7251648
story
Comments: 214 +- Your Rights Online: Two Senators Call For ACTA Transparency on Tuesday November 24, @09:10PM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Tuesday November 24, @09:10PM
from the we-got-more-senators-than-that dept.
from the we-got-more-senators-than-that dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgovt.gif); width:57px; height:80px;
government
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicinternet.gif); width:70px; height:73px;
internet
angry tapir writes "Two US senators have asked President Barack Obama's administration to allow the public to review and comment on a controversial international copyright treaty being negotiated largely in secret. The public has a right to know what's being negotiated in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), Senators Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, and Bernard Sanders, a Vermont Independent, argue in the letter."
Related Stories
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices.
-- William James
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
ROFLCOPTER (Score:5, Insightful)
Why legislate in the open when you can negotiate secret treaties in the dark?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
It doesn't matter if this treaty is filled with rainbows and puppies. It needs to be killed as a matter of principle. Free people and free nations do not make law in the dark.
Re:ROFLCOPTER (Score:4, Funny)
Back before memory was cheap and RAM speeds were fast, we couldn't use a full 32 bits to represent a pixel on the screen. If you did that, even at VGA resolution, you'd end up with approximately 1.2MB of memory reserved just to render to the screen. Double that if you want to have an off-screen buffer to prepare the next frame. On systems that had 8MB of RAM in total you can probably sympathize with the graphics guys when they had to skimp on bpp.
Even until very recently, many image formats only used 24bpp. Seeing as there's no real need to go above and beyond 8 bits per color, you can save a full fourth of the total memory just cutting out the unnecessary byte. Of course, you lose something very important: the Alpha channel. Suddenly, the great cost savings you get with that extra saved byte mean little since your image now can't blend nicely with anything else.
Our government is a 2bpp system in a 32bpp world.
Parent
Most insightful department ever (Score:5, Insightful)
"We got more senators than that"
Indeed. It's a shame that only 2% of the senate is willing to stand up against this gross violation of transparency and democratic principles. Good luck to Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown and anyone else who might join them.
Re:Most insightful department ever (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. It's a shame that only 2% of the senate is willing to stand up against this gross violation of transparency and democratic principles.
That really surprises you? Our Congress is anything but transparent. Bills aren't drafted in public and debated on the floor -- they are written behind closed doors by the Congressional leadership and only brought to the floor for some grandstanding in front of the C-SPAN cameras before the vote (whose outcome is already pre-determined) is taken. It's even worse in the House than the Senate. In the House you can't do ANYTHING without the approval of the leadership. We are supposed to have a House of Representatives but it's really a House of whatever [insert current speaker here] wants to allow to the floor.
Our Government stopped being about transparency and democratic principles a long time ago.
Parent
Re:Most insightful department ever (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. It's a shame that only 2% of the senate is willing to stand up against this gross violation of transparency and democratic principles.
That really surprises you? Our Congress is anything but transparent. Bills aren't drafted in public and debated on the floor -- they are written behind closed doors by the Congressional leadership and only brought to the floor for some grandstanding in front of the C-SPAN cameras before the vote (whose outcome is already pre-determined) is taken. It's even worse in the House than the Senate. In the House you can't do ANYTHING without the approval of the leadership. We are supposed to have a House of Representatives but it's really a House of whatever [insert current speaker here] wants to allow to the floor.
Our Government stopped being about transparency and democratic principles a long time ago.
It could be worse. In Canada, our members in the House of Commons have to vote with their party or be removed from it (so votes on bills really are predetermined here). And the senate has rubber stamped every bill through for years.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
given what they want to do, that's a good thing.
No it's not. Car analogy: You are running at full speed, about to hit a tree; the two people in the front seat now start squabbling whether to turn the steering wheel left or right while still pumping the throttle...
What type of car is this? If it's a laden VW bus in need of a tune-up going up hill I don't think there's much to worry about. Also, can you please explain what the tree represents in your analogy?
If I read the analogy correctly, the tree represents a coconut and the bridgekeeper just went over the edge.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also [citation needed] I'm pretty sure there is no such rule, simply that politicians tend to vote with their party line. I know that wayyy back in the day the Whip could dish out minor punishments if people didn't vote with party lines but that's about it. I don't think this is the case anymore, people just get punished if they
Re:Most insightful department ever (Score:4, Insightful)
It never was -- there aren't good old days. Transparency and openness only became possible with mass media, mass literacy and cheap papers a century to a century and a half ago, depending on how you look at it. Before then, you had to be a wealthy landowner just to [i]vote[/i] -- you think there was transparency and openness?
Parent
Re:Most insightful department ever (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. The fascinating history of the Belgian 'colonisation' (read: enslavement) of the Congo, King Leopold's Ghost [wikipedia.org], deals tangentially with a campaign in the run-up to the First World War to shed light on all the secret treaties that Britain had signed and which led it inevitably into war.
The campaigner was vilified in the press and mocked by government sources as a delusional paranoid. It was only in the years following the conflict that he was proven to have been substantially correct,
Believe it or not, the situation we have today is about as good as it's ever been. We do at least have some hope of actually exerting electoral pressure on our candidates, and governments do at some point have to bring information such as this into the open. Congrtulations to the two senators for their actions. Their efforts[*] should be supported, regardless of party affiliation.
---------------
[*] Their efforts, that is, not them. One of the great pitfalls of modern democracy is that we often confuse the person with the policy. Policies should be supported or opposed, not people.
Parent
Re:Most insightful department ever (Score:5, Insightful)
This didn't last long, but the idea was that voters ought to have a stake in the system. There's an argument for that. The USA is very nearly to the point that more than half of the voters either pay no taxes, or receive a net payout from the federal government [cnn.com]. Once the majority can vote themselves largess at the expense of the minority, the game is over. It's only a matter of time till the corpse stops twitching.
There is a strong argument for saying that only people who pay taxes should be allowed to vote. Anyone who receives more in benefits that they pay in should be ineligible - it ain't their money, they don't get to say how it's spent. This includes not only those who do not pay taxes, but also essentially all government employees.
Parent
We Have a House of Representatives (Score:5, Insightful)
We are supposed to have a House of Representatives but it's really a House of whatever [insert current speaker here] wants to allow to the floor.
And the house leadership is selected by elected members of the house, who are presumably representatives of their district, given that's how they get elected. Sounds representative to me. Probably was more so before the mid 90s when party loyalty and fundraising became a bigger criteria for leadership than seniority, so if you're complaining that party politics distorts the picture, I'd agree, but it's still essentially a function of who gets elected.
Our Government stopped being about transparency and democratic principles a long time ago.
To the extent that this is true, it's because this is what we (as a whole) really want. Not what we say we want. We might say we want information and transparency, but frankly, even most of the attentive people I know outside the legislature simply don't pay *careful* attention. They might have hobby horses and hot-button topics, but very few of us have the stomach for careful analysis.
We get the government we have because generally we prefer to focus on our own lives, and when we're not, we prefer entertainment and passionate expression of our general philosophies over thoughtful, nuanced, nuts-and-bolts policy discussion. And because most of us need to be *paid* to seriously research a position and then go down and talk to members of congress about it -- or talk to each other reasonably about it. No surprise the people who will pay others to do that are best represented.
If you're one of the few people who donates to organizations that lobby and do legal work, that takes the time to cite policy research instead of simply ranting when you write your reps and senators, that understands the opposition positions and research well enough to know which of their points are respectable and which are refutable, that might even know (and be known to) some of the congressional staff by name, then congratulations, you're one of the few what I'm saying doesn't apply to.
But for the rest of us, well, the government as it now stands is essentially a reflection of our real habits and values instead of our ideals.
Parent
Re:Most insightful department ever (Score:5, Interesting)
I wrote to Senators Durbin, and Burris. They both responded in form letter that they are all for whatever is being negotiated to stop "piracy". Apparently either they didn't read or don't care that what is really happening (from what has been leaked) is the end of Fair Use, and First Sale. Along with DRM with no way out.
Nice to know both my Senators have our interest at heart.
Not!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Most insightful department ever (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't buy DRM encrusted shite. If the company openly supports ACTA, or is known to have had a hand in writing it, then don't buy their product at all.
At which point the following occurs:
[corp exec]: Senator, we're losing even more money to those Evil Content Pirates)(tm)!!!! Here's a bucketful of money. We need the death penalty for copyright infringement.
Senator: OK.
Parent
Re:Most insightful department ever (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the (many) truly bad things about the ACTA is that it includes punishments for repeated accusations of piracy. So let's say you decide to not buy MPAA/RIAA products and say so publicly. The MPAA/RIAA could accuse you of pirating (even without any evidence whatsoever) a few times and you'd be kicked offline. So even if you aren't pirating, but are just a nuisance, they can say you are pirating, get you kicked offline and force you to spend time and money on a lawsuit to not only clear your name, but to get yourself back online. In other words, under ACTA, big media companies hold all the cards and you'd better submit to their will or else.
Parent
Re:Most insightful department ever (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Most insightful department ever (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Most insightful department ever (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a reminder: both of these excellent senators are considered by the media to be on the extreme far-left.
Goes to show just how badly "framing" has warped political discussion in the US.
Parent
Re:Most insightful department ever (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that center or center-right?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering how the world is shifting to the right I'd say we arrived at center by now. Even our socialists now sound almost like our liberals.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just a reminder: both of these excellent senators are considered by the media to be on the extreme far-left.
Actually, they're considered by Congress itself to be on the extreme far-left.
Re:Most insightful department ever (Score:4, Insightful)
Stay where you are! In Vermont they already vote decent representatives in, vote some in in your state.
Parent
My original link + PDF of the letter (Score:5, Informative)
cheers,
A. Tapir
Bernie Sanders is the Man (Score:4, Interesting)
Secrecy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:what what the name of that Who song? (Score:5, Insightful)
The way US politics and campaign finance are run, there is no way to make a credible run for office unless you are "same as the old boss."
If you don't like that fact, find a way to change it. But don't complain that a system designed to perpetuate itself continues to look the same.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are numerous easy solutions to solve the campaign finance issue. However, none of them will ever get anywhere because the current system has far too many very rich, very powerful people involved.
Re:what what the name of that Who song? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are numerous easy solutions... However, none of them will ever get anywhere
Based on your statement, I think we may have different understandings of the word "easy."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Senators don't sign laws or treaties, they only approve them.
The President is the one who ultimately wields the pen.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes and no. They can still put something into law with 2/3rds majority vote.
and the supreme court can void them (Score:3, Interesting)
and the supreme court can void them
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IIRC, the President can sign whatever treaties he wants - but Congress still has to vote them into law, somewhat like a regular bill. This means that, say, Obama could sign this treaty and Congress could totally ignore it.
If Congress did sign the treaty into law, the Supreme Court could overturn the law that actually makes the treaty binding... but only if it is challenged, and the challenge gets to the Supreme Court.
Cheques and balances!
Re:The senators can sign a law that takes a way th (Score:5, Insightful)
Our current plethora of unconstitutional laws and policies would suggest that's not the case.
Parent
Re:Gonna be modded down but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
American was not interested in a racist religious nutbag.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ron Paul may be a homophobic, racist, religious, evolution denying nutbag, but at least he isn't a globalist, corporatist, wiretapping immunity wishwashing, patriot-act handwaving, trillion dollar handouts for everyone nutbag. While it is nice to have a president whose morals and ideology matches your own, at this point I would be supremely happy to just have someone who isn't a scumbag willing sell out our rights or future for the highest dollar. Or perhaps it is me who is crazy and just doesn't see the bi
Re:Gonna be modded down but ... (Score:5, Funny)
Reading political discourse among most slashdotters is like watching old people fuck.
It's messy, clumsy, and a little bit revolting.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He ran as a Libertarian in the 1988 presidential election.
Political party:
Republican (1976-1988)
Libertarian (1988 Presidential Election)
Republican (1988-Present)
He remains a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Liberty_Caucus [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you want to believe that crap, but most of us want to stop hearing jingoistic misrepresentations, exaggerations and outright lies. Unfortunately, neither you nor the rest of us seem destined to get what we want.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, but if they do it in secret then ratify it, it won't really be law. Turns out the government can't enact domestic laws simply by signing treaties - or if they try they won't necessarily stand up in court.
The fact that ACTA is likely to contain punitive measures without a proper hearing will get up most judges noses. I would think it's probably unconstitutional and may even be an act of treason attempting to put the interests and wishes of a corporation or group of corporations above Crown and law. Run
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In secret?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah but I did mention the Crown. This is why, as an Australian, I still support the monarchy. I don't care much about the queen, I'm sure she's lovely, but the Crown gives us a certain amount of protection.
it's a perfect example of how the constitutional monarchy actually provides freedom from rampant capitalism.
Yank baiting aside, the reason I responded directly like that without modifying my thoughts for American consumption is that /. is international and Australia, Canada and Great Britain are in ACTA negotiations. I don't know if this is common in the Commonwealth, but at least here, they can't make it legal without parliament and if they do it is potentially a serious offense. Maybe I'm just rubbing it in.
So basically we can sign the treaty to do the usual brown nose and it won't be law for but it will for you. Geez, you the people nedd to reclaim your constitution.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
China?
If this gets modded Insighful/Informative... be afraid. Be very afraid.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, but if they do it in secret then ratify it, it won't really be law. Turns out the government can't enact domestic laws simply by signing treaties - or if they try they won't necessarily stand up in court.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
you mean like all of those RIAA judges Obama's been appointing to the supreme court?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's an "executive agreement" (Score:3, Informative)
One of the (many) problems with ACTA from the US perspective is that it's not being negotiated as a treaty, which would then require ratification by the Senate before becoming law. It's being negotiated as an "executive agreement", which requires zero Congressional oversight. Ostensibly this also means that it cannot go beyond the bounds of existing US law, and of course the USTR et al. all assure us that it doesn't, but without seeing the text, there is no way to know if that's actually true or not.
Another
Oh, it most certainly will be law. WTO proves it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Better go look up the World Trade Organization. Half the stuff that organization does is by means of processes that aren't transparent at all. There's not been even a hint that anyone in the legal community might suggest the WTO has done anything improper.
If you wish to fight ACTA, you better get off your butt and do it now. The lawyers aren't going to fight it afterward.
Re:Against ACTA or not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, it reads like they want to know what ACTA is about before they are for or against it. Which is basically what I'd expect from a level headed politician. What they want is that the legislative (ya know, the body that SHOULD actually make the laws. If you think that's the prez's job, you're essentially wrong) can do its job. What I'd guess they want is to take back the power that has somehow appearanty creeped towards the prez (who represents another power, actually) while nobody was looking.
One of the cornerstones of a democratic, non-authoritarian government is that separation of powers. The creed is that no person should have more power than he absolutely needs. The US founding fathers saw that in certain situations it might be necessary to act swiftly so they created that office of the president and gave him the extraordinary position of wielding the executive power in his single hand, because executing laws can be a matter that cannot wait until you have assembled hundreds of people and got them to find a consensus.
Creating new laws, on the other hand, is something that should, must take time. It should be pondered and considered, by many brains with many different views, so every aspect these laws could affect can be taken into consideration. Good laws rarely come from one single person. No person has all the facts, no person takes every possible consequence into consideration, so many people can crate better laws that benefit most.
Ok, ok, so far the theory, because we know how much rubberstamping is going on, with few senators even knowing what they vote on. But at least they should have the power to do so, if they take their job seriously and don't just want to have good salary with little to no work or responsibility.
I'd guess they want their duty back. Whether they're eventually for or against it, only time will tell. But they want to know what they vote on, and given that most Senators don't, I'd consider that a good sign.
Parent