
Congressman demands details of secretive ACTA treaty be made public - cienrak
http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/06/darrell-issa-acta-secretive-madison-open-treaty/
======
DanielBMarkham
_...refuses to even classify ACTA as a treaty, which would then require
ratification by the U.S. Senate..._

If we're modifying huge sections of IP law administratively without
legislative oversight, that opens up a whole new area for fun and games. Now
you have to petition your Congressman to petition the president to use a
certain process just so _your elected representative can actually have a say
in how the laws are changing_.

There's nothing new here -- Congress has been ceding it's authority away for
decades and this is just a bit of political posturing on Issa's part -- but
still, it's really quite breathtaking when you stand back and think about it.
The bureaucracy saw what it thought was a problem, then used existing
international treaties as a framework to "fix" the problem without having that
pesky review or oversight process.

Next time they want more restrictions on the net instead of trying to get a
bill through the Senate and the House they'll just use this avenue.

I gotta admit it, the folks waving their arms and saying ACTA was much worse
than SOPA were right. This not only does the same and more, it sets up a
process to make future restrictions easier to get by.

Wish I had something positive and upbeat to add, but if there's a silver
lining here I don't see it. Perhaps the community can use Issa as a prop to
get this thing opened up and eviscerated. Using the government oversight
committee is probably the only road open at this point.

~~~
fpp
The only critic allowed to officially voice concerns during the hearings last
week was Canadian law professor Michael Geist. He provided a very good and
detailed overview on the issues and dangers already foreseeable. When people
applauding his speech at the end the chairman of the EU parliament workshop
treated with throwing people out.

Video of his speech:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=gzieTzart5s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=gzieTzart5s)
Transcript on his site: <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6350/125/>

------
bproper
Congress is angry because usually their approval is needed to ratify a treaty
- see the letter below -

[http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=12a5b1cb-...](http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=12a5b1cb-
ccb8-4e14-bb84-a11b35b4ec53)

~~~
jackfoxy
Treaties are ratified by the Senate. Not the House. _Congress_ refers to both
houses, or sometimes just the House of Representatives, but never to the
Senate alone. Anyway Issa is a Congressman, not a Senator.

~~~
gee_totes
Important difference to point out. You phrasing tripped me up though, and I
want to point out that Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) (who's linked above) is also
upset about ACTA not being considered a treaty.

So members of both houses are angry (thus Congress in general), but only the
Senate's approval is needed for a treaty. It is unconstitutional for a
president to enter into a treaty w/o Senate approval.

Article II, Section 2, Paragraph II of the Constitution states that the
President: "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"

(Sorry, I've recently gotten into constitutional law and wanted to post this
FYI)

------
jkn
I don't get it. The text has been public for a while now, e.g. on the website
of the European Commission:

[http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-
trade/acta/index_e...](http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-
trade/acta/index_en.htm)

~~~
sp332
And the US Trade Representative: <http://www.ustr.gov/acta> (see "ACTA Text"
link on the right)

------
JumpCrisscross
Does this count as a breach of some sort of constitutional duty on behalf of
the President? Or would it just be a valid argument that the "treaty" is null
and void?

Sorry - not intimatey familiar with the US government.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
No, that's the beauty of the thing -- if you can call a shitstorm on net
freedom beautiful.

Usually when the legislative and executive branches get crossed up, the courts
sort it out. But in this case Congress (the Senate) already ceded these powers
to the executive branch under some other treaties. So there's really nothing
to sort out. Congress (the House of Representatives and Issa) could make a big
fuss and cause the administration not to implement ACTA, but it'd just be a
temporary measure. You'd have to have a law passed specifically restricting
the Executive branch from interfering with internet rights via previously
existing treaties in order to really fix this thing. A long shot at best.
You'd probably have more luck trying to teach beavers to fly airplanes than
actually straighten out this situation "correctly."

Internet freedom, including privacy, anonymity, access, and publishing rights,
are in desperate need of a constitutional amendment. Nothing else is going to
work. There's simply too many structural avenues for attack by vested
corporate interests.

~~~
CWuestefeld
And for purely political reasons, you will NEVER see Congress as a whole come
out against the President like that. For example, back when Obama (illegally)
attacked Libya, our Congress wouldn't even formally condemn Obama's actions.

The Democrats won't put the brakes on it because it would interfere with the
power they're currently enjoying. And the Republicans won't do it because they
too covet that power after the next election.

------
blakeweb
For those looking for more information:

Problems with ACTA, from Michael Geist, a Canadian on the EFF advisory board:
<http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6350/125/>

From his points, the main substantive change from what I can tell is more
oversight and liability for 3rd parties, with one likely target being ISPs:
"Within ACTA, Articles 8 and 12 apply in the civil enforcement context,
Articles 23 and 24 add “aiding and abetting” to criminal offences, and Article
27 targets third parties in the online environment. "

A defense of ACTA from the European Commission:
[http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-
trade/acta/index_e...](http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-
trade/acta/index_en.htm)

Defense summarized here: <http://venturevillage.eu/acta-myths-explained>

All in all it seems like a pretty vague agreement designed to bring all the
signers on the same page in terms of oversight and investigation of ip
importing and exporting activities. It hardly says that countries must do
anything, but that they "may" do many things they agree on. That's not to say
that the agreement would be a good thing in its current form. Agreeing to
potentially criminalize activities without mandating protections from false
charges etc seems like a poor decision to me.

------
snowwrestler
[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet-
awa...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet-awash-in-
inaccurate-anti-acta-arguments.ars)

"That final version has been publicly available for months, but many ACTA
opponents continue to focus on these deleted provisions in their arguments
against the treaty."

------
jackfoxy
I don't want to ding a politician for doing the right thing, but Issa is also
a sponsor of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Works_Act>, (co-sponsored
with a Democrat, btw) so this looks more like an act of political grand-
standing than political idealism.

~~~
nextparadigms
He was also one of the key Congressmen _fighting_ against SOPA. I think Issa
is generally a good guy, who just like any other politician (except Ron Paul)
can be swayed by lobby money to support a certain bill that in the end the
public might not like.

It's not that different than Al. Franken supporting net neutrality, only to
become a strong supporter of PIPA later on. Although, I'm not sure Al Franken
ever was a good guy. Perhaps he was just generally for more Government control
of the Internet - which I guess net neutrality could be part of that.

Either way, the core problem still seems to be how campaign financing works
right now, getting politicians desperate for campaign money, and ending up
supporting bills that may or may not be compatible with their own ideals.

~~~
nyellin
He also led the all-male congressional hearings against contraception. I
support most of his opinions, but I wish I could elect politicians with
authority in specific fields only.

~~~
anamax
> He also led the all-male congressional hearings against contraception.

The hearings weren't "against contraception". They were about whether the
current status quo, where certain institutions aren't required to pay for
contraception, can continue to do so.

Also, the panels weren't weren't all male - there were women on the second
panel from Catholic schools supporting the "religious freedom" position.

And no, contraception isn't anywhere near $1000/year. Walmart charges $4/month
while Target and CVS charge $9. Even at $20/month, we're looking at less than
$250/year. (The required medical appointment is already covered so it doesn't
need to be added.) IUDs and the like are less.

Condoms don't account for the difference. Yes, you can pay $1 each, but if
you're going through $750/year, you should be buying multi-condom packages.
Amazon charges $0.14-$0.30 for small packages.

Then again, the person claiming to spend $1000 is a lawyer-wanna-be, so maybe
she's engaged in creative billing.

~~~
burgerbrain
Condoms are almost completely irrelevant. A primary issue is women being
prescribed contraceptives for medical conditions other than preventing
pregnancy. Contraceptives like "the pill" contain powerful and varying hormone
cocktails which have numerous uses. Different brands/types contain different
cocktails at different doses, meaning that the situation is not as simple as
"just get the cheap one". The particular one that _works_ for that use is
prescribed, which most certainly _can_ be 1000USD/year.

~~~
anamax
> A primary issue is women being prescribed contraceptives for medical
> conditions other than preventing pregnancy.

A "primary issue"? No. Most contraceptives are used for preventing pregnancy.

However, the "other conditions" case IS covered, and this wasn't about that.

> The particular one that works for that use is prescribed, which most
> certainly can be 1000USD/year.

The question is never "how much can you get someone to pay" but "how little
can be paid".

Walmart sells multiple varieties, so citation needed that $1k/year is at all
reasonable.

~~~
burgerbrain
The primary _issue_ , not the primary use of birth control. Though I suspect
you would be surprised by a breakdown.

 _"However, the "other conditions" case IS covered, and this wasn't about
that."_

Depending on the organisation, it often times it is not. That is why the issue
has been in the news so much recently.

~~~
anamax
>> "However, the "other conditions" case IS covered, and this wasn't about
that."

>Depending on the organisation, it often times it is not.

Citation needed because the Catholic organizations in question DO cover the
use of birth control drugs and procedures to address "other conditions".

There's even a papal statement to the effect that doing so is a good thing -
see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae> , specifically the "Lawful
Therapeutic Means" section.

------
Joakal
The ACTA worries Medecins sans Frontieres:
[http://www.msfaccess.org/content/counterfeit-substandard-
and...](http://www.msfaccess.org/content/counterfeit-substandard-and-generic-
drugs)

More:

<http://www.msfaccess.org/content/counterfeit-confusion>

[http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2155038/acta-
kills-...](http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2155038/acta-kills-people)

