×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Rejects Demands For ACTA Transparency

Soulskill posted about 4 years ago | from the yet-we-still-see-right-through-you dept.

Government 351

An anonymous reader writes "The US Trade Representative issued a release just prior to the launch of the New Zealand round of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negotiations that has left no doubt the US is the biggest barrier to official release of the ACTA text. Unlike most other ACTA countries that have called for transparency without condition, the US has set conditions that effectively seek to trade its willingness to release the text for gains on the substance of the text."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

351 comments

People are fighting ACTA (5, Informative)

click2005 (921437) | about 4 years ago | (#31818988)

People are fighting ACTA = Useless (5, Insightful)

TheMeuge (645043) | about 4 years ago | (#31819230)

It's very simple, no conspiracy required. The situation is as follows:

1. Large IP holders' lobbyists are applying direct financial pressure to the gov't in general and undoubtedly the negotiators personally
2. The public reaction is only important if it is large enough to affect an election outcome. This is blunted by the fact that the negotiators are appointed, not elected. In the US, even the election pressure is largely blunted by the nature of the winner-takes-all system. In Europe individual votes matter far more to the politicians. Here in the US, they don't care as long as they get their 50.1%
3. The negative reaction from the public will only come about if they find out about it, and most will not waver from mainstream media.
4. Mainstream media is largely owned by large IP holders, and will not only avoid stories about the ACTA, but will create a massive campaign to smear any protest that becomes public.

That's it. There's no conspiracy. Just self-interest all around.

Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless (5, Insightful)

Shotgun (30919) | about 4 years ago | (#31819370)

Now, that's some change we can believe in. Let's all hear it for the most open government in the history of the United States.

Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31819556)

Anyone care to explain to me why Shotgun's comment was modded "Flamebait?" Is there not a huge disconnect between Obama's grandiose campaign promises and the reality of the policies that he's either implementing or continuing? I know it's a bitter pill for some to swallow, but anyone who was paying attention could've seen this coming.

Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless (2, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 4 years ago | (#31819674)

Well - if any of those governments involved were really superior to our own pitiful government, they would refuse to participate in secret talks concering a secret treaty. They're all dirtbags, from Oz to Europe to America. Who else is involved? Surely there are Asian countries in on it. But, I kind of expect most Asian governments to be secretive. Dirtbags all, willing to sell their people's rights for a few campaign dollars.

Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31819816)

Agreed, but Shotgun's point is still valid. The American people were sold one thing by Obama, but have received another thing entirely. Ron Paul is right: Obama isn't a Socialist; he's a Corporatist. The only thing that changed with Obama is that he's much more well-versed in the art of the rhetorical BJ than his predecessor.

Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless (3, Insightful)

TheMeuge (645043) | about 4 years ago | (#31819806)

Why mark the above post Flamebait? Just because the situation doesn't fit the narrow scope of your understanding of reality, and because your favorite candidate turned into the same sponsored turd as the guy before him, doesn't mean you should lash out at people who make that observation.

You can only keep deluding yourself for so long...

Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 4 years ago | (#31819384)

It's very simple, no conspiracy required. The situation is as follows:

1. Large IP holders' lobbyists are applying direct financial pressure to the gov't in general and undoubtedly the negotiators personally 2. The public reaction is only important if it is large enough to affect an election outcome. This is blunted by the fact that the negotiators are appointed, not elected. In the US, even the election pressure is largely blunted by the nature of the winner-takes-all system. In Europe individual votes matter far more to the politicians. Here in the US, they don't care as long as they get their 50.1% 3. The negative reaction from the public will only come about if they find out about it, and most will not waver from mainstream media. 4. Mainstream media is largely owned by large IP holders, and will not only avoid stories about the ACTA, but will create a massive campaign to smear any protest that becomes public.

That's it. There's no conspiracy. Just self-interest all around.

That actually is a conspiracy for it requires many people to cooperate together to accomplish a shared goal. Self-interest is assumed in a conspiracy since it is unusual to form conspiracies for purposes of charity. It's also a conspiracy because the same small (compared to the whole US population) group that owns the large IP also owns the media. That's evidenced by conducting a smear campaign which by its very nature is not terribly interested in factual accuracy.

There's nothing magic about the word "conspiracy" except in the minds of people who are desperate to dismiss a notion without actually finding fault with it. "You said 'conspiracy' therefore you're automatically a nut and I'll ignore your ideas without actually investigating them" is how that goes. It's a weak mind that uses such tactics to shelter itself from ideas that it would rather not consider. It's a tool of marginalization and nothing more.

If you're interested, I believe the fifth definition of "conspiracy" is most relevant here. From dictionary.reference.com:

conspiracy
/knsprsi/ [[ask.com]] Show Spelled[kuhn-spir-uh-see] [[ask.com]] Show IPA
–noun,plural-cies.
1.
the act of conspiring.
2.
an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3.
a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4.
Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5.
any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

As I have explained from time to time on this site, if you work at a company that produces widgets, you and all of your co-workers are conspiring to make widgets. To put it mildly, it'd be extremely poor form to read that sentence and then dismiss without examination the notion that the company exists, that you work there, or that you make widgets. But that's generally what people want this magic keyword "conspiracy" to be -- an automatic way to end any discussion with zero effort, zero evidence, and no good reason.

Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless (3, Insightful)

ktappe (747125) | about 4 years ago | (#31819588)

If you're interested, I believe the fifth definition of "conspiracy" is most relevant here. From dictionary.reference.com:

  1. 1. the act of conspiring.
  2. 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
  3. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
  4. 4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
  5. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Regardless of these being from Dictionary.com, I debate #5 being an accurate definition for that word. "Combination in bringing about a given result" is the definition of "cooperation". "Conspiracy" definitely has a negative, malevolent connotation.

That debate aside, I think #3 is most accurate with regard to ACTA. Especially the "secret" part.

Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 4 years ago | (#31819590)

Conspiracy implies coordination/plotting. I think the GP's point was that no coordiantion was necessary, and that the conspiracy was emergent rather than plotted.

That being said, he argued his point poorly by pointing to the IP/Media owners as the ones pulling all the puppet strings.

Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31819644)

Could one say it's like Godwin? One side of the argument has no rebuttal so they make up a condition of "automatic loss."

Implicit and explicit conspiracies (5, Interesting)

spun (1352) | about 4 years ago | (#31819732)

Perhaps we should differentiate between explicit and implicit conspiracies. Generally in the popular conception of conspiracy, the conspirators actually conspire together. Meaning, they get together to discuss plans to achieve their ends, and then carry out those plans. That is an explicit conspiracy, and TheMeuge was hypothesizing that perhaps the interested parties here never needed to sit down and discuss plans together. Perhaps they were all acting individually, in an implicit conspiracy. In fact, this type of 'conspiracy' is far more common. Very few people are comfortable believing they are the bad guy. Explicit conspiracies require some kind of an acknowledgment from the conspirators that they are engaging in a conspiracy. Because implicit conspiracies require no active conspiring, people engaged in them don't even need to admit to themselves that they are doing so. The oppression of the lower classes by the owning class is an example of such an implicit conspiracy. Far from having to admit to themselves or each other that they are oppressing the lower classes, the owning class has the privilege of believing they are in fact helping them.

Re:Implicit and explicit conspiracies (1)

Golddess (1361003) | about 4 years ago | (#31819890)

Very few people are comfortable believing they are the bad guy. Explicit conspiracies require some kind of an acknowledgment from the conspirators that they are engaging in a conspiracy.

You seem to think that in order to be explicitly involved in a conspiracy, you must consider yourself to be "a bad guy". I'm curious why.

Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless (4, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#31819484)

You could also include Alex Jones' opinion (take with a spoonful of sugar):

- The mainstream media is owned by the banks, so naturally they are not going to talk about it. The banks want to chain the people financially and creatively. The bank-owned media also wants to pass laws to shutdown the net, since it is hurting them financially and politically (people speaking truth to power).

Please don't shoot (mod down) the messenger.

Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless (1)

jasonwc (939262) | about 4 years ago | (#31819522)

You don't even need 50.1% to win an election in the United States. You just need a plurality of the votes. In fact, it was considered noteworthy that Obama won more than 50% of the vote because it had been decades since a Democratic president had won an outright majority of the popular vote, rather than a mere plurality.

Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless (2, Informative)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 4 years ago | (#31819664)

No, you've misunderstood how elections work in the US. You need 50%+1 of the votes--however in Presidential elections it is not the popular vote that is counted but the votes of the Electoral College. To be elected President you must have 50%+1 vote from the Electoral College, which you could theoretically win with as little as ~25% of the national popular vote. In virtually all other elections it's just 50%+1 of the popular vote.

Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless (1)

jasonwc (939262) | about 4 years ago | (#31819928)

"In virtually all other elections it's just 50%+1 of the popular vote."

I should have been more clear about the popular vote, but your claim about other elections is false. Very few state or or local elections, and no federal elections, require more than a plurality of the popular vote. Some states have run-off elections, but in the vast majority of elections, it's sufficient to obtain a plurality. We would have a great deal more run-off elections otherwise, because many close elections with third party candidates result in a winner who obtained less than a majority of the vote.

As for the Electoral college, while it is true that a president could theoretically win with a mere 10-25% of the popular vote, I only recall two elections in America's history where the electoral vote diverged from the popular vote.

Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless (1)

jasonwc (939262) | about 4 years ago | (#31819964)

Actually, ignore what I said about federal elections. The US Constitution defers to state standards as to the handling of elections for federal office, unless Congress intervenes to the contrary.

In general, Congress has deferred to state law.

Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless (2, Interesting)

Imrik (148191) | about 4 years ago | (#31819696)

5. Most people in the US don't consider IP to be a major issue when voting anyway.

Open up a dictionary once in a while, PLEASE! (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 4 years ago | (#31819940)

It's very simple, no conspiracy required. The situation is as follows:

[...]
4. Mainstream media is largely owned by large IP holders, and will not only avoid stories about the ACTA, but will create a massive campaign to smear any protest that becomes public.

That's it. There's no conspiracy. Just self-interest all around.

Yeah, that #4 right there? THAT IS A CONSPIRACY [wikipedia.org]!

# Conspiracy (civil), an agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage
# Conspiracy (crime), an agreement between persons to break the law in the future, in some cases having committed an act to further that agreement
# Conspiracy (political), the overthrow of a government

conspire Look up conspire at Dictionary.com
        c.1300, from O.Fr. conspirer, from L. conspirare "to agree, unite, plot," lit. "to breathe together,"

Then fuck it. (1)

unity100 (970058) | about 4 years ago | (#31818990)

'i wont let anyone see. but if i let anyone see it, i want what i want to be done'.

get a load of that. can any of the americans explain this to us here ?

Re:Then fuck it. (5, Insightful)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 4 years ago | (#31819028)

"We're afraid of our own democracy, it tends to interfere with corporate interests"

maaaan (4, Informative)

unity100 (970058) | about 4 years ago | (#31819054)

they actually said it. one member of this 'trade house commitee' assured corporations recently that 'consumer groups' participation would be kept to a minimum'.

Re:maaaan (5, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#31819592)

Corporations (or tress or rocks or other non-humans) should not be allowed to lobby the People's representatives.

And yes I know corporations consist of people. They are still allowed to speak, as individuals.

Re:Then fuck it. (1)

poopdeville (841677) | about 4 years ago | (#31819050)

It's called "negotiating".

Re:Then fuck it. (1)

bersl2 (689221) | about 4 years ago | (#31819634)

Negotiation among businesses is different from negotiation among nations: in the latter, the negotiations proper should be private, but the discussions of the needs of stakeholders and of the outcome must be public. It's just that, in this particular case, "stakeholder" was construed to exclude citizen-licensers and citizen-licensees and only include large business interests. Therefore, because not only will the process not take our needs into account, they won't even acknowledge them, the retaliatory steps of forcing the negotiations proper to be partially transparent through leaks and of demanding that the negotiations be fully transparent (with the full knowledge that this will not be agreed to) have been taken.

I think it's perfectly reasonable, but then again I am not an executive whose wealthy fiefdom is under assault from a change in economics due to technological advances.

Re:Then fuck it. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31819056)

can any of the americans explain this to us here ?

You wanted hope and change? You got it. Hope you like it.

Re:Then fuck it. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31819216)

Yep, we went from a white dufus, to a long-legged mac-daddy muslim half-breed. Everything else stayed the same.

Re:Then fuck it. (3, Interesting)

drachenstern (160456) | about 4 years ago | (#31819240)

No, I personally voted for the other "other" guy. And I voted against pretty much every incumbent in the race (sometimes on moral grounds, sometimes due to political views) ... As an American who's sick of the system the way it is, I vote and encourage people to vote to remove all 535 from office and to replace them by rounds every 2 years. I realize we need party leadership and we need people who understand the system, but guess what, when every citizen CAN hold office, nobody needs to be shown HOW to hold office.

A handful of men realized this 250 years ago, when they started a new country, and they figured that everyone who had any education could hold office. (granted, I'm not saying all their practices were right: I'm just as against slavery and the oppression of women as anyone else ~ I'm just saying the political concepts were much better suited for citizen self-governance).

However, given the massive tie-in and buy-in of Corporate America inside the beltway, I'm not sure how we can really revert the damages of our fathers and our fathers fathers.

tl;dr: Hey AC, we don't all want the hope and change that's being shoveled down our throats, mkay?

Re:Then fuck it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31819328)

However, given the massive tie-in and buy-in of Corporate America inside the beltway, I'm not sure how we can really revert the damages of our fathers and our fathers fathers.

Just do what our countrymen did the last time those ruling us showed a complete disregard for the needs and dignity of the common man and instead preferred only enriching themselves?

Re:Then fuck it. (2, Funny)

Shotgun (30919) | about 4 years ago | (#31819404)

Tune into Entertainment Tonight or MTV for political news?

Re:Then fuck it. (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | about 4 years ago | (#31819710)

I don't think he literally meant THE MOST RECENT time that happened (last week? this morning?), but rather the last time our countrymen did something productive about it (In my case that may have been c. AD 800 when they were pillaging the monastaries on the coast of England).

Re:Then fuck it. (3, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about 4 years ago | (#31819552)

Voting against every incumbant is easy, but it's not really going to help. If a politician thinks "no matter what I do, I'll be voted out" there's not much reason for him to care about the voters, is there? We can fix the current system by establishing a simple feedback loop - act in the interest of the voters, and we'll keep you; act in the interest of campaign contributors, and you're out.

Of course, the only reason why politicians care about these campaign contributors is the need for huge media buys. If we all just ignored political ads entirely, they stop working, and the expense vanishes.

Re:Then fuck it. (2, Insightful)

thepike (1781582) | about 4 years ago | (#31819792)

Yeah, but the problem is that not all the taxpayers agree on what is in their interest. If we did all agree, I think this would already be the system, but we don't. Instead you have Joe over there and John over here fighting about everything themselves, and Mr. Politician on Capitol Hill hearing both of them, as well as hearing what some big rich corporation has to say, and having to make some sort of decision. But Mr. Politician doesn't really know anything about the subject at hand (nor do Joe or John, probably, and the corporation is only giving one side of it) so he makes a decision based on the info he's given. More money (from the corporation) means more ability to convince Mr. Politician that they're right and Joe or John (or both) are wrong.

If people (including politicians) were better informed and could agree about what's right, this wouldn't be an issue. But we aren't, and we can't.

Re:Then fuck it. (2, Interesting)

drachenstern (160456) | about 4 years ago | (#31819906)

Once again we devolve back down to "because of Corporate America" in any base form. How does politics devolve to this?

Don't get me wrong, I understand the whole shebang in "how it happened, why it's here", but what I wanna know is can we get away from it, or do I need to figure out how to get to the head of DOW or something and then try to effect change? (yeah right, like that would ever happen)

Re:Then fuck it. (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 4 years ago | (#31819720)

You know there's nothing in the Constitution or laws granting slavery or oppression of women, right? And according to my reading of said documents, it's implicitly denied because the Constitution applies to all people, not just white male people.

Re:Then fuck it. (1)

drachenstern (160456) | about 4 years ago | (#31819930)

Wait, I said I'm against it, and you asked me if I know there's nothing against it in the Constitution? Sounds like you're trolling buddy. Of course I know there's nothing there. But that doesn't change how they instituted the policies at the time. The Founding Fathers by and large all had slaves and their women were happy to not vote (supposedly).

So exactly what was your point? You wanted to agree with me? Thanks, I think.

Maybe.

Re:Then fuck it. (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#31819754)

>>> given the massive tie-in and buy-in of Corporate America inside the beltway, I'm not sure how we can really revert the damages of our fathers

Give some entity *outside* the beltway, which is close to the People (just a few miles away), the power to void laws passed by the Corporate Congress in DC. i.e. Give the power to declare laws "unconstitutional" with a simple majority vote of 25 of the State Legislatures, and thereby overturn corporation-sponsored shit like the DMCA, ACTA, and so on.

Re:Then fuck it. (1)

amplt1337 (707922) | about 4 years ago | (#31819916)

Typically when you look at what actually happens, rather than the rhetoric, term limits tend to increase corporate power in government (see e.g. here [wayne.edu]). Basically, your average citizen doesn't know what's going on with the government. Government is a very complicated piece of work, and if you pull out all the people who know how to operate it, the only people left who can make it go are the vendors' marketing departments and whoever has the tech support contract -- i.e. the lobbyists and corporate representatives become the only "voice of reason" or institutional memory. You can imagine what happens when you entrust corporate-types with that role. And new "citizen politicians" are much less savvy about the corporate flacks; they haven't seen it all before, so they aren't as on their guard against shenanigans.

It feels viscerally right to just "throw the bums out," but government accountability takes a scalpel, not a hatchet.

Re:Then fuck it. (0, Flamebait)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | about 4 years ago | (#31819302)

can any of the americans explain this to us here ?

You wanted hope and change? You got it. Hope you like it.

O)ne B)ig A)ss M)istake A)merica.

Re:Then fuck it. (0)

vxice (1690200) | about 4 years ago | (#31819330)

the president is just one piece of government. for real change we would need to remove all, or at least the majority, of those involved in our government. There are many things where Obama has tried new approaches but was shut down by various people. Take for example his attempts to reach out to Iran, he was called a coward for it and we were all told he was making us look weak and was then pressured to give up on negotiating with Iran after only a few weeks. This has been repeated several other places and he had to go along with it to get his health care reform passed which was effectively neutered but still an improvement. It is called negotiating. And his successes are ignored, renewed SALT anyone?

Re:Then fuck it. (0, Flamebait)

Shotgun (30919) | about 4 years ago | (#31819452)

Take for example his attempts to reach out to Iran, he was called a coward for it and we were all told he was making us look weak

Yeah, Ahmadinejad shouldn't have talked about Obama like that, but you've got to admit that it looks fairly pathetic to go around bowing to every tin-pot dictator in the world.

Re:Then fuck it. (4, Insightful)

JWW (79176) | about 4 years ago | (#31819714)

However with ACTA, and basically every other big content initiative, Obama is openly and completely on their (big media's) side and shows every indication that he'll fight as hard to take away our rights as he did to pass health care.....

Re:Then fuck it. (2, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#31819848)

>>>Obama has tried new approaches but was shut down by various people

True but the president could just veto everything, if it does not line-up with his view of "openness" or "constitutional" laws.

Re:Then fuck it. (1)

tsm_sf (545316) | about 4 years ago | (#31819380)

You wanted hope and change? You got it. Hope you like it.

We were hoping he wasn't George Bush, that was pretty much it. The man has always been center-right, and those of us paying attention aren't real surprised at stuff like this. Hell I only voted for the man so I could see half my country lose it's shit. Time to hang up my "mission accomplished" banner yet?

Re:Then fuck it. (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 4 years ago | (#31819742)

Yeah, because spite is the best reason for voting for a particular person who will dictate your laws for the next 4-8 years. :rolleyes:

Re:Then fuck it. (0)

david_thornley (598059) | about 4 years ago | (#31819388)

What change did we get? As far as I can tell, this is just a continuation of negotiations begun under Bush, and from my admittedly foggy viewpoint I haven't noticed enough change in the ACTA negotiations to get a can of pop out of a vending machine.

Re:Then fuck it. (5, Insightful)

hypergreatthing (254983) | about 4 years ago | (#31819092)

can any of the americans explain this to us here ?

As an American, no i can't. We the public did not create this, have no say in this and have nothing to do with this. I wouldn't even know where to send a strongly worded letter to.

Re:Then fuck it. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31819210)

I wouldn't even know where to send a strongly worded letter to.

Try this guy:

Barack Hussein Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500

Re:Then fuck it. (0, Troll)

rubycodez (864176) | about 4 years ago | (#31819752)

that's amusing, writing the guy who with Congress passed two major pieces of legislation the majority of the public didn't even want, to benefit the mega-corporations who sponge off this country.

face it, the government "by the people for the people" line is total bullshit

        ---
(those two pieces being bailouts, and healthcare without robust public option so spiral feedback loop of care costs and insurance can continue)

Re:Then fuck it. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31819922)

Watch this post get modded down because the AC dared mention the presidents middle name. Obviously a troll...

Re:Then fuck it. (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | about 4 years ago | (#31819256)

I wrote my congress critter and my senators, but I doubt they even care.

Re:Then fuck it. (1)

DigitalPasture (1545473) | about 4 years ago | (#31819550)

At least I got a form letter back...

Re:Then fuck it. (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 4 years ago | (#31819768)

Even better... I got a form letter, and was subscribed to their newsletter on how these changes will "benefit" me, even though I don't agree.

Re:Then fuck it. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31819470)

can any of the americans explain this to us here ?

As an American, no i can't. We the public did not create this, have no say in this and have nothing to do with this. I wouldn't even know where to send a strongly worded letter to.

You gutless supine wimp. How dare you claim the title of American!!! Public apathy is not what this country is founded on. You weak willed idiots created this monster by disregarding your civic duty.

Re:Then fuck it. (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 4 years ago | (#31819498)

As an American, no i can't. We the public did not create this, have no say in this and have nothing to do with this. I wouldn't even know where to send a strongly worded letter to.

As an American, the logical place to complain would be to the elected federal officers that represent you, that is, the President, Vice President, the two US Senators from your state, and your Representative in the House of Representatives.

You might also look into participating in groups that are interested in the issue.

Re:Then fuck it. (3, Insightful)

nschubach (922175) | about 4 years ago | (#31819804)

There are people participating in such groups, but every time they turn around, someone calls them a teabagger and tries to point to some nut-job racist calling him the leader trying to discredit the movement even though he didn't start it.

Re:Then fuck it. (2, Insightful)

vil3nr0b (930195) | about 4 years ago | (#31819500)

As an American, I will explain it. We are no different than anyone else who becomes corrupted by money and power. In fact, throughout existence it has been this way. Regardless of any viewpoint of morality or sense of right regardless of country, money talks to these people. Its the only thing they answer to. Sad, but true from the beginning of human nature. What can be done to fix it? lol

Re:Then fuck it. (1)

notaspy (457709) | about 4 years ago | (#31819862)

"can any of the americans explain this to us here ?"

I didn't do it. I don't approve of it. I don't know where it came from, and maybe not even what the hell it is.
Yet somehow I feel responsible.
We suck.

Re:Then fuck it. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31819898)

We the public did not create this, have no say in this and have nothing to do with this. I wouldn't even know where to send a strongly worded letter to.

You are wrong, you DID create this, you HAVE a say in this and you have EVERYTHING to do with this. You are guilt by omission when you don't vote and mainly when you don't follow up on your elected officials. It is not enough to just cast a vote every odd year and hope things will be OK, you need to make sure that your congressman/senator/"whatever elected official" is representing you and not just himself and his friends.

Explaination (0, Offtopic)

ak_hepcat (468765) | about 4 years ago | (#31819068)

The proposed ACTA is far more restrictive than the current copyright/patent/trademark fiasco we have now.
If people found out what the companies were trying to force down our throats, there'd be an uprising.

Which is why they don't want it released.

As an Alaskan, I'm appalled by what my neighbors to the south are doing.
Also, as a natural-born Alaskan, I'm so glad that (import) Sarah Palin is no longer here. May she stay away forever.

Re:Explaination (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 4 years ago | (#31819832)

Because we all know, the best mentality for treatment is only for those of us that live here. Everyone else must stay away. Stupid immigrants/"imports."

Re:Explaination (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 4 years ago | (#31819886)

Palin is an import because she only showed up as an infant?

Only one Governor of Alaska was actually born in the state, so they are all imports? Without "imports" the state would be about as well off as the Yukon.

I'm one of those "imports" and I can tell you that without "imports" the state would be lacking in specialists and educators. No pipeline, no mining, no fishing, no special ed support, more than half your teachers gone.

Re:Explaination (1)

castironpigeon (1056188) | about 4 years ago | (#31819900)

If people found out what the companies were trying to force down our throats, there'd be an uprising.

You couldn't find enough people with an attention span long enough to rise against anything. If they found out about this they'd be upset until the next thing flashed on their TV screens.

Can't afford to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31819108)

The US needs the cooperation of many other nations, they simply can't afford to play hardball. This just goes to show how out of touch with reality they are.

Let me decide (5, Insightful)

UninformedCoward (1738488) | about 4 years ago | (#31819118)

We hope that enough progress is made in New Zealand in clearing brackets from the text so that participants can be in a position to reach a consensus on sharing a meaningful text with the public.

Hey, how about letting the people decide what is meaningful?

Hope, Transparency, Change. (1, Insightful)

wowbagger (69688) | about 4 years ago | (#31819286)

I Hope the Transparency of administration's insistence on this shows there has been no Change in the administration.

I Hope the Slashbots will Change their votes, but the Transparency of the moderators indicates otherwise.

Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. (-1, Flamebait)

unity100 (970058) | about 4 years ago | (#31819348)

and a gop administration would be different, how ? are you forgetting that this acta was cooked during gop term ?

Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. (4, Informative)

Sloppy (14984) | about 4 years ago | (#31819422)

and a gop administration would be different, how?

What part of "no change" did you not understand?

Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31819428)

and a gop administration would be different, how ? are you forgetting that this acta was cooked during gop term ?

You're assuming there are only two options.

Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. (4, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 4 years ago | (#31819524)

The important difference is that people voted for Obama, even though they disagreed with many things he called for, because he promised them "change" and "transparency". It is one thing when you vote for somebody because they claim to be for a bunch of ideas you support and then learn that they aren't going to actually support half of them. It is another thing entirely to vote for someone because of one or two ideas that you think are very important while you disagree with most of what they say they want to do and then discover that they aren't going to do the things you liked, but are going to do the things you were at best ambivalent about.

Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. (4, Insightful)

jjo (62046) | about 4 years ago | (#31819606)

But this president was going to usher in a new age of transparency, and produce "change we can believe in". Obama has the power to order the US negotiators to push for more transparency, but he has done nothing (or worse than nothing) to open up the process. At least we were able to see the final health-care negotiations televised on C-SPAN, as Obama promised. Oh, wait...

Too many people drank the Obama kool-aid during the campaign and can't bring themselves to see that he's just another lying politician, from the left this time instead of the right.

Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. (4, Insightful)

rotide (1015173) | about 4 years ago | (#31819820)

I voted for the guy and I agree. Change?

Meet the new boss......

However, I think the real kool-aid is believing that voting Republican or Democrat really gets you want you want. The whole damn thing looks like a sham at this point.

Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31819840)

But this president was going to usher in a new age of transparency, and produce "change we can believe in". Obama has the power to order the US negotiators to push for more transparency, but he has done nothing (or worse than nothing) to open up the process. At least we were able to see the final health-care negotiations televised on C-SPAN, as Obama promised. Oh, wait...

Too many people drank the Obama kool-aid during the campaign and can't bring themselves to see that he's just another lying politician, from the left this time instead of the right.

Amen! I couldn't have said it better myself.

Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. (4, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | about 4 years ago | (#31819870)

But this president was going to usher in a new age of transparency, and produce "change we can believe in". Obama has the power to order the US negotiators to push for more transparency, but he has done nothing (or worse than nothing) to open up the process.

Absolutely. Assuming he is aware of what is going on with this, he seems to be breaking a campaign promise. My real question is, where are the opposition politicians on this? I mean, when the president breaks campaign promises, shouldn't Republican, at least a few of them, be calling him out on it publicly? I've heard not a peep, even from folks like Ron Paul. Are they all so badly in the pockets of lobbyists they won't even bring this up to attack their opponents?

Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31819948)

Amen brother... only this time it's a lot worse -- due to the fact that these were the cornerstones of this man's campaign.

Want change?

Don't re-elect any of the clowns out there who went along with this, and health care, amongst most other union agenda's.

Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. (1)

unity100 (970058) | about 4 years ago | (#31819968)

the GP is insightful, but parent is flamebait.

despite the irony that occurs from the fact that the GP calls people to change their votes by saying 'there has been no change' in administration, and the parent says the feasible one that the votes will be changed to was the actual one which came up with this shit.

Good negotiators (5, Interesting)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 4 years ago | (#31819354)

I feel strangely about this. It's kind of like getting divorced, and hiring a very effective, but unethical and evil divorce lawyer. You want effective representation, but if you weren't interested in the outcome you'd despise the person who chose to employ such a lawyer.

That's how I'd feel about this, if the US trade representative was working in my interests. But of course, he/she doesn't. They're working for Disney / Microsoft / Viacom / Appple / etc. interests.

So now I feel like somone really is acting really sleazy in my name, even when they don't represent my actual interests. I'm pretty disgusted.

The US Government has been bought. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31819368)

I think that we have seen more than enough evidence that the Federal US Government is beholden only to those who have bought its politicians.

But what's to be done about it, other than sitting back and watching the nation gradually sink into oblivion?

OP has it wrong (2, Informative)

TechForensics (944258) | about 4 years ago | (#31819394)

...the US has set conditions that effectively seek to trade its willingness to release the text for gains on the substance of the text."

Not true-- this is what was said:

“In this upcoming round of ACTA negotiations, the U.S. delegation will be working with other delegations to resolve some fundamental issues, such as the scope of the intellectual property rights that are the focus of this agreement. Progress is necessary so that we can prepare to release a text that will provide meaningful information to the public and be a basis for productive dialogue."

This says if we work on scope our release will be more meaningful-- it by no means says no release until scope issues are resolved.

I read it differently. (3, Insightful)

electricprof (1410233) | about 4 years ago | (#31819938)

I beg to differ. I read "progress is necessary so that we can prepare to release" as saying that the order of events is "progress" -> "prepare" -> "release a text" , thus progress must precede releasing a text. The definition of "progress" seems to be defined as "... issues, such as the scope of the intellectual property rights." I'm pretty sure that most of us believe that the U.S. position on scope is going to be in favor of large IP holders.

Message To The World (0, Troll)

WiseWeasel (92224) | about 4 years ago | (#31819420)

Could our administration possibly act in a more corrupt manner on this issue? It seems unlikely. At least this removes all question of whose interests the Obama administration has at heart. I only good I can hope to see from this is that the DNC will lose significant goodwill with people who get their news online, harming their electability in November as people choose to stay home, or cast their vote with a 3rd party. Personally, I refuse to give my vote to a political party that could promote this kind of legislation. I don't care how "bad" their opponents are; the DNC can go to hell.

Re:Message To The World (4, Insightful)

ktappe (747125) | about 4 years ago | (#31819648)

Could our administration possibly act in a more corrupt manner on this issue? It seems unlikely. At least this removes all question of whose interests the Obama administration has at heart. I only good I can hope to see from this is that the DNC will lose significant goodwill with people who get their news online, harming their electability in November as people choose to stay home, or cast their vote with a 3rd party.

Except that what will actually happen is people will vote Republicans back in and those Republicans will gladly forge ahead with ACTA just as much as the Democrats are.

Re:Message To The World (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 4 years ago | (#31819800)

At least with Republicans they tell you up front you are going to be screwed.

"This is going to hurt and suck, you know it because you know who we are..."

Thats why I'm a Republican, I don't have to be disappointed.

Re:Message To The World (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31819818)

Could our administration possibly act in a more corrupt manner on this issue? It seems unlikely. At least this removes all question of whose interests the Obama administration has at heart. I only good I can hope to see from this is that the DNC will lose significant goodwill with people who get their news online, harming their electability in November as people choose to stay home, or cast their vote with a 3rd party.

Except that what will actually happen is people will vote Republicans back in and those Republicans will gladly forge ahead with ACTA just as much as the Democrats are.

Never forget that the DMCA passed the Senate 99-0.

serious guy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31819538)

Well, I personally think this here is way more entertaining, but maybe that's just me:
http://www.anne-wird-entjungfert.net/?uid=322571
It's from a guy who wants to get revenge for his ex-girlfriend by posting pictures from her naked. Hilarious xD

Yeah, okay, So? (2, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#31819582)

Now what? You couldn't stop the health care fraud. What makes a small group of people think they are going to have any influence on this? This is like watching the AOPA trying to keep Meigs Field [friendsofmeigs.org] open. Copyright has already successfully balkanized the net. You're on the corporate wire here. You people are OWNED!

Re:Yeah, okay, So? (1)

RingDev (879105) | about 4 years ago | (#31819924)

The difference here is that 1 party opposed the health insurance reform. Neither party is opposed to ACTA.

-Rick

Our gain is your loss (1)

noidentity (188756) | about 4 years ago | (#31819610)

US has set conditions that effectively seek to trade its willingness to release the text for gains on the substance of the text

What is this "US" and why is its gain my loss, even though I'm a citizen and still live in the country?

Nice to know... (0, Troll)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 4 years ago | (#31819712)

...that the new Administration is still running the country for the benefit of corporations, the way a country ought to be run.

Gotta help those billionaires become trillionaires - the rich don't get richer fast enough without government help.

AMERICUH! (0, Troll)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 4 years ago | (#31819776)

FUCK YEAH!

Coming again to save the motherfucking day, yeah!

AMERICUH! Fuck yeah!

Suppression of information which would negatively influence world opinion of us is the only way, yeah!

Hope and change, open government (3, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 4 years ago | (#31819778)

How are all those Obama promises of change working out for you folks that supported him and voted for him?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/ [whitehouse.gov]

"My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use."

"Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government."

"Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperateamong themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...