ACTA Treaty: Opinions

[mortimer]

Oh, well done. May I suggest you apply here:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

In the meantime, you are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to assume as facts not backed by ANY evidence.

Wait, what paranormal ability did I claim to possess? And what facts did I assume?

All I'm asking for is some transparency in the treaty process, so if there are objectionable terms, people will have a chance to properly voice their concerns. I'm not the only one.

http://www.eff.org/issues/acta

 

[mortimer]

No, I implicitly trust my system of government to generally perform better than other systems of government. For example, I trust my government to generally do a better job of deciding which secrets to keep than, say, a communist dictatorship. And I trust my government to generally do a better job of discovering, investigating, and punishing misbehavior on the part of government officials than, say, a communist dictatorship. And, absent any relevant credentials, I trust my government to do both these jobs better than you.

That said, please feel free to learn as much about this treaty as you can. Any time you want to bring informed discussion to this thread, go right ahead.

I've already said I'm willing to discuss the decision for secrecy in these treaty negotiations. So let's discuss. What do you think of this decision for secrecy, and why?

I'm not sure what I have to do with any of those jobs. Have I suggested that I should be in charge of them?

I've already put forth my issue with the secrecy around this treaty. I'll repeat it again. I would like more transparency in the negotiations, so that if there are objectionable terms, like-minded people will have a better opportunity to voice those concerns before the treaty is completed.

Your turn. Why do you think that the treaty negotiations ought to remain secret?

 

[theprestige]

I'm not sure what I have to do with any of those jobs. Have I suggested that I should be in charge of them?

You're not only suggesting, you're flatly trying to do those jobs. Behold: What is a request for more transparency if not a statement that you are, in fact, qualified to decide what should and should not be kept secret in treaty negotiations?

I've already put forth my issue with the secrecy around this treaty. I'll repeat it again. I would like more transparency in the negotiations, so that if there are objectionable terms, like-minded people will have a better opportunity to voice those concerns before the treaty is completed.

Fair enough. What trade-offs do you think there might be in having more transparency in these negotiations?

Your turn. Why do you think that the treaty negotiations ought to remain secret?

I've already tried to explain my position several times. You keep ridiculing it as blind following of my elected officials and their appointees. I'm tired of trying to disabuse you of this notion. So I'll try to keep it simple for you: One possible reason to keep treaty negotiations secret is to prevent people who have a vested interest in disrupting the negotiations (counterfeiters, for example) from doing so. Another reason is to give the negotiators the freedom to discuss possible aspects of the treaty that might impinge on national security, the limits on enforcement one of the parties is willing to contemplate, or other sensitive subjects that might need clarification before the treaty can be written.

 

[theprestige]

On a side note, it occurs to me that if I should be suspicious of my government, then perhaps I should also be suspicious of you.

I mean, I know counterfeiters exist. And I know that propaganda techniques exist. And I know that criminals and outlaws have, in the past, used propaganda techniques to turn unsuspecting people into "useful idiots" in support of the criminals' cause.

So, since it has happened in the past, and it's possible that you're doing it now, why shouldn't I suspect you of being a counterfeiter pretending to demand transparency but really wanting to undermine the treaty? Maybe we should be demanding more transparency from you, mortimer.

 

[DC]

On a side note, it occurs to me that if I should be suspicious of my government, then perhaps I should also be suspicious of you.

I mean, I know counterfeiters exist. And I know that propaganda techniques exist. And I know that criminals and outlaws have, in the past, used propaganda techniques to turn unsuspecting people into "useful idiots" in support of the criminals' cause.

So, since it has happened in the past, and it's possible that you're doing it now, why shouldn't I suspect you of being a counterfeiter pretending to demand transparency but really wanting to undermine the treaty? Maybe we should be demanding more transparency from you, mortimer.

in which cases was it that criminals used propaganda?

 

[mortimer]

You're not only suggesting, you're flatly trying to do those jobs. Behold: What is a request for more transparency if not a statement that you are, in fact, qualified to decide what should and should not be kept secret in treaty negotiations?

I assume you don't think much of FOIA. If the information is not readily available, nobody ought to be able to request information, as the general public has no need to know. After all, the experts that you elected know what's best for us.

Fair enough. What trade-offs do you think there might be in having more transparency in these negotiations?

Trade-offs? I can't think of any that I would care about.

I've already tried to explain my position several times. You keep ridiculing it as blind following of my elected officials and their appointees. I'm tired of trying to disabuse you of this notion. So I'll try to keep it simple for you: One possible reason to keep treaty negotiations secret is to prevent people who have a vested interest in disrupting the negotiations (counterfeiters, for example) from doing so. Another reason is to give the negotiators the freedom to discuss possible aspects of the treaty that might impinge on national security, the limits on enforcement one of the parties is willing to contemplate, or other sensitive subjects that might need clarification before the treaty can be written.

Several times? This is the first time you've brought up any of these issues. They are valid concerns and I'm glad you finally decided to post them rather than stick to the "my elected officials know better than you" canard.

 

[mortimer]

On a side note, it occurs to me that if I should be suspicious of my government, then perhaps I should also be suspicious of you.

I mean, I know counterfeiters exist. And I know that propaganda techniques exist. And I know that criminals and outlaws have, in the past, used propaganda techniques to turn unsuspecting people into "useful idiots" in support of the criminals' cause.

So, since it has happened in the past, and it's possible that you're doing it now, why shouldn't I suspect you of being a counterfeiter pretending to demand transparency but really wanting to undermine the treaty? Maybe we should be demanding more transparency from you, mortimer.

Feel free to demand anything you want.

I had a bagel with cream cheese for breakfast.

 

[theprestige]

I assume you don't think much of FOIA. If the information is not readily available, nobody ought to be able to request information, as the general public has no need to know. After all, the experts that you elected know what's best for us.

I think the FOIA is great. I also know that classified material is not subject to FOIA disclosure requirements.

Trade-offs? I can't think of any that I would care about.

I can. I listed a couple of them, in fact.

Several times? This is the first time you've brought up any of these issues.

These are simply a couple specific examples of decisions I've delegated to my government. It is, in fact, part of the job I've hired them to do.

They are valid concerns and I'm glad you finally decided to post them rather than stick to the "my elected officials know better than you" canard.

If they're valid concerns, would you care to address them? You said earlier that you couldn't think of any tradeoffs. Here I've suggested two of them. What do you think?

 

[mortimer]

If they're valid concerns, would you care to address them? You said earlier that you couldn't think of any tradeoffs. Here I've suggested two of them. What do you think?

Sure.

One possible reason to keep treaty negotiations secret is to prevent people who have a vested interest in disrupting the negotiations (counterfeiters, for example) from doing so.

I don't see this as a national security issue. Do you? How exactly would counterfeiters disrupt negotiations?

Another reason is to give the negotiators the freedom to discuss possible aspects of the treaty that might impinge on national security, the limits on enforcement one of the parties is willing to contemplate, or other sensitive subjects that might need clarification before the treaty can be written

This is a circular argument. There are national security concerns because it might impinge on national security? How so? What other "sensitive subjects" might there be?

The problem that INRM and I are having with this is that the FOIA has been rejected on national security grounds, and nobody can give a good reason why this would have anything to do with national security.

 

[DC]

So? What's so bad about propaganda?

soucre

 

[rwguinn]

Sure.

I don't see this as a national security issue. Do you? How exactly would counterfeiters disrupt negotiations?

This is a circular argument. There are national security concerns because it might impinge on national security? How so? What other "sensitive subjects" might there be?

The problem that INRM and I are having with this is that the FOIA has been rejected on national security grounds, and nobody can give a good reason why this would have anything to do with national security.

Are you at all familiar with ITAR?
Software and technical writings are Copyrighted. Many copyrighted items are ITAR critical. some of it cannot be exported or even used by Foreign folks. Protection of same is critical.
National security does have a seat at the table.

 

[theprestige]

Sure.

I don't see this as a national security issue. Do you? How exactly would counterfeiters disrupt negotiations?

This is a circular argument. There are national security concerns because it might impinge on national security? How so? What other "sensitive subjects" might there be?

The problem that INRM and I are having with this is that the FOIA has been rejected on national security grounds, and nobody can give a good reason why this would have anything to do with national security.

As I understand it, your argument is that since you can't think of any valid national security concerns, there must not be any valid national security concerns, and that therefor the people alleging national security concerns are lying to you.

But this argument only makes sense if your ability to imagine national security concerns is in some way special: If you were an expert on money manufacturing methods and monetary policy, for example. Or if you were an experienced diplomat. Or if you were a highly-respected advisor on national security concerns. Are you any of these things? If not, why should I take your inability to imagine national security concerns seriously?

 

[mortimer]

As I understand it, your argument is that since you can't think of any valid national security concerns, there must not be any valid national security concerns, and that therefor the people alleging national security concerns are lying to you.

But this argument only makes sense if your ability to imagine national security concerns is in some way special: If you were an expert on money manufacturing methods and monetary policy, for example. Or if you were an experienced diplomat. Or if you were a highly-respected advisor on national security concerns. Are you any of these things? If not, why should I take your inability to imagine national security concerns seriously?

You understand incorrectly. I can't think of any valid national security concerns, so I would like for the "people alleging national security concerns" to explain why. I have not stated that I think they are lying.

 

[rwguinn]

You understand incorrectly. I can't think of any valid national security concerns, so I would like for the "people alleging national security concerns" to explain why. I have not stated that I think they are lying.

From the dude who looked a lot like Arafat:
"may I visit your troops and count them?"
(paraphrased from a SNL skit in 1991)

 

[mortimer]

Are you at all familiar with ITAR?
Software and technical writings are Copyrighted. Many copyrighted items are ITAR critical. some of it cannot be exported or even used by Foreign folks. Protection of same is critical.
National security does have a seat at the table.

Sure, I am familiar with ITAR. I agree with some of it, as well. However, that doesn't explain why the methods to enforce ITAR are a national security concern.

 

[rwguinn]

Sure, I am familiar with ITAR. I agree with some of it, as well. However, that doesn't explain why the methods to enforce ITAR are a national security concern.

owowowowowowow...
Okie dokie. whatever you say.

 

[mortimer]

From the dude who looked a lot like Arafat:
"may I visit your troops and count them?"
(paraphrased from a SNL skit in 1991)

An American citizen to the United States government: How many troops do we have in the military? Answer: Can't tell you. National security. You know.

 

[mortimer]

owowowowowowow...
Okie dokie. whatever you say.

Glad you concede.

 

[rwguinn]

Glad you concede.

Don't act the 5-year old idiot, please.
I don not concede anything, other than that you have made your mind up, and refuse to consider any possible alternatives.
Further discussion is futile.
DO NOT attempt to put words in my mouth. Ever.

 

[mortimer]

Don't act the 5-year old idiot, please.
I don not concede anything, other than that you have made your mind up, and refuse to consider any possible alternatives.
Further discussion is futile.
DO NOT attempt to put words in my mouth. Ever.

Like "Whatever you say"?

That certainly was not the response of a 5-year old idiot.

4-year old, maybe.

Now, do you have anything substantive to say about my previous reply?