4 ms·

> Until European Union authorities began leaking the document’s text, the Obama administration was claiming the accord was a "national security" secret. I cann

> Until European Union authorities began leaking the document’s text, the Obama administration was claiming the accord was a "national security" secret. I cannot even begin to express how much this disgusts me. This is the government that I fund with my tax dollars, that is supposed to work on my behalf. There should no operation in the dark. I hope Europe does not sign this nonsense, although I am not keeping my hopes up. The notion that "piracy" (even that word is the result of well oiled marketing campaign) will destroy the content makers (rather than the crappy, repetitive stuff they create) is widespread among politicians.

gord 15y ago
It strikes me as somewhat 1984-ish / Orwellian This is a trade agreement! I assume it has no provisions for 'extraordinary rendition' of mp3 downloaders ?
- oelewapperke 15y ago
  Well it is. It is also how the EU is run. One of the provisions of EU membership is that international treaties have the same status -at least- of a country's constitution. The catch ? These agreements are made by the executive alone. In most European countries this is a well-established legal situation, and it has been applied to no end of sordid practices, from "bigamy" for unemployment checks (e.g. a muslim comes into the country, works for a week, gets fired, then he and his family have the right to unemployment. 20 women come in, are "married" to him (but also unofficially married to someone else) and all get permanent residency and unemployment), to not applying country constitutions, or laws to their own political officials, and now extending into copyright. No doubt software patents won't be far behind. But this is a way lots of unconstitutional laws have been applied in the EU (in a Belgian court decision in 2003 a judge agreed that, yes, the constitution states that no laws are in effect in Belgium except those voted on by (one of the) parliaments, but it was ruled that international treaties, like all EU directives override the constitution). Given the structure of the EU commission, this de-facto means the EU has the legal framework of a dictatorship (the EU commission is not elected) with a few local semi-democracies below it. It is my hope that the EU does fall apart.
cop359 15y ago
While I don't agree with this agreement, I don't see any particular problem keeping the negotiations and drafts secret. I mean, the final deal is obviously made public (otherwise there would be no way of enforcing that countries abide by it), but I don't think the negotiators needs to disclose every thought they brainstorm. It would create a lot of public and political pressure on the negotiators and instead of trying to reach something that every country can agree on, they'd be trying to appease domestic lobbyists.
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  They're already trying to appease domestic lobbyists; making the process public would risk them having to satisfy the public, and since no part of this has any correlation with the public interest...
- wnight 15y ago
  The problem is that there's no agreement. It's kept secret because they know the people don't want the law. There's no need to keep just laws secret, because they don't offend the citizens in whose name the country is ruled. ACTA is a corrupt and abusive law. Enacting it was treasonous, especially because the public had already spoken.

gord 15y ago

It strikes me as somewhat 1984-ish / Orwellian This is a trade agreement! I assume it has no provisions for 'extraordinary rendition' of mp3 downloaders ?

oelewapperke 15y ago
Well it is. It is also how the EU is run. One of the provisions of EU membership is that international treaties have the same status -at least- of a country's constitution. The catch ? These agreements are made by the executive alone. In most European countries this is a well-established legal situation, and it has been applied to no end of sordid practices, from "bigamy" for unemployment checks (e.g. a muslim comes into the country, works for a week, gets fired, then he and his family have the right to unemployment. 20 women come in, are "married" to him (but also unofficially married to someone else) and all get permanent residency and unemployment), to not applying country constitutions, or laws to their own political officials, and now extending into copyright. No doubt software patents won't be far behind. But this is a way lots of unconstitutional laws have been applied in the EU (in a Belgian court decision in 2003 a judge agreed that, yes, the constitution states that no laws are in effect in Belgium except those voted on by (one of the) parliaments, but it was ruled that international treaties, like all EU directives override the constitution). Given the structure of the EU commission, this de-facto means the EU has the legal framework of a dictatorship (the EU commission is not elected) with a few local semi-democracies below it. It is my hope that the EU does fall apart.

cop359 15y ago

While I don't agree with this agreement, I don't see any particular problem keeping the negotiations and drafts secret. I mean, the final deal is obviously made public (otherwise there would be no way of enforcing that countries abide by it), but I don't think the negotiators needs to disclose every thought they brainstorm. It would create a lot of public and political pressure on the negotiators and instead of trying to reach something that every country can agree on, they'd be trying to appease domestic lobbyists.

JoshTriplett 15y ago
They're already trying to appease domestic lobbyists; making the process public would risk them having to satisfy the public, and since no part of this has any correlation with the public interest...
wnight 15y ago
The problem is that there's no agreement. It's kept secret because they know the people don't want the law. There's no need to keep just laws secret, because they don't offend the citizens in whose name the country is ruled. ACTA is a corrupt and abusive law. Enacting it was treasonous, especially because the public had already spoken.