backtop


Print 115 comment(s) - last by camylarde.. on Mar 3 at 10:13 AM


The U.S. has fought to keep the ACTA treaty secret. The treaty allows monitoring of citzens online and warrantless search and seizures at border crossing, of electronics suspected to be carrying infringed content.  (Source: PuppetGovernment)
The U.S. Government insisted that the terms of its privacy and rights-trampling treaty were too sensitive to expose to the public

ACTA, short for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, is an all-reaching proposal that may represent an epic victory for the film and music industries in their fight against piracy, a victory that comes at the high expense of citizens' privacy and rights, if it is upheld.  

Championed by both former President George W. Bush and current President Barack Obama, the proposal is the child of countless millions in international lobbying money from the media industry.  It aims to enact constant monitoring of citizens' online activities -- even perfectly legitimate ones -- and grants border agents in the U.S. and many member states the power of warrantless search and seizures -- provisions that would grant them the power to destroy U.S. citizens' laptops, iPods, or CDs, if the agents suspected that they might contain infringed content.  And the best part?  The cost of the bill will be footed by the taxpayers themselves -- without even giving them a clue as to what's happening.

With its Big Brotheresque terms, it's little wonder that the U.S. wanted to keep the agreement under wraps.  What was unknown until now, though, was just how few nations support the U.S. in keeping the agreement secret, or the fact that the Obama and Bush administration negotiators overpowered other major nations to keep the treaty out of the public eye.

Officials in the Netherlands, a nation pushing for the treaty to be exposed to the public, "accidentally" leaked (DutchGoogle English translation) a memo from a secret ACTA negotiation meeting in Mexico, which detailed who supported keeping the treaty secret from citizens of member nations.

Only a handful of European nations -- Belgium, Portugal, Germany, and Denmark -- and two other nations -- South Korea and Singapore -- supported keeping the treaty a secret.  Denmark was reportedly the most vocal supporter of secrecy.  

The majority of the other participating nations -- the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, and Austria, the UK, and Japan supported releasing details to the public.  The UK and Japan, two of the world's biggest powers, reportedly were particularly vocal about transparency.  Other nations, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, were not listed in the memo, but have been advocates of transparency.

Despite the vast majority supporting openness, the U.S. fought to silence these voices.  With the help of the handful of nations supporting secrecy, it successfully prevented the ACTA terms from being aired to the public, even as the U.S. government considers warrantless border searches for "pirate materials".

Of course, a vast body of information regarding ACTA made it to the public eye anyways, thanks to the internet and leaks sites like Wikileaks.

The treaty and the recent information on how the U.S. fought to keep it secret raises alarming questions about politicians at the highest level on both sides of the political aisle.  Why would our nation's leaders plot and champion a treaty that would raise citizens' taxes in order to violate their constitutional rights, as a favor for major corporations?  And more importantly, why would these leaders fight to keep the treaty secret, when transparency and public participation form the foundation of our nation?  

It's all to protect you -- even if you don't know about it.  At least that's what your elected officials say.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Enough is enough
By porkpie on 2/25/2010 9:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
"Why think for yourself when you can just chant 'GO TEAM."

Your sense of humor broken, along with everything else? Did you actually take my comment seriously?

" God forbid there's ever a day when television is rendered inoperable by cosmic winds or massive system failure"

Son, I haven't watched a single show on TV in over five years. I strongly suspect it's been much less time than that for you.


RE: Enough is enough
By Zshazz on 2/25/2010 9:52:08 PM , Rating: 3
I like how you avoid addressing any of his points and instead attack his character. It shows that you're clearly smarter than him.

To be fair, your reply was to a personal attack on you... but to be even more fair, his far more effective attack was a response to an utterly useless (I'm seeing a pattern here) response to his original points.

If you have an argument against his case, present it. However, if you cannot come up with something, please refrain from making yourself look like an idiot and, thus, giving more perceived credit to his argument.


RE: Enough is enough
By wompirebat on 2/25/2010 10:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I like how you avoid addressing any of his points and instead attack his character. It shows that you're clearly smarter than him.

Cheers. I believe the fancy term for it is argumentum ad hominem.

And you're right, I was hoping for a serious argument.
So far the focus has been on the continent/country of Africa (confusing, that). Which I was only trying to use as an example. Not a platform.
Ah well.


RE: Enough is enough
By porkpie on 2/25/2010 10:47:26 PM , Rating: 1
"If you have an argument against his case, present it"

I did so in my first post--- to which he replied with a rambling, semi-incoherent series of personal attacks and innuendo.

" if you cannot come up with something, please refrain from making yourself look like an idiot "

Examine your own posting in the light of your remarks and tell me what you conclude.


RE: Enough is enough
By Zshazz on 2/26/2010 12:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
I did so in my first post--- to which he replied with a rambling, semi-incoherent series of personal attacks and innuendo.

Oh, I so enjoyed your argument. Splendid use of the argumentum via rolly-eyus.

And the statement "let's let all the murderers live with your mother" was also a shining example of a proper argument. We have much to learn from you, Jedi Master.

Certainly his "incoherent series of personal attacks and innuendo" didn't clarify (although, I certainly understood him from the beginning) the point that he didn't mean violent criminals ... which is a point you have failed to address. Perhaps you are avoiding a proper argument in order to enlighten us that it's so stupid that it's not worth a proper argument's time? Brilliance!

Examine your own posting in the light of your remarks and tell me what you conclude.

Touché. However, the point stands regardless. I cannot help that I have a weakness that makes me find people without something to say saying something to avoid saying something annoying beyond measure (surely you can understand my plight now that you understand how I think of it). I will willfully retract that statement as soon as you shape up and provide an argument void of personal attacks as you have conducted, without fail, throughout the entire page.


RE: Enough is enough
By wompirebat on 2/25/2010 9:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry Pa, I regret giving the impression of a personal attack.
But you're absolutely right. Given the context, I don't know how I could've misinterpreted. It's so glaringly obvious now that you point it out.
As far as the last TV show I watched... I'm pretty sure it was News Radio.
But no hard fealings, eh Pops.
I gotta run - lotta things to fix.


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki