Ambassador Claims ACTA Secrecy Necessary

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "According to Ambassador Ron Kirk, the head of US Trade Representatives, the secrecy around the ACTA copyright treaty is necessary because without that secrecy, people would be 'walking away from the table.' If you don't remember, that treaty is the one where leaks indicate that it may contain all sorts of provisions for online copyright enforcement, like a global DMCA with takedown and anti-circumvention restrictions, three-strikes laws to terminate offending internet connections, and copyright cops. FOIA requests for the treaty text have been rebuffed over alleged 'national security' concerns. One can only hope that what he has said is true and that sites like Wikileaks will help tear down the veil of secrecy behind which they're negotiating our future."

Re:The question is...

[Late Adopter]

It's not national security as such. Here's the relevant excerpt from a statement from the USTR in response to the article (from the Wired article linked from TFA):

The Administration also recognizes that confidentiality in international negotiations among sovereign entities is the standard practice to enable officials to engage in frank exchanges of views, positions, and specific negotiating proposals, and thereby facilitate the negotiation and compromise that are necessary to reach agreement on complex issues. A unilateral release of text by one trading partner would risk breaching the mutual trust that is important to successful trade negotiations.

International politics is an insanely complex and yet dreadfully boring game played by suits behind closed doors. I'm not personally advocating secrecy, but welcome to the status quo.

Re:Hard to see the redeeming qualities

[langelgjm]

On one hand, I see why a treaty like ACTA might be desirable to establish a common copyright law across all nations. Especially given how much copyright infringement is going on between nations and how hard it is to enforce laws nationally when the economy and the access is global.

We already have plenty of international agreement on copyright law: the Berne convention, WIPO copyright treaties, the TRIPS agreement, etc. All of those have plenty more signatories than ACTA will have, anyway.

There are also more appropriate venues to be negotiating changes to international copyright law (namely, WIPO). ACTA is not being negotiated there because WIPO requires transparency and broad participation, and ACTA's supporters know that it would not stand a chance at WIPO.

From what I have heard from people who have seen ACTA, as well as the few leaks about it, the reason it's being kept so secret is because it is exporting a lot of crappy US policy, including fundamentally flawed bits, like the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.

From the actual law...

[Late Adopter]

The grounds used to deny the FOIA request were 5 USC 552(b)(1), which states (bolded for emphasis):

(b) This section does not apply to matters that are--

(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;

People interpreted that as meaning national security, but it clearly means foreign policy in this instance.

Re:Except in the US ACTA does not have to be ratif

[Late Adopter]

Well, ratification would count, except that in the U.S., ACTA is being negotiated as an executive agreement, and thus doesn't require ratification by Congress.

There are 3 types of treaties, "Treaties" proper, as defined under the Constitution requiring 2/3 Senate approval, congressional-executive agreements, which are negotiated by the Executive (President), and implemented by Congress by simple majority in both houses as if they were ordinary laws, and sole-executive agreements, which are negotiated and implemented by the Executive branch limited to the manners in which they have authority to do so (instructing the FBI not to enforce certain laws, for example). According to Wikipedia, the latter two types are often prefered because they lack the permanence of Constitutional treaties:

It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent...
--Thomas Jefferson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause [wikipedia.org]

Re:Is Kirk hinting to us?

[Torodung]

We did keep voting Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank into the senate, where they helped create the mortgage crisis.

Barney Frank is a member of the House of Representatives. Check your own facts and assumptions, carefully, before calling other people "stupid."

Otherwise you just wind up looking like this.

--
Toro

Re:Is Kirk hinting to us?

[Shotgun]

Take look at the US Constitution, you dimwit. Out of the three, defense, education, and healthcare, there is exactly ONE that the US Federal government is responsible for.

Just because you want something doesn't make it a federal responsibility.

Re:White Male Land-owners?

[TheRaven64]

No they don't. Look at turnout for US elections: apathy has had more votes than the winning party in most US elections in the last decade or two. In the UK, we have a few parties that get a decent number of votes, although not enough to control the government, and so although we get higher turnout the winner still gets fewer votes than the number of people who don't vote.

Re:The question is...

[donscarletti]

Basically, whenever there is a hiatus between two vowels, the diaeresis mark can be used over the second (like GP did) to indicate that it is not a diphthong. I've had teachers insist that I use either a diaeresis or a hyphen on this word, but this is a stupid attitude because of its lack of ambiguity and the fact that not many other English words are really pronounced how they look either. However insisting on it is no more stupid than saying that it is incorrect. This is an often cited example of an English word with a diaeresis such as here [absoluteastronomy.com] I think it is reasonable to use one here if one wants, it is as valid as any other spelling and is _the_ valid spelling in certain reference books.

Re:Except in the US ACTA does not have to be ratif

[s73v3r]

Of course, to get to that point (where it never existed), that means that someone has to have been caught under it, and successfully appealed their case before the Courts, all the way up to the SCOTUS if need be, and they need to agree that it is contrary.

Re:From the actual law...

[vanka]

I don't like the secrecy involved, but as some have pointed out it is a necessary (or rather accepted) part of international treaty negotiation procedure. Also remember that in the US once a treaty has been negotiated, it still must be ratified by the Senate* (in some cases. Just because a treaty has been successfully negotiated it does not guarantee ratification by the Senate as ratification requires a 2/3 majority- Kyoto treaty anyone. When the treaty becomes public (and it should) - if you disagree with it, give your senator a call. *This is a simplification of course, the president does have the authority to ratify executive agreements without input from the Senate; but this is done when the president is acting alone in negotiating the treaty (sole executive agreements) or to "fill in" gaps in treaties. For treaties that require additional legislation to implement domestically, the treaty requires the advice and 2/3 majority of the Senate to be ratified (standard treaty process). A president may also choose to pursue a congressional-executive treaty (requiring majority approval in both houses of Congress) to gain support for it in Congress - especially important when the treaty will require new/complex legislation or funding appropriation to implement.