

Activist ejected from "public" meeting on secret copyright treaty for tweeting - rms
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/22/activist-ejected-fro.html

======
Alex3917
"ACTA -- a secret treaty that contains provisions requiring nations to wiretap
the Internet, force ISPs to spy on users, search laptops at the border, and
disconnect whole households from the net on the basis of mere accusation of
copyright infringement"

Is there any historical precedent for worldwide corruption on this scale? Not
to be overly dramatic, but this feels vaguely like the end of the free world.

~~~
fuzzmeister
While this treaty has the potential to be very bad, all that we hold dear
about "the free world" encompasses more than copyrighted content.

~~~
DougBTX
Privacy and innocent until proven guilty are probably high up that list, ideas
being trodden on in the name of copyright.

------
codyrobbins
People realize that the negotiations of the United States Constitutional
Convention were secret, right? There’s a difference between a ‘secret treaty’
and a treaty merely negotiated in secret.

~~~
warfangle
There's a difference between a piece of paper that establishes a government
and the limitations on said government and a piece of paper which coerces
unjust reactions to accusations of copyright infringement, along with massive
violations of privacy.

~~~
codyrobbins
Petitio principii—you’re saying there’s a difference because the treaty is
unjust, but you’re simply declaring the treaty unjust. Negotiating anything
among many parties with competing interests involves certain difficulties, and
making the negotiations secret provides benefits that facilitate the
negotiations.

~~~
warfangle
I'm declaring the treaty, as we know it, unjust because it directly violates
limitations on the government set forth by our constitution: the right to be
secure in my person and my papers (and, by extension, my communications - the
internet), and assumes guilt instead of innocence (punishing based on
accusations instead of proof).

The problem, of course, is that this treaty is being negotiated by many
parties with competing interests, but no party is representing the people who
will actually be affected by this treaty. The people discussing the treaty are
paid for and bought by controlling copyright interests, and not by the people.

Therefore it is fundamentally different: it is not a negotiation at the behest
of The People. It is a negotiation based on the trade and control powers of
multinational corporations. It's diametrically opposed to freedom, because the
free are not involved at any level in its construction, negotiation, and
ratification. The fact that they are so secretive about the negotiations as to
eject and ridicule third-party observes proves that they are not acting in the
best interest of said third party observers.

(I would have no problems with the treaties being discussed / negotiated in
secret, if there were bona fide representatives of People and specific
safeguards against the treaty being unilaterally used to oppress the masses)

~~~
codyrobbins
Holding the negotiations in secret does not prove that they’re acting one way
or another. All secret negotiations have underhanded motives; these
negotiations are secret; therefore, these negotiations have underhanded
motives? The first proposition is quite an assumption. I can see why they
wouldn’t want to include you in the negotiations.

The representatives of the people in this process are the democratically
elected Senators who must ratify the non-secret finished treaty.

~~~
jerf
You seem to be putting words in warfangle's mouth, then criticizing those
words. Nowhere does warfangle even remotely propose the logic you are
describing. It is clear that warfangle is in fact getting the information
about the treaty from what has leaked about it.

Assuming the leaks are true, we do not need to speculate that it may be
underhanded because it is being negotiated in secret. We can be as confident
as we are in the veracity of the leaks that they are being underhanded because
of the _content of the treaty_.

Secrecy is an irrelevant point. If this treaty was produced in an open and
transparent manner I would still agree with warfangle that the treaty is
unjust and in the US, unconstitutional.

Are you aware that details have been leaked? It sort of sounds like you may
not be aware that while to some extent we are still speculating on the
contents, it is well-founded speculation, not wild speculation.

~~~
codyrobbins
I disagree that I’m putting words in warfangle’s mouth. He said, ‘The fact
that they are so secretive about the negotiations as to eject and ridicule
third-party observes proves that they are not acting in the best interest of
said third party observers.’ I don’t think that it in any possible way proves
such a thing at all, and I was making a guess as to the premise warfangle was
assuming to arrive at such a statement.

You’ll note that I haven’t made any statement one way or the other regarding
the treaty itself. You shouldn’t infer that I am for or against it based on
what I’ve said. Yes, I do know the details have been leaked. You’re missing my
point entirely, because the content of the treaty is completely irrelevant to
what I’ve said. My point is simply that the fact that the treaty is being
negotiated in secret has no bearing on the relative merits of the treaty
itself. The secrecy is just an irrelevant procedural technicality of the
negotiation process that’s being framed as some nefarious underhanded move
that should invalidate the treaty. It’s being used as a scare tactic in place
of debating the treaty itself. Argue for or against the treaty on its content,
not how it was arrived at.

I’m perplexed at how it isn’t clear to people that the treaty is being
negotiated in secret _precisely_ to prevent just such a mob backlash as is
occurring. And it’s not to prevent a backlash because there is some
corporate/government conspiracy to control the masses at work. It’s because
there are concrete procedural difficulties in negotiating something like this
when the parties involved aren’t able to speak freely without having 6 billion
rabid critics jump down their throats at every proposal.

~~~
jerf
X (m/b)illion rabid critics is one of the prices of democracy. Throwing away
democracy because it is inconvenient is a great way to ensure you won't be
living in democracy much longer.

~~~
codyrobbins
That’s just a red herring. Democracy isn’t being thrown away because the
treaty negotiations are closed. A democracy does not imply absolute and
unmitigated transparency in all steps along the way. As I already said,
democratically elected representatives will have final say on the finished
non-secret treaty.

------
nfnaaron
"This is not how the world makes its copyright laws."

Apparently it is.

------
blintson
stopacta.org,.com and .net are all registered. It'd be great if there could be
a way to directly call politicians to complain from the website. GizmoCalls is
an in-browser VOIP client, wikipedia says they've recently been acquired by
Google. Google has a HUGE interest in stopping this treaty. Maybe they could
donate calls from the US to US politicians to complain about the treaty? It'd
certainly be great for marketing. Anybody know how one'd go about contacting
google to ask about that? Anybody know of any other in-browser VOIP clients
that would be willing to donate phone time to call politicians to stop this?

~~~
tumult
Politicians do not care about what their electorates want once they are in
office. They will make the decisions they feel are appropriate until it is
time for them to seek re-election.

Phone calls, letters, etc. are all just things for them to stew on.
Ultimately, they can make whatever decision they want. Volunteer for political
work and you'll see: letters will be tabulated and counted to favor one
position or another, and at the end of the day it's just a number for the
senator or representative to glance at for a few moments when considering what
position to take, which in the end will almost definitely be the one handed
down from their party.

------
jcnnghm
There are public meetings on "secret" treaties? That doesn't sound very
secret. Was the activist ejected for breaking the rules. When you attend an
in-progress House or Senate debate in their galleries, you aren't allowed to
have any electronics out, and you aren't allowed to write or draw. From the
capital website:

The Gallery "staging areas" are located on the upper level of the Visitor
Center near the Orientation Theater exits. Visitors are not allowed to bring
battery-operated electronic devices (medical devices are permitted); cameras;
creams, lotions or perfumes; strollers; or video recorders or any type of
recording device into the Galleries. These items may be stored securely in the
Gallery staging areas while visitors are in the Galleries.

What happened to those promised televised health care debates?

~~~
roc
The public meeting was on the _process_ of negotiating the treaty. They were
quite specifically _not_ discussing the content of the treaty, making the
secret treaty still quite secret.

The rules of the US Government building aren't relevant. The meetings about
the secrecy are being held in Mexico. They nearly required the attending
public to sign NDAs and surrender electronics, but last minute deliberation
removed those restrictions. Which suggests the ejection of a live-blogger
appear quite unfounded.

The ACTA meetings themselves are being held at some other time, in an
undisclosed location in Mexico.

