Slashdot Log In
Wikileaks Releases ACTA Negotiations As "0-Day"
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jul 29, 2008 05:21 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.
Firehose: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
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.
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: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
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.
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: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.
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
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: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: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