7 ms·

Leaked TPP Investment Chapter Reveals Serious Threat to User Safeguards

136 points by ghosh 12y ago

joachimdorel 12y ago
Did the TPP risks to harm both Europeans and Americans, or only one side?
- borgia 12y ago
  I think you're confusing the TPP for the TTIP? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investm... Both appear to be utterly toxic.
- saganus 12y ago
  I think it risks to harm everyone. At least based on the EFF's analysis since IANAL. It sounds like this will make it easier for corporations to extort signatory countries. As I see it, it will probably promote patent trolls, draconian copyright laws that will be extremely favorable to corporations, etc. This is really not good at all.
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    If it is so bad then why is the EU signing on?
    - AC__ 12y ago
      Exactly, Canada(my native country) has already signed, any Canadian citizen that is aware, is opposed. We also have a bill currently tabled in Canadian parliament called Bill C-51 which is an absolutely absurd piece of legislation, it will effectively muzzle all lawful protest in Canada because it will allow the government to deem a project "critical infrastructure" at will and anyone protesting then falls under the blanket definition of terrorist and can be detained for up to a year without access to legal counsel. At the same time they are introducing changes to informant protection laws that will allow them to literally enter evidence from completely anonymous sources i.e. completely fabricated lol. Sadly we no longer practice democracy in my country.
    - Vivtek 12y ago
      Same reason as America: it's all being done in secret, in Brussels, and the national governments are not being consulted, let alone (ha ha!) the public.
- exelius 12y ago
  From what I understand, TPP isn't about US vs. EU, it's about standardizing the global rules for business. Obviously, businesses have a disproportionate say in what gets in, and so they're asking for everything they can think of.
  - ccvannorman 12y ago
    if by "a disproportionate say" you mean "the public only learned about it because the documents were illegally leaked, and it would have passed totally in secret with only corporations and politicians at the helm otherwise", then yeah.
- sandstrom 12y ago
  I'd argue it hurts both, for the following reasons: 1. It's conducted in secret, i.e. people aren't allowed to learn the content of the negotiations. 2. From what has leaked so far, it's under heavy influence of lobbying. E.g. the record industry and Disney lobbying for eternal copyright, patent-trolls and big pharma for broader patent scope, etc. 3. ISDS is a backdoor through which companies can overrule national laws. There are lengthy arguments online on the downsides with this. Besides, it's not like property rights are magically weak in EU/US, they are pretty strong already. -- I love free trade -- Reduction/removal of tariffs, tolls etc. are great. I'm strongly in favor of that! But this seems to be mostly a lobbying effort, hidden from public scrutiny. -- What Europeans can do -- If you live in Europe, I'd suggest emailing thoughtful, well-written comments on the TTIP to the commissioner (weak or angry arguments will only hurt the case). http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/malmstrom/team_en http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/malmstrom/team_en -- What Americans can do -- EFF suggested contacting D.C. representatives.
walterbell 12y ago
> These tribunals are usually comprised of three private-sector attorneys who take turns being the judge and the corporate advocate. Have alternate structures been considered for these extranational tribunals/courts, e.g. who represents the public interest? How would the public grant legitimacy to a secret commercial court which regulates Internet content, for example?
- Lawtonfogle 12y ago
  Why would they consider such? Those who should be representing the public interest in these discussions have clearly been bought out already. And being so secretive, why would they need to even pretend to put in place any safeguards for public interest?
  - walterbell 12y ago
    What will happen when international laws which defy reason start being enforced, and are not understood or supported by the national public or their national legislators?
    - pdkl95 12y ago
      That's when the people start responding by first ignoring the laws, and if there is an attempt to enforce these laws that defy reason, the response will turn to bricks and molitovs. This eventuality is probably why there has been a sharp increase in domestic police militarization, and at least part of the reason the NSA has been allowed to run wild collecting domestic data. COINTELPRO was an effective progrram, and only a fool would believe that after the Curch Committee the program simply evaporated. Like "total information awareness", the names were simply changed and shuffled into different departments. It would be helpful if a lot more people started recognizing the larger scene that has been unfolding around them instead of clinging to how everything is supposed to be. Those fantasies were bought out a long time ago. As I've mentioned in other threads, "regulatory capture is a helluva drug."
      - 12y ago
natch 12y ago
In English, anyone? It's really hard to follow this. I realize they are trying to make it an explanation that normal (but interested) people can read. But it's not working. Maybe an example up front would help. Something like: If this is enacted, then ... (some common use case involving fair use and how it would be impacted). I know it takes a lawyer to read this stuff. But they should maybe pass it through a couple of layers of translation to try to communicate what it means, so that people can get on board with opposing it, if that's the right thing to do. If EFF can't communicate this stuff, who can?
- rosser 12y ago
  If Anticorporatistan enacts a law that Big Evil Co., Inc. thinks might somehow limit its ability to make a profit, Big Evil Co., Inc. can sue Anticorporatistan for the profits it thinks, at its sole discretion, it would lose because of the new law.
  - ianlevesque 12y ago
    With Anticorporatistan being the United States, and laws they don't like being the existing Fair Use protections. It's not a vague future hypothetical.
    - shakethemonkey 12y ago
      They don't like fair use, but it is not clear fair use protections could be legislated away without a court overturning any such clause with a first amendment argument. If that were to happen, foreign corporations could sue the US for damages, and win, but no other legal remedy would be available -- they could not stop the fair use from continuing. Maybe they could sue again the following year.
- pdkl95 12y ago
  The comic[1] that I posted in the previous thread has a nice overview about the situation. The specific issue the EFF article is pointing out is how the ISDS is designed to trumps national sovereignty, so business can strong-arm countries into removing any law they don't like. It works more or less like this: 1) pass TPP as a treaty, which by definition has the same power as a constitutional amendment. (this is probably a serious bug in the constitution). This means TPP trums congress. 2) TPP sets up an international tribunal (ISDS) that hears complaints from businesses. (i.e. "Australia is hurting our tobacco sales with their plain packaging laws"[2]) 3) The tribunal, as mentioned in this article, would be staffed by, "three private-sector attorneys who take turns being the judge and the corporate advocate." This conflict of interest would be a serious violation of ethics requirements in most legal systems. 4) The tribunal rules that your local law violates some foreign requirement, as determined by the ISDS and their business-assigned judges, and the local legislature is forced to repeal the law. ("Australia's plain packaging laws is seizing the trademarks of Philip Moriss, in violation of a 1993 trade agreement if we carefully abuse the agreement's language") That's the short version, and I'm leaving out some details, of course. It should work as a decent overview of ISDS is a threat to national sovereignty. [1] http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/ http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/ [2] this example is covered well by John Oliver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8 edit: oops.. s/ISPS/ISDS/
hurin 12y ago
Why do I feel like some of the EFF articles are distinctly one-sided when it comes to certain topics? For example what about illegal government expropriation or interest-based selective-quasi-legal interference in economic affairs (i.e. Yukos) - or rampant ignorance of patent and copyright laws (various Chinese Manufacturers). Unfortunately when an issue is presented entirely black and white as: confer expansive powers on corporations and undermine democratic rules we cannot let such a secretive, corporate-driven agency to pass digital regulations in secret. etc. etc. It's hard to come away with any real understanding of the issues at hand. Disclaimer: I am longtime supporter and EFF member.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  I have a similar feeling, but I think the answer is that the EFF is a one-sided organization--their mission is to form opinions on these topics and fight for what they think is right. I think of them as an "advocacy" nonprofit, and there are plenty of those on the other side as well, trying to make their case against things like government expropriation. The balanced view, to the extent it can exist, would be somewhere between the two sides; each listener synthesizes their own balance point, I guess.
- Confusion 12y ago
  Laws/treaties should not be solely judged based on how they deal with excesses. The point is that the impact on ordinary countries doing ordinary things is extraordinarily large. Looking only at excesses is similar to a "think of the children" or "but TERRORISM!" argument. Besides, Russia and China aren't going to sign the TPP anyway, so those excesses are actually completely irrelevant to the effect this treaty would actually have.

136 points by ghosh 12y ago

joachimdorel 12y ago

Did the TPP risks to harm both Europeans and Americans, or only one side?

borgia 12y ago
I think you're confusing the TPP for the TTIP? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investm... Both appear to be utterly toxic.
saganus 12y ago
I think it risks to harm everyone. At least based on the EFF's analysis since IANAL. It sounds like this will make it easier for corporations to extort signatory countries. As I see it, it will probably promote patent trolls, draconian copyright laws that will be extremely favorable to corporations, etc. This is really not good at all.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  If it is so bad then why is the EU signing on?
  - AC__ 12y ago
    Exactly, Canada(my native country) has already signed, any Canadian citizen that is aware, is opposed. We also have a bill currently tabled in Canadian parliament called Bill C-51 which is an absolutely absurd piece of legislation, it will effectively muzzle all lawful protest in Canada because it will allow the government to deem a project "critical infrastructure" at will and anyone protesting then falls under the blanket definition of terrorist and can be detained for up to a year without access to legal counsel. At the same time they are introducing changes to informant protection laws that will allow them to literally enter evidence from completely anonymous sources i.e. completely fabricated lol. Sadly we no longer practice democracy in my country.
  - Vivtek 12y ago
    Same reason as America: it's all being done in secret, in Brussels, and the national governments are not being consulted, let alone (ha ha!) the public.
exelius 12y ago
From what I understand, TPP isn't about US vs. EU, it's about standardizing the global rules for business. Obviously, businesses have a disproportionate say in what gets in, and so they're asking for everything they can think of.
- ccvannorman 12y ago
  if by "a disproportionate say" you mean "the public only learned about it because the documents were illegally leaked, and it would have passed totally in secret with only corporations and politicians at the helm otherwise", then yeah.
sandstrom 12y ago
I'd argue it hurts both, for the following reasons: 1. It's conducted in secret, i.e. people aren't allowed to learn the content of the negotiations. 2. From what has leaked so far, it's under heavy influence of lobbying. E.g. the record industry and Disney lobbying for eternal copyright, patent-trolls and big pharma for broader patent scope, etc. 3. ISDS is a backdoor through which companies can overrule national laws. There are lengthy arguments online on the downsides with this. Besides, it's not like property rights are magically weak in EU/US, they are pretty strong already. -- I love free trade -- Reduction/removal of tariffs, tolls etc. are great. I'm strongly in favor of that! But this seems to be mostly a lobbying effort, hidden from public scrutiny. -- What Europeans can do -- If you live in Europe, I'd suggest emailing thoughtful, well-written comments on the TTIP to the commissioner (weak or angry arguments will only hurt the case). http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/malmstrom/team_en http://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/malmstrom/team_en -- What Americans can do -- EFF suggested contacting D.C. representatives.

walterbell 12y ago

> These tribunals are usually comprised of three private-sector attorneys who take turns being the judge and the corporate advocate. Have alternate structures been considered for these extranational tribunals/courts, e.g. who represents the public interest? How would the public grant legitimacy to a secret commercial court which regulates Internet content, for example?

Lawtonfogle 12y ago
Why would they consider such? Those who should be representing the public interest in these discussions have clearly been bought out already. And being so secretive, why would they need to even pretend to put in place any safeguards for public interest?
- walterbell 12y ago
  What will happen when international laws which defy reason start being enforced, and are not understood or supported by the national public or their national legislators?
  - pdkl95 12y ago
    That's when the people start responding by first ignoring the laws, and if there is an attempt to enforce these laws that defy reason, the response will turn to bricks and molitovs. This eventuality is probably why there has been a sharp increase in domestic police militarization, and at least part of the reason the NSA has been allowed to run wild collecting domestic data. COINTELPRO was an effective progrram, and only a fool would believe that after the Curch Committee the program simply evaporated. Like "total information awareness", the names were simply changed and shuffled into different departments. It would be helpful if a lot more people started recognizing the larger scene that has been unfolding around them instead of clinging to how everything is supposed to be. Those fantasies were bought out a long time ago. As I've mentioned in other threads, "regulatory capture is a helluva drug."
    - 12y ago

natch 12y ago

In English, anyone? It's really hard to follow this. I realize they are trying to make it an explanation that normal (but interested) people can read. But it's not working. Maybe an example up front would help. Something like: If this is enacted, then ... (some common use case involving fair use and how it would be impacted). I know it takes a lawyer to read this stuff. But they should maybe pass it through a couple of layers of translation to try to communicate what it means, so that people can get on board with opposing it, if that's the right thing to do. If EFF can't communicate this stuff, who can?

rosser 12y ago
If Anticorporatistan enacts a law that Big Evil Co., Inc. thinks might somehow limit its ability to make a profit, Big Evil Co., Inc. can sue Anticorporatistan for the profits it thinks, at its sole discretion, it would lose because of the new law.
- ianlevesque 12y ago
  With Anticorporatistan being the United States, and laws they don't like being the existing Fair Use protections. It's not a vague future hypothetical.
  - shakethemonkey 12y ago
    They don't like fair use, but it is not clear fair use protections could be legislated away without a court overturning any such clause with a first amendment argument. If that were to happen, foreign corporations could sue the US for damages, and win, but no other legal remedy would be available -- they could not stop the fair use from continuing. Maybe they could sue again the following year.
pdkl95 12y ago
The comic[1] that I posted in the previous thread has a nice overview about the situation. The specific issue the EFF article is pointing out is how the ISDS is designed to trumps national sovereignty, so business can strong-arm countries into removing any law they don't like. It works more or less like this: 1) pass TPP as a treaty, which by definition has the same power as a constitutional amendment. (this is probably a serious bug in the constitution). This means TPP trums congress. 2) TPP sets up an international tribunal (ISDS) that hears complaints from businesses. (i.e. "Australia is hurting our tobacco sales with their plain packaging laws"[2]) 3) The tribunal, as mentioned in this article, would be staffed by, "three private-sector attorneys who take turns being the judge and the corporate advocate." This conflict of interest would be a serious violation of ethics requirements in most legal systems. 4) The tribunal rules that your local law violates some foreign requirement, as determined by the ISDS and their business-assigned judges, and the local legislature is forced to repeal the law. ("Australia's plain packaging laws is seizing the trademarks of Philip Moriss, in violation of a 1993 trade agreement if we carefully abuse the agreement's language") That's the short version, and I'm leaving out some details, of course. It should work as a decent overview of ISDS is a threat to national sovereignty. [1] http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/ http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/ [2] this example is covered well by John Oliver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8 edit: oops.. s/ISPS/ISDS/

hurin 12y ago

Why do I feel like some of the EFF articles are distinctly one-sided when it comes to certain topics? For example what about illegal government expropriation or interest-based selective-quasi-legal interference in economic affairs (i.e. Yukos) - or rampant ignorance of patent and copyright laws (various Chinese Manufacturers). Unfortunately when an issue is presented entirely black and white as: confer expansive powers on corporations and undermine democratic rules we cannot let such a secretive, corporate-driven agency to pass digital regulations in secret. etc. etc. It's hard to come away with any real understanding of the issues at hand. Disclaimer: I am longtime supporter and EFF member.

snowwrestler 12y ago
I have a similar feeling, but I think the answer is that the EFF is a one-sided organization--their mission is to form opinions on these topics and fight for what they think is right. I think of them as an "advocacy" nonprofit, and there are plenty of those on the other side as well, trying to make their case against things like government expropriation. The balanced view, to the extent it can exist, would be somewhere between the two sides; each listener synthesizes their own balance point, I guess.
Confusion 12y ago
Laws/treaties should not be solely judged based on how they deal with excesses. The point is that the impact on ordinary countries doing ordinary things is extraordinarily large. Looking only at excesses is similar to a "think of the children" or "but TERRORISM!" argument. Besides, Russia and China aren't going to sign the TPP anyway, so those excesses are actually completely irrelevant to the effect this treaty would actually have.