Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Censorship Government News Your Rights Online

FOIA Request For Pending Copyright Treaty Denied 364

Penguinisto writes "According to CNET, Knowledge Ecology International's FOIA request for information about ACTA was denied. ACTA is the pending copyright treaty believed to have been authored by lobbyists for the content cartels. Even stranger, the denial cited 'national security reasons (PDF). While it is not unusual for the White House of any administration to block FOIA requests for national security reasons, one would think that a treaty affecting civil interests alone wouldn't qualify for such secrecy. Not exactly sure what involvement the former RIAA mouthpiece Donald Verelli (a recent Obama pick for the DOJ) may have in this." KEI is not alone; the European Parliament wants to see the ACTA documents too.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FOIA Request For Pending Copyright Treaty Denied

Comments Filter:
  • Change (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Friday March 13, 2009 @01:25PM (#27183049)

    Meet the new king.
    Same as the last.

  • Re:national security (Score:5, Interesting)

    by girlintraining ( 1395911 ) on Friday March 13, 2009 @01:35PM (#27183191)

    But the most recent time I can think of was the Civil War, which certainly wasn't recent.

    There was a grassroots effort in the 80s to pass what was called the Equal Opportunity Amendment. It was approved by somewhat more than 20 states before being killed by the National Organization of Women, who were outraged that the special rights of women would be stripped away in favor of the equal rights of all. The amendment, essentially, made legal distinctions between men and women illegal. A side-effect not noted at the time but since undoubtedly got noticed: If men and women cannot be legally distinguished from one another, all marriages are "civil unions". It's funny how in this country, special rights have become more important than equal rights. Every minority must now have their own special power, rather than everyone having equal power. -_- Our founding fathers would cry if they were alive today to see how far we've fallen from the path of justice and equality.

  • by DoofusOfDeath ( 636671 ) on Friday March 13, 2009 @01:36PM (#27183227)

    mptions entirely. Open everything wide up. Yes, that might increase the threat slightly from external enemies. But it will dramatically decrease the threat from internal enemies, who are far more dangerous.

    So you think the DoD should grant FOIA requests regarding where our ballistic missile submarines will be operating on a given date? Or regarding the launch codes to our nukes? Or our specific plans for where and when to raid Al Quaeda hideouts in Afghanistan?

    I propose something more limited, such as having the SCOTUS review any and all claims of national security.

  • by furby076 ( 1461805 ) on Friday March 13, 2009 @01:39PM (#27183279) Homepage
    Listen, this may be off-topic, but relevant to this post. This is also asking the choir to not be so mean about satan, so I am sure toget blasted.

    Could we get a little less BIAS in our article stubs. From line 1 all i could think of was "EVIL GOV'T. EVIL CORP. EVIL EVIL". We always talk about the media controling us...well /. also does.
  • Re:national security (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Roxton ( 73137 ) <roxton&gmail,com> on Friday March 13, 2009 @01:48PM (#27183401) Homepage Journal

    It would take a rank ideologue to assume that making legislation neutral to sex and race would be a pragmatic approach to addressing institutionalized imbalances in equity and social justice.

  • by Aladrin ( 926209 ) on Friday March 13, 2009 @01:55PM (#27183507)

    So let's get this right: We are now classifying out own treaties and laws as 'national security risks' so that even if we -wanted- to follow the law, we can't.

    Wow. You know, until now, I never -truly- believed everyone that was screaming that we were making laws to make sure people broke them. With this, how can I refute it?

  • Re:national security (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Friday March 13, 2009 @02:14PM (#27183809)

    Marriage has some level of religious significance but that doesn't mean it's a solely religious union. Afterall, many atheists still get married despite having no religious beliefs whatsoever. Arguing for "civil unions" is kinda pointless IMHO. Marriage can be defined to be acceptable between homosexual couples if they wish. On the flip side, if the government so chose a civil union could be legislated to be only legal between a man and a woman.

    Essentially, you're wanting to legislate a change in terminology, which is simply a waste of tax dollars and something that the general public will fight kicking and screaming.

  • Re:national security (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rary ( 566291 ) on Friday March 13, 2009 @02:41PM (#27184173)

    This whole "gay marriage mess" is a side effect of the fact that the US Government has decided to meddle in something that EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET views as a primarily religious matter.

    Well, except for all of us who consider it to be, first and foremost, a personal commitment between two individuals.

    Of course, neither that, nor your religious idea, have anything to do with the origins of marriage. It was a civil institution first. Basically, it existed to secure property rights and guarantee bloodlines. Then, somewhere along the way, people got it into their heads that if they're going to marry, they should marry someone they actually, you know, kind of like. So the idea of romantic love got injected into the mix. Then, further on down the road, the churches decided that they should have a role in all of this, so they injected a religious element to it. Then, much later on, people like you started thinking that marriage is entirely a religious institution, and that the rest of us (gays, atheists, etc) should just stay away from "your" sacrament.

    Let the Pope decide what a sacrament should be and keep any hint of sacrament out of what the government does.

    Oh, so now you want to prevent non-Catholics from getting married, too?

    I'm sorry, this whole "marriage belongs to the church and the rest of you can fuck off" idea is just complete bullshit. I say keep marriage as a civil institution, open to all — gay, straight, theist, atheist, black, white, whatever — and let churches perform their own "spiritual unions" instead.

  • Re:national security (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DrLang21 ( 900992 ) on Friday March 13, 2009 @02:47PM (#27184259)
    Well, I was unaware that this was in the UK, and the citizens of the UK are welcome to govern themselves as they please. From my perspective in the US though, how does spending an extra 30 minutes a week filing yourself out of the building in any way impede your access to work? You can still work, and are not being discriminated against in that regard. I see that as arguing that anyone who lives 5 minutes further from work than the average of everyone else should be able to leave 5 minutes early. This is of course absurd, whether you live further away by choice or by economic necessity.
  • Re:national security (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dragonslicer ( 991472 ) on Friday March 13, 2009 @03:35PM (#27184969)
    I think both of you are aiming for the same result, which is to remove the government's ability to restrict marriage, you're just disagreeing on which side (religion or government) gets to keep the term "marriage". Personally, I think a person should be able to designate anyone they want as the one that has the legal rights and responsibilities that are currently involved in marriages. Think of it as being the same as those "In case of emergency, contact..." forms you have to fill out for schools, camps, etc. Someone who doesn't want to "marry" anybody can then designate a favorite sibling or cousin as the person's "spouse".
  • Re:national security (Score:3, Interesting)

    by UncleTogie ( 1004853 ) on Friday March 13, 2009 @03:37PM (#27184995) Homepage Journal

    From my perspective in the US though, how does spending an extra 30 minutes a week filing yourself out of the building in any way impede your access to work? You can still work, and are not being discriminated against in that regard.

    It doesn't. They noticed that it was causing him problems and VOLUNTARILY let him go earlier. That's just common-sense taking care of your employees. For example, my boss has a policy that if I need information from a client, he'll call. Works great for me, as I'm 70% deaf. Did I ask for this? Nope. Did I sue for this? Nope. Am I happy that I don't have to stress out the client by asking them to repeat themselves every two seconds? Delighted. Do I work harder for a boss that's willing to work with my disability? You betcha!

  • Re:national security (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nick Ives ( 317 ) on Friday March 13, 2009 @03:53PM (#27185241)

    Because not everyone arrives at exactly the same time, some people arrive up to fifteen minutes early (coffee & cigarette), some people arrive five or ten minutes early (coffee or cigarette) and some people arrive bang on time (me. First coffee is after an hour or two zoned out, Office Space style ;) ). It's just because there's a surge of people in our building at exactly clocking off time; we love our work that much!

    He didn't ask for it, it was just a nice thing done for him. I don't think he even cares about it because he spent those extra few minutes rolling a couple of cigarettes but who's going to say no to being let out early?

  • Re:national security (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shutdown -p now ( 807394 ) on Friday March 13, 2009 @04:50PM (#27186043) Journal

    And the only reason this is necessitated is because the federal government has expanded its powers to the point now where the entire union can be entered into a contract (treaty) with another country--where the member states provide the resources negotiated for said treaty, without any say or even knowledge of, the content of such a treaty. While in this case it could be merely copyright, what if it was a mutual defense pact with, say, Taiwan? China attacks Taiwan and suddenly we're at DEFCON 1 and calling up the national guard and reinstituting the draft -- based on a treaty the public knew nothing about. The magnitude is different, but the legal mechanics are unchanged.

    By the way, here's another hypothetical situation. Let's say that the Feds want to sign a peace treaty with Iran. In your system, all states have to ratify it, and all do... except, say, Texas. And so there is no peace treaty, even though most people desired one - and note also that not accepting such a treaty when offered may in and of itself be considered a hostile act by another side, and have very serious repercussions.

    As you can see, from an utilitarian perspective, it can go either way.

  • Re:national security (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pugugly ( 152978 ) on Friday March 13, 2009 @04:52PM (#27186055)

    Under that theory, a compact is only binding if it is explicitly stated that no single member of the compact can render it null and void at will.

    That's a silly and irresponsible interpretation that makes neither intuitive nor logical sense.

    Article VI []:
    "This Constitution, " ... ", shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

    10th Amendment []: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    But the power to decide the "Supreme Law of the Land" had been delegated to the Constitution, and despite the admitted and obvious brilliance of the "The South had their fingers crossed" defense, the nature of the word "Secession" mean they were trying to render the Constitution to the Status of "The Constitution formerly known as 'The Supreme law of the Land'", a right explicitly denied them.

    Sorry - your theory lacks the legal insight typically demanded by any five-year old going "But you promised!" - Pug

  • Re:national security (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lgw ( 121541 ) on Friday March 13, 2009 @05:06PM (#27186235) Journal

    Prop 8 was nothing more than an initiative by the Mormon church to use it's influence illegally for political means. The thing should be revoked.

    Wait, what? How is a ballot initiative, passed by a clear majority of voters, a secret Mormon conspiracy all of the sudden? This wasn't something that elected representatives took it on themselves to do, perhaps in opposition to the will of the people, thanks to the deep pockects of the Secret Mormon Conspiracy(TM). This was simply a measure that the people liked.

    Seriously, about 2/3s of the American public are against gay "marriage". About 2/3s are for it if you don't call it "marriage". This isn't exactly rocket science, folks. If progressives were more interested in results than talking points, this would be a dead issue.

    I hear Cali is getting their act together on this, and we may see the model for other states, and the Fed govet, to follow, with a proposition to replace "marriage" with "domestic partnership" (I think) throughout Cali law, getting the government entirely out of the business of defining "marriage". About time, too.

If a thing's worth having, it's worth cheating for. -- W.C. Fields