and beyond
What is the price of our democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Priceless.
When a government decides to have policy and decision making behind closed doors that can/may and probably will impact your day to day life, you can and are moving from a democracy to an oligarchy. Regardless of whether you're electing them or not, the state of affairs on such is the same.
People in the EU shouldn't be questioning this, they should be up in arms over it, screaming and protesting in the streets over it.
Re: (Score:2)
you can and are moving from a democracy to an oligarchy.
Nah, that would require the EU to be a democracy in the first place, which it most certainly is not [wikipedia.org].
Rich.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Happily.
Just as soon as I can get over the "citizen apathy" hurdle to get some people together.
Australia has this problem as well. (Score:3, Interesting)
Australia has the same problem. EFA Tried to sue using Freedom of Information laws to get the same info out of the department of foreign affairs and trade. Same response. All the governments are under an NDA on this thing. The USA needs to cleanup this mess because they're the ones forcing the non disclosure clauses. New Zealand also has the same issue.
Re:Australia has this problem as well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Australia has the same problem. EFA Tried to sue using Freedom of Information laws to get the same info out of the department of foreign affairs and trade. Same response. All the governments are under an NDA on this thing. The USA needs to cleanup this mess because they're the ones forcing the non disclosure clauses. New Zealand also has the same issue.
If nothing else, it serves to remind us that in most countries, the government is a very separate entity to the people... Ironic given the USA mantra "of the people, by the people, for the people." How a government can be under NDA for a policy that affects their country's people in such a broad manner is beyond ridiculous. Perhaps they are concerned that other governments of the world may gain a competitive advantage? Funnily enough, I'd wager that non-signatories most certainly will.
Sadly, it may be too late for New Zealand. The main sponsor of this act was Minister of Commerce Judith Tizard, who recently lost her office as part of the beaten Labour party in NZ elections, and also lost her electorate as an MP... but nevertheless, the act goes into effect here Feb 28 2009.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder where you are getting your dates from. ACTA hasn't been finalised, and the NZ Ministry of Economic Development has stated they will make the decision to join the proposed agreement once the public has commented on the final version.
MED's ACTA FAQ [med.govt.nz]
Despite the secrecy surrounding ACTA, the NZ government does have a process that it has to abide by to make ACTA legally binding. Violate any one of those steps, and it could void the enforcement of ACTA in NZ.
Judith Tizard was hoping
Oh, how surprising! (Score:5, Insightful)
In case none of you know, the EU is pretty much a mislabeled dictatorship. Citizens of the EU have pretty much nothing to say about what goes on or who gets "elected" for this or that. Democracy, pah!
The EU is a very good idea gone horribly wrong. Read me right, I want a united Europe, but not like this. We can vote for people who have get no actual power, yay! We waste money on going from A to B X times a month to not hurt France and Germany's pride, yay! We the people decline on the new "constitution" (what a joke) and they try pushing it through anyways, yay! I could go on, but what's the use...
All the good ideas get tossed, more (insane) regulation nobody wants gets piled. Media pay no attention to it either. What's going on in EU politics? You wont get it from the telly, the paper, or the generic news sites (though Obama is all over the place)...
The EU as a government body is a farce in need of some serious fixing, the only problem is some countries have serious ego and other countries actually care.
Give me the information and my 1/300m'th say in who our new EU overlords are, and I shall welcome them!
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to mention the pork barrel politics [timesonline.co.uk]..
Re:Oh, how surprising! (Score:5, Insightful)
In case none of you know, the EU is pretty much a mislabeled dictatorship. Citizens of the EU have pretty much nothing to say about what goes on or who gets "elected" for this or that. Democracy, pah!
The EU is a very good idea gone horribly wrong. Read me right, I want a united Europe, but not like this. We can vote for people who have get no actual power, yay! We waste money on going from A to B X times a month to not hurt France and Germany's pride, yay! We the people decline on the new "constitution" (what a joke) and they try pushing it through anyways, yay! I could go on, but what's the use...
All the good ideas get tossed, more (insane) regulation nobody wants gets piled. Media pay no attention to it either. What's going on in EU politics? You wont get it from the telly, the paper, or the generic news sites (though Obama is all over the place)...
The EU as a government body is a farce in need of some serious fixing, the only problem is some countries have serious ego and other countries actually care.
Give me the information and my 1/300m'th say in who our new EU overlords are, and I shall welcome them!
What? Did I hear you whining about the EU? We've been putting up with that sort of crap since at least 1850. It started a war in 1861. The US Federal Government really took advantage of having fewer states to ratify constitutional amendments (well, they had claimed they had suceeded, and the Federal Gov't claimed they hadn't, but didn't include them in the ratification process anyway) and pass all sorts of terrible laws. Have you ever wondered why there's a negative stereotype of the US South?
What's that? I hear you whining about more laws that noone actually wants? May I present to you Franklin Rooseveldt, who got his New Deal to stick even though it was unconstitutional, by threatening to stack the supreme court in his favor. We're still hurting from that one, with an overburdened social security system that I pay into, but will probably be bankrupt when I get to retirement age. Let me present to you one Lyndon Baines Johnson, who intensified that problem, by creating even more entitlements. Furthermore, let me present to you the current crisis, which resulted in $700*10^9 (THAT'S A LOT OF NUTS!) to save corporate investors and debt-owners from their own greed. Let me point out that I didn't get a whole lot of say in that one, and I tried to clearly communicate it to my elected officials.
What's that? I hear you complaining about a lack of power? At least you have more control over your own little area. Our Federal government seems to be able to override a lot of things at the state level (let me be the first to point out that technically, the states were considered the supreme component, holding much the same status as the countries comprising the EU today.) Haven't you noticed that we always end up with one Republican and one Democrat in nearly all elections that win 49% and 50% of the vote? Have you further noticed that most of the time, their policies, despite how they are package, vary rather little from each other?
Maybe you should concentrate on making the EU a better place, looking at the US as an example of what not to do (and some examples of good ideas, lest I forget the extremely simple Constitution, simple enough that even a child can generally understand it). Maybe if you can make the EU a freer place, I'll want to move to one of the countries there. As it is now, The EU and US are going the direction of having telescreens on everyone's wall.
Parent
Re:Oh, how surprising! (Score:4, Informative)
Note that the problem with the EU comes down to national governments not wanting to cede power. The council is composed of the leaders of the respective governments whilst the commission is headed up by appointees of those governments. The parliament is democratically elected but has insufficient power. The trade commissioner responsible for ACTA (it was one of his "successes") was Mandelson and we know how he has always had his links with business and the media.
The role of British media should also be examined as they love to misrepresent regulations out of context whilst forgetting to inform people about useful things like the matching regional development aid. It seems that the UK has been somewhat inefficient at applying for grants that other countries, i.e., Ireland have done very well out of.
Please remember that the EU has relevance here tro slashdot, given the support for open formats and open source software and the reverse engineering directive which gives rights that are simply not available in the US.
Parent
Simple solution to this problem (Score:2, Insightful)
The EU won't release the paperwork? Well, the simplest solution is "Better the devil I know
Re: (Score:2)
No, it would not.
You have failed to distinguish between an unratified treaty and a ratified treaty. They are negotiating the unratified treaty. It won't apply to you until it becomes a ratified treaty
If it actually starts down the path to ratification, it will not be secret. For example, in the EU, it will have to be submitted to the legislative bodies f
Secret from who exactly? (Score:3)
The EU is not alone. Here in New Zealand we're trying to find out what is in the ACTA and the word is we'll be told when they're ready to vote on it.
Meanwhile you have to wonder who this information is being kept secret from, since all the governments it'll affect already have a copy.
Vik :v)
obama (Score:2)
By "Third Parties" they mean "The Public" (Score:4, Insightful)
Government and the Business interests that pay them are the first parties. The Third Parties are The Public. When you realize that is their actual meaning, it all makes sense because ultimately, when we find out what they are trying to do, the public outcry will weaken their position as they are negotiating all of our rights away.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah? You mean that the US have published the documents? Please link or just shut up with your idiotic comments regarding Europe. Thanks
Re: (Score:2)
The US are about free speech and obviously not free information.
The EU has been providing us with a shameless history of traisons against the people: Take as a expample the scam called "lisbon treaty" that was much indeed the exact copy the rejected constitution, only written in a way noone was able to understand and as a treaty in order to avoid any referendum.
No surprise that both powers are doing things in secret, probably they are planning to hurt their own people, once again.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the Lisbon treay is a treay and the EU constitution was a constitution. There's a pretty big difference, you know.
Treaties, like most legal documents, are always difficult to read. They have to be, as "easy to read" almost always equates to "vague" - not something you want in law!
Try reading the original Treaty of Maastricht if you want a challlenging document. That little bueaty is the source of many 2nd year law students' nightmares.
Re: (Score:2)
NO WAY.
Get some information before you relay the official LIES from the european commission. The lisbon arrangments should be called out loud "Lisbon Traison"
This is what they don't want you to know http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kr0Foq3CQE [youtube.com] or maybe you already know and are just a laque of the European commission...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Avoid the logical fallacy of assuming that one random opinion represents the thoughts and opinions of one billion people.
2. Look up some definitions, some of the words you are using do not mean what you think they do (eg: socialisim).
3. The USA is a nation, the EU is largely a trading bloc.
4. Your troll mod could easily have come from anyone, anywhere. In fact given the mood in the US
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Whoa dude,
By all accounts the US are the instigaters of this ACTA nonsense, instigated under a Republican administration.
Trade reps have been bullying and bribing the Canadian government for a couple of years to get our Lilly livered conservatives to try to pass a "made in Canada" DMCA that makes the US DMCA look like a good idea. (Bill C-61)
It went away when the Canadian Conservative party called an election this fall, but now that's done with, it's expected to come back with a vengeance.
This ACTA thing se
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not when progressives need a strawman (facism) or conservatives need one (tax-and-spend liberals). It's harder to blindly hate if you take time to understand complex situations. Far easier to "cast" the opponent into a pre-defined hate-worthy role. That's why we see all this copy-pasta blaming something in a way that makes no sense at all.
Re: (Score:2)