Slashdot Log In
Wikileaks Releases ACTA Negotiations As "0-Day"
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jul 29, 2008 04:21 PM
from the frictionless-information-flow dept.
from the frictionless-information-flow dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks has released a new document about the ACTA negotiations occurring in Washington over the next three days. This might be the shortest time between authorship of a document and its publication on Wikileaks so far. The brief 3-page memo, dated today, could add quite a bit of oil to the fire of the ACTA debate. It is titled Business Perspectives on Border Measures and Civil Enforcement and it contains a set of proposals to the 'ACTA negotiators' issued by 'Concerned business groups operating in ACTA nations.' Among many highly invasive methods and approaches proposed in this memorandum, the reader can find detailed demands for: full disclosure of relevant information by Customs to trademark holders so that they can mount private investigations; disclosure of identities and other information about copyright infringers; and increased inspection of goods. This document is especially important to raise public awareness on these negotiations and their implications for the future." We've been watching ACTA develop for a few months now.
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 390 comments
SpaceAdmiral writes "The Canadian government is secretly negotiating to join the US and the EU in an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The agreement would give border guards the power to search iPods and cellphones for illegal downloads, as well as to force ISPs to hand over customer information without a warrant. David Fewer, staff counsel at the University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, characterizes ACTA this way: 'If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas what would they look like? This is pretty close.'"
[+]
Technology: Leaked ACTA Treaty to Outlaw P2P? 387 comments
miowpurr writes to tell us that a draft of the ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) has been posted on Wikileaks. Among others, Boing Boing's Cory Doctorow has weighed in on the possible ramifications of this treaty. "Among other things, ACTA will outlaw P2P (even when used to share works that are legally available, like my books), and crack down on things like region-free DVD players. All of this is taking place out of the public eye, presumably with the intention of presenting it as a fait accompli just as the ink is drying on the treaty."
[+]
Your Rights Online: A Look At ACTA Wish Lists For RIAA, BSA, Others 69 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property brings us an analysis of several organizations' goals for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which we've discussed previously. In particular, he points out the anti-privacy views of the Business Software Alliance: "While the ACTA itself is not public, the US Trade Representative has at least released the ACTA comments. While many of them are to be expected, such as the RIAA & co. wanting copyright filters, one item on the BSA's wish list really stands out: 'In a number of European countries one of the biggest impediments to efforts by rights holder to enforce their IP rights on the Internet is the overbroad interpretation of privacy laws by some European authorities.' They want ACTA to 'fix' that by neutering the privacy laws. Given the BSA's other questionable activities, it couldn't hurt to tell their member companies what you think of their participation. After all, organizations like the BSA exist in part to shield their members from bad PR."
Full documents of comments from the various organizations are available at Public Knowledge.
Submission: Wikileaks releases 0day ACTA negotiations doc by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Your Rights Online: EFF, Public Knowledge Sue Over Secret IP Pact 104 comments
Cowards Anonymous writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge have filed a lawsuit against the Office of the US Trade Representative in an attempt to get the office to turn over information about a secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement treaty being negotiated to step up cross-border enforcement of copyright and piracy laws. ACTA could include an agreement for the US, Canada, the European Commission and other nations to enforce each others' IP laws, with residents of each country subject to criminal charges when violating the IP laws of another country, according to a supposed ACTA discussion paper [PDF] posted on Wikileaks.org in May."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
ACTA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean you don't know? Time to move out from under that rock!
I mean, geez... talk about ignorant. EVERYBODY knows about ACTA.
('cept me...)
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (Score:4, Informative)
wiki + firefox searchbar [wikipedia.org]
Really though, yeah, should have been in the summary as a matter of style, but what do you expect?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (Score:3, Informative)
ACTA stands for 'Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement', but that's not particularly informative, because the worrisome part has nothing to do with counterfeit goods and everything to do with Copyright Cops who fight the RIAA's War on Sharing via thousands of lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthetists (Score:2)
wikileaks (Score:5, Funny)
Part of me thinks that had the technology been around in the mid 1700's the rights of something like Wikileaks would have been enshrined in the constitution by the founding fathers as the ultimate check and balance.
Re:wikileaks (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite the fact that the technology was far more primitive in the 1700s, the rights of "something like Wikileaks" were enshrined in the Constitution -- that is, in the Bill of Rights:
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was under the impression that ACTA was, in essence, an end-run around the constitution (or, in my case, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) ...
Mod parent down (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Defamation as it was understood in England was much broader than what is Constitutionally (because of the first amendment) prohibitable, and defenses, such as truth, were affirmative defenses. The jurisprudence of the First Amendment turns truth from an affirmative defense into something that must be shown not to apply as a part of the prima facie case for defamation. Additionally
Re: (Score:2)
No, its really not irrelevant to the common law applicable in US jurisdictions prior to the Constitution and how the Constitution affected change to that law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Defamation IS constitutionally protected. Slander and libel are not, which are cases of untrue defamation with malicious intent (or reckless disregard or some other standard that makes it very difficult, but not impossible to sue over.) Also, those are torts, not civil matters. So, while you don't have a constitutional right to prevent me from obtaining compensation for you unfairly and (something akin to deliberately) maligning my reputation, you cannot go be sen
defamation (Score:2)
Where's the defamation?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think "The People" refers to state run groups and not just any Tom, Dick, or Harry. And "religion" is obviously referring to real churches and not just a bunch of folks dancing nekkid in the moonlight. As for "the press", sure, if you're an actual news paper business, putting words to paper with a press, you have the right to print what you want. Back then, no one imagined words and images flowing through the aether and being disseminated by all manner of modern devices. The Bill of Rights really only ref
Re: (Score:2)
I think "The People" refers to state run groups and not just any Tom, Dick, or Harry...
I truly and honestly hope you are trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously if it wasn't perfect the first time why even bother?
wtf (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:wtf (Score:4, Insightful)
Since you are a gun owner, you should realize that they will first come for YOU (since they know where you live). [wikipedia.org]
And the rest of us will cheer ("make streets safe for our children" or whatever) them on until it's too late.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
4473 isn't required for all purchases, though individual states may require something similar.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not required for antiques (1899 or earlier), face to face transactions with your favorite ATF agent in drag, if you have a ATF F 8A (5310.17) designating you as some type of FFL. For a collector license it costs $30.00 for a three year license to have specifically listed or 50+ year old firearms (curios or relics) shipped to your door. It's worth it especially this year as I've seen about a 300 percent increase in the value of even poor quality collectible imports.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
ATF laws do require you to be licensed to manufacture firearms. Is similar to Class III license and you need to have local LE chief sign off on it. Friend of mine's a gun smith and he had to move to another county, after supporting losing candidate for county sherif. A few years later, his reapplication was turned down. Local politics suck.
But yeah, sales between individuals are pretty much allowed everywhere, I think, other than some big cities. As long as you are selling to a known felon, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure about the driver's license requirement? I think you can just ask if they reside in the state. I also think that it is legal to sell to residents of neighboring states.
Re: (Score:2)
As a fellow Alabamian, I must respectfully disagree. Birmingham (my home city) is a place with lots of banking/tech. (the 280 corridor going into Shelby county is starting to get really good) Huntsville has lots of military/aerospace development. We're not as bad off as many people think, since some states don't even have that much.
Shhhh. (Score:3, Funny)
We don't have paved roads, and we still use outhouses. This state is full of rednecks.
Thats why I buy guns illegally. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
in my state, personal sales don't involve any forms.
Do you have a firearms license? That's good enough of a reason for them to come for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell no!
And I also neither confirm or deny having a firearm. We might be a little backwards here in AL, but we take the 2nd amendment seriously.
Re:wtf (Score:5, Informative)
All those protections against government data snooping that were passed after Watergate are now nil, because those restrictions left a loophole for private entities to do this and for the government to buy it from them (thank you Cap Weinberger).
All the things the government is banned to do for itself, it can buy from the private sector. If you use a frequent shopper card or a credit card, they know you are buying pseudoephed at the pharmacy. They don't need a form to know that you're buying a gun. They can buy that information. They probably can figure out how much ammo you buy too.
All in all, the background check form is the least dangerous intrusion because it is (a) accurate, (b) transparent, (c) and regulated by law. Every bad thing you imagine them doing with the form they can do with data bought from the private sector, only it won't be accurate, you won't know you are being profiled, and there are no legal restrictions on how they use that data.
Of course, in a world without criminal background checks for firearms purchases, you could avoid detection by conscientiously buying your firearms, shooting supplies, books and magazines (off the rack, no subscriptions!) with anonymous cash transactions. But most people won't, and they've got you after you've bought your first box of bullets on your credit card.
The most important place to protect the right to bear arms isn't in firearms regulation. It's in protecting consumer privacy. In the US, there is no legally recognized right to privacy. Change that, and the ability of the government to target any group by what it purchases is severely restricted. Including people who purchase firearms. Criminal background regulations are actually less dangerous to gun owners, because of post-Watergate laws restricting the government's ability to mine its own data.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What's wrong with a kilo of coke? It's just a collection of atoms.
Re: (Score:2)
so now a collection of 1's and 0's with a filename ending with .mp3 will be searched for as if it were a kilo of coke?
Possibly, but more likely this is intended to intercept counterfeit goods like bulk produced CDs, clothing and other fashion accessories, DVDs, etc. This part of the law is aimed at customs enforcement at ports and national borders. This is about someone shipping crates of knock-off DVDs or purses into a country, and the customs agents of that country seizing the goods and informing the rights-holder.
I don't think this is intended to deal with lone citizens re-entering the country with a couple of CDs f
end? (Score:4, Interesting)
I used to wonder what the end of our free societies would look like.
Now I know it looks like ACTA
The Days of Internet Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Days of Internet Freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess it's time for all of us to retreat to the FreeNet/DarkNet...which would consequently improve it greatly.
Parent
Re:The Days of Internet Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
Local renewable energy, Wireless mesh networks and RepRaps are a good place to start. It is really more about walking away than it is about pushing back. If all you do is protest and make demands based on the rights you feel entitled to, they own your soul. If you render these centralized industries irrelevant, they die of neglect.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, next time the pirate party is running for election, fucking vote for them then.
Seriously, things will only get worse if you keep voting republicrat/demopublican.
Re: (Score:2)
The days of Internet freedom are quite sadly coming to an end with these international movements toward information totalitarianism, unless the geeks of the world are able to effectively unite and push back.
Dude, have you ever tried herding cats?
Look at all the arguments over "free" vs "FREE" or open source or even how many different flavors of UNIX derivatives we have. If we were really trying to band together to overcome the EVIL CORPORATIONS and produce a MS killer OS, we easily could have done so by no
Re: (Score:2)
Uniting geeks is like herding cats. It's an oft-abused analogy, but it's true.
While legislation like this is under review, we're too involved in a flamewar about Emacs/Vi or Trek/Wars or Libertarianism or whatever to make an impact on the decisions being made. And even if we could unite and push back, what are we going to do? Blackmail the powers that be by witholding critical systems? Right... see you in jail.
Call your Congressp
IANAL so if one can answer me this... (Score:2)
How can this be allowed in the U.S., which seems to me to be in direct conflict with the 4th Amendment? I'm truly curious, as I said, IANAL. Is there something out there that allows this?
Why do I fear the answer will be "It's true it is against the 4th Amendment. However the U.S. Constitution is pretty much a piece of ass wipe your elected officials use daily anymore."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do I fear the answer will be "It's true it is against the 4th Amendment. However the U.S. Constitution is pretty much a piece of ass wipe your elected officials use daily anymore."
Because you're not Rip van Winkle, and thus haven't been asleep for the past n years?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, no. The amendments to the FISA bill passed earlier this month. We don't have a Fourth amendment anymore.
I can see where you may have been confused, since a Google search will still turn up some text about "search and seizures" or something. But, if you're looking it up, you're probably a terrorist anyway. America *needs* to be able to go through your files, your hard drives, your iPods and your phone calls, or else more people will die!
9/11 Changed Everything! Did you forget?
Pretty good with two additions (Score:4, Insightful)
Recommended ACTA Provisions for Civil Enforcement (5) In the case where a right holder claiming infringement does not provide documentation within 24 hours of the claim, does not attend the hearing or does not have suitable evidence to support the claim of infringement, or in the case where it is shown that right holder has made a frivilous claim, the victim of the right holder is entitled to recover costs associated with the defense and direct and indirect loss of business resulting from the claim. These include but are not limited to attorney fees, storage fees, the value of the detained product, the values of any lost business of the victim, that value of any lost business of clients related to the detained products, and any costs necessary for the victim to recover from any defamation related to unsupported detention of the products.
I know it sounds unreasonable, but if my shipment of bag can be halted just on the word of LVMH, and they can force me into the poor house because I have no recourse to get and sell my merchandise for 30 days, then there better be a balance so I can tap their massive corporate assets when they do wrong, including making them pay for the months worth of lost sales.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you get to this link?
http://file.sunshinepress.org:54445/acta-brief-enforcement-2008.pdf [sunshinepress.org]
Re:ATCA (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:ATCA (Score:5, Insightful)
40 years ago they thought that they'd never be able to waste time searching the bags of every person that traveled.
All it took was a generation to be force fed apathy inducing, mind-numbing pop culture and now they are free to use your tax dollars to make your life a living security nightmare.
To the guy who posted earlier about only wanting to hear about the latest greatest motherboards and ignore anything remotely political, I'm looking at you. Only caring about the latest hardware is no different, effectively, to the teenage girl who reads Cosmo cover to cover to stay up to date on the latest adventures of Paris Hilton.
Parent