
How the TPP Will Affect You and Your Digital Rights (2015) - stakent
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/how-tpp-will-affect-you-and-your-digital-rights
======
qznc
Will TTIP contain the same stuff? I would assume, because the same
corporations lobby it.

------
macawfish
Meanwhile:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11037232](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11037232)

------
multinglets
~ThAnKs ObAmA~

~/sArCaSm~

------
CM30
Personally, I'm also disturbed how little this bill and its implications are
being discussed in the media. I mean, you've got a 'trade agreement' with a
ton of worrying details and implications, yet newspapers, TV news shows, many
popular websites, etc seem to have gone suspiciously quiet about it.

------
Rumudiez
Maybe off topic, but I __always __read this as Twitch Plays Pokemon first
before realizing what it 's actually talking about.

------
arca_vorago
There is something bigger at play here that even the EFF isn't touching on.
(nor do I expect them to, I like how they stick to the technical facts.)

The reduction if not straight out elimination of national sovereignty is a
prereq for global governance under the collectivist model. Fast track, TTIP,
TISA, TTP, and other more subtle treaties that have been falsely labelled as
"trade agreements" are how they supranational oligarchy can chip away at
sovereignty, because the same people and groups have already corrupted the
system from the inside out so pervasively that they now have the ability to
get this done, and here is the key, done _despite whatever backlash the public
is going to release!_. This was actually the purpose of fast-track, as the
precursor legislation that would enable them to run TTIP/TTP up America's ass
before they could stop it. (by pretending something is a trade agreement
instead of a treaty and with fast track now the required two-thirds majority
in the senate becomes just a simple majority requirement, among other things.)

Although I may be one of the hn resident conspiracy theorists, even this threw
me for a loop because I was expecting a currency upset first, but apparently
the way to undermine a nation is by corruption of it's government and business
first and then death by a thousand cuts (read: laws), because afterwards the
currency upset can be much more controlled.

For me, an American who has sworn an oath to "support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic...", I think that the country has forgotten the basic reasons for the
American Revolution in the first place, and the principles upon which our
country and it's constitution was founded, the Declaration of Independence,
and the Declaration’s basis, Natural Law, but I digress.

The point to me is that we have allowed our supposed "allies" to send us on
wild hunts for foreign enemies, while in reality the larger enemies are
domestic, and they wear suits and ties and are in DC and on Wallstreet. All
the branches of government are corrupted _from the top down_ (including the
fourth estate of journalism), and all the middle men are in one of three
modes. 1) I'm gonna get mine and fuck you. 2) If I say anything I lose my job
or worse, much worse. 3) Who cares, everything is fine, let's put our head in
the sand.

There has been much debate about whether it is Eric Blair's 1984 or Aldous
Huxley's Brave New World. I say it's being setup so that it's a brave new
world, until you resist, then it's 1984 and a boot on your face. I ought to
know, I was the man with the boots in Iraq.

Throw in another recession or two and a depression, world resource wars, and
technological revolution on an earth with an unsustainable population level,
and what we have here is a recipe for disaster.

It's ok though, I'm sure I'm just paranoid. (like I was about NSA before
anyone started listening about that too.)

~~~
RobertoG
collectivist model?

If something, the excuse used is the free markets and the Laissez-faire as
epitome of justice.

------
thejaredhooper
Is this sensationalized? A single bullet-point makes me nervous. All of those
together makes me feel smothered...

~~~
PeCaN
I've noticed the EFF has a tendency to exaggerate slightly, so it wouldn't
surprise me if it's partly sensationalized. Even so, it's rather
disconcerting.

~~~
pyre
It's probably more along the lines of, "the law could be interpreted this way,
and you might find yourself on the wrong side of a court case where a hotshot
government prosecutor is trying to make a name for him- or herself by pushing
the boundaries of how the law can be interpreted." For example, the case where
the US government tried to say that breaking a website's ToS was "unauthorized
access of a website" and ran afoul of anti-hacking laws.

------
walterbell
The TPP was signed yesterday by 12 countries, beginning a 2-year period for
ratification and changing of national laws to enact new penalties,
[http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-internet-
transforming-e...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-internet-transforming-
environment-destroying-tpp-has-been-signed) &
[http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2016/02/the-trouble-with-the-
tpp-...](http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2016/02/the-trouble-with-the-tpp-
day-23-on-signing-day-what-comes-next/)

From [http://www.freezenet.ca/tpp-signed-off-marking-the-
beginning...](http://www.freezenet.ca/tpp-signed-off-marking-the-beginning-of-
the-final-fight/), _"... the trade deal would force countries to ratify many
other copyright treaties including various WIPO (World Intellectual Property
Organization) treaties, kill Internet privacy for domain name registrants,
create a so-called “TPP Commission”, extend the length of copyright, add
criminal liability to the circumvention of a DRM, effectively institute
statutory damages for non-commercial infringement, mandate government spying
on the Internet for the purpose of tracking copyright infringement, possibly
add unlimited damages for copyright infringement, allow “destruction” orders
of any product circumvents copy protection, allows authority to enforce
copyright laws even when infringement hasn’t taken place (ala “imminent”
infringement), seize personal devices at the border for the purpose of
enforcing copyright law (and destroys your property and forces you to pay if a
border guard believes you have copyright infringing content on your personal
devices), institute traffic shaping and site blocking for the purpose of
allegedly enforcing copyright, implement a notice-and-takedown regime, force
ISPs to install backdoors for others to enforce copyright law, and force ISPs
to hand over customer’s personal information without court oversight or
compensation to the ISP. So, in short, the TPP is a major crackdown on civil
rights on the Internet."_

TPP excludes devices (e.g. phones) in checked baggage from border inspections
for copyright infringement, but the UN is considering a ban of battery-
operated devices from checked baggage,
[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/28/un-panel-
backs-...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/28/un-panel-backs-
banning-lithium-ion-battery-shipments-on-passenger-planes), _" A UN panel has
recommended banning cargo shipments of rechargeable lithium batteries from
passenger airliners because they can create fires capable of destroying
planes, according to aviation officials familiar with the decision."_

~~~
tluyben2
The part about the batteries is not about single passenger mobile phones etc
though; it is about cargo shipments of batteries in passenger planes.

~~~
walterbell
Thanks for the correction, I was confused because cargo shipments of batteries
in cargo planes would not be affected. Apparently they are saying it's ok to
lose the pilots (in a cargo plane) but not everyone in a passenger plane.
Single phones would not be a threat, because one explosion could not cause a
chain reaction, unlike a cargo shipment with many batteries close together.

~~~
FungalRaincloud
I would guess it's less about it being OK to lose the pilot, but not
passengers, and more about the pilot being aware of the type of cargo and its
risks.

~~~
walterbell
Article says the pilots association is in opposition, but you're right that
individual pilots and their insurance companies are free to accept
compensation for the risk.

------
dniebiebbdi
Wide scale civil disobedience is the only solution to unjust laws passed by a
corrupt and illegitimate sovereign.

~~~
digler999
People should start having "LAN parties", except instead of playing games,
they should just start doing massive torrenting with 20 tb + NAS devices.
evade the mafIAA and start amassing "master" collections, i.e. ALL
music...ever. ALL books (libgen), etc.

~~~
userbinator
That concept is as old as software itself:

[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/copyparty](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/copyparty)

------
gremlinsinc
Anyone think EFF will endorse Bernie? They align on a lot of the same things,
and he'd repeal TPP given the chance.

~~~
readams
Bernie might want to repeal TPP, but he'd do that because he's against trade.
The EFF is against some of the riders attached to TPP especially around
intellectual property and digital rights management. No current candidate has
a record that is at all aligned with the EFF on this.

A more direct problem is that as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, the EFF is forbidden
to directly endorse candidates.

~~~
dtornabene
No, Bernie sanders is not "against trade". He's "against" ceding elements of
our sovereignty to unaccountable transnational corporations and the "trade"
bodies that have sprung up to protect them.

~~~
damir00
It's the same thing.

International trade is impossible without both sides ceding "elements
of...sovereignty".

~~~
dtornabene
Not sure that thats true. And I'm not super interested in a prolonged semantic
argument that would sort it out. I'll just note that the "elements of
sovereignty" _I_ was referring to are transnational corps attacking nation-
states for enacting laws that would protect their populations but would cut
into corporate profits. Many examples of which already exist, like, say, the
cigarette labelling laws of Austraila and Togo. Or environmental protection
laws in Canada (and else where). These are not the sorts of "sovereignty" one
negotiates away in the traditional westphailian system of nation states.

------
macawfish
Reading these things makes me angry. There are people in the world who uphold
economic wealth and ownership over life itself. Money is supposed to serve
life, not the other way around. Ownership at its best is a way to uphold
responsibility and caretaking. It shouldn't be a way of domineering or
exploiting peoples' very culture and spirituality.

Who gets to play the song? Who gets to retell the story? Only those sanctioned
by those with money, the owners. This is wrong. Creation and recreation are a
forms of communion, not some contrived, egoistic world domination ritual.

Excuse my colorful language, this is a religious issue to me.

~~~
xlayn
I have thought about this and my conclusion is that we have power over those
companies, the power is on your decision not to buy any products from them.

    
    
      -Take for chance apple, Imagine people not buying a
       single iPhone until they start paying taxes as they
       should on US, you still can buy any rival brand right?
       You can imagine how stock prices would fall under the 
       pressure of 0 iphones sold.
      -Software, go with a rival, support open source.
      -Get to the street and complain.
      -Do not play any music from vendorx, do not go to your
       artists concerts, do not play youtube music from them.
       

Is all about us and doing some small sacrifices, in my case the reason behind
my switch totally and never go back from windows to linux was the ftdi driver
"update" bricking my olimexino 328.

Edit: I have to say laws it's a very difficult area, maybe one of the easiest
ways you can have of making a change could be supporting organizations like
the EFF.

Edit: clarity

~~~
helicon
"the power is on your decision not to buy any products from them"

The problem is our power is diluted.

~~~
visarga
It is diluted, indeed. We are poor and many, they are rich an few. It is much
easier to maintain coherence between them than between us. They can use mass
media and other channels to incite even more conflict and division between the
poor to keep them from mounting a meaningful resistance.

I don't think a social change will happen on its own or by revolution, but
rather there will be improvements in life quality for the poor as new
technology such as the internet and smart phones are made available for the
masses at low prices. The standard of living has improved in the last 100
years a lot for everyone, and this trend is going to continue in the future.

------
wyldfire
> "If you stream some copyrighted gameplay ..."

I guess it's not the first I've heard of it but doesn't it seem odd for the
gameplay itself to be copyrighted/copyrightable by the game's creator? Doesn't
it seem just ludicrous if we were to try to do the same for board games or
sports?

~~~
JoshTriplett
A video of someone playing a copyrighted game has value separate from the
game, and the person producing that video almost certainly has copyright of
their own over it, but the video clearly derives from the music, images, and
other materials provided by the game. Under most circumstances, the person
publishing or streaming the video should be able to defend their usage via
fair use; fair use specifically mentions uses like "commentary" and
"criticism".

Similarly, people who upload/stream "reaction" videos, where they watch
another video and provide commentary, can defend that usage via fair use.

Fair use doesn't mean that the video/stream does not derive from the
copyrighted game or other material, but rather that the video/stream may
legally use that copyrighted material.

~~~
pyre
Fair use only exists in case law, and treaties have the power to override the
Constitution itself (IIRC), let alone things like case law or the legal code.
That's why TPP is such a game-changer.

~~~
Trill-I-Am
Treaties do not have the power to override the constitution itself.

To quote the Supreme Court case Reid v. Covert (1957), "this Court has
regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a
treaty".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert)

~~~
miles
_" Treaties do not have the power to override the constitution itself."_

While I agree that should be the case, it is sadly a bit more nuanced[1]:

 _Under the Constitution as originally understood, the short answer is: “No, a
treaty can’t override the Constitution. The treaty has the force only of a
statute, not of a super-constitution.”_

 _But the full answer is more complicated. This is because the Founding-Era
evidence_ does _suggest that the Constitution enables the federal government
to acquire significant—although not unlimited—additional power by entering
into treaties._

...

 _In 1783, the Confederation Congress debated and approved a treaty with the
Netherlands despite recognizing that the terms of the treaty might interfere
somewhat with freedom of religion. Thus Congress impacted the exercise of
religion, an area over which the Articles otherwise gave it no authority._

[1] [http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/11/13/can-treaties-
over...](http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/11/13/can-treaties-override-the-
constitution/)

~~~
morgante
The Articles of Confederation were an entirely different (and weaker)
document.

I highly doubt the Supreme Court would ever side with a treaty which
conflicted with the Constitution.

------
chatmasta
Getting upset about the TPP is a waste of time. The provisions of the TPP are
a red herring. We should be much more concerned with what is _not_ present in
the TPP. It only has 12 signatories!!! There are 160+ "countries" in the
world. How much could an agreement between 12 of them really increase "free
trade?" There are notable absences (CHINA) that make the treaty effectively
meaningless. If 30% of the world is not covered by it, then who cares what it
says.

The people getting screwed by this treaty are not the spoiled first world EFF
supporters, but the people who assemble all our gadgets and gizmos. If you
want an agreement that actually benefits humankind, it better include some
protections for the outsourced labor that first world nations continue to
exploit.

Regarding the fearmongering bulletpoints in the EFF article... Let's be
honest. Any mildly technical person knows that these kind of legal measures
are technically impossible to enforce. If you want to bend or break the rules,
you can find a way, and you can avoid detection. "The Internet routes around
censorship" as John Gilmore says. He's also an EFF founder so I'm not sure why
EFF is fearmongering so much when they should know these measures are
meaningless until they're enforced, which will require implementing
impossible, nonexistent technical solutions.

If you don't like the rules, route around them. Or just leave the country
trying to enforce them on you. There are 150 other countries you can go to if
you don't like these rules.

Honestly the concern over this treaty is so overblown that it almost seems
insensitive to the people in the world who are actually suffering from global
commerce. The real victims are the millions of people starving, working 12
hour days as children, losing their families to warmongering nation states,
and running along a hopeless treadmill of despair.

If you're going to get upset over what amounts to a relatively small set of
unimplemented, highly unenforceable rules affecting your "digital rights,"
then you should at least devote 1% of your complaints to acknowledging the
plights of the people who are actually suffering in the world.

~~~
walterbell
> There are notable absences (CHINA) that make the treaty effectively
> meaningless

Don't be fooled by the headlines, the TPP changes "rules of origin" which will
reduce US tariffs for Chinese-made auto parts that will now count as
"Japanese". This will negatively affect North American auto parts
manufacturing, [https://theintercept.com/2015/11/11/trump-was-right-about-
tp...](https://theintercept.com/2015/11/11/trump-was-right-about-tpp-
benefitting-china/)

 _" Right now, the U.S. reserves the right to slap large tariffs on China, as
it has done on steel (up to 236 percent), solar panels (up to 78 percent) and
tires (up to 88 percent). But under TPP, many products, from agriculture to
chemicals to plastics to leather seating, can include up to 60 percent of
material from a non-TPP country ... China would not have to raise any
standards or comply with any TPP rules, yet still be able to produce millions
of auto parts and textiles for TPP countries at a lower cost, without the
burden of tariffs."_

> There are 150 other countries you can go to if you don't like these rules.

Europe has TTIP. China, India and other Asian countries have RCEP. The
provisions are similar or worse than TPP. This is a race to the bottom, which
is why the first trade agreement (TPP) matters so much. Stop the TPP and it
will be easier for countries to push back on TTIP and RCEP. There is also TiSA
which spans 50 countries. All of these agreements need to be renegotiated with
additional corporate and civil society stakeholders, rather than favoring the
small number of corporations that hijacked the TPP for their own purposes.

~~~
chatmasta
China regularly interferes with the ability of foreign corporations to compete
in a fair Chinese market. Whether through crippling communications
infrastructure (the GFW), subsidizing domestic counterparts, or ignoring US IP
laws, China had no problem favoring domestic companies over foreign ones.

Yet the US needs an _international treaty_ to authorize itself to slightly
increase the fees it charges to China.

(personally I prefer the slow moving democracy of the US)

~~~
walterbell
The TPP will _decrease_ the fees the US charges to Chinese-made goods.

~~~
chatmasta
I read it as the US redirecting 40% of imports to TPP countries. Even if China
produces the cheapest widgets, someone buying 100 widgets needs to buy 40 of
them elsewhere.

~~~
walterbell
Compared to the pre-TPP, NAFTA (US, Canada, Mexico) status quo, that's an
increase from 0% to 60% in favor of China.

------
kobayashi
Paging /u/tptacek: looking for HN's contrarian position

~~~
tptacek
It bugs me when people suggest I'm "contrarian", because I do not as a rule
arrive at positions by trying to think of the opposite of what the prevailing
sentiment on HN will be.

In this case, though: the site is positively littered with things I've said
about TPP.

Short summary: I'm ambivalent about TPP, dismissive of the notion that it's a
secret conspiracy, and irritated by advocacy writing that suggests it is one.
That's about it.

I immediately acknowledge that I have a big blind spot about TPP: I'm an
American, and TPP has only a marginal impact on US public policy, but a pretty
significant impact on countries in Asia that had policies different from those
of the US.

~~~
pdkl95
> it's a secret conspiracy, and irritated by advocacy writing that suggests it
> is one.

It's important to realize - and this is true for most topics, not just the TPP
- that there isn't much practical difference between a "secret conspiracy" and
a "loose collection of parties with similar interests". In casual language,
it's easier to say something like

    
    
        They [it's always 'they'] planned this! The people pushing the TPP are
        trying to scam us!
    

when what is really intended might be closer to

    
    
        The people in a position that has actual decision-making power or influence
        usually got to that position by using large amounts of money. The sources of
        that money vary, but in any case an attitude is cultivated where money ends
        up as the primary indicator when judging success.
    
        When considering future policies, people with this type of attitude will
        tend to prefer plans that maximize what they see as "success"m which is 
        any plan that maximizes money, regardless of other effects. Hence concepts
        like the ISDS (both as an idea and it's idiotic implementations) are seen as
        absolutely necessary to "protect investors" (maximize money/success), while
        national sovereignty, health-and-safety regulations, and the possibility of
        laws that require exposing source code are all seen as roadblocks to success.
    
        Therefor, without any need for conspiracy, plans such as the TPP can gain 
        significant support because it aligns with the priorities of the people in power.
    

or something like that. Obviously, the latter is harder to say and probably
impossible to say as a sound-bite. The former statement - which _sounds_ like
it requires a conspiracy - is often used as a shorthand, sometimes for
brevity, sometimes because the speaker doesn't know how to articulate the
longer variation in detail.

Of course, sometimes people actually intend to make an accusation of
conspiracy... and sometimes villainous people actually do get together and
make harmful plans.

I suggest that it's useful to assume a charitable interpretation when reading
this kind of statement for two reasons: 1) Hanlon's Razor, and 2) often the
details don't really matter (an international treaty can be just as damaging
regardless of it's origin).

Unfortunately, American politics has always had a certain _paranoid style_
[1].

> TPP has only a marginal impact on US public policy

That _may_ be true in the short term, but it's hard to change treaties and the
laws they create once they are enacted. If our position in the world changes
in the future, we may find the tools the TPP creates being used against us.

The American Empire is _rapidly_ in decline[2]. While it's hard to say what
that means for the political and economic future of the world, it's probably
safe to say that at least some of the power that America currently holds will
move elsewhere.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paranoid_Style_in_American_Politics#Recurring_paranoia_in_American_politics)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjY-
FW7-dc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckjY-FW7-dc)

~~~
tptacek
I feel bad about sniping a small part of a thoughtful comment, but this:

 _it 's hard to change treaties and the laws they create once they are
enacted_

... is not actually at all true. The laws put in place by treaties (ie:
ratified by Congress to enable treaties that they approve) are no harder to
override than any other law.

~~~
slavik81
Wouldn't that break the terms of the treaty? I presume that breaking the
treaty either has a direct penalty or you're just kicked out entirely. If
you're kicked out entirely, that changes the trade structure that your economy
has adapted to over the time the treaty was in place. You'll face serious
opposition from businesses that have grown to depend on those new trade
arrangements.

Local laws can be adapted piecemeal, but my understanding is that a treaty
like this is all or nothing.

~~~
tptacek
Yes, it might, but Congress can still do it.

