Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck Your Rights Online

Wikileaks Releases ACTA Negotiations As "0-Day" 105

Posted by kdawson
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikileaks Releases ACTA Negotiations As "0-Day"

Comments Filter:
  • ACTA? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @04:27PM (#24392193)
    Is it really that hard to say what the initials stand for just once in the summary?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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...)

      • by story645 (1278106) * <story645@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @05:53PM (#24393327) Journal

        wiki + firefox searchbar [wikipedia.org]

        Really though, yeah, should have been in the summary as a matter of style, but what do you expect?

      • by simmee (1180333)
        I might point out that not EVERYBODY that visits /. is an American. As a non-American, I for one would like to know what this thing is about (and being too lazy, at the moment, to google it), because anything that happens in the USA sure as hell ends up happening in other anglo-saxon western democracies,whether we vote for / like it or not.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • by Petrushka (815171)
        Actually, I'd say the fact that it effectively makes parallel importing a practical impossibility, if not outright bans it, is also pretty worrisome -- just not at quite such a personal level. (I know parallel importing is already illegal in some countries, but I've never heard a good argument as to why it should be.)
    • Well, duh [part68.org]. Doesn't everybody know that? This is a big deal too since this memo details the ACTA plot to ban red leads in terminal attachments.
  • by olddotter (638430) on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @04:28PM (#24392209) Homepage

    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)

      by DragonWriter (970822) on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @04:34PM (#24392317)

      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.

      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:

      Amendment I

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by B3ryllium (571199)

        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)

        by Shandalar (1152907)
        Come on now, this is banal. There were then, and are now, laws about defamation, and there was never any intent to make defamation Constitutionally protected; and Wikileaks-posted material is subject to those laws the same as any other speech.
        • There were then, and are now, laws about defamation, and there was never any intent to make defamation Constitutionally protected

          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

        • by digitrev (989335)
          Well, when you can tell me who exactly is being defamed, and who is the perpetrator of said defamation, and how exactly anyone implied that defamation was Constitutionally protected, then I'll listen to you.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            defamation was Constitutionally protected

            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

            • by homer_s (799572)
              What if I say something which I *thought* was true but which turned out to be false? What about things which are just a matter of opinion - is that defamation or slander?
              • What if I say something which I *thought* was true but which turned out to be false?

                Well, I know that newspapers would be protected if they did that. There's intent or some other consideration.

                What about things which are just a matter of opinion - is that defamation or slander?

                I don't believe defamation is anything other than the combination of libel(written) and slander(spoken). And opinion is protected. Only alleged facts matter.

                IANAL, so double-check before expressing your opinions of XYZ.

        • Where's the defamation?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Gilmoure (18428)

        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

  • wtf (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mattsqz (1074613) on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @04:29PM (#24392235)
    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? this makes me happy to be a gun owner... when the sh1t goes down, you better be ready..
    • Re:wtf (Score:4, Insightful)

      by megaditto (982598) on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @04:35PM (#24392323)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by fotbr (855184)

        4473 isn't required for all purchases, though individual states may require something similar.

        • by mrmeval (662166)

          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)

          by mattsqz (1074613)
          getting OT here, but.. not all firearms are purchased from storefronts, many are bought/sold by individuals. and not all firearms are purchased at all...many AK's, for example, here in the US are built at home with a press and a blowtorch, using deactivated parts kits and do not need paperwork of any sort - or even a serial number - to be legal.
          • by Gilmoure (18428)

            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.

            • by fotbr (855184)

              Federal law only says you need to be licensed (or taxed) to manufacture firearms if you intend to sell them, or if you intend to manufacture certain types -- machineguns, supressors, destructive devices, and the interesting category of "any other weapon".

              Again, states / cities may require more though.

        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Alabama doesn't require anything. Sure, most of the time we're the backwards arm pit of America, but one Alabama citizen can sell a fire arm (rifles, not pistols) to another Alabama citizen with nothing more than a glance at his driver's license. Just to be sure he's an Alabama citizen. You don't even need to make a copy of the license. You gotta love gun shows!

          • Sure, most of the time we're the backwards arm pit of America, but one Alabama citizen can sell a fire arm (rifles, not pistols) to another Alabama citizen with nothing more than a glance at his driver's license.

            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.
          • by pwizard2 (920421)

            Alabama doesn't require anything. Sure, most of the time we're the backwards arm pit of America

            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)

              by johnny cashed (590023)
              Be QUIET, or the yanks will move down here.

              We don't have paved roads, and we still use outhouses. This state is full of rednecks.
          • by ksd1337 (1029386)
            Can you take the guns out of the state without any paperwork?
      • Screw the forms. Not really illegally, but in my state, personal sales don't involve any forms. Unless you consider a federal reserve note a "form".
        • 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.

          • Do you have a firearms license?

            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.
        • by ksd1337 (1029386)
          The federal reserve note is the most powerful form there is. You can get access to anything if you have enough of them. Unfortunately, many people use them for the wrong reasons (like bribing politicians, though the politicians are just as bad.)
      • Re:wtf (Score:5, Informative)

        by hey! (33014) on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @09:57PM (#24396071) Homepage Journal

        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.

    • I wonder where the gun owners were when that kilo of coke was made illegal.

      For some reason I have a mental image of boiling frogs here.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by krelian (525362)

      What's wrong with a kilo of coke? It's just a collection of atoms.

      • by ksd1337 (1029386)
        So is a nuclear bomb, so is poison, so is a taser. (Not trolling, I'm all for legalizing drugs, but just had to say my point.)
    • by radarjd (931774)

      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

      • Possibly, but more likely this is intended to intercept counterfeit goods like bulk produced CDs, clothing and other fashion accessories, DVDs, etc.

        Just like the DMCA was intended to stop people circumventing DRM but was also used by companies to silence people revealing information about them or their products which they wanted to keep quiet? I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt but I don't have any doubt at all that this will be abused.

    • by ksd1337 (1029386)

      this makes me happy to be a gun owner... when the sh1t goes down, you better be ready..

      While I'm pro-gun (but do also support ethical gun control), I think that this mentality is the same as theirs.

  • end? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @04:30PM (#24392255)

    I used to wonder what the end of our free societies would look like.
    Now I know it looks like ACTA

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @04:34PM (#24392311)
    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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Wiseblood1 (1135095)
      Yes, it is sad that attacks on our freedom such as this are happening everyday. The people woh have the power to change things do not, and will not for the foreseeable future. So long as corporate funded PACs and special interst groups such as these have the influence that they do now, our days as something remotely resembling a democracy are numbered.
    • by snl2587 (1177409) on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @04:52PM (#24392541)

      I guess it's time for all of us to retreat to the FreeNet/DarkNet...which would consequently improve it greatly.

    • by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @05:00PM (#24392677) Journal
      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.

      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.
      • by Burz (138833)

        If you render these centralized industries irrelevant, they die of neglect.

        Yeah, but not before they paranoically come at you and extract their desired pound of flesh.

        Otherwise, well-stated. De-centralizing energy, communications and manufacturing will go a long way towards putting megalomaniacs in their place. The process will probably also have to be undertaken with food production as well.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

    • 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

    • unless the geeks of the world are able to effectively unite and push back

      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

  • 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."

    • 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:3, Insightful)

      by pjt33 (739471)

      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?

  • The public servants haven't been such for a long time. If you look at the laws our governments pass, you'll see more power to the corporations, police and big money and less and less protection for the people.

    Our countries are being turned in gated communities with all powerful private security force, where 90% of us can't afford to live.

    Hmmm, have we seen this somewhere before?
    • The public servants haven't been such for a long time.

      Have the vast majority of elected officials ever truly served the public, rather than merely power-tripping?

  • by fermion (181285) on Tuesday July 29, 2008 @05:42PM (#24393213) Homepage Journal
    Recommendations for Border measures 6. Establish clear procedures for those accused of infringement by the right holder to dispute claims and enforce due process including (a)disputing the standing of the alleged right holder to make a claim, (b) disputing the right of the border authority to impede fair trade, (c) require documentation supporting the claim of infringement within 24 hours of the claim (c) allow immediate access to the good accused of infringement by the owner or an authorized agent, and (d) require a hearing within five(5) business days of the claim of infringment to assess the validity of such claims.

    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.

    • by MrNaz (730548)

      Good idea! Now all you have to do is lobby Congress to include that. Good luck with that.

      Remember, you're just a measly voter. They've got money.

  • "ensure that all counterfeit goods are compulsory destroyed...The simple removal of the unlawfully trademark should not be a sufficient course of action"

    This just in: The custom office has just hired the comedian, Gallagher, to bring the hammer of justice down on counterfeit goods. An spokesman was quted as saying:"You think you're cute with your mac sticker on your Thinkpad? WHAM!"

    "Your sticker of Calvin urinating on an all-american Ford emblem stuck onto your briefcase? WHAM!"

    Custom agents are se

  • Acta or ACTA may refer to:

    * Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a proposed multi-lateral intellectual property trade agreement

    * Australian Community Television Alliance (ACTA), the industry association representing community television licensees in Australia.

    * Acta Diurna, daily Roman official notices

    * Acta Arithmetica, number theory publication

    * Acta (conciliar), official proceedings of a council of the church or a government, such as the Acts of an Ecumenical Council

    * Acta

  • Select one month, for instance October, and get as many as possible to refrain from buying music, film, games, books, electronics, clothes or any other non-essentials for that one month.

    Money seems to be all they care about, lets hit them where it'll probably be felt the most.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"

Working...