ACTA active in 6 months

[V-Man339]

We've seen notes from this meeting, which did not appear to be especially constructive. For instance, consider the following exchange, written up by American University's Sean Flynn, who was at the meeting:

Q. How do you guarantee that policies required to benefit from liability safe harbor for Internet service/access providers won't have the effect to force them to restrict fundamental freedoms—such as freedom of expression and communication, privacy, and the right to a fair trial—turning them, via contractual policies, into private copyright police/justice?
A. [ACTA negotiator:] It is important to recall that ACTA parties have expressed concern about fundamental rights after Wellington. We are aware of the importance of this matter and we have made clear... It is clear that ACTA parties are bound by human rights declarations and their own constitutions. ACTA will obviously have to comply with those norms.
Q. ...but you think encouraging companies to take down expression is respecting rights? This is how you make enforcement comply with freedom of expression?
A. [French delegate:] You think in EU we live in a totalitarian state? Is France a dictatorship? Have you no rights in France?
Q. That is not my question.
A. I am telling you it will comply with EU law. Are you saying EU does not comply with fundamental freedoms?
Q. It is companies that collect the information. You are encouraging the companies to use that information in ways that, if done by the state, would violate fundamental privacy protections. Is that promoting fundamental rights?
A. [French delegate:] Is France a totalitarian state? Is it?
Q. No, that is not what I am saying. OK, fine. You have addressed the issue. Let's move on.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposes ACTA, calling for more public spotlight on the proposed treaty.[46] Since May 2008 discussion papers and other documents relating to the negotiation of ACTA have been uploaded to Wikileaks,[36] and newspaper reports about the secret negotiations swiftly followed.[3][43][47]

In June 2008 Canadian academic Michael Geist writing for Copyright News argued that "Government Should Lift Veil on ACTA Secrecy" noting before documents leaked on the internet ACTA was shrouded in secrecy. Coverage of the documents by the Toronto Star "sparked widespread opposition as Canadians worry about the prospect of a trade deal that could lead to invasive searches of personal computers and increased surveillance of online activities." Geist argues that public disclosure of the draft ACTA treaty "might put an end to fears about iPod searching border guards" and that it "could focus attention on other key concerns including greater Internet service provider filtering of content, heightened liability for websites that link to allegedly infringing content, and diminished privacy for Internet users." Geist also argues that greater transparency would lead to a more inclusive process, highlighting that the ACTA negotiations have excluded both civil society groups as well as developing countries. Geist reports that "reports suggest that trade negotiators have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements for fear of word of the treaty's provisions leaking to the public." He argues that there is a need for "cooperation from all stakeholders to battle counterfeiting concerns" and that "an effective strategy requires broader participation and regular mechanisms for feedback".[48]

In November 2008 the European Commission responded to these allegations as follows:

It is alleged that the negotiations are undertaken under a veil of secrecy. This is not correct. For reasons of efficiency, it is only natural that intergovernmental negotiations dealing with issues that have an economic impact, do not take place in public and that negotiators are bound by a certain level of discretion. However, there has never been any intention to hide the fact that negotiations took place, or to conceal the ultimate objectives of the negotiations, the positions taken in European Commission Trade 5/6 the negotiations or even details on when and where these negotiations are taking place. The EU and other partners (US, Japan, Canada, etc.) announced their intention to start negotiations of ACTA on 23 October 2007, in well publicised press releases. Since then we have talked about ACTA on dozens of occasions, including at the European Parliament (INTA committee meetings), and in numerous well attended seminars. Commission organised a stakeholders' consultation meeting on 23 June in Brussels, open to all – industry and citizens and attended by more than 100 participants. US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other ACTA partners did the same.[1]

An open letter signed by many organizations, including Consumers International, EDRi (27 European civil rights and privacy NGOs), the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ASIC (French trade association for web 2.0 companies), the Free Knowledge Institute (FKI) states that "the current draft of ACTA would profoundly restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of European citizens, most notably the freedom of expression and communication privacy."[49] The Free Software Foundation argues that ACTA will create a culture of surveillance and suspicion.[50] Aaron Shaw, Research Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, argues that "ACTA would create unduly harsh legal standards that do not reflect contemporary principles of democratic government, free market exchange, or civil liberties. Even though the precise terms of ACTA remain undecided, the negotiants' preliminary documents reveal many troubling aspects of the proposed agreement" such as removing "legal safeguards that protect Internet Service Providers from liability for the actions of their subscribers" in effect giving ISPs no option but to comply with privacy invasions. Shaw further says that "[ACTA] would also facilitate privacy violations by trademark and copyright holders against private citizens suspected of infringement activities without any sort of legal due process".[51]

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has published "Speak out against ACTA", stating that the ACTA threatens free software by creating a culture "in which the freedom that is required to produce free software is seen as dangerous and threatening rather than creative, innovative, and exciting."[50] ACTA would also require that existing ISP no longer host free software that can access copyrighted media; this would substantially affect many sites that offer free software or host software projects such as SourceForge. Specifically the FSF argues that ACTA will make it more difficult and expensive to distribute free software via file sharing and P2P technologies like BitTorrent, which are currently used to distribute large amounts of free software. The FSF also argues that ACTA will make it harder for users of free operating systems to play non-free media because DRM protected media would not be legally playable with free software.[50]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/acta-slouches-on-will-be-final-within-6-months.ars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

http://www.eff.org/issues/acta/


I don't care what you guys say, I'm scared shitless by this thing's potential.

 

[15357]

Meh. I'll be fine.



The rest of you are screwed, though.

 

[V-Man339]

By now you should be used to this sort of thing, right?

 

[Krynn72]

What the hell is it? I don't think I've even heard of this before, but none of your quotes say what it is. Is it anti-copyright infringement legislation?

 

[V-Man339]

What the hell is it? I don't think I've even heard of this before, but none of your quotes say what it is. Is it anti-copyright infringement legislation?

That's half the thing. It's basically an agreement between various countries to kiss the corporations' ass, but they keep it so secretive its hard to tell what it really consists of aside from some copyright legislation. It nonetheless has people worried for woefully obvious reasons, including but not limited to the border searches and whatnot that has been released.