US Gov. Releases Six Pages On Secret ACTA Pact 86
narramissic writes "Change is afoot at the Office of the US Trade Representative. New details have been released about an anti-counterfeiting trade agreement that has been discussed in secret among the US, Japan, the European Union and other countries since 2006. Although the six-page summary (PDF) provides little in the way of specific detail about the current state of negotiations, the release represents a change in policy at the USTR, which had argued in the past that information on the trade pact was 'properly classified in the interest of national security.'" Michael Geist has a timeline that puts together more details about the ACTA negotiations than any government has so far been willing to reveal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention, it has nothing to do with open source.
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed that for you.
Re:Best (Score:5, Insightful)
Please do not use the Subject line to start a sentence that you finish in the Body field.
"Counterfeit press ever" isn't even a sentence fragment; it's nonsense.
It's also an anagram for Cuts Veneer Profiteers, (Score:2)
but that's pure nonsense as well.
Do you know what Dance Pit is an anagram for?
Re:It's also an anagram for Cuts Veneer Profiteers (Score:2)
>> Do you know what Dance Pit is an anagram for?
Please gather your personal items then turn in your pedant badge and sidearm.
True pedants do not end questions with prepositions.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah my friend. But it depends on the referred to. [quickanddirtytips.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Dear lord, my links keep eating up parts of my sentences.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd even forgive that though, as it's a Simpsons reference.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, it may be a reference to that, but I always took it as a reference to Comic Book Guy: "Worst. Episode. Ever.", and such.
My Optimistic Theory (Score:5, Interesting)
My best case, optimistic theory is that the bureaucrat handling this paperwork classified it because they classify everything and think that is both acceptable and desirable to the people in charge. Then, There was a FOIA request and Obama ordered the executive branch to release everything unless they could document a real security reason to keep it classified. The people working on this, however, either did not pay attention to that order or did not take it seriously. Then, they started to hear murmuring about their actions on "the intarwebs" in relation to said executive order or at least someone noticed the discussion and made them aware. Now, they're in damage control mode and trying to cover their ass. They don't want to release the agreement itself because it might piss someone off, but they also don't want to do nothing because as an old school Republican appointee, appearing to ignore an executive order while also pissing off select members of the public sets them up for a dismissal and as a convenient scapegoat if the issue ever becomes more mainstream. They now fear for their job at the hands of of the negotiators and at the hands of the new Obama appointees. So they take this middle ground and (hopefully) try to pass the buck up the chain of command, where the real policy makers will make a decision.
Re:My Optimistic Theory (Score:5, Insightful)
My best case, optimistic theory is that the bureaucrat handling this paperwork classified it because they classify everything and think that is both acceptable and desirable to the people in charge.
...
So they take this middle ground and (hopefully) try to pass the buck up the chain of command, where the real policy makers will make a decision.
Wrong.
Everyone has been keeping ACTA a secret.
A large number of countries were negotiating ACTA in complete secrecy for 7 months before a policy paper got uploaded to wikileaks last year. Since that leak 11 months ago, every single country party to the negotiations has released... absolutely nothing about ACTA.
The most likely scenario is that the various politicians and industry lobbies are doing what they can to get their domestically impossible wish lists put into a treaty and have it all agreed upon before the public interest groups can get a chance to protest.
When you can't get a shitty law passed at home, get it passed in a treaty.
Public interest groups will get their shot (Score:2)
Treaties must be approved by the Congress before they take the force of law within the United States, which presents ample opportunity for public interest groups to weigh in. See for the example the Colombia free trade agreement, which is stalled over union opposition.
The problem for opponents of ACTA is that the type of people who oppose it tend to be independent folks who dislike mass organizing and lobbying, which makes it hard to track and affect pieces of legislation. Business groups on the other hand
Re: (Score:2)
What about the EFF? They lobby (and so does the ACLU).
Re: (Score:1)
Are we TRYING to destroy the Union? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Declaration of Independence [ushistory.org] warned us about this. Specifically:
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
You should read the rest of the document too, you might be startled to realize just how many of the reasons our country separated from its original government (the british) are presently true and in force. Frankly, secret treaties, secret courts, secret laws, and everything behind the veil of National Security... has now descended to matters as trivial as copyright. I think it's time to reconsider our perogative as Americans.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Before we get all crazy about why we declared independence and war against a perfectly friendly country and read some overly complex declaration why don't we actually read and worry about our bill of rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights [wikipedia.org].
A very simple list and somehow we can't get past the first two items on it which from what I can tell are the only ones left on the list not taking it up the ass.
I'm not sure, I'm pretty sure Amendment 3 is still going strong. I've never been forced to quarter troops, in time of war or otherwise. Indeed, The government would simply buy out an apartment complex if they needed to station troops in real housing someplace in the country. I've also heard little complaint about violations of the Seventh Amendment. If you demand a jury trial, and have any questions of fact in dispute, and have brought the lawsuit to a real court, (not a small claims court), you will get a
Re: (Score:2)
So the money they take out of your paycheck to house our standing army is a voluntary contribution then? :)
(To be serious, I think war has changed a lot since the 1700s, when a lot, maybe the majority, at least of rural people, had "assault rifles" in their homes. That is to say, they had pretty much state-of-the-art weaponry, and an invading army was not going to be all th
Re: (Score:2)
So the money they take out of your paycheck to house our standing army is a voluntary contribution then? :)
I get the impression that Britain's army was a standing one. Paid by the king. Where did the king get his money from?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Wow. Every time I read that document, I get chills.
VIVA LE REVOLUCION!
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
That, and the Boston Tea Party was over taxes that are LESS than what we face now.
Frog.
Kettle of water.
Slowly apply heat.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're also receiving better, and more government services than you were during Ye Olden times. Unless you wish to go back to the times before paved roads, public education for all(1), strong diversified defence(2), quality healthcare(3), decent civil protection(4), and all the other stuff you take for granted, learn to deal with the amount of tax you pay. Besides, the Boston Tea Party was an outcry against the level of taxation in proportion to the quality/quantity of service - ie, paying for nothing. The
Re:Are we TRYING to destroy the Union? (Score:4, Interesting)
I beg to dispute point 3:
3) Yes, tax dollars do contribute a huge amount to healthcare - even more per capita than some public healthcare countries.
Yes, as stated it's correct. Unfortunately you are measuring dollars spent rather than services provided. A very large part of the health-care budget is siphoned off by insurance company bureaucracies. Another large part is spent on research into drugs known to be useless in advance. (Well, not totally useless...their point is to maintain patent coverage over drugs that would soon be slipping out of patent coverage.) And, of course, the bureaucracy to manage such activities. And lobbyists.
I'm sure that there are other features of the current system that I haven't mentioned that are equally wasteful. E.g., I don't know how much is spent promoting drugs known to be actually useless, or even harmful...i.e., known by those who conducted the research that was suppressed by the corporation funding the research. Occasionally such stories break into media coverage, but if one considers HOW such stories become known, it's very clear that what we hear about is less than the tip of the iceberg.
I'll agree that tax dollars SHOULD promote the health of the citizenry. This isn't how dollars spent in the health field are used, however...except possibly 1/3 of them. And I'm including reasonable overhead for administrators of doctors and hospitals as being spent on health. The US not only spends very little on the health of the citizenry, what it spends it spends incredibly inefficiently. Research needs to be separated from manufacturing, and no manufacturer should have a monopoly on any drug. That's just a starting point, but it's an essential change. Exclusive licenses to sell drugs should be forbidden. Which means that the company that manufactures and sells the drugs must be separated from the company that does the development. Even that doesn't suffice. Negative results are as important as positive results, and MUST be published. The groups that verify a drug as safe and effective must not have a financial stake in selling the drug. (I'm sure you can see why.) Etc.
Re: (Score:2)
where public money is concerned you are probably correct, I don't see at all how you can dictate such rules to pharmaceuticals that use private cash for R&D.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Frog. Kettle of water. Slowly apply heat.
That doesn't actually work.
...uh, I hear.
Re: (Score:1)
Frog. Kettle of water. Slowly apply heat.
That doesn't actually work.
...uh, I hear.
Snopes agrees. http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Are we TRYING to destroy the Union? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's time to reconsider our perogative as Americans.
Why? I assume you are talking about a violent revolution? How many people do you think you would need supporting you in order to stage a revolution? 30%? 60%? If your revolution is going to be successful, you'll need more people for you than against you.
Now, if you have that many people willing to support you, willing to DIE in order to get you to lead the country, why not just do it the normal way and get elected president? It would be so much simpler. That is why we don't need a revolution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? I assume you are talking about a violent revolution? How many people do you think you would need supporting you in order to stage a revolution? 30%? 60%? If your revolution is going to be successful, you'll need more people for you than against you.
You're an idiot if you think you need a majority to have a revolution. In truth, you may need as few as a hundred people, well placed and educated. Or you need billions, all mildly receptive to the idea. It depends on what is at stake, the will of the people, and a long list of other social intangibles. It's better to look at it in terms of social pressure than by mere numbers. A dozen people highly dedicated to a cause caused trillions of dollars in damage to this economy recently. It wasn't a revolution,
Re: (Score:2)
You're an idiot if you think you need a majority to have a revolution.
Yes actually, at the very least the population needs to be complicit with their new ruler. The fall of the Soviet Union is a perfect example of this. Hardline soviet/KGB members tried a coup d'état, but it lacked popular support and ultimately failed. The Berlin wall equally so, there was a strong popular support for tearing down the wall.
hence the aggressive need for suppression of free speech, excessive demands for secrecy, and the sudden and rapid reduction of civil liberties. They're trying to keep people from getting together in any large numbers and getting the idea in their head that now is the time for change and something spontanious develops and rips the guts out of the institution.
So you're a conspiracy theorist. Now I have to ask you.....who is they? Can you pleeeease say, "The truth is out there" with a straight face? Cool, thanks. Who
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're a conspiracy theorist. Now I have to ask you.....who is they? Can you pleeeease say, "The truth is out there" with a straight face? Cool, thanks. Who is it? Is it the illuminati? The Jewish Cabal? Who is your preferred conspiracy group? Who is this 'they' that is trying to keep people from getting together in large numbers?
I am no "conspiracy theorist", but I am very concerned about the lack of transparency in my own government and the open abuse of the power I have only one real choice (at this juncture in "history") to endow it with: by "voting my conscience". I really don't like the fog of "terrorist" paranoia my country is living under right now; it's much worse than I can remember when there was a so-called "communist threat"; not much of which, it turns out, was in any way real, hurt multitudes of innocent, good people
Re: (Score:2)
I am no "conspiracy theorist", but I am very concerned about the lack of transparency in my own government and the open abuse of the power I have only one real choice (at this juncture in "history") to endow it with: by "voting my conscience".
Indeed lack of transparency and abuse of power is something to be concerned about, but it isn't the topic of my post. The GP was advocating revolution in the US, which is a bad idea. My point was that if you have enough power to start a revolution, you will have enough power to elect a president.
Well, I have studied history. I know what a revolution looks like; it's ugly. People get killed. Good, innocent, just-minding-their-own business people.
That's good, you know history, so you should know why a non-bloody change of government would be much better than a bloody one.
Re: (Score:2)
The GP was advocating revolution in the US, which is a bad idea. My point was that if you have enough power to start a revolution, you will have enough power to elect a president.
You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not advocating anything except a reassessment of our values, which is a far cry from revolution. That said, the traditional elements required to start a coup de etat in this country are now present: High levels of poverty, frustration with the goverment, restriction of civil liberties, the expansion of police powers to record levels, the all-consuming quest for secrecy on the part of our government officials. The general public is pissed right now. If you're going to ig
Re: (Score:2)
You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not advocating anything except a reassessment of our values, which is a far cry from revolution.
I am not. Advocating a revolution was the original topic of discussion, when you entered. If you'd like to discuss something else, that is fine, we can do that.
That said, the traditional elements required to start a coup de etat in this country are now present: High levels of poverty, frustration with the goverment, restriction of civil liberties, the expansion of police powers to record levels, the all-consuming quest for secrecy on the part of our government officials
You're missing one: in order to have a revolution, there can't be a simpler alternative. Right now there is an outlet for people's anger, a way to change the government, and that is through voting. We can get rid of all our leaders without killing them. That is why there won't be a revolution: there are easier ways.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing one: in order to have a revolution, there can't be a simpler alternative. Right now there is an outlet for people's anger, a way to change the government, and that is through voting. We can get rid of all our leaders without killing them. That is why there won't be a revolution: there are easier ways.
Just to play devil's advocate, I'll ask.
How is it, exactly, that voting can change the government? Catchy campaign slogans notwithstanding, I've not seen any change in quite a few years. there doesn't seem to be any shortage of "We don't have to tell you that" attitude from any of the Plutarchs we're given to vote for.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it, exactly, that voting can change the government?
Good question. The truth is each vote has only the power of one in 60 million (depending on how many people vote), which isn't much. So while YOU may not have been satisfied with the "we don't have to tell you that" attitude, most voters are. I can't tell you how many times during the leadup to the Iraq war I heard, "Bush is our president, so we should trust him. He must know something we don't." Which of course turned out to be false. It was annoying. As long as the majority is willing to put up wit
Re: (Score:2)
Call me cynical, but I'm not sure I believe that "more and more people are getting frustrated." It might *seem* that way, but I'm not ready to discount that it's the typical partisan bullshit. A lot of those idiots you mentioned blindly following bush over the past 9 years minus 3 months are now "frustrated" because the other team won the super bowl last year, so to speak. Now THEY are frustrated and want change, while the noisy idiots from before are now quiet and complacent because *their* guy won. Sure,
Re: (Score:1)
But good luck with that and I hope you can prove all of us cynical bastards wrong! We certa
Re: (Score:1)
The GP was advocating revolution in the US, which is a bad idea. My point was that if you have enough power to start a revolution, you will have enough power to elect a president.
I'm no longer sure that "revolution in the US" is such a bad idea; if those that stay in power will not release it to the people, what choice do we have? Peacefully asking "please" a billion times? Ya. Not so sure that would work. Pretty sure those at the front of that crowd with the long hair and flowers will get jack-booted right in the face. Additionally: WHO SAYS WE NEED A PRESIDENT? How about a three party commitee? A Mother Superior? Or a Chief Big Wumpum? ANYTHING other than an EXECUTIVE i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the funniest assertion I've heard all day.
Re: (Score:1)
The bottom line is that national security has become such an all-consuming goal for our government precisely because these intangible social factors point to this country being in a period of extreme suseptibility to losing control of its population, hence the aggressive need for suppression of free speech, excessive demands for secrecy, and the sudden and rapid reduction of civil liberties. They're trying to keep people from getting together in any large numbers and getting the idea in their head that now is the time for change and something spontanious develops and rips the guts out of the institution.
Forgive me, but that was so brilliant it just needed repeating.
Permission to quote?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I could remember the source, but I do recall reading an analysis which placed the necessary support for a terrorist/guerrilla movement to survive at 5%. That's not 5% willing to die: it's 5% willing to provide safe houses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, violence [wikipedia.org] is the only solution.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why?
What's the South ever done for the rest of us?
Most of the anti-science, anti-education, and anti-equality political activism comes from the South.
Much more of our federal tax dollars go to southern states than they put into the system.
Lincoln was wrong - we should've just let them go when we had a chance.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
44% of florida voted for Amendment 2 in 08. 27% couldn't be fucked to vote at all.
Fuck Florida. Let me move out, then sink it into the gulf.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks has some more docs on this too (Score:5, Informative)
eg.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/ACTA_negotiations_brief_on_Border_Measures_and_Civil_Enforcement_2008 [wikileaks.org]
"Rights holders to get the right to obtain information regarding an infringer, their identities, means of production or distribution and relevant third parties."
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Obama and the Queen conspire to violate copyright (Score:2, Informative)
During their private meeting with Queen Elizabeth II, President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama gave the monarch a personalized iPod with video footage of her 2007 visit to Washington and Virginia and preloaded with 40 show tunes, in blatant violation of copyright law [today.com].
The 9000-word iTunes or Amazon MP3 contracts establish licensing, not ownership, of the file, for personal, not commercial or diplomatic use. Furthermore, should the Queen connect her new iPod to a computer, further copies will b
FOI Request Was Properly Denied (Score:5, Interesting)
5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1) says
"(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"
Guess what? It's pretty standard to have an executive order that prohibits releasing treaty negotiation documents. The denial does not mean that it was "classified" in the sense of it being confidential, secret, or top secret". FOI requests are routinely denied because the information is proprietary, personnelle, or sensitive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's pretty standard to have an executive order that prohibits releasing treaty negotiation documents. The denial does not mean that it was "classified" in the sense of it being confidential, secret, or top secret".
Uhhh... sure.
But that isn't the problem.
The **AAs of the world have been given a chance to contribute to the treaty, but we the people haven't. And in the USA's case, they were quite literally given a seat at the table, since Obama has been appointing **AA lawyers to high level positions in his Administration.
So I'd suggest that it is not "pretty standard" to begin negotiating multi-lateral trade treaties in complete secrecy from the public. Further, I'd say that it is not "pretty standard" to include trade
The public would be outraged (Score:4, Insightful)
This is scary stuff, although it seems mostly conjecture at this point. Frightening to think that they gave the recording and movie industry access and even consulted with them according to rumor, while leaving civil rights groups out in the cold.
I'd suggest folks start calling their local papers and news channels asking why they aren't bringing this issue into public awareness. I just did the same with my local news and MSNBC.
RIAA was here... (Score:2, Funny)
All your freedoms are belong to us.
You are on the way to lawsuit.
You have no chance to win make your time.
Ha ha ha ha...
Take off every 'MPEG AUDIO LAYER 3'!!
You know what you doing.
Move 'MPEG AUDIO LAYER 3'.
For great justice.
thejokerswild82's 2 cents worth... (Score:1)
These guys are a poor benchmark... (Score:3, Funny)
Please, I would hardly take this as any indication that Flash is better then Silverlight.
MLB Advance Media is quite ahead of the curve in terms of sports media in many ways. They have fantastic statistical databases, great content and a solid business model.
Technology however is NOT their strength. Having spend some time in their offices and talking to their people it is clear that they lack strong organizational direction or awareness of best practices or current events in technology. Until last year most of their forms (assuming you could find what you needed) resulted in ugly JSP errors. Their streaming of live games never failed to dissapoint, turn that sucker all the way down on high speed and it was still a slide show.
Internally they haven't a clue how to plan for a robust SOA envirnoment. No consistency across APIs, services at the edge are arranged by maintainers not functionality. On top of all that their hardware are all ancient sun boxes. Need a database? No matter how small or simple the task, throw Oracle at it.
Then there is the last issue, the one that really gets be about MLB Advanced Media. The blackout restrictions on games.
If you subscribe to MLB TV, all games in the media market associated with the zipcode of your credit card are blocked out, regardless of where you are physically viewing the game from. This isn't a shortcut because they lack the ability to determine your location. This is obvious because they also black out all games in the media market in which your connection is located.
I live in NYC. I want MLB TV so that when I am the road I can watch a Mets game. They backout the Mets game despite knowing that I am in Denver and cant get the game on cable or broadcast. I know they know I can't get the game on broadcast or cable, because they GEO LOCATE ME AND BLACKOUT THE ROCKIES TOO!
WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT OF THIS SERVICE IF YOU CANT USE IT TO WATCH YOUR HOME TEAM WHEN YOU ARE ON THE ROAD? DOES THIS MAKE SENSE TO ANYONE?!?!?!?!!?!
So last year after determining the worthlessness of their service I tried to cancel. Of course they cant even fucking do proper error handling and the damn cancellation form dumps out to some ugly JSP exception, forcing me to spend over an hour on the phone with customer service to try and cancel. After all that I can get them to take me off their mailing lists.
GOD DO THEY SUCK!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Uh...you posted on the wrong article.
Skyrocket (Score:2)