Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Electronic Frontier Foundation Your Rights Online

Post-ACTA Agreement CETA Moving Forward With Similar Provisions 136

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the they-just-never-give-up dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Post-ACTA Agreement CETA Moving Forward With Similar Provisions

Comments Filter:
  • You can't win... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun (571051) on Monday October 15, 2012 @07:22PM (#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.
    • 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.

      • by Mitreya (579078) <mitreya@gmail.LAPLACEcom minus math_god> on Monday October 15, 2012 @07:39PM (#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: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by AK Marc (707885)
          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 h
          • by stanlyb (1839382)
            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.
            • 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."
              • by Anonymous Coward

                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 :)

                • Just as I appreciate the effort required to make pointless and condescending posts anonymously :-)
              • by tbannist (230135)

                In my opinion, "non-core promises" should be allowed, but politicians and parties should be expected to layout which promises are "core" promises and which are not ahead of time. A while ago, I saw an interesting suggestion that the law should be modified to allow politicians to make binding promises (not required, allowed). This way they could make election promises that they intend to keep and if they fail to uphold the promise an automatic removal-from-office procedure could begin. The key part is tha

          • by erroneus (253617) on Monday October 15, 2012 @08:16PM (#41665003) Homepage

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

          • by Anonymous Coward

            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.

            • by AK Marc (707885)
              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
              • by tbannist (230135)

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

                What if you can track the ballots to the people who issued them (not voted on them)? In Canada, the ballots have serial numbers on them. Two poll workers issue a ballot to a voter, and confirm that a valid serial number is returned after the vote is cast by checking the serial number against the list of currently active ballots. In practice, they have a pad that they tear the ballots off of. The pad has a serial number above and below the tear, and poll workers check that the serial number on returned b

                • by AK Marc (707885)
                  And what happens if someone steals a pad? Are all the votes associated with that pad discarded, or counted? It would be technically possible to attach a skimmer to the ballot box and match votes to a pad, and then pick a pad to discard that would help a particular candidate. Then stage a fire in the polling place and snach that one and only one pad.

                  I'm not saying that's easy, or practical. But matching to a person lets you go up to that person and say "your ballot was lost. Please re-vote" Then we ca
          • 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

            • by AK Marc (707885)
              #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
            • by Skal Tura (595728)

              And either could be worked around.

              Online voting, for utmost security.

              Each voter gets a specialized browser install based on a normal browser with few key differences:
              - Cache is flushed every 60seconds
              - Only 1 SSL key is accepted
              - Only 1 host with which communication is accepted
              - All communication over HTTPS only

              Then the webservice portion, and i'm basing this how things work in Finland. Here you can authenticate with your real life details using your bank account details.
              So y

              • by robsku (1381635)

                Finnish voting system works great as it is, to propose online voting is to introduce problems our way does away with, such as bullying others to vote by your choice.

                Imagine violent chauvinist demanding his wife to vote his way - well, that won't work under current system, no matter what he does he cannot get in the booth nor check the pad before it gets put in ballot box. But at privacy of homes? We know dark things happen there - much darker than this, so don't even begin with online voting ever being "sec

          • by Cigarra (652458)
            Exactly. So it would be like in Switzerland [wikipedia.org]. Seems to work over there.
          • by tlhIngan (30335) <slashdot@wor[ ]et ['f.n' in gap]> on Tuesday October 16, 2012 @10:25AM (#41669397)

            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.

            Is voting for abortion being a jackass? Against? Voting for gay marriage? Against? Hell, in the US, I'm sure you can say the same about creationism (which what, 40% of the people believe in?). Unionize? Break the unions?

            The secret ballot is actually one of the most important tools - because coercion is real and has been demonstrated. Hell, there is evidence for example, in voting to unionize. In places with secret ballots the rate of unionization is far lower than at places where the voting is open - not by a little bit, but by a lot (a lot of old style thuggery and bullying).

            And yes, you'll find without a secret ballot a lot more vote buying. The population doesn't care about ACTA - so all pro-ACTA forces have to do is say "Vote yes and we'll pay you $10". If you're a "I don't care, but by doing this I get a free $10, I'm game!". And your vote tracability website offers perfect proof and a perfect list of people to send the money to. These people who would probably just ignored the vote to begin with have now got economic interest.

            Open voting simply does not work at all - there have been way too many documented instances of coercion. It's why we have secret ballots to begin with.

            Need one final example? Take our fine goverment representatives. On critical issues (e.g., budgets) the party "whips" will basically demand the members vote one way. Anyone who doesn't is reprimanded out from plum positions (getting kicked out of cabinet, tossed onto the backbenches, basically being ignored, etc). And you know it's an open vote when they can do things like "Republicans X, Y and Z voted against the motion while Democrats A, B and C voted for the motion".

          • 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.

            Actually....that's the reason the Federal government's power was [supposed to be] so limited. All the laws and regulations that REALLY affected John Q. Public's day-in-day-out life was supposed to be handled at the state (and even local) level. THAT way, the politician responsible for the act would at least have a chance of having to look Mr. Public in the eye after sticking it to him in the rear.

            Ah....the Constitution....what a great idea.

            • by AK Marc (707885)
              Too bad the "wrap themselves in the Constitution" conservatives are really "burn the Constitution" conservatives, or there's be at least one group fighting for it. Instead, both parties want to shred it, and they battle only over which sections to destroy first. I'm an actual conservative, which makes me look like an uber-liberal to the neo-cons while looking like a conservative to the liberals. I've seen all sorts of logics gymnastics every time I note that the neo-cons want to abolish the full-faith an
              • Not quite sure why this became about bashing one party or another. That's the trouble, really. Forget the parties. They BOTH suck. Hard.

                The Constitution is probably one of the most ingenious guides ever written and both parties use it and abuse it as they see fit. In fact, it's high time the People of New Hampshire, for example, get us started on the right path. From their state constitution:

                Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

                • by AK Marc (707885)
                  The Constitution was a liberal document at the time. But, over time, liberal became the norm. The real problem was that there were a number of things that simply weren't thought of, and when they came up, they were just worked through, rather than formally adjusted. Like the Supreme Court being able to "modify" laws. So many conservatives call for line-item veto, but hate when it's used in practice by the Supremes. Instead, the consistent response would be for the Supreme Court to strike any law, witho
        • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Monday October 15, 2012 @08:28PM (#41665049) Journal

          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.

        • by MrSteveSD (801820) on Monday October 15, 2012 @09:10PM (#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.
        • 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 sustaine

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

            • by tbannist (230135)

              That's the two-party system. You need more than recall elections to fix that. Why would any politician fear being recalled if he's going to immediately land in a cushy job?

        • by Dunbal (464142) *
          Voting is a no-response mechanism. It's exactly the same as going to church on Sundays to hear about an invisible sky-wizard. It's meant to make you feel like everything is ok, without actually doing anything at all. Once a politician has your vote do you really think he gives a damn about what you think?
      • by udachny (2454394)

        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.

      • 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.
        • by sumdumass (711423)

          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 effe

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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 e

      • by Seumas (6865)

        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

      • by kimvette (919543)

        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.

        • 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

      • 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

      • by Dunbal (464142) *

        It is called "voting,"

        Someone has bought the whole "democracy" scam hook line and sinker. Yeah, enjoy your illusion of controlling your slavery by putting one "x" on a piece of paper every 4-6 years. Your vote is absolutely irrelevant. Politicans lie to get it, and then do exactly the opposite of what they promised. Only one thing is certain - the governments thirst for power over you, voter, is unlimited. It will continue to take everything from you until it strangles and suffocates you. That's what governments do. But be conte

    • Re:You can't win... (Score:5, Informative)

      by TrueSatan (1709878) on Monday October 15, 2012 @08:11PM (#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.
      • by TubeSteak (669689) on Monday October 15, 2012 @09:09PM (#41665291) Journal

        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.

        • by Tokolosh (1256448)

          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!

    • 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.

    • by citizenr (871508)

      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.

  • 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...
    • by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • by stanlyb (1839382)
        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...
    • by AK Marc (707885)
      They have to protect Degrassi High.
    • by dryeo (100693)

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

  • by amorsen (7485) <benny+slashdot@amorsen.dk> on Monday October 15, 2012 @07:44PM (#41664863)

    Before somebody thinks of blaming us.

  • War on drugs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Monday October 15, 2012 @07:49PM (#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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by Yvanhoe (564877) on Monday October 15, 2012 @08:17PM (#41665011) Journal

      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by girlintraining (1395911) on Monday October 15, 2012 @08:42PM (#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.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Comment removed.

      • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by girlintraining (1395911) on Monday October 15, 2012 @09:04PM (#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 (Score:5, Interesting)

            by fredprado (2569351) on Monday October 15, 2012 @09:34PM (#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.
            • 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.

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

    • by shentino (1139071)

      The law doesn't mean shit anyway.

      They are designed to make everyone guilty, that way the elite get to pick who to prosecute.

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

  • by Dutchmaan (442553) on Monday October 15, 2012 @08:46PM (#41665155) Homepage
    ...is eternal vigilance. Seems to ring pretty true.
  • If this is ever stopped, then the article title for it should be... CETA Sings The Blues

    YEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHH! [wikipedia.org]

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

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

  • Obvious cheating. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Tuesday October 16, 2012 @01:25AM (#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.
  • 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.

The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom.

Working...