Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy The Internet United States Your Rights Online

US Rejects Demands For ACTA Transparency 351

Posted by Soulskill
from the yet-we-still-see-right-through-you dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The US Trade Representative issued a release just prior to the launch of the New Zealand round of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negotiations that has left no doubt the US is the biggest barrier to official release of the ACTA text. Unlike most other ACTA countries that have called for transparency without condition, the US has set conditions that effectively seek to trade its willingness to release the text for gains on the substance of the text."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Rejects Demands For ACTA Transparency

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Then fuck it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Austerity Empowers (669817) on Monday April 12, 2010 @01:18PM (#31819028)

    "We're afraid of our own democracy, it tends to interfere with corporate interests"

  • Re:Then fuck it. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 12, 2010 @01:20PM (#31819056)

    can any of the americans explain this to us here ?

    You wanted hope and change? You got it. Hope you like it.

  • Re:Then fuck it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hypergreatthing (254983) on Monday April 12, 2010 @01:21PM (#31819092)

    can any of the americans explain this to us here ?

    As an American, no i can't. We the public did not create this, have no say in this and have nothing to do with this. I wouldn't even know where to send a strongly worded letter to.

  • Re:Then fuck it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) on Monday April 12, 2010 @01:22PM (#31819104) Journal

    Corruption. Next question?

  • Let me decide (Score:5, Insightful)

    by UninformedCoward (1738488) on Monday April 12, 2010 @01:23PM (#31819118)

    We hope that enough progress is made in New Zealand in clearing brackets from the text so that participants can be in a position to reach a consensus on sharing a meaningful text with the public.

    Hey, how about letting the people decide what is meaningful?

  • by TheMeuge (645043) on Monday April 12, 2010 @01:28PM (#31819230)

    It's very simple, no conspiracy required. The situation is as follows:

    1. Large IP holders' lobbyists are applying direct financial pressure to the gov't in general and undoubtedly the negotiators personally
    2. The public reaction is only important if it is large enough to affect an election outcome. This is blunted by the fact that the negotiators are appointed, not elected. In the US, even the election pressure is largely blunted by the nature of the winner-takes-all system. In Europe individual votes matter far more to the politicians. Here in the US, they don't care as long as they get their 50.1%
    3. The negative reaction from the public will only come about if they find out about it, and most will not waver from mainstream media.
    4. Mainstream media is largely owned by large IP holders, and will not only avoid stories about the ACTA, but will create a massive campaign to smear any protest that becomes public.

    That's it. There's no conspiracy. Just self-interest all around.

  • by wowbagger (69688) on Monday April 12, 2010 @01:31PM (#31819286) Homepage Journal

    I Hope the Transparency of administration's insistence on this shows there has been no Change in the administration.

    I Hope the Slashbots will Change their votes, but the Transparency of the moderators indicates otherwise.

  • by Shotgun (30919) on Monday April 12, 2010 @01:37PM (#31819370)

    Now, that's some change we can believe in. Let's all hear it for the most open government in the history of the United States.

  • by causality (777677) on Monday April 12, 2010 @01:38PM (#31819384)

    It's very simple, no conspiracy required. The situation is as follows:

    1. Large IP holders' lobbyists are applying direct financial pressure to the gov't in general and undoubtedly the negotiators personally 2. The public reaction is only important if it is large enough to affect an election outcome. This is blunted by the fact that the negotiators are appointed, not elected. In the US, even the election pressure is largely blunted by the nature of the winner-takes-all system. In Europe individual votes matter far more to the politicians. Here in the US, they don't care as long as they get their 50.1% 3. The negative reaction from the public will only come about if they find out about it, and most will not waver from mainstream media. 4. Mainstream media is largely owned by large IP holders, and will not only avoid stories about the ACTA, but will create a massive campaign to smear any protest that becomes public.

    That's it. There's no conspiracy. Just self-interest all around.

    That actually is a conspiracy for it requires many people to cooperate together to accomplish a shared goal. Self-interest is assumed in a conspiracy since it is unusual to form conspiracies for purposes of charity. It's also a conspiracy because the same small (compared to the whole US population) group that owns the large IP also owns the media. That's evidenced by conducting a smear campaign which by its very nature is not terribly interested in factual accuracy.

    There's nothing magic about the word "conspiracy" except in the minds of people who are desperate to dismiss a notion without actually finding fault with it. "You said 'conspiracy' therefore you're automatically a nut and I'll ignore your ideas without actually investigating them" is how that goes. It's a weak mind that uses such tactics to shelter itself from ideas that it would rather not consider. It's a tool of marginalization and nothing more.

    If you're interested, I believe the fifth definition of "conspiracy" is most relevant here. From dictionary.reference.com:

    conspiracy
    /knsprsi/ [[ask.com]] Show Spelled[kuhn-spir-uh-see] [[ask.com]] Show IPA
    –noun,plural-cies.
    1.
    the act of conspiring.
    2.
    an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
    3.
    a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
    4.
    Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
    5.
    any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

    As I have explained from time to time on this site, if you work at a company that produces widgets, you and all of your co-workers are conspiring to make widgets. To put it mildly, it'd be extremely poor form to read that sentence and then dismiss without examination the notion that the company exists, that you work there, or that you make widgets. But that's generally what people want this magic keyword "conspiracy" to be -- an automatic way to end any discussion with zero effort, zero evidence, and no good reason.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 12, 2010 @01:43PM (#31819428)

    and a gop administration would be different, how ? are you forgetting that this acta was cooked during gop term ?

    You're assuming there are only two options.

  • Re:Then fuck it. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by vil3nr0b (930195) on Monday April 12, 2010 @01:48PM (#31819500)
    As an American, I will explain it. We are no different than anyone else who becomes corrupted by money and power. In fact, throughout existence it has been this way. Regardless of any viewpoint of morality or sense of right regardless of country, money talks to these people. Its the only thing they answer to. Sad, but true from the beginning of human nature. What can be done to fix it? lol
  • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Monday April 12, 2010 @01:49PM (#31819524)
    The important difference is that people voted for Obama, even though they disagreed with many things he called for, because he promised them "change" and "transparency". It is one thing when you vote for somebody because they claim to be for a bunch of ideas you support and then learn that they aren't going to actually support half of them. It is another thing entirely to vote for someone because of one or two ideas that you think are very important while you disagree with most of what they say they want to do and then discover that they aren't going to do the things you liked, but are going to do the things you were at best ambivalent about.
  • Re:Then fuck it. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lgw (121541) on Monday April 12, 2010 @01:51PM (#31819552) Journal

    Voting against every incumbant is easy, but it's not really going to help. If a politician thinks "no matter what I do, I'll be voted out" there's not much reason for him to care about the voters, is there? We can fix the current system by establishing a simple feedback loop - act in the interest of the voters, and we'll keep you; act in the interest of campaign contributors, and you're out.

    Of course, the only reason why politicians care about these campaign contributors is the need for huge media buys. If we all just ignored political ads entirely, they stop working, and the expense vanishes.

  • Yeah, okay, So? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by countertrolling (1585477) on Monday April 12, 2010 @01:53PM (#31819582) Journal

    Now what? You couldn't stop the health care fraud. What makes a small group of people think they are going to have any influence on this? This is like watching the AOPA trying to keep Meigs Field [friendsofmeigs.org] open. Copyright has already successfully balkanized the net. You're on the corporate wire here. You people are OWNED!

  • by ktappe (747125) on Monday April 12, 2010 @01:53PM (#31819588)

    If you're interested, I believe the fifth definition of "conspiracy" is most relevant here. From dictionary.reference.com:

    1. 1. the act of conspiring.
    2. 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
    3. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
    4. 4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
    5. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

    Regardless of these being from Dictionary.com, I debate #5 being an accurate definition for that word. "Combination in bringing about a given result" is the definition of "cooperation". "Conspiracy" definitely has a negative, malevolent connotation.

    That debate aside, I think #3 is most accurate with regard to ACTA. Especially the "secret" part.

  • by jjo (62046) on Monday April 12, 2010 @01:54PM (#31819606) Homepage

    But this president was going to usher in a new age of transparency, and produce "change we can believe in". Obama has the power to order the US negotiators to push for more transparency, but he has done nothing (or worse than nothing) to open up the process. At least we were able to see the final health-care negotiations televised on C-SPAN, as Obama promised. Oh, wait...

    Too many people drank the Obama kool-aid during the campaign and can't bring themselves to see that he's just another lying politician, from the left this time instead of the right.

  • by ktappe (747125) on Monday April 12, 2010 @01:57PM (#31819648)

    Could our administration possibly act in a more corrupt manner on this issue? It seems unlikely. At least this removes all question of whose interests the Obama administration has at heart. I only good I can hope to see from this is that the DNC will lose significant goodwill with people who get their news online, harming their electability in November as people choose to stay home, or cast their vote with a 3rd party.

    Except that what will actually happen is people will vote Republicans back in and those Republicans will gladly forge ahead with ACTA just as much as the Democrats are.

  • by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Monday April 12, 2010 @01:59PM (#31819674) Homepage Journal

    Well - if any of those governments involved were really superior to our own pitiful government, they would refuse to participate in secret talks concering a secret treaty. They're all dirtbags, from Oz to Europe to America. Who else is involved? Surely there are Asian countries in on it. But, I kind of expect most Asian governments to be secretive. Dirtbags all, willing to sell their people's rights for a few campaign dollars.

  • Re:Then fuck it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JWW (79176) on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:02PM (#31819714)

    However with ACTA, and basically every other big content initiative, Obama is openly and completely on their (big media's) side and shows every indication that he'll fight as hard to take away our rights as he did to pass health care.....

  • Re:Then fuck it. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by thepike (1781582) on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:08PM (#31819792)

    Yeah, but the problem is that not all the taxpayers agree on what is in their interest. If we did all agree, I think this would already be the system, but we don't. Instead you have Joe over there and John over here fighting about everything themselves, and Mr. Politician on Capitol Hill hearing both of them, as well as hearing what some big rich corporation has to say, and having to make some sort of decision. But Mr. Politician doesn't really know anything about the subject at hand (nor do Joe or John, probably, and the corporation is only giving one side of it) so he makes a decision based on the info he's given. More money (from the corporation) means more ability to convince Mr. Politician that they're right and Joe or John (or both) are wrong.

    If people (including politicians) were better informed and could agree about what's right, this wouldn't be an issue. But we aren't, and we can't.

  • Re:Then fuck it. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nschubach (922175) on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:09PM (#31819804) Journal

    There are people participating in such groups, but every time they turn around, someone calls them a teabagger and tries to point to some nut-job racist calling him the leader trying to discredit the movement even though he didn't start it.

  • by TheMeuge (645043) on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:09PM (#31819806)

    Why mark the above post Flamebait? Just because the situation doesn't fit the narrow scope of your understanding of reality, and because your favorite candidate turned into the same sponsored turd as the guy before him, doesn't mean you should lash out at people who make that observation.

    You can only keep deluding yourself for so long...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:10PM (#31819816)

    Agreed, but Shotgun's point is still valid. The American people were sold one thing by Obama, but have received another thing entirely. Ron Paul is right: Obama isn't a Socialist; he's a Corporatist. The only thing that changed with Obama is that he's much more well-versed in the art of the rhetorical BJ than his predecessor.

  • by rotide (1015173) on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:10PM (#31819820)

    I voted for the guy and I agree. Change?

    Meet the new boss......

    However, I think the real kool-aid is believing that voting Republican or Democrat really gets you want you want. The whole damn thing looks like a sham at this point.

  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:14PM (#31819870)

    But this president was going to usher in a new age of transparency, and produce "change we can believe in". Obama has the power to order the US negotiators to push for more transparency, but he has done nothing (or worse than nothing) to open up the process.

    Absolutely. Assuming he is aware of what is going on with this, he seems to be breaking a campaign promise. My real question is, where are the opposition politicians on this? I mean, when the president breaks campaign promises, shouldn't Republican, at least a few of them, be calling him out on it publicly? I've heard not a peep, even from folks like Ron Paul. Are they all so badly in the pockets of lobbyists they won't even bring this up to attack their opponents?

  • Re:Then fuck it. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:16PM (#31819898)

    We the public did not create this, have no say in this and have nothing to do with this. I wouldn't even know where to send a strongly worded letter to.

    You are wrong, you DID create this, you HAVE a say in this and you have EVERYTHING to do with this. You are guilt by omission when you don't vote and mainly when you don't follow up on your elected officials. It is not enough to just cast a vote every odd year and hope things will be OK, you need to make sure that your congressman/senator/"whatever elected official" is representing you and not just himself and his friends.

  • by electricprof (1410233) on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:20PM (#31819938)
    I beg to differ. I read "progress is necessary so that we can prepare to release" as saying that the order of events is "progress" -> "prepare" -> "release a text" , thus progress must precede releasing a text. The definition of "progress" seems to be defined as "... issues, such as the scope of the intellectual property rights." I'm pretty sure that most of us believe that the U.S. position on scope is going to be in favor of large IP holders.
  • by Shakrai (717556) on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:35PM (#31820226) Journal

    Why mark the above post Flamebait?

    Because any and all criticism of Barack H. Obama is flamebait. The same criticism of George W. Bush using the same language regarding the same topic would have warranted a +5 insightful. Didn't you read that part of the moderation faq?

    Barack H. Obama was bought and paid for by Big Media <-- -1, troll
    George W. Bush was bought and paid for by Big Oil <-- +5, insightful

  • by Shakrai (717556) on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:37PM (#31820264) Journal

    The idea of the Electoral College doesn't make any more sense than the United States Senate does, yet nobody really talks about how California has the same amount of representation as Montana in a national legislative body.

    Both make perfect sense if you remember the fact that California and Montana are sovereign states that retain all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government nor refused to the States.

  • by spectro (80839) on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:45PM (#31820404) Homepage

    I read and re-read the statement, then read what Michael Geist post about what it is supposed to mean and I don't get it. It seems Mr. Geist is twisting the words to try to make a hoopla where there is none.

    Just read the whole thing with a cool head: The U.S. Trade Representative is saying "lets agree on some language to put in paper so we can allow the public to review it"... Geist translates it to "no public review until everybody sign the treaty"

    If you think about it: there is no final draft, they haven't agree on final language yet. Allowing public intervention on terms that are being negotiated is counter-productive. Remember, this needs to be approved by Congress after it is signed.

  • Re:Then fuck it. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:50PM (#31820482)

    I don't know, some options are:

    - Send letters to your elected official;
    - Assemble groups of like-minded individuals and pressure your elected official;
    - Go to de media;
    - Use the internet to expose whenever your elected official votes/acts against the people who elected him

    And this are only some ideas, I bet there are many more options if you search for them. So please take the time to find out and help your country be a better place.

  • Re:maaaan (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tomhudson (43916) <barbara DOT huds ... a-hudson DOT com> on Monday April 12, 2010 @02:53PM (#31820534) Journal
    Well, it only says "the right of the people> peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Corporations may have free speech, but they don't have the right to lobby.

  • hey, american acta representatives: you are my representatives. you cannot adequately represent me if you won't even tell me what you are representing in my name. as such, you are not a true representative of the will of the american people, nor are we bound to any agreements you make

    your intentions have been revealed to be malicious due to the secrecy you wish to cloak yourself in: there is no honest reason for the secrecy

    negotiate in good faith or don't negotiate at all

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 12, 2010 @03:01PM (#31820662)

    To be fair though, it's not like the President really has much say in the matter at this point. People give the President too much credit, good and bad.

    The people you should be angry with are sitting in Congress and lobbying Congress. THEY are the ones preventing real change for financial gain.

    As much as I'm sure he (and, I'm sure, every single other president) would like to, Obama simply does not have the authority to dictate law. His hands are tied. All he can really do until he gets something on his desk is to try to motivate the people to demand their congressmen act responsibly... both of which are nearly impossible tasks.

    I voted for Obama. I have not been happy with everything he has done. In fact, I have been disappointed greatly thusfar. However, except in a few relatively unimportant cases, it was through no fault of his own. Bush wasn't the real problem, Obama isn't the real problem, it's Congress and the corporations that have us over a barrel.

  • by tyger_purr (1563735) on Monday April 12, 2010 @03:05PM (#31820726)

    My real question is, where are the opposition politicians on this? I mean, when the president breaks campaign promises, shouldn't Republican, at least a few of them, be calling him out on it publicly?

    they are busy making sure nothing changes.

    If they called attention to the lack of change, people might look to them to make a change.....they don't want change

  • by Darby (84953) on Monday April 12, 2010 @03:11PM (#31820806)

    Regardless of these being from Dictionary.com, I debate #5 being an accurate definition for that word. "Combination in bringing about a given result" is the definition of "cooperation". "Conspiracy" definitely has a negative, malevolent connotation.

    This is going to vary a lot depending upon what you define as negative or malevolent.

    Take the current situation with the Catholic Church. They're doing what they've always done, and while it is true that moral,ethical people can all easily recognize their actions as negative and malevolent as they have always been, you still have a large and deeply disgusting group of depraved subhuman animals known as Catholics who all agree that raping children is good and that covering up said rape is also good. We know with 100% certainty that 100% of all Catholics agree with this wholeheartedly because they are still willingly paying to have those things done and still trying to cover up for the church.

    It's not like it's a race or a sexual preference or a gender or something people are born with. It's a religion, so no more meaningful than a book club (one in which they worship the villain of the fairy tale, which is just more evidence of their depravity). You can change that 6 times a day and it doesn't really matter at all.

    Catholics have chosen this particularly vile "bible book club" and continue to pay for the brutal ass rape of little kids.

    Each and every one of you sickening, disgusting fucking animals. There is no fucking excuse for this whatsoever and I wholeheartedly support the summary execution of any Catholics you see.

    Grow up and try and get on the moral, ethical side of an issue for once you disgusting baby raping, nazi supporting, genocidal, burning decent people alive fucking monsters.

    Do you know how you can tell when a Catholic develops even the most rudimentary sense of morals ethics or responsibility?

    They commit suicide!

    So you see, your point is invalid because it's not workable. There is such a disconnect between decent people and the religious in general.

  • by MartinSchou (1360093) on Monday April 12, 2010 @03:16PM (#31820866)

    The important difference is that people voted for Obama, even though they disagreed with many things he called for, because he promised them "change" and "transparency".

    Or, possibly, they voted for Obama, because the idea of Sarah Palin being the VP to a 72-year-old president was scarier than having Joe Biden being the VP to a 47-year-old president.

    Or possibly they voted for Obama, because the Republicans decided to go for a guy, who was worse than George W. Bush back in 2000? Or maybe they figured the Republicans had already done enough damage to mess up the country, and that anything but a Republican would be good, but the only viable choice was a Democrat? Sometimes it's a matter of picking the lesser of two evils.

  • by cyber-dragon.net (899244) on Monday April 12, 2010 @03:45PM (#31821352)

    The idea that "sovereign states" still exist is kind of a farce. The federal government has been taking more and more power with each war we fight and each time they can incite fear in people to make it ok.

    The last time a state tried to assert it's rights as a sovereign entity we had a civil war over the results.

  • by Knara (9377) on Monday April 12, 2010 @03:57PM (#31821558)

    Because the poster makes a valid point, and then extends it to the entirely of the current administration.

    It's trolling via hyperbole.

  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Monday April 12, 2010 @04:15PM (#31821808) Homepage Journal

    Could our administration possibly act in a more corrupt manner on this issue? It seems unlikely.

    Could we ever have a worse President than Carter? It seemed unlikely. Then we got GWB.

    Just when you think things can't possibly get any worse, they always do.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 12, 2010 @04:23PM (#31821932)

    Because any and all criticism of Barack H. Obama is flamebait. The same criticism of George W. Bush using the same language regarding the same topic would have warranted a +5 insightful.

    Actually, the same criticism of GWB would've also been modded Flamebait or Troll initially, and only after further moderation would it reach +5 Insightful..... just like Shotgun's post, which was modded Flamebait when you posted, but is currently +5 Insightful.

    But, of course, everyone likes to think that their point of view is being stifled by the mindless majority.

  • I know it's a bitter pill for some to swallow, but anyone who was paying attention could've seen this coming.

    So, once again we Americans managed to elect another stiff that breaks his campaign vision? Hell, we on the right threw everything we had into Bush's vision of a "humbler America" and "limited government" only to find ourselves compromising our own very values in support of an administration that pissed off the entire planet and ironically, laid the groundwork for the very federal activism that is taking place now.

    The great foolishness of American political fans is that they always fail to see that neither party ever really rolls back the excesses of the other's usurpations of power, but merely sanitize them for their own side's uneasy palatibility. If Democrats and Republicans from 50 years ago were alive today, they would be sick at what either party has become. I highly doubt Adlai Stevenson or Jack Kennedy would approve of Obama's budgetary mess and forgive me foreign policy any more than Richard Nixon or Dwight Eisenhower would have approved of Bush's interventions and his budgetary messes.

  • by Scrameustache (459504) on Monday April 12, 2010 @06:02PM (#31823314) Homepage Journal

    The USA wants some language in ACTA. But they don't want to tip their hands to certain parties outside of the process

    Parties like "the voting public" and "peoples of the world".

  • by rtb61 (674572) on Monday April 12, 2010 @06:18PM (#31823550) Homepage

    In the case of politicians you still have to bear in mind competence. That there is a bias to those that often gain wealth via corrupt practices and seek to protect and enhance those corrupt practices is known. What tends to matter most is the degree of competence in balancing that bias and not letting get wildly out of control as some crazy shared get rich quick scheme.

    With regards to ACTA, the US lobbyist team is likely shooting itself in the foot with regard to blocking transparency until they get what they want, this enables other countries to use that as a simple block to prevent any progress on ACTA. Right now the US economy is still deteriorating, high unemployment with no real job prospects, deteriorating infrastructure, a damaged environment, massive government and private debt and a crazy notion that junk patents and pop music can solve those problems. Other countries are no longer listening as they do not wish to follow down that route and US influence is waning especially after the damage done through the Bush Cheney years.

    From an external viewpoint it seems that the US wants to charge the rest of the world a global media tax as it's means of continuing to pay for, a wildly excessive military arsenal and, a bloated corporate executive class, even when it will solve none of their real problems, just continue to exacerbate them. One real warning about that kind of stupid thinking, it matters not where the content is created, it only matters where the licence fees are charged and under what tax arrangements that is done. China buying up US content to clear US debt will bankrupt the US in the current circumstance.

  • Re:maaaan (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Monday April 12, 2010 @06:48PM (#31823978) Homepage Journal

    Here's what to watch for: In a political environment where Republicans have been completely unified in opposition by every single act of President Obama, there will suddenly be wide bi-partisan support for ACTA. It will be sloughed off by the media as an aberration, and you'll hear how "It must be a good treaty since there's bi-partisan support".

    Then you'll know that in fact the people who get commonly laughed at with claims of "Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same" were right all along.

    But nobody will see it that way, because like with NAFTA and the PATRIOT Act, there will be some trivial partisan issue that will pop up immediately after its ratification that will wipe ACTA right off the front pages so the people who use political parties they way sports fans use home teams can get all exercised again and never realize that they've just been bent over a chair and dry-fucked.

    Just watch.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 12, 2010 @07:09PM (#31824236)

    Think about it for half a second.

    Obama is a very busy man. He is not directly involved with ACTA. The people who ARE directly involved, are blatant shills. When he spoke out in favor of ACTA, I seriously doubt he had any idea what it was, outside of the bullshit lines the USTR was feeding him. I would hope that he has scheduled some time to look into it, but it can't be very high on his list of priorities. He seems to be good about actually reading things he signs, though, from what I've seen.

    Really, though, most people just don't give a shit about ACTA, even if you try to explain it to them. Their eyes just glaze over. Until a decent number of people are seriously affected and until they realize that ACTA is to blame, they won't care. Few people care = not a priority for the President. Sucks, but that's reality.

  • by Mark Atwood (19301) on Monday April 12, 2010 @07:35PM (#31824632) Homepage

    All the ACTA articles up to a year and a half ago made sure to say some varient of "The Bush Administration is..." but now its "The US trade representation delegation is..." instead of the more honest "The Obama Adminstration is...". Setting direction and lines in the sand for treaty negotiations of this magnitude come from the very top of the Executive Branch, e.g. from the President's desk, e.g. Barack Obama made this decision.

  • by Alex Belits (437) * on Monday April 12, 2010 @10:59PM (#31826674) Homepage

    Obama is a statist overall. It's about power and control. A direct reflection of his modus operandi.
    --
    I came out of the closet: I'm a Dittohead!!!

    Never in my life I have seen a Slashdot signature to be so informative.

    For non-Americans: "Dittohead" is a fan of Rush Limbaugh -- a huge, fat, socially conservative, misanthropic thing that spreads madness, but without tentacles.

fortune: not found

Working...