Leaked TISA Documents Reveal Privacy Threat 145
schwit1 writes with some Wikileaks-enabled news at Forbes about the Trade in Services Agreement, a treaty currently under negotiation between the U.S., the European Union and nearly two dozen other parties. Wikileaks' release of 17 documents from the negotiating countries puts some bad light on some of the provisions being considered: From the Forbes report: Under the draft provisions of the latest trade deal to be leaked by Wikileaks, countries could be barred from trying to control where their citizens' personal data is held or whether it's accessible from outside the country. ... These negotiating texts are supposed to remain secret for five years after TISA is finalized and brought into force. Like TTIP and TPP, TISA could be sped through Congress using Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), also known as fast-track authority, which has been passed by the US Senate and may be taken up in the House this month. Under TPA, Congress is barred from making amendments to the trade deals, and most simply give yes-or-no approval.
They have no concept (Score:5, Insightful)
"countries could be barred from trying to control where their citizens' personal data is held or whether it's accessible from outside the country"
The businesses pushing for this are the same businesses that are going to throw a fit when this affects them.
Re:They have no concept (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They have no concept (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what you get when people vote for bought politicians because the TV tells them to. It doesn't have to be this way, but it seems to be the most convenient for all involved. There is no large scale resistance to any of it.
Re:They have no concept (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad part is, you could show the people at large that these politicians are bought and paid for, and they *still* vote for the crooks. Why? Because they've been trained to think and believe that "the other guy" is evil/hateful/fascist/$badBadBad.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly, you can show them committing the most heinous of crimes, and they still win the vote. It is still a personal problem within the voters. The real game here is plainly psychological. Politics is just a blunt instrument.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. The other guy *is* evil/hateful/fascist/$badBadBad, just in a slightly different way than the guy you were convinced to vote for. This is usually true even for the candidates offered by the minority parties, though that may well be because only loons will run after an office (and spend the effort) when there's just about no chance they'll get it.
Every election I witness I become more and more convinced that a lottery would be a much better way to select a representative. Three a
Re: (Score:2)
OK, we have an election coming up. Can you name a serious presidential candidate who is not and will not be bought or extorted AND doesn't have a show-stopper issue like wants to dispose of nuclear waste in school lunches, attach sails to all motor vehicles by 2017, or ban kitchen knives?
Bonus points if he has a ghost of a chance of appearing in a debate seen by more than 2 people or of actually getting on the ballot.
Re: (Score:1)
We have a year and a half to find one, tie him up to the chair and give him a pen. But we have to learn to tune out the bullshit.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
And this is why we absolutely must through BushCo and the rest of RethugliKKKans out and elect a decent, well-educated, sophisticated, and peace-loving man like Barack Obama.
Mmm, excuse me, I just imagined him in my shower [nytimes.com] and now my limbs are thrilling [huffingtonpost.com]...
Re: (Score:1)
I was, actually, hoping for a couple of +1 Funnies, rather than Trolls. I guess, Illiberals aren't all that open-minded and mirthful either, when caustic humour is aimed at them... Please, don't hate.
Re: (Score:2)
He uses what he calls "caustic humor" to bash his political opponents, then tries to take the high road by reminding us not to hate.
Next, he'll claim that pointing this out is an ad hominem attack.
Re:They have no concept (Score:5, Interesting)
But even that's making the assumption there was ever some innocence to be corrupted, which could perhaps be restored. In reality, while money's certainly changed hands it's mostly just a matter people liking those similar to themselves. A CEO and a senator understand each other since they both pursue and wield power. They're part of the ruling class. Even if they were both full of honest, incorruptible pure pureness and good will towards man, they'd still have much more in common with one another than with Joe Average.
This is true everywhere. Of course the bigger the pyramid of power the farther the top is from the bottom, so it shows up especially badly at EU and US federal level. However, Joe Average looks down on Joe Unemployed with exactly similar attitude his betters look at him. It's the hierarchy itself that needs to go. Democracy was a good start, but as this very article demonstrates, it's not sufficient. It makes the pyramid lower, but it's still there. I imagine the next step would need to be to guarantee economic independence for everyone; we'll likely have to resort to citizen pay anyway to keep the economy from crumbling as automation eliminates jobs, and money is the single greatest manifestation of inequality of power in all Western societies, so it makes a good next target.
Re:They have no concept (Score:5, Insightful)
These negotiating texts are supposed to remain secret for five years after TISA is finalized and brought into force.
What is the need for secrecy? If this is a good deal then doing out in the open is clearly the way to go. That they are attempting to bury it suggests that this a crappy deal for all but a select few.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ratified treaties are law in the US, not anything less, and ratification is a public action with details published in the Congressional Record. The President can make secret agreements as to what he or she will do with his or her legal authority, but that only affects the executive branch.
Re: (Score:2)
And now you know why it has to remain secret.
Re:They have no concept (Score:4, Interesting)
It was the following line that caught my interest:
These negotiating texts are supposed to remain secret for five years after TISA is finalized and brought into force.
What is the need for secrecy? If this is a good deal then doing out in the open is clearly the way to go. That they are attempting to bury it suggests that this a crappy deal for all but a select few.
I think it is not the actual Trade In Services Agreement (TISA) that would remain secret for 5 years but the negotiating texts, i.e., records/transcripts of the conference proceedings, something usual.
Re: (Score:2)
The final bill would be open when it is submitted to the countries to be ratified. The actual negotiations about what that final bill would be are what were supposed to be secret for 5 years. I think they do it so that the politicians can make deals with each other about the bill without the public knowing until 5 years after the bill is ratified.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the New World Order.
Re:They have no concept (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish you were joking, TTIP is a full out assault on democracy :-(
ISDS is corporations wet dream - being able to sue the govt in a kangaroo court - not a normal court any time any govt decides to write a law to protect standards, rights, public services, health or the environment.
What are gov't for again? This isn't just laws for sale, this is democracy for sale outright.
This transatlantic trade deal is a full-frontal assault on democracy [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't joking. It may not be the one many people imagined, but it will be just as oppressive.
Not really (Score:2)
What can *we* do? Serious! (Score:1)
I don't have any trust in those agreements. What can I do about it in my "democracy"?
Re: (Score:2)
What can I do about it in my "democracy"?
Pay attention, that's all. Everybody tunes out after election day. It's like leaving a wild baboon alone in your house all day.
Re:What can *we* do? Serious! (Score:5, Insightful)
yet what do you do on that fated election day... which side do you vote for when both don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
There are more than two sides. It's the voters who don't care enough to tune out the propaganda. Don't blame the politician for being successful.
Re: (Score:1)
Bad analogy...
Re: (Score:2)
Bad analogy...
How about this then?
Democracy is like walking down the street and on one sidewalk is a gang, on the other sidewalk is another gang.
If you walk on either sidewalk you are going to get mugged and/or raped.
If you walk in the middle of the road you are going to get hit by a car.
Re: (Score:1)
Then buy a tank and mow them all down...
Please, you are talking nonsense. There is no 'immediacy' here. If the gang banger takes two years to assault you, I believe your chances of avoiding it are pretty good.
Re: (Score:1)
...you do nothing until it's too late.
Aaaannd, whose fault is that?
Re: (Score:2)
actually that's not true at all IMHO, I can vote for all the hope and change in the world but when the change is that things slide even further back... what do you do?
there ought to be a difference between a politician exaggerating and one out right lying. makes being engaged in the system rather difficult.
Re: (Score:1)
what do you do?
What you don't do is reelect the SOB. We suffer a 98% reelection rates because submissive, lazy people simply can't be bothered to work the system.
Re: (Score:2)
But, even when the 2% win, they do the same thing as the old bosses. At least 98% of the time.
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't matter.. just keep voting them out. We don't need term limits or anything like that. The power is ours to give away.
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely endorse your statements.
I refuse to vote for the 2 major parties. ...
Many tell me I'm "throwing away my vote", as those for whom I vote have no chance of winning.
And you know what? 99.9% of the time they're right! But
-> every now and then, change does happen
-> when the assholes in power notice that their winning margins are thinning, you better believe it grabs their attention
Here's what I have previously said [slashdot.org] on the subject.
Again, I absolutely agree with you
Re: (Score:2)
so whome would you vote for next
clinton or bush?!!
the programming has error.
Re: (Score:2)
There are normally two sides. The way US elections are set up pretty much guarantees that. If we adopted ranked-choice voting countrywide, or instituted proportional representation in Congress (which would require a Constitutional amendment), it would work a lot better for additional parties. As it is, voting for a third party (and that terminology is significant) is almost certainly throwing away one's potential effect on the election.
As it is, the two-party system is extremely stable. When the exis
Re: (Score:2)
One thing that can be done: ditch the gerrymandering of districts. Simply lay out a grid based on population density and call those districts. The corners of each square can be GPS coordinates, and homes that are exactly on a line or point can be randomly moved to one side or the other.
It's totally doable technology-wise, but I doubt that any Congresscritter would do anything less than recoil in fear and disgust at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you imagine the ramifications if the American people actually got fed up enough with both parties to elect a 3rd party candidate as the President? The Democrats and Republicans would suddenly be falling on themselves to appease "the people" again. All it would take is one presidential election to change the game for decades. If only enough Americans would get the balls to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
What democracy? In a democracy, you have a say. Here, you weren't even supposed to know about it for a minimum of 5 years after it took effect. Secret laws and all that.
We in the US have NEVER been a democracy.
We are a republic.
Remember in school when we had to say the Pledge of Allegiance?
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands"
Re: (Score:1)
You could directly sue the congresspeople that commit acts that infringe on your constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. You could also take part in a protest. A mass march on Washington is way past due.
Re: (Score:2)
Make sure and stay in the Free Speech Zones.
Principles (Score:1)
On principle alone, Congress should never cede power to the Executive or Judicial Branches.
And this bullshit just shows the practical pitfalls of abdicating your responsibilities to someone else.
Re:Principles (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, the US has divided its authority into houses to maintain a balance of powers, so that no single authority can dominate the decision making process.
The executive is charged with being the head of state, namely a single person to negotiate treaties. The senate, or the "upper"/"elder" house, must ratify those treaties before they become law.
The congress, the "lower" or "junior" house, was meant to deal with day-to-day issues of the younger folk, those with a future.
In general it was originally decided that any two of the congress, senate, and executive are needed to make a law.
The judicial branch is intended to resolve disputes based on judicial principles. Except where there is a legal vacuum they cannot create law ("stare decisis" / "ratio decidendi").
It would that the balance of the division of powers is mulching of late, and I agree it is a problem â" not just on principle, but in sticking with the design choices of the founders of the United States.
Re: Principles (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So Much For Promises: (Score:2, Interesting)
For the 'most transparent administration in history.' Mr. Obama wants to bring the US down and he is doing a damn good job of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't single him out. He's only following orders, and orders are orders.
Re: (Score:1)
Why should we accept "orders are orders...?
Very simply because the winners write the rules.
For US benefit ... (Score:5, Insightful)
How much do you want this is at the request of America so that a) their security spying can access everything, and b) so that companies like Microsoft can't be told what they can do.
I'm so sick and tired of government officials signing away our rights under the table.
It should be a criminal offense to have secret treaties which impact our rights.
This is to benefit US spying interests, and corporations. Neither of which is a sensible reason to sign away our fucking rights.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's not what the Constitution says. A treaty does not have the same effect as the Constitution and its Amendments. Article VI says that the Constitution, Federal laws, and treaties are the supreme law of the land with regards to State constitutions and State laws. But clearly despite the grouping of the Constituion and Federal laws, Federal laws are not supreme over the Constitution, and the same goes for treaties. (In fact, treaties normally take effect via the passage of implementation laws - regul
Re: (Score:1)
I would consider a treaty superior to federal and state laws, but inferior to the Constitution -- any conflict between any two levels and the higher one wins.
There is a great deal of argument a treaty could, say, abridge certain rights, like speech, but I think that goes too far. The relationship I described seems about right.
Re: (Score:1)
The intention for this rule is probably laudable (Score:3)
Re:The intention for this rule is probably laudabl (Score:5, Informative)
Not true.
The EU has similar rules. Data cannot leave or be processed outside the country without SOMEONE in the EU taking the fall for allowing it to happen should something go wrong.
EU data protection is pretty hard. Google, Microsoft etc. provide guarantees to EU governments that school data on their apps (e.g. Google Apps for Education/Government etc.) are never stored nor transmitted to non-EU datacentres. I know, because as part of my job, I have a legal duty to check that this is the case of any company I hand our pupil's data off to.
Just because we don't want US noses in our data doesn't mean we're being malicious. It just means we have a set of rules and if you're not prepared to follow those rules, you can't have our data. Rules like "We have a right to see the data stored on ourselves", "We have the right to correct that information if it's incorrect", "We have a right to know what's happening to our data and who processes it and for what purpose" and so on.
There's a reason that I cannot allow use of Apple iCloud on-site. Apple refuse to provide such guarantees. Therefore their cloud service is dead to us (for many other reasons as well, but that's just Apple). There's a reason that I cannot use a software supplier from Sri Lanka who wants our business - because they can't provide the correct guarantees of our data and thus I personally, can be held *LEGALLY* liable if they take our data and some of it leaks out (for the purposes of the EU data protection laws, leak of any personally-identifiable information can result in fines and prosecution with personal liability - personally-identifiable information might be, say, one name with, say, one date-of-birth. Game over).
Sorry, but there's a reason that Dropbox, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and everyone else has an Irish datacenter - they have to control and process UK and EU user's data within the EU, according to strict laws, or risk enormous fines. The US divisions "demanding" access to the EU data is the impetus of the last year to separate the companies geographically so they can legally comply with EU regulations and not have to give data to the overbearing demands of the US court system that has no such jurisdiction.
We protect our data. Just because you don't, that doesn't make us terrorists or police states. In fact, it skews towards the exact opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
+10, If I had mod points you'd get one.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that they have some of the most favorable corporate tax laws allowing them to shield billions from US taxes by setting up a nexus there I'm sure has nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right, it has nothing to do with it. You don't need to set up a datacenter in Ireland to take advantage of the tax laws there - one accountant is probably enough.
The Irish datacenter is to keep data in the EU, as required by EU law, and out of the grubby paws of the NSA. I wholeheartedly approve.
Re: (Score:2)
You are looking for an All-Or-Nothing Transform [wikipedia.org]. If you are technically inclined, it's not too hard to whip this up for yourself. OTOH, you are implementing a cryptographic protocol, so, you shouldn't be using it for anything more serious than entertainment and education. You would need a service in the US and a service in, say, Ireland, though.
Re: (Score:2)
You could also just use split on an encrypted archive, but that might take all the fun out of it.
Re: (Score:1)
I am a European, and I'd like to keep my data within the EU, thank you very much.
US companies have proved, time and again, they cannot be trusted with such simple concepts as "personal privacy".
Re: (Score:3)
hey dumbass
"Special precautions need to be taken when personal data is transferred to countries outside the EEA that do not provide EU-standard data protection"
"Whereas the difference in levels of protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, notably the right to privacy"
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUr... [europa.eu]
How to F*** the Constitution 101 (Score:2)
Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? (Score:1)
seriously. NO.
This is insane (Score:2)
Forget about your privacy... this is bigger. A year or two ago, the UK decided against going to the Cloud, because they could not be guaranteed that UK government data would stay on UK soil. If I read that correctly... for Americans, how'd you feel about the Pentagon, or your doctor, having to use data services in, say, India or China, or eastern Europe?
mark
What effect on the US? (Score:3)
In the US, we have really crappy protection for our data in the first place, and I don't see that this treaty would affect that. It would affect many other countries, who shouldn't rely on the US Senate to protect themselves. The European Union should be getting those provisions removed, as they are clearly against many of the protections in EU member states, if not the the whole EU.
Remind me please (Score:1)
Why is it still illegal to shoot politicians? Only because they're the ones making the laws, I guess.
I cannot fathom anyone really being opposed to the idea. Unless of course he'd be affected.
2 points (Score:3)
Under the draft provisions of the latest trade deal to be leaked by Wikileaks, countries could be barred from trying to control where their citizens' personal data is held or whether it's accessible from outside the country. ... These negotiating texts are supposed to remain secret for five years after TISA is finalized and brought into force (1). Like TTIP and TPP, TISA could be sped through Congress using Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), also known as fast-track authority, which has been passed by the US Senate and may be taken up in the House this month. Under TPA, Congress is barred from making amendments to the trade deals, and most simply give yes-or-no approval. (2)
1. How is that supposed to work if no one knows about it?
I assume that the companies doing business would be "business as usual", and the country's governments being bullied by the agreement just wouldn't be able to say they want their citizens' data store within borders. Which sounds ok for me, being in the US, but sounds pretty shitty for them...but that sounds like "business as usual" from what I hear.
2. Congress should always be barred from adding amendments that have nothing to do with the bill. Something related I'm good with, but an amendment to spend money studying ducks in Arkansas on a bill to build a bridge in Massachusetts is bologna.
Change (Score:2)
So is this the "Change we can believe in"?
And no, I'm not making fun on democrats. I'm making fun of anyone that thinks their party cares about them or their country at all.
What's the problem? (Score:1)
"No Party may require a service supplier, as a condition for supplying a service or investing in its territory, to: (a) use computing facilities located in the Party’s territory."
So my reasoning for not using your USA located computing facilities is not because the are in the USA, it is because you can not grantee the level of data security I require at that facility. The fact that this happens to be because the facility is located in a particular territory with stupid laws - relevant but NOT
Re:Fast Track is Totally Misunderstood. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever the content of the treaty the fact that TPA is just standard procedure.
You can't hammer out an agreement between multiple different countries only for a national legislature to take issue with a single concession that was won by another country and agreed to by the delegates. The negotiators are there to get the best possible deal for their country. Congress then gets to decide whether or not the deal is good enough, they can't unilaterally renegotiate it.
No, no, no.. Especialyl not when the negotiations are secret, if they were public, the parliaments and public could comment on the procedings, but when they are secret, they can only comment and correct "mistakes" afterwards. And if you can't make a treaty that everyone will agree on in the end, maybe you are negotiating someting unacceptable. Rejecting it piecemeal by national parliaments is exactly how this should be dealt with.
Re: (Score:2)
But Fast Track still allows Congress to reject the treaty, doesn't it? Presumably, they can even say "we're rejecting it, but if you make these changes, we'll approve it." Then it needs to be renegotiated accordingly.
Without Fast Track, Congress can apparently accept the treaty but change the terms - which doesn't make sense, because if you change the terms it isn't the same treaty any more. It would still need to be renegotiated, and presumably taken back to Congress unless the resulting document happen
Re: (Score:1)
> You can't hammer out an agreement between multiple different countries only for a national legislature to take issue with a single concession that was won by another country and agreed to by the delegates.
Then cry us a fucking river. We're so sorry to hear sovereign states negotiate bilateral agreements happens to be so inconvenient for multinational corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think Fast Track is beginning to be understood too well.
It appears to be another word for Railroaded.
As in we are going to quietly get this train moving and by the time you figure out it is going where we want and not where you want, it will be too late.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that many of the founders and our first president were very much against the idea of the USA engaging in treaties and entanglements with other nations. The fact that they designed a system that would nearly always fail to reach such agreements isn't a surprise.
What I think is sad is rather than deal with it, either by embracing their wisdom and not making so many damned agreements, or by having a serious debate about the subject an amending the Constitution rather than running around it with 'Fast T
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever the content of the treaty the fact that TPA is just standard procedure.
You can't hammer out an agreement between multiple different countries only for a national legislature to take issue with a single concession that was won by another country and agreed to by the delegates. The negotiators are there to get the best possible deal for their country. Congress then gets to decide whether or not the deal is good enough, they can't unilaterally renegotiate it.
I think Article II of the US Constitution might disagree (requires super-majority of the Senate). But congress already voted away all their constitutional powers already anyway, so who really cares about the supreme law of the land.
And don't quote me justification using some Iran-Contra Reagan BS. That man was right on a lot of things, but not on everything.
Re:Fast Track is Totally Misunderstood. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Did he demnd that everyone support TISA blindly?
Maybe not publicly, but there should be no reason to believe he doesn't feel the same way about this as he does about TPA and TPP, and there he is demanding blind support. It is a shame he will probably get it, and then next year all those bastards who voted for it will be reelected. Turn your complaints into votes and you all might be taken seriously.