
How Can the New York Times Endorse an Agreement the Public Can't Read? - sinak
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/how-can-nytimes-endorse-agreement-public-cant-read
======
justsee
What stunning misdirection in this thread by anigbrowl. In a way it reflects
the NY Times opinion piece, which tries to simply characterise the TPP as a
'trade deal'.

Any reasonable, honest observer would halt the discussion immediately at the
point they realise the TPP is being negotiated in secret (with the public and
even political representatives kept in the dark over TPP contents over the
many years it has been negotiated).

That corporate interests have unfettered access to the text and negotiations
and democratic citizens do not is evidence enough of exactly whose interests
are being negotiated.

That the text and all associated material must remain secret _for four years
after_ the negotiations have ended (whether successful or not) shows the level
of trust negotiators have in engaging with an informed democracy.

It gets to the heart of the sickness of secrecy that has infected whole swaths
of our democratic institutions. Trying to guide discussion towards whether
people are 'pro or anti trade' is risable misdirection or wilful ignorance at
best.

The TPP is a full-frontal assault on democracy and national sovereignty from
what we have learnt through leaked draft texts, and its contents are _highly
likely_ to represent a backdoor check-mate across internet censorship, DRM,
copyright, and many other issues this community cares about.

~~~
anigbrowl
_That the text and all associated material must remain secret for four years
after the negotiations have ended (whether successful or not) shows the level
of trust negotiators have in engaging with an informed democracy._

^ not actually true. The final text would most certainly be public; you're
probably referring to an agreement to keep negotiating documents secret for a
4 year period as described here (by an organization opposed to that approach):
[http://www.citizen.org/documents/us-transparency-
letter-2011...](http://www.citizen.org/documents/us-transparency-
letter-2011.pdf)

I'm actually in favor of this approach. WTO negotiations involves full
transparency, as mentioned in the letter above; it's also true that the WTO
has been unable to reach agreement on what's known as the 'Doha round' for
almost 13 years now. There are multiple reasons why that might or might not
have happened, but the upshot is that trade liberalization has been stalled
for over a decade. If negotiations out of the spotlight increase the parties'
willingness to conclude a more limited and offer _that_ for ratification, I'm
willing to put up with it. Most of you here seem to be assuming that this is
the result of corporate secrecy; it seems as likely, if not more, so, to be at
the request of the various countries involved in the negotiations.

 _Trying to guide discussion towards whether people are 'pro or anti trade' is
risable misdirection or wilful ignorance at best._

It's interesting that you complain about this when I made no effort whatsoever
to guide discussion in that direction. I called out the EFF article for being
factually incorrect on its face and I stand by that. I mentioned elsewhere
that I was personally pro-trade but uncertain about the TPP pending futher
details.

~~~
justsee
> not actually true. The final text would most certainly be public; you're
> probably referring to...

Yes, the _final text_ , if it becomes law, will be public. The _leaked texts_
show how dedicated the negotiators are to weakening sovereignty and empowering
vested interests.

This is the issue. Lobbying groups have worked out how to hack sovereignty
(with those pesky democratic processes and a desire to consider the public
interest) by negotiating 'trade agreements' which are a bulk insert of desired
laws around patent, copyright, and DRM into the legislative frameworks of
multiple countries at the same time, without consultation or input by the
citizens of each negotiating country.

These efforts are serious attacks on fundamental ideas we hold around self-
determination, consent of the governed, transparent democratic processes.

So when you continue to try to focus the discussion on trade agreements,
historical negotiations, 'trade liberalisation' you're plainly engaging in
continued artful misdirection.

~~~
anigbrowl
That's _your_ take on the issue. I see IP as just another market with a
variety of interested parties, not of all whose interests coincide. From my
perspective, a lot of people want to build consumer services without having to
pay for content, just as many content holders are engaged in rent-seeking. I
don't like the copyright lobby, but nor do I subscribe to the proposition that
because the marginal cost of production in some industries is terribly low, no
ownership interest should entail. And in case you're wondering, I do not lobby
for or even own shares in any media or IP portfolio companies.

 _So when you continue to try to focus the discussion on trade agreements,
historical negotiations, 'trade liberalisation' you're plainly engaging in
continued artful misdirection._

Sorry, those happen to be my actual opinions. copyright, patent, and DRM
issues are not the whole story of economics. I'm also interested in things
like environmental and labor standards, public health policy, food security
and poverty reduction, and I'm not going to apologize for having an interest
in broader economic issues or willingness to compromise; it's my firm opinion
that half a loaf is better than no bread, especially so in matters of
economics.

That's why I'm broadly in support of a TPP and ardently in support of TTIP,
not withstanding the numerous likely imperfections.

~~~
lambda
You do realize that many of the people who object to IP laws don't object
because they want to build consumer services without having to pay for
content, but because they want to produce hardware and software without having
to cripple them, right?

This is not "just another market with a a wide variety of interested parties."
This is people telling me what I am legally allowed to do in my own home. This
is passing laws saying that you can't produce an innovative new device because
someone, somewhere may use it to subvert someone else's IP interests.

And the issue with the treaty process is that a treaty can be used to bypass
the democratic process within a country. A proposal that would be shot down
due to public outcry can instead be done in a secret treaty, only revealed
once it's fait accompli, with everyone involved being able to disclaim that "I
didn't want that, but that's what we had to do to get the treaty passed" and
thus dodge the political ramifications.

~~~
anigbrowl
I've been hearing this since the late 80s and the sky still hasn't fallen. If
you don't like it by all means call your senator, donate to opponents of the
trade deal, fight against it/ I'm not trying to get you to support the TPP
(not least because I don't know what's in it either, so far); my reason for
jumping into this thread is to point out that the EFF is making flat-out false
arguments, which strikes me as an absolutely stupid way to gin up opposition
about it.

If they had written an article saying 'TPP negotiations should be public' I
wouldn't object in the least - that's a perfectly reasonable view, even though
I am not very exercised about it. Indeed, I linked to a letter from a group
articulating exactly that position up thread. But saying 'NYT endorsed secret
trade treaty' is simply a falsehood.

~~~
mcherm
> If you don't like it by all means call your senator, donate to opponents of
> the trade deal, fight against it

Well, I would _LIKE_ to do that. I would _LIKE_ to contact my president and
the administration officials who are negotiating the treaty and provide them
with my feedback and comments on the proposed wording. I would even like to
spend some of my hard-earned money paying world-renowned experts (such as
those who work with the EFF) to review it and provide even more insightful
feedback.

Unfortunately, the text of the treaty is secret so I cannot do these things. I
complain that I am being prevented from participating in democracy and you
write that if I don't like it I should participate in democracy. Perhaps you
don't understand the complaint that is being raised.

~~~
anigbrowl
You'll be able to read it when it's presented to the Senate for ratification.
There seems to be some notion that the Senate is going to vote on it in
secret, but I don't find any evidence of this being the case.

~~~
mcherm
When it is presented to the Senate for ratification is too late to have any
influence on the text -- at that point the agreement can only be accepted or
rejected.

------
guimarin
It's simple. the NYT is and has been for some time, a mouthpiece for the
sitting administration in Washington. They were under Bush, they are under
Obama. The administrations trade 'towing the line' for access. Don't toe the
line, no access. I hate to say it but there are few if any large news
organizations which do the kind of Journalism we're taught about in school.

~~~
donohoe
I also take issue with this Editorial and agree with the EFF, but this...

    
    
       a mouthpiece for the sitting administration in Washington. They were under Bush, they are under Obama
    

That kind of characterization borders on absurdity.

I'm sorry of the NYT doesn't bow to your personal politics but to say its a
"mouthpiece" \- especially for Bush is more than a stretch of reality.

~~~
wnevets
The NY Times stopped using the word torture to describe what the US was doing
because of the Bush Admin. The New York times supported the Iraq War and was
the leading the charge for a war with Iran during Bush's second term.

~~~
smsm42
Supporting certain action of the administration and being a mouthpiece for the
administration is a very different thing. Do you think any media org that
supports, for example, the killing of Bin Laden, which is commonly attributed
to Obama administration, is an Obama mouthpiece?

There were many people that supported Iraq War, from many political
persuasions. Some regretted it, some didn't. It doesn't mean they all were
Bush's mouthpieces, there is place for genuine agreement even in today's
politics.

~~~
wnevets
How do you characterize changing the language reporters are allowed to use in
the paper to appease the Bush admin?

~~~
smsm42
Israel just released 26 terrorists from jail about a week ago to appease
Palestinian government. Does it mean the government of Israel is now an agent
and mouthpiece of Hamas and PLO?

~~~
wnevets
The notion that Israel does anything to appease Palestinian is kinda funny.

~~~
smsm42
I don't see anything funny in it, but maybe your sense of humor is different.
In any case, it is a fact - a quick Google search would produce ample
confirmation that it did really happen if you doubt my words. In any case by
changing the topic I assume you concede the initial point.

~~~
wnevets
I asked you a straight forward question and you side stepped it with some
ridicules notion that Israel is appeasing Palestine.

~~~
smsm42
1\. The word "ridicules" is a verb. You meant "ridiculous".

2\. It is not the notion, it is a fact. Widely confirmed by independent
sources which you can find by simple Google search or on any "current events"
page in any major media outlet.

3\. I brought it as an example that appeasing somebody and identifying with
somebody is not the same. If you don't like this example, take example of
Chamberlain appeasing Germans. I didn't use that because that has a high
chance of taking discussion offtopic, but you managed to take it offtopic
anyway.

4\. The original point was that appeasing and being a mouthpiece is far from
being the same. You still did not manage to bring any argument to the
contrary. NYT published a lot of things harmful to Bush. It also published a
lot of things useful to Bush. Thinking that the same newspaper that published
the story of Stellar Wind was parroting Bush doesn't make any sense.

~~~
wnevets
your lack of understanding of the world around you is frightening

------
bendoernberg
I'm going to contact Margaret Sullivan, the Times' Public Editor, and ask her
to write about why the paper is endorsing something they haven't seen. If
enough folks join me, she might weigh in.
[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/](http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/)

public@nytimes.com

~~~
001sky
_I 'm going to contact Margaret Sullivan, the Times' Public Editor..._

^^^This should be top post

------
anigbrowl
This is complete and total bullshit. The NYT did not endorse anything. The
editorial in question is here (following the link from the EFF page, lest I be
accused of misdirecting people):
[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade-
de...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade-
deal.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1383865633-4qrS4kyZ6fmMiDgkHadqTw)

It discusses the fact of the ongoing negotiations, mentions a variety of
potential difficulties, and concludes by defining what it (the NYT board)
considers to be the elements of a good agreement.

I'm generally a fan of the EFF but this article is ludicrous scaremongering.
How the EFF spun this into an uncritical endorsement and thought it was
appropriate to throw around insinuations of 'extraordinary cowardice' absent
any evidence whatsoever. Essentially, the EFF is attacking the idea that there
even could be such a thing as a good trade deal, equating the NYT's effort to
articulate what that would be with an uncritical endorsement. It's
fundamentally dishonest and has seriously lowered my opinion of the EFF.

~~~
zainny
A great deal of intent is telegraphed by how you say things and the words you
choose to use. Starting out with something like "[the agreement] could help
all of our economies and strengthen relations between the United States and
several important Asian allies" definitely is putting a positive spin on
something which I find a bit odd given the text of the agreement isn't even
public .

~~~
tzs
It's not odd at all, because what they are coming out in favor of is having
_a_ good Pacific trade agreement. They are neither endorsing nor disapproving
of whatever is actually in this particular agreement.

Analogy: suppose Monsanto has a new pesticide that increases crop yields, but
causes some serious environmental damage.

I write an editorial coming out in favor of increasing crop yields.

If the EFF were reading my editorial the way they are reading the Times, they
would claim that I have endorsed Monsanto's new pesticide.

~~~
lambda
No, this is more like Monsanto announcing that they have a secret new
pesticide that will provide amazing benefits.

Many people criticize it due to Monsanto's track record of causing
environmental damage, and due to certain leaks of information that suggest it
may be quite bad.

Then you write an article saying that you are all in favor of Monsanto coming
out with a new pesticide that strikes a good balance between the interests of
the farmer's increased crop yields and the damage to the environment around
them.

Do you see what they did there? They not only blew off the concerns of people
worried about intellectual property overreach ("balance the interests of
consumers and creators of intellectual property" implies that there are two
distinct groups of people and that there is some kind of balance between them,
which vastly oversimplifies concerns about intellectual property), but by
stating their endorsement for this agreement that they haven't seen (even in
the abstract, of "we support a good deal that does the right things") they are
basically implying that they think the general direction of the deal is
positive. Even though they hedge their bets, they are using pretty strongly
positive language here.

------
limsup
It seems to me the NYT editorial doesn't specifically endorse anything... it
just says what elements would make up an acceptable treaty:

> A good agreement would lower duties and trade barriers on most products and
> services, strengthen labor and environmental protections, limit the ability
> of governments to tilt the playing field in favor of state-owned firms and
> balance the interests of consumers and creators of intellectual property.
> Such a deal will not only help individual countries but set an example for
> global trade talks.

What part of the editorial is endorsing a specific secret text or giving
blanket approval to any deal?

~~~
Tobu
THE EDITORIAL BOARD (there's a link that tells who might have approved this)
claim sources within the administration and put out their position, but didn't
manage any reporting on the object of these negotiations (a draft treaty) and
lack the critical skills to even mention that this document has stayed
private. I see it as similar to their support of the WMD story: quite possibly
fiction but critical thinking didn't enter the picture.

------
aric
They can endorse it the same way they endorsed the hysteria of Iraq's "weapons
of mass destruction" and helped pound the drumbeat to war. _It 's the New York
Times._ EFF is being rhetorical, of course. May they continue to push this
into the light.

------
ISL
It would appear that such an international agreement would comprise a "treaty"
under the Constitution, requiring Senate approval.

In general, the Senate doesn't like being bypassed.

Is there an end-run here I don't know about?

~~~
snowwrestler
No, the agreement will need to go for Senate review, which will be a very long
and public process.

I like the EFF in general, but they have an unfortunate tendency toward being
shrill and incomplete in their public statements. The NY Times here is clearly
not endorsing any specific language, but the concept of a well-formed trade
agreement. In fact they directly acknowledge the challenge of getting the IP
provisions right-- which is the main concern of the EFF.

~~~
thisisparker
Hi snowwrestler, I'm one of the shrill and incomplete activists at EFF.

You're correct in the abstract that such an agreement would need Senate
review, but as noted in the piece and as we described in a letter to the
Senate signed by Amnesty International, FSF, Free Press, and a bunch of
others, the USTR is currently seeking "fast track authority" to bypass that
process.

Read the editorial: the NY Times is endorsing an agreement that the public
can't read. If they wanted it to be conditional, they could have written it
that way. But instead, they acknowledged concerns and then dismissed them
without a good explanation. And the public can't explain it themselves because
we can't read the text.

~~~
anigbrowl
_Read the editorial: the NY Times is endorsing an agreement that the public
can 't read._

I did. It isn't.

~~~
001sky
_the USTR is currently seeking "fast track authority" to bypass that process._

So when are we gonna get to read it? After the Fact? Who is supposed to
"analyze" this? WTF

~~~
anigbrowl
When it's offered to the Senate for ratification, which is entirely in line
with Article II of the Constitution as far as I can see. The President is
empowered to make treaties, and the EFF is being rather disingenuous in
seeking to imply that Congress's role is being usurped in any way.

~~~
001sky
_The fast track negotiating authority (also called trade promotion authority
or TPA, since 2002) for trade agreements is the authority of the President of
the United States to negotiate international agreements that the Congress can
approve or disapprove but cannot amend or filibuster._

Are you taking issue with the premise of fast-track (ie, that it will go
regular track)? Because based on the structure, it comes up for a vote in Y/N
only. So debate is essentially pointless (unless the whole thing is rejected)
as its take-it-or-leave-it. So all of the non-pointless debate needs to occur
beforehand. Which is certainly inconsistent with complete secrecy. Or is
everybody missing something?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_%28trade%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_%28trade%29)

~~~
anigbrowl
I'm absolutely fine with the debate being about whether to accept or reject
it. There's so much bikeshedding and logrolling in Congress these days that I
think they're more effective when confronted with the necessity of an up or
down vote. YMMV of course.

Also, that's how the Senate votes on judicial and other nominees (Y/N, rather
than having any control over a shortlist or setting criteria), and Article II
says that treaty votes come before the Senate the same way. I have the
impression that you and several other posters would prefer a more
parliamentary system of government where the executive was a member of the
legislature and directly subject to its authority* but that's not our
constitutional scheme.

* A key difference in a parliamentary system being that a vote of no confidence in the executive can force a general election.

~~~
001sky
My issue with this is selective discolure. The idea that you only disclose XYZ
treaty to PQR special interest and then not show it to the public is BS. I
understand the logic of the fast track, and I also understand to concept of
too many cooks in the kitchen. But strategic, manipulative, selective
disclosure is another ball of wax.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6694617](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6694617)

------
forgotAgain
Original NYT editorial

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade-
de...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade-
deal.html?_r=0)

To summarize: a good trade pact would be good.

~~~
mtgx
Too bad TPP isn't it, and they will try to pass it anyway.

Besides, that sort of thing should be made public, and not signed and agreed
upon between countries in secret.

------
insickness
Sorry but there's no endorsement of something unread here by the New York
Times. You can interpret the Times's positive spin on the potential agreement
as a de facto endorsement, but it is not an endorsement. It's as if the Times
said that it's good a new Avengers movie is coming out and the EFF said that
the NYTimes gave the movie a positive review without seeing it. Disagree with
what the New York Times said, but they don't claim to have seen the agreement.

------
coldcode
I'm going to have to trust the government on this one. Clearly they have the
people's best interests in mind. In fact why should they ever let us see
anything in the future, it makes us angry and leads to silly arguments.
Instead they can simply tell us when the business is complete - signed, a
North Korean.

------
samspenc
Sorry, but I must be missing something - what/where is the actual endorsement?
Did they run an article about this?

~~~
anigbrowl
There isn't one, but only a small percentage of the outraged readers will have
bothered to click through and discover this for themselves.

~~~
pyrocat
_A good agreement would lower duties and trade barriers on most products and
services, strengthen labor and environmental protections, limit the ability of
governments to tilt the playing field in favor of state-owned firms and
balance the interests of consumers and creators of intellectual property. Such
a deal will not only help individual countries but set an example for global
trade talks._

from [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade-
de...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade-
deal.html?_r=0)

~~~
anigbrowl
That's the sort of agreement they would like to see. Whether or not that's the
sort of agreement that emerges from the TPP negotiations remains to be seen.
One assumes they would be unenthusiastic about an agreement that did not
include such elements.

------
homosaur
Just so ya'll know, the main crux of this deal for the US is that they're
going to be a major natural gas supplier to the United States of Europe to cut
off Russia from it. This is part of the reason Russia has probably been to
supportive of Snowden, which would normally be a bad idea politically, because
they're trying to mess up the US/EU relationship. Natural gas is going to
unfortunately be the way forward for awhile in all the post-Fukushima
paranoia/propaganda cycle.

~~~
anigbrowl
This is TPP, not TTIP.

------
linuxhansl
While this story might be sensational, does anybody know the rationale behind
keeping treaties like this secret.

I could come up with all kinds of explanations like our leader being fearful
of criticism, but I would like to know if there an actual practical reason.

~~~
maisutton
Author of this blog post here.

They claim that they need to keep it secret to maintain a strategic advantage
as each of the countries trade off different provisions that could benefit or
harm their economies. US Trade Rep says that if they make the draft texts
public, then it will somehow effect their "game plan" against other nations.

This justification has become ever more dubious (or at the very least,
extremely hypocritical) given the fact that the NSA has been spying on trade
delegates and shares that information with the US Trade Rep. (Source:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/world/no-morsel-too-
minusc...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/world/no-morsel-too-minuscule-
for-all-consuming-nsa.html))

------
infra178
Because the Obama administration told them to.

------
kapad
For political leverage

------
marze
Just their way of saying, most everyone in the country is an idiot and we
recognize that.

