Making Sense of ACTA 155
Hodejo1 writes "This past week Guadalajara, Mexico hosted the 7th secret meeting of ACTA proponents who continue to ignore demands worldwide to open the debate to the public. Piecing together official and leaked documents from various global sources, Michael Geist has coalesced it all into a five part ACTA Guide that offers structured insight into what these talks might foist upon the populace at large. 'Questions about ACTA typically follow a familiar pattern — what is it (Part One of the ACTA Guide listing the timeline of talks), do you have evidence (Part Two), why is this secret (Part Three), followed by what would ACTA do to my country's laws (Part Four)? Countering the momentum behind ACTA will require many to speak out" (Part Five).'"
Fuck ACTA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck ACTA (Score:5, Insightful)
Meetings like ACTA conspiracy (any such hidden meeting certainly qualifies!) are proof Timothy McVeigh got the wrong building.
I don't advocate what he did, but as the proponents of secret government become more and more abusive they are going to provoke the fringe...first.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fuck ACTA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Outsourcing is a lie (Score:5, Interesting)
"How can you stop outsourcing without severely damaging the competitiveness of american companies?"
I'm beginning to think that this is a lie.
We're told over and over again that American companies have to outsource production to other countries in order for them to remain "competitive".
Okay, fine. But tell me this: How do Honda and Toyota and Kia and Hyundai BUILD PLANTS HERE IN THE US???
Are they not competitive? If FOREIGN companies can build plants here and produce products here for sale here AND hire American labor to do so... AND still make a profit...
THEN WHAT THE FUCK IS OUR PROBLEM??????
Re:Fuck ACTA (Score:4, Interesting)
And it is pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that We, The People no longer have any say in the government at all (taxation without representation) thanks to bribery being legal and corporations being labeled "really rich people" by the courts
The courts did absolutely nothing to legalize bribery. Quid pro quo exchanges of money for votes are still very much illegal, and unless you have been huffing paint thinner, you'd have no way of interpreting what SCOTUS said this way.
along with speech equaling money, thus insuring your vote and voice is worthless as any corp can simply come along after the election with a checkbook and take over.
Regardless of your views on the case, money already was a huge player. It always has been, it will continue to grow, the McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform Act" did absolutely nothing to reduce the influence of money in politics, as is clearly evident in the fact that we saw some of the most expensive elections in history in the campaigns since it passed. The only thing it really has done is made candidates put those awkward "approve this message" lines in their commercials (which is still in place),encouraged increased use of 3-rd party campaigns (still in place but less relevent), and reduced the competativeness of most elections since it is much more of a pain to criticize opponents (hence its critics have dubbed it the "Incumbency Protection Act"). A politician still must earn your vote and the extreme majority of campaign contributions tend to go to candidates that already favored a viewpoint. Suppose you are a gun company. It is a lot easier to promote a candidate who is already pro-gun than to persuade an anti-gun candidate to join you. All the recent court ruling did was make it so companies can more directly contribute to political speech, rather than indirectly contribute via third parties.
I predict we will continue to be flooded by H1-Bs and illegals even as our unemployment continues to climb past 20% (the numbers the fed uses is a lie, as they no longer count those whose benefits run out or who have given up for lack of work in their area)
Actually, the rate of illegal immigration appears to be declining due to the poor economy. I also would doubt legal H1-Bs hold too negative an impact on the US economy. What do you assume those workers do with the money they've earned? Do you think they eat it? They turn around and re-spend it here, creating jobs or they ship it overseas which removes currency from the US, thus reducing inflation. (It isn't the presence of dollar bills in the economy that make it worth money, it is the asset value the economy has, money is just a token to represent that value.) Illegal immigrants cause problems largely because of the high crime rates associated with illegal human trafficking not the taking of jobs. Also, the US unemployment rate as calculated by the department of Labor (not the Fed, they are a semi-independant central bank) is based on a survey of about 60,000 households to estimate a national average. It is currently about 10%. Your claim of it being underrepresented is a myth that derives from the fact that a few state and local governments compile their stats that way.
while special interests will continue to feed like hogs at the government trough.
Have you ever read history books? Have you ever heard of the Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall, the leader of the 19th century Democrat political machine of New York City? Have you ever read about the Teapot Dome scandal? The current levels of corruption pale in comparison to these.
Once the fed can no longer print phoney money and the whole Ponzi scheme collapses we will get to watch as they return to their home countries and leave the corpse of the USA to rot.
Social Security might be something of a Ponzi scheme, but the rest of the federal government really doesn't come close to the defe
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who lives in California, I would point to our state legislature as an excellent, prime example of why term limits are a terrible idea.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with armed revolution is that it's extremely easy for a spin doctor to marginalise and make unpopular. Just imagine someone like Slush Fatbargh, on Box News telling you how these "freedom hating terrorists" want to destroy the good old "US of A" and how they'll eat babies and kittens if they ever succeed.
Unless you manage to pull off a rapid coup d'etat and also silence or are aligned with the media the spin doctors will rip any such rebellion to shreds in it
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
That must be why all our neighbors are illegally immigrating to Cuba instead of the US.
It also explains why more people apply for Cuban citizenship rather than US citizenship.
To the GP
At least China and India have strong nationalistic streaks
Unfortunetly, any sense of nationalism in the US immeidetly gets shot down as arrogance and ignorance
Exactly why do Europeans care that we do not have national healthcare? They care because they see it as the US rejecting their ideals. I see the same people posting that they will be happy when the US collapses and it's peop
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Exactly why do Europeans care that we do not have national healthcare? They care because they see it as the US rejecting their ideals. I see the same people posting that they will be happy when the US collapses and it's people talk about how we should all have national healthcare.
No, it's because we realize the stupidity and inefficiencies of your system and feel sorry for you.
Re:Fuck ACTA (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly why do Europeans care that we do not have national healthcare? They care because they see it as the US rejecting their ideals. I see the same people posting that they will be happy when the US collapses and it's people talk about how we should all have national healthcare.
Nothing these people say make me think that they give a damn about us.
Seriously? I don't like people dying. I really don't like people dying of easily preventable causes. I hate people dying in hospitals of easily preventable causes because they aren't millionaires. I couldn't care less about what you want to do with your life, if you're doing ok, but if you use "I'm alright" as an answer to "Why are you letting all these people die?" then you are morally reprehensible. If you are just happy to have people die through lack of money in the richest country in the world when much poorer countries do much better, then that's fine.
The New Scientist had a brilliant graph plotting expected lifespan against annual government spending on healthcare. Guess who spent the most? The US. Guess who had the shortest lifespan? The US. Guess what the only explanation is? Profits on such an epic scale even European levels of corruption don't achieve them.
Not all Europeans are like this. In fact, I imagine that the majority of Europe either likes the US or is apathetic to us. But there is a strong and loud anti-US online sentiment that drowns out the rational ones.
The majority of Europe hates America. Really, really hates America. However, most European people understand that most American people are alright. The basic values of the Founding Fathers are pretty noble and good.
But
Your country and its citizens dare to lecture China on human rights when you don't recognise the International Criminal Courts, you hold unnamed suspects with no evidence and no charges against them for unlimited amounts of time with no access to legal representation. You invade sovereign nations in the name of regime change. You defend these invasions with the words freedom and liberty, and yet have no care for the millions dying in far worse regimes throughout Africa and Asia. You announce wars on abstract ideas like 'terror' or 'drugs' - unwinnable wars that nevertheless get people whipped up into a nationalistic frenzy.
You know what the worst part is, though? The reason people throughout Europe really, really hate the US? Our governments copy you like fscking monkeys, spending more in order to get less, joining in with your pointless wars in far off lands - at least you have companies that profit from rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan. Our school systems get more and more like yours, even though our schools have always turned out smarter kids. Nationalised public services start being seen as some left-wing ideal, rather than centrist and part-of-the-basic-ideals-of-the-free-market.
The truth is that the venting you get on the interwebs is actually pretty mild compared with the venting you get at dinner parties, in pubs - basically wherever there aren't Americans, because you bastards are all so fscking nice.
Have a nice day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Geneva Convention even specifies the status of non-uniformed combatants; they have no rights and may be executed on the spot. I'd say in light of that, Guantanamo detainees have been treated with far more compassion than they legally deserve. After a thorough no-holds-barred interrogation, when I was certain they were of no more intelligence value, all I'd give them is a blindfold and a cigarette
It's heartening to know that you hold yourself to such high moral standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fuck ACTA (Score:5, Insightful)
Meetings like ACTA conspiracy (any such hidden meeting certainly qualifies!) are proof Timothy McVeigh got the wrong building.
I don't advocate what he did, but as the proponents of secret government become more and more abusive they are going to provoke the fringe...first.
Can't feel too bad for them. If they want people to take their arguments the legal route, they perhaps shouldn't outlaw all the legal routes.
Close off every possible method of counter except violence, and people will not hesitate to use what you left them.
Re: (Score:2)
"Close off every possible method of counter except violence, and people will not hesitate to use what you left them."
When did apathy get outlawed?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Meetings like ACTA conspiracy (any such hidden meeting certainly qualifies!) are proof Timothy McVeigh got the wrong building.
Umm, is wasn't a copyright treaty that made McVeigh mass murder people.
Re: (Score:2)
Although I do not advocate terrorist attacks as such, maybe the US needs a "government reboot" similar to what happened in the Tom Clancy book "Executive Orders".
Re: (Score:2)
Follow the money.
There. There’s your sense.
Case closed. ^^
Now where is my giant space ray gun, when I need it?
Re: (Score:2)
Join the Pirate Party.
Re:Fuck ACTA (Score:4, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, ACTA fucks you. Oh, also in Europe and the US.
ACTA will kill people (Score:2)
TRIPS kills people. ACTA will kill vastly more people.
"ACTA will kill people" is the meme your looking for.
Re: (Score:2)
But only the sick poor! And US voters in Massachusetts have recently shown what their opinions about them are :-(
Re: (Score:2)
Could someone explain to me (Score:5, Interesting)
how it would be constitutional to enact laws that were developed behind closed doors by private interests?
Re:Could someone explain to me (Score:4, Insightful)
how it would be constitutional to enact laws that were developed behind closed doors by private interests?
How would it not? There is a parliament, whose members are elected by the public, and whose task is it, to enact laws. That's how it is put down in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every proposed law has to be published first and being discussed by the public. That's what the debates in the parliament are for.
Re:Could someone explain to me (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"That's how it is put down in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every proposed law has to be published first and being discussed by the public. "
And the judicial branch is for deciding the constitutionality of said laws. They didn't have the technology we have for information dispersion, but the next best thing. Also a lot of decisions are left up to the states which is usually closer to the populace than say Washington D.C. And last it's the duty (not optional) for the governed
Re: (Score:2)
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every proposed law has to be published first and being discussed by the public
This is how it should be. Default of 3 months review by public eyes before final decision. Fat chance of that happening.
WHAT?!? Do you really think that much is being hidden? Almost all legislation already spends months going through committees, and once a bill is introduced (i.e., before it goes through months of committee bureaucracy), it's available to the public. Take a look at http://www.house.gov/ [house.gov] and http://www.senate.gov/ [senate.gov] to see what's currently being considered.
Sure, there are last minute amendments and other things, but the vast majority of legislative text is already available for months for anyone to review
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
if true i do hope that everyone calls that bluff. that way American content will finally die the death that it needs to. I don't know about you but all the good stuff is filmed in other countries anyways.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
American content will finally die the death that it needs to. I don't know about you but all the good stuff is filmed in other countries anyways.
That's an awfully subjective view of American media. The objective view is that the most popular content worldwide is produced by America.
Say what you want about the quality of "American content", but you'll find that most people will not agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Your right America does the producing but I still refuse to watch prime time tv as It is useless. Yes I do live in new York.
American prime time, news stations, etc produce more crap than actual news. It is why watch visit the BBC to realy find out what is going on in my own country.
Re:Could someone explain to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The FACT that I haven't watched either of them and have no intention to.
Absolutely false Bollywood has a lock on the top 10, in both movies and tv shows, in terms of number of viewers.
Also, 8 of the top 10 grossing movies of all time are either joint productions or filmed on location outside the US. That's not "all-American" either. The days of the US E
Re: (Score:2)
just makes you look stupid, because what you're really saying is that the majority of people don't have a clue,
Not really jumping in the middle of the specific exchange here, but the majority absolutely do not have a clue. Just because something is popular doesn't mean its good. Popular used be large codpieces and long, curly, falic toes on the end of your shoe. Popular was putting lead in your food, on your skin, and in your hair.
To suggest that popular is somehow correct or in the right is to suggest you have no idea what you're talking about. Even today, superior products often lose out to superior advertising. A
Re: (Score:2)
It's only when you get to the point of spending £60 a bottle that Champagne becomes worthwhile. The majority really don't have a clue.
Glad I never took the time to appreciate what makes champagne 'worthwhile'. To think, if I really took the time to appreciate something I enjoy, I wouldn't be able to afford it anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
It won't die. They'll kick, scream and threaten to hold their breath until they die. They may even be stupid enough to try it. However, just like the bratty kid, soon enough they'll get dizzy, realize they can't win that way and they'll give in.
That is, even though they're demanding $10, eventually they'll settle for $5 because it's better than $0.
Re:Could someone explain to me (Score:4, Insightful)
if true i do hope that everyone calls that bluff. that way American content will finally die the death that it needs to. I don't know about you but all the good stuff is filmed in other countries anyways.
You know, I remember a story my Father used to tell me about why there weren't any new brick buildings in Southern California (this was long before the Sylmar earthquake). He drove a concrete mixer, and his attitudes were probably colored by it - he said "There are no more brick houses because the unions priced themselves out of the market."
Now I'm not trying to bash the unions here, they have their place - but the fact is, raise the price too high for a quality product and buyers will re-define their concept of what they like. And if the interest moves away from the traditional stuff, the quality will too. Fashions will get redefined.
My point is that the content of media controlled by ACTA and other attempts at legitimatizing RIAA and MPAA enforcers will have the effect of more and more music and video coming from indie sources. Good stuff, too. Put too tight a control on your contributions and the world will pass you by.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The British Motor Corporation (/British Leyland/Rover MG) will back you up on that one. Unions are wonderful, but the overzealous ones have killed off many a healthy local industry.
In the case above, the union kept making demands, and the incompetent management never managed to balance them out properly, in the end the company was busy producing the fewest, shoddiest, most expensive excuses for automobiles available this side of the iron curtain, before duly going bust for the final time.
(Car analogy five?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Could someone explain to me (Score:4, Insightful)
That won't work. The 'content' just isn't that critical and the natural retaliation to it being too expensive suggests itself!
Instead of the stick, I suspect they'll offer the carrot under the table to legislators who agree to betray their country, just like always.
Re: (Score:2)
Empty threat, as anyone who wants the content but doesn't want to pay can already get it for free from isohunt [isohunt.com]. And even if they couldn't, do you really think that people would get themselves bankcrupt over entertainment?
Re: (Score:2)
ACTA is basically saying "We got the DMCA in the USA, so why don't you write a similar law where you are... or we're going to raise the price of our content to the point we break your economy!"
Then that speaks more to the scarcity of talent than anything else. Or maybe the drug addict relationship people have with American content? We were trying for the sympathy angle, weren't we?
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously it would not be in a democracy. However many of us live in a representative democracy where our government represents those who speak the loudest [boston.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the question above is exactly why this is a problem: US citizens have no idea how their governmen
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is no requirement for public debate or notice in passing legislation or signing treaties.
And in general, we have no need for more "notice." What "debate" happens is mostly wheeling and dealing behind the scenes before the bill comes to the floor, and any "debate" on the floor is usually for soundbites for the evening news. I'm not sure how one could require an "actual" debate, except through media and individuals being more critical during the process... which they can be.
Most non-trivial pieces of legislation take months to go through both houses and get to the President's desk for signatu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe there should be an amendment to the constitution:
"The gut feelings of people posting on Slashdot always overrule the congress."
Well, maybe we should exclude low-scored postings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's be level headed here for a moment. Let's assume for a moment ACTA was a "fair" agreement. Designed to give all affected parties a fair share of the cake. Even then, it would be met with incredible resistance once it hits the fan. Why? Because it's kept secret. You design a contract that will affect me but I don't get to read it until after it is signed. How in the world could I not resist it with all the force I could possibly have?
Also, they will soon notice that all the secrecy around it only makes it more interesting. If ACTA was published and discussed in plain view, it would soon be drowned in the noise of everyday politics. A few activists would care and as usual, nobody would listen to them. Do you think it would be on /.'s frontpage every other day if it was public? This way, it's kept in our minds, fresh and looming, a secret deal that will affect us but we don't get to see it. Can you imagine anything more interesting?
Of course (please put on your tinfoil hats now), it could all be a gigantic plot to keep our interest on it so we overlook something else. But generally, if ACTA is supposed to become reality some day, the whole secrecy around it will ensure that every government will have to fight an uphill battle to get it ratified and codified and every single step will be monitored closely and reported widely, simply because ACTA got that much limelight. Due to its secrecy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You design a contract that will affect me but I don't get to read it until after it is signed.
If its passed I will simply use every means at my disposal to ignore it.
Do you think it would be on /.'s frontpage every other day if it was public?
So what? Its on the front page of a half-dead geek website every other day. How often is it mentioned on the cover of a
national paper? How often is it mentioned on a news channel on TV? What percentage of the population has even heard of
ACTA? Maybe 5%? How many ca
Re:The whole secrecy only adds to the resistance (Score:4, Interesting)
So what? Its on the front page of a half-dead geek website every other day. How often is it mentioned on the cover of a national paper? How often is it mentioned on a news channel on TV? What percentage of the population has even heard of ACTA? Maybe 5%? How many care? 1%?
Well, here in Sweden it's been mentioned in the national media, but then we also have Pirate party representatives in the EU parliament...
/Mikael
Re: (Score:2)
but then we also have Pirate party representatives in the EU parliament...
The parliament might be all that stands between us and ACTA being implemented in the EU. Because of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU parliament now has a say in virtually every new law and agreement that is to be ratified by the union. I don't think that they'll take the fact that they have not been allowed to see the draft treaty yet lightly, and might put some heavy grit in the machinery. They are very keen on using the newly acquired powers, and hopefully, they'll use their power to strike down the ACTA.
I don't
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't count on the EU parlament to do that. It's basically a scapegoat to push unpopular laws because the citizens of the EU still don't see the connection between the EU parlament and their votes.
Far too often you get to hear statements along the lines of "we wouldn't want to implement these laws, but the EU forces us, so sorry..." from the mouths of our politicians. Yet people don't grasp the idea that they could change something if they voted sensibly in EU elections. Unfortunately those elections a
Re: (Score:2)
I don't count on the riksdag to do that, they are a bunch of sheep. The FRA law proved it. As you probably know, those who opposed it were coerced by the administration to vote contrary to their own opinion.
Of course, if those with differing opinions actually had any principles whatsoever they would have stuck to their guns and ignored the party whip and fellow party-members.
I'm convinced that most politicians that get as far as parliament never really had any principles whatsoever to begin with, they just like the posh job with a great "retirement" scheme, and so don't have any desire to upset those who could endanger their positions (ie. party leaders).
What we need in Sweden is an expulsion of all current po
Re: (Score:2)
And how?
Elections? With people who couldn't care less about net neutrality, especially in times when their jobs are at risk, provided they don't think about international fishing problems when they hear net neutrality? Hardly. This will never be an issue in any political debate.
And how else would you, could you stop that treaty from happening?
No Jokes Here (Score:1)
Get it together, people. We understand the implications and can make the right noises to the right people.
The public will sleep safer knowing we're out there, doing something.
Like the Batman.
Re:No Jokes Here (Score:4, Insightful)
Batman is a comic, you know that I hope? Because in reality, someone like Batman would be hunted by the executive worse than any criminal you could imagine. No country on this planet lets a private citizen crack the force monopoly.
Well, not without a reasonable kickback.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as far as I know, they DO hunt Batman in the stories.
But in a city full of crime, like Gotham, a desperate police force, nearly against its will and nearly against the wall, can absolutely try to get a little help.
Batman is somewhere between calling the swat teams, and calling the national guard.
Re: (Score:2)
Trust me. Any other crime would take a back seat. Swat teams and national guard are under the control of the state, he would not be. That alone, and making the police force look bad, which falls back on politicians, is alone to make him the number one on the list.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually.... there have been people rather like Batman in the 1930s era. Private millionaires who bankrolled much of WW2 military R&D.
Look up Howard Hughes, Alfred Loomis, Floyd Odlum, William Stephenson, 'Wild Bill' Donovan. Those boys got up to interesting stuff, sometimes working for 'the government' and sometimes on their own time (and dime). They weren't all friends of Hoover and FDR.
And to be honest, that heritage still exists today. Some of the same types of characters surfaced in teams Nixon, Re
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Andrew Carnegie wasn't too bad as far as they went, but most other large tycoons of that age were absolutely ruthless. They weren't people you'd look to for morals.
Really, it's stupid. And also in effect in the US (Score:2, Interesting)
It's all about standardizing shipping documents between countries. If you have ever tried to ship something bigger than a letter to the U.S., you'd find yourself spending an inordinate amount of time filling out forms just to get it into the American borders.
ACTA aims to make this pain equal across the board. In some ways it will protect shippers because the better they describe the contents of the package, the less likely it will be to be targeted for extra search measures. On the other hand, who in their
Re:Really, it's stupid. And also in effect in the (Score:4, Insightful)
That seems pretty reasonable. So why don't they negotiate the terms out in the open?
I suspect that there's more to it than just this. Someone is trying to slip some funny language into the agreement. Often, when negotiating contract terms, one can deduce where such language is being injected into the document by observing how dearly one party has become attached to some particular wording or content. And in finding these particular terms, one can guess at what sort of hidden agendas the various parties might have.
waggers (Score:5, Interesting)
USTR head Ron Kirk has reportedly said that countries would walk away from the treaty if the text were made available
I don't get this. If our elected leaders walk off on the job, we already have a mechanism in place to fix this: a general election. Maybe the next batch is willing to contend with the issue under democratic conditions, such as open consultation.
Oh, you mean only the tinpots will walk away from the table, which will hurt us more than it hurts them. Why didn't you make yourself clear in the first place? Democracy is good, except when negotiating with tinpots, which necessarily takes place on their terms, in the best interest of all concerned.
Nice tail-wags-the-dog justification for subverting democratic transparency.
Or is there something I missed here? Did I skip an essential chapter in Democracy for Dummies? I feel so stupid. Our politicians are willing to shine their eminent sensibilities on this problem and all they want is a little secrecy to work their magic for the good of humanity? There's just no respect in this world, is there?
Re:waggers (Score:4, Interesting)
Acronyms... (Score:3, Informative)
They do realize it has to go public at some point? (Score:2)
All of this secrecy just feeds the intense interest from the public. Everyone from conspiracy theorists, to fringe lunatics will have ample time to take pot shots at it. That said, they do realize that at some point, they will have to put their 'yay' or 'nay' on this thing? It will be obvious to anyone wanting to read it what it says? If it adversely affects millions of Americans in any significant way, the folks who ratify this thing are history. Brown should be a good reminder of that. Piss enough people
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Politicians haven't been held responsible for this kind of shit ever since they realised the full extent to which they could abuse redistricting.
Re: (Score:2)
All of this secrecy just feeds the intense interest from the public
The story may have the Slashdot's attention. But you have drill down deep elsewhere to have even heard of it.
unauthorized IP distribution = piracy (Score:4, Interesting)
<tinfoilhat>
From the article: efforts at the international level to fight counterfeiting and piracy
I have to wonder at the increase and sudden newsworthiness of Somalian piracy during the private talks around ACTA. When it comes time to present it to the public, talk of counterfeiting and piracy will elicit images of counterfeit currency and Somalian pirates and the average Joe that hasn't read much about the document will assume that those opposing it are a bunch of crazies. Finally, the years of equating unauthorized IP distribution with piracy will come to fruition for our dark masters.
</tinfoilhat>
In all seriousness, though, whether planned by some diabolical secret cabal or not, I can see this confusion being purposefully used to sway the view of the common citizen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have you noticed that, with the increased mention of Somalian piracy, that this winter has been a bit chill?
I think it is a sign from the FSM, but I'm not sure if it is positive of negative.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, just as Disney used the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy to glamorise piracy & promote their pro-sharing, anti-copyright agenda.
Oh, wait...
how to defeat acta: (Score:4, Insightful)
ignore it
technology has gotten to the point that piracy is simply the best distribution model around, for creators and consumers (oh, you thought the law was supposed to protect creators? it protects distributors: look at the contracts distributors sign with creators and tell me who really benefits). consumers get bounty, creators get ancillary revenue streams and distributors die. end of story
let them pass any law they want. no really: what is the value of an unenforceable law? people are getting upset about acta, but i really have to ask everyone: acta may sound diabolical and severe, but its toothless: there's no enforcement of it possible. sure, they may get the occasional grandmother with an unsecured router or a soccer mom who's kids friends take advantage of her hospitality, but that's going to stop technological progress?
let them fund stables of tens of thousands of lawyers and put behind them far reaching draconian laws. whoop de friggin doo. tens of millions of media hungry, technologically savvy and POOR teenagers has them all beat, and then some. the contest is a joke, the laws mean nothing, the game is over: technological progress wins, distributors die
we are simply living in a transition period in which we must suffer the bluster of morons from another media era who simply don't get the fundamental changes taking place around them
Re:how to defeat acta: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
let them pass any law they want. no really: what is the value of an unenforceable law?
It's not unenforceable. The tech can be turned against it's users. Imagine a closed Internet where every communication, every URL and every download is logged. We're not that far off such a thing. So people stop using the net and start copying files. What do you think "trusted" computing is about. There will be a day when hard drives start dobbing their owners in. Imagine mass round ups of teenagers that are guilty until
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a sneakernet.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine technically illiterate people with better things to do.
Won't/Can't happen (Score:2, Interesting)
> Imagine a closed Internet where every communication, every URL and every download is logged.
Cannot happen. Well, at least effectively. Because of things called "steganography" [wikipedia.org] and "perfect forward secrecy" [wikipedia.org].
So, no. The only closed Internet is a a read-only Internet.
It does lower the bandwidth a lot. But as Thing 1 already replied to you, the high-bandwidth stuff can be done by sneakernet.
Your fear from Trusted Computing is more real. But even there, we are close to the point where third-world countries
Re: (Score:2)
I think you underestimate what the average person is willing to risk. Make steganography and encryption completely illegal with harsh penalties and they all but go away.
iran and china can't cope (Score:2)
they have all the legal justification, all the enforcement apparatuses, and a dire existential reason to fight an open internet, and they still can't cope
so you think a small industrial sector: distribution of media, can do a better job?
it's a contest: open internet versus a dying economic distribution model. internet wins, easy
you obfuscate the connection, you encrypt it, you darknet it, you disguise it as ip packets on port 80, you make it look like smtp email, you make it look like put form responses on
Re: (Score:2)
you think anti-piracy laws are unenforceable? let me paint you a picture:
the internet has become a commodity like power or water, not in terms of how widespread it is, but because it is thoroughly regulated. anonymity is dead. MAC addresses are impossible to change, and are registered to a specific individual (perhaps a set of individuals, if it's a machine shared by a, say, family). owning a
Re:how to defeat acta: (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, I can see it coming.
I still have my old analog modem, and I still control my own network. We hackers will simply retreat to UUCP ("bbs" for the micro-computer generation). With known and trusted peers only.
About the only thing added will be full crypto on the UUCP links.
And when they come for that...
It will go back to physical data exchange.
Too bad, though. But the level of discourse may become reasonable again, and maybe, just maybe, SPAM will go away. At least on the darknets.
Re:how to defeat acta: (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody is worried about the future of distributing content. There will always be crackers, and the effort of one is enough to liberate some piece of content for everyone. What we're worried about is that the *AA will destroy the internet trying.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The law only works because the majority of the population respect it.
As you say, once you make a law that the majority don't want to honor and respect, the law is unenforceable.
As they say, they can't put us ALL in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they can. You just need the Soviet Russia model, where you turn the entire country into a prison. Or the German Democratic Republic model, with half the population watching the other half.
Re: (Score:2)
UK has 1% of world's population, 20% of its CCTV cameras [thisislondon.co.uk]
General public to view CCTV, report crimes [interneteyes.co.uk]
American Criminal Transportation Authority? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a secret...
If you haven't already (Score:3, Interesting)
The best thing is, it might only take one country pulling out to put the ACTA into question everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully no laws will come out of it (Score:2)
---
Piracy [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]