4 ms·

I can't validate this analysis, but it does seem pretty thorough: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/or8ag/ive_read_the_final_version_of http://www.redd

I can't validate this analysis, but it does seem pretty thorough: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/or8ag/ive_read_the_final_version_of http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/or8ag/ive_read_the... The basic understanding I got from it is: ACTA doesn't enforce any new censorship or surveillance but instead lays down an international framework so that all countries can work together in implementing compatible policies for enforcing intellectual property protection in the future. The other thing I got from this analysis is (which I don't fully understand) this provides some protection for signing countries to enact their own legislation that would implement censorship/surveillance/etc. I'd love to hear someone else chime in because I have not been paying enough attention to it. EDIT: I understand `tptacek` disagrees with the second point about countries receiving cover; I don't understand the disagreement with the first point. Has someone been able to disprove `justicia311`s analysis on reddit? Don't just downvote me when I clearly ask for others to help me understand it.

tptacek 15y ago
Countries don't need protection from treaties to censor the internet.
- spindritf 15y ago
  Countries don't but governments and politicians very much do. "It's required from us by the EU" is already a common excuse, this is yet another treaty that will be used that way -- it solidifies the current copyright regime making it more difficult to introduce changes later.
- thebigshane 15y ago
  This is the part I was referring to: In a nutshell, it gives each signatory authority to create laws that satisfy ACTA's requirements. Without getting into the issue of monism and dualism (international legal concepts for how treaties embed themselves into domestic law) it simply means that until signatory states create enforcing legislation, ACTA does nothing. An example would be that, once passed, a US federal act that enforces ACTA is immune from challenges over states rights (though not bill of rights challenges). To be frank this isn't too controversial, there is nothing in ACTA that doesn't satisfy the inter-state commerce clause anyway. So undersand that ACTA isn't really the issue. What people need to be prepared for is how states implement it, which is where scope for abuse is.

tptacek 15y ago

Countries don't need protection from treaties to censor the internet.

spindritf 15y ago
Countries don't but governments and politicians very much do. "It's required from us by the EU" is already a common excuse, this is yet another treaty that will be used that way -- it solidifies the current copyright regime making it more difficult to introduce changes later.
thebigshane 15y ago
This is the part I was referring to: In a nutshell, it gives each signatory authority to create laws that satisfy ACTA's requirements. Without getting into the issue of monism and dualism (international legal concepts for how treaties embed themselves into domestic law) it simply means that until signatory states create enforcing legislation, ACTA does nothing. An example would be that, once passed, a US federal act that enforces ACTA is immune from challenges over states rights (though not bill of rights challenges). To be frank this isn't too controversial, there is nothing in ACTA that doesn't satisfy the inter-state commerce clause anyway. So undersand that ACTA isn't really the issue. What people need to be prepared for is how states implement it, which is where scope for abuse is.