Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This really doesn't seem that bad. It's mainly restricting what governments can do to restrict their people. In other words - keeping trade free. Isn't that kind of a good thing?

- Governments are not allowed to restrict where companies store user data.

- Governments can choose how to deal with spam, they don't have to adopt the US's CAN-SPAM law.

- Governments can't force companies to disclose their source code.

- Copyright term hasn't been extended to life + 120 years as earlier feared. Only to life+70 years which it already was in the USA anyway.

- Governments don't have to impose net neutrality. That's an issue in the US, but not everywhere else. And they still can if their people want. Such restrictions could easily backfire, especially when they have exemptions for a few hand-picked uses like VOIP and telemedicine. So what if somebody invents a new technology that also needs preferential treatment for latency or bandwidth?

- Governments aren't allowed to impose security restrictions on users as a tool to impede free trade. Does anyone really want the government to dictate how they do internet security? Or for foreign companies to be blocked in favor of domestic competitors?

> Copyright term hasn't been extended to life + 120 years as earlier feared. Only to life+70 years which it already was in the USA anyway.

Which should be reduced (even life + 70 is ridiculously long). This agreement makes internal reform much harder, because it solidifies the bad status quo. Same goes for many other similar things.

Agreed, It would take another international effort to reduce copyright term again - and it'll be tough enough to even get one country to consider it themselves

The thing is, almost all laws are mostly good. Controversial stuff can usually only be passed by burying it in something completely non-controversial. It gives everyone who supports it a wide range of CYA, which is a very important thing to have in politics. It also makes it very difficult for opponents to effectively oppose.

In the US, budgets are usually the most popular place to drop in dangerous/controversial amendments since there's usually a timeline to pass them and there are serious consequences for the constituency if that countdown expires, which won't win the incumbent any points back home. Treaties are worse because they're usually much more difficult to alter than your conventional federal law.

A mostly good bill is mostly good, but allowing it to become law is very bad. We must make the bill totally good, meaning that it can't contain any actively harmful or bad elements, no matter how good the rest of it is.

In a democracy, you have to accept that every law will probably be less than your ideal, because some compromise with other people will be necessary, but it must not contain any actively harmful or dangerous elements.

One example of the bad things: ex officio IP enforcement.

Regarding net neutrality, an ISP can remain fully "neutral" while honoring QoS flags.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact