ACTA Treaty: Opinions

[mortimer]

What treaty?

And you accept INRM's claim that there were national security reasons, even though he provided no evidence whatsoever of this?

Crud, sorry. Thought it had been posted. Here you go.

http://www.keionline.org/misc-docs/3/ustr_foia_denial.pdf

 

[theprestige]

So why are officials claiming national security concerns when asked about the treaty?

I don't know.

Do you?

 

[mortimer]

I don't know.

Do you?

Nope. Do you see the problem when you can't see any possible national security concerns with a treaty about copyright protection, yet that is what is being cited as the reason the treaty negotiations are being kept secret?

 

[WildCat]

Nope. Do you see the problem when you can't see any possible national security concerns with a treaty about copyright protection, yet that is what is being cited as the reason the treaty negotiations are being kept secret?

Maybe they just don't want to jeapordise the talks while it's still being negotiated?

The treaty itself will need to be public before the Senate votes on it, yes?

 

[mortimer]

Maybe they just don't want to jeapordise the talks while it's still being negotiated?

The treaty itself will need to be public before the Senate votes on it, yes?

Sure, but how long before the vote? Will there be enough time to mount an effective opposition to it if needed?

 

[WildCat]

Sure, but how long before the vote? Will there be enough time to mount an effective opposition to it if needed?

Since when are treaties ever rammed through the Senate?

 

[INRM]

Mortimer,

Do you see the problem when you can't see any possible national security concerns with a treaty about copyright protection, yet that is what is being cited as the reason the treaty negotiations are being kept secret?

Yeah of course, it's a patently transparent attempt to keep the treaty secret from the American people who will be affected by it.

Sure, but how long before the vote? Will there be enough time to mount an effective opposition to it if needed?

Who knows? I would not be surprised if they would try to quickly slip it under the wire, or at the very least if it didn't go through on the first shot, they'd try and attach it to something else (pork-barrel) in order to get it through...

That's what happened with the REAL-ID act (Although it wasn't a treaty, the bill was hugely protested and at first the decision was not to go with it, then it was attached to a must-pass military-spending bill. It passed 100%)...


WildCat,

Maybe they just don't want to jeapordise the talks while it's still being negotiated?

Maybe they don't want to jeopardize people knowing what the bill's about

The treaty itself will need to be public before the Senate votes on it, yes?

I *think* so, but who knows if there will be sufficient time to mount an opposition to it?

Since when are treaties ever rammed through the Senate?

I have no idea...


INRM

 

[theprestige]

Nope. Do you see the problem when you can't see any possible national security concerns with a treaty about copyright protection, yet that is what is being cited as the reason the treaty negotiations are being kept secret?

Not really, no. I delegated responsibility and authority to these people, for exactly this purpose of familiarizing themselves with the issues at hand and making an informed decision. I have similarly delegated responsibility and authority to other people, to conduct appropriate oversight of the activities of the first group of people. If these my delegates say it is a natioanl security issue, and that no shenanigans are being perpetrated at this time, then I am content to get on with all the other things I have going on in my life. That is, after all, the whole point of delegating some responsibility and authority to others.

Now. I haven't delegated any responsibility or authority to you. I can pretty much guarantee that unlike my actual delegates, you are not at all familiar with the issues, and are in no position to make an informed decision on my behalf.

If you want me to take you more seriously than I take my actual delegates, I strongly suggest that you either make the effort necessary to earn my confidence and become one of my delegates; or that you make the effort necessary to go out and gather good, solid evidence to support your claim that you have some kind of valid concern in this matter.

If you're unwilling or unable to do either of these things, feel free to support a citizens' watchdog group that does do these things. Other than that, you might get better results by getting on with your life.

 

[mortimer]

Not really, no. I delegated responsibility and authority to these people, for exactly this purpose of familiarizing themselves with the issues at hand and making an informed decision. I have similarly delegated responsibility and authority to other people, to conduct appropriate oversight of the activities of the first group of people. If these my delegates say it is a natioanl security issue, and that no shenanigans are being perpetrated at this time, then I am content to get on with all the other things I have going on in my life. That is, after all, the whole point of delegating some responsibility and authority to others.

Now. I haven't delegated any responsibility or authority to you. I can pretty much guarantee that unlike my actual delegates, you are not at all familiar with the issues, and are in no position to make an informed decision on my behalf.

If you want me to take you more seriously than I take my actual delegates, I strongly suggest that you either make the effort necessary to earn my confidence and become one of my delegates; or that you make the effort necessary to go out and gather good, solid evidence to support your claim that you have some kind of valid concern in this matter.

If you're unwilling or unable to do either of these things, feel free to support a citizens' watchdog group that does do these things. Other than that, you might get better results by getting on with your life.

Why the heck do you think I am posting about it here? Sheesh, no need to make it personal.

 

[mortimer]

Just to add: So you implicitly trust elected officials to do the right thing simply because they are elected to office?

 

[theprestige]

Why the heck do you think I am posting about it here?

Something else I have no idea about. Why are you posting about it here?

Sheesh, no need to make it personal.

I don't understand. You're a person. I'm a person. I'm reacting specifically to what you are saying, and you are reacting specifically to what I am saying. How can this interaction between the two of us not be personal?

Just to add: So you implicitly trust elected officials to do the right thing simply because they are elected to office?

Not at all. I do, however explicitly believe that the system of government I'm participating in is probably the closest approximation to an ideal solution to the problem of putting people in positions of trust. And I absolutely think it's a better system of government than random people voicing uninformed and unsubstantiated speculation on the Internet.

I mean, I already have whole agencies dedicated to overseeing my delegates, and whole departments dedicated to overseeing those agencies, and citizen's watchdog groups and media groups dedicated to overseeing the delegates and oversight agencies. My only question in this thread is, "what exactly do mortimer and INRM have to offer to improve this situation?" As far as I can tell, the answer so far is "not much, actually."

 

[mortimer]

Something else I have no idea about. Why are you posting about it here?

To discuss and learn about the ACTA treaty in a friendly and lively way.

Not at all. I do, however explicitly believe that the system of government I'm participating in is probably the closest approximation to an ideal solution to the problem of putting people in positions of trust. And I absolutely think it's a better system of government than random people voicing uninformed and unsubstantiated speculation on the Internet.

Does such a system of government exist, and has anyone here proposed such a system of government?

What I'm getting from your comments is that anything undertaken by your elected officials shouldn't be discussed, because you trust them more than anyone else who might have something to say about it. That's certainly your prerogative.

I mean, I already have whole agencies dedicated to overseeing my delegates, and whole departments dedicated to overseeing those agencies, and citizen's watchdog groups and media groups dedicated to overseeing the delegates and oversight agencies. My only question in this thread is, "what exactly do mortimer and INRM have to offer to improve this situation?" As far as I can tell, the answer so far is "not much, actually."

In the sense that we are not elected officials for you to blindly follow, you are absolutely correct.

 

[theprestige]

To discuss and learn about the ACTA treaty in a friendly and lively way.

Isn't that what we've been doing all along? To the extent that there's any information about the ACTA treaty to learn about and discuss, I mean?

Does such a system of government exist, and has anyone here proposed such a system of government?

A system of government that gets closer to the ideal than any other system of government? Yes, I think it does exist. It was proposed a couple hundred years ago by a few fellows you may have heard of: George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, etc.

I don't think the problem of how to prevent abuses of power in government is 100% solveable. That would be the ideal. I do think that different systems of government try to solve this problem with varying degrees of success. I think the American system of government--and others substantially like it--get closer to the ideal that pretty much any other system of government.

What I'm getting from your comments is that anything undertaken by your elected officials shouldn't be discussed, because you trust them more than anyone else who might have something to say about it. That's certainly your prerogative.

I'm sorry that you have misunderstood me so thoroughly.

I'm more than willing to discuss anything undertaken by my elected officials--when there's something concrete to discuss.

In this case, there's not much to discuss. I understand and accept that for any nation to remain sovreign, some secrets must be kept. And I understand and accept that for any government to function effectively, someone must be delegated to keep those secrets. In order for me to productively question the decision to keep something secret for national security reasons, I must know at least something about the subject in question.

In this case, I know nothing about the subject in question. So there's nothing for me to discuss, and there's no productive question I can ask.

You're in the same position I am, except that you're laboring under the delusion that in spite of your profound ignorance of the subject in question, you can productively question the government's decision.

In the sense that we are not elected officials for you to blindly follow, you are absolutely correct.

I don't follow my elected officials blindly. I'm also not going to follow you blindly. If you happen to be a national security expert, an expert on anti-counterfeiting techniques, a diplomat well versed in the delicate art of treaty negotiations, or an elected official of suitable standing in your own right, please let me know. In that case, I'd be eager to give your opinion the weight it deserves.

 

[mortimer]

Isn't that what we've been doing all along? To the extent that there's any information about the ACTA treaty to learn about and discuss, I mean?

Apparently we are discussing two different topics. I am discussing the secrecy of the ACTA treaty. You wish to discuss all things known about the ACTA treaty. Thus, I have something to discuss, and you have nothing to discuss. Perhaps you should consider not attempting to discuss things of which you have nothing to discuss.

A system of government that gets closer to the ideal than any other system of government? Yes, I think it does exist. It was proposed a couple hundred years ago by a few fellows you may have heard of: George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, etc.

Don't play coy. I was discussing the system of government which you posited in which people on the internet discuss the issues.

I'm more than willing to discuss anything undertaken by my elected officials--when there's something concrete to discuss.

In this case, there's not much to discuss. I understand and accept that for any nation to remain sovreign, some secrets must be kept. And I understand and accept that for any government to function effectively, someone must be delegated to keep those secrets. In order for me to productively question the decision to keep something secret for national security reasons, I must know at least something about the subject in question.

In this case, I know nothing about the subject in question. So there's nothing for me to discuss, and there's no productive question I can ask.

You're in the same position I am, except that you're laboring under the delusion that in spite of your profound ignorance of the subject in question, you can productively question the government's decision.

So, in your mind, if the government kept every action secret, you would not have anything to question? What an odd position.

I don't follow my elected officials blindly. I'm also not going to follow you blindly. If you happen to be a national security expert, an expert on anti-counterfeiting techniques, a diplomat well versed in the delicate art of treaty negotiations, or an elected official of suitable standing in your own right, please let me know. In that case, I'd be eager to give your opinion the weight it deserves.

I'm not asking you to follow me blindly. But it is quite apparent that you are happy to follow your government blindly. If they don't tell, you don't ask. That's fine, really. But why are you trying to convince me to do the same?

 

[theprestige]

Apparently we are discussing two different topics. I am discussing the secrecy of the ACTA treaty. You wish to discuss all things known about the ACTA treaty. Thus, I have something to discuss, and you have nothing to discuss. Perhaps you should consider not attempting to discuss things of which you have nothing to discuss.

Okay, let's discuss the secrecy of the ACTA treaty. What about it?

Don't play coy. I was discussing the system of government which you posited in which people on the internet discuss the issues.

My mistake. I honestly thought you were asking about the American system of government. No, I don't think any kind of Internet-discussion-based government has actually been proposed.

I was actually trying to get at something a little different here, but I'm willing to let it go for now.

So, in your mind, if the government kept every action secret, you would not have anything to question? What an odd position.

Except, of course, the decison to keep every action secret. But to me this is very different from questioning every decision to keep any action secret.

And, as I've been trying to explain throughout this thread, I think it's very different from assuming that there is no reason to keep something secret, simply because you can't think of a reason and are ignorant of the subject matter.

Anyway, whatever. Let's discuss the decision to keep the ACTA treaty negotions secret. What about it?

I'm not asking you to follow me blindly. But it is quite apparent that you are happy to follow your government blindly. If they don't tell, you don't ask. That's fine, really. But why are you trying to convince me to do the same?

Why are you trying to convince me there's something suspicious about the ACTA treaty negotiations? More to the point, what do you think is suspicious about it?

ETA: I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm trying to figure out why I should take your concerns seriously, and why I should mistrust the government on this issue in particular. If you can help me understand either of these things, I'd be content.

 

[INRM]

In this thread I have posted numerous reasons why I believed the ACTA treaty to be suspicious.

This is not in any order

1.) The fact that it may include provisions for people to be able to summarily confiscate and destroy computers on just suspicion without any recourse or appeal.

2.) The fact that the Treaty may require ISP's to record all the transmissions of it's users, and may give the government more leeway in monitoring people online without warrants (which is part of this country's bill of rights)

3.) The fact that it may allow content filtering which could be used for censorship purposes

4.) The secrecy around the Treaty, not just repeated stonewalling, but even claims it must be kept secret on national-security grounds indicate that there is a possibility, and a good one, that this Treaty isn't just kept secret "because treaties are secret" but because they don't want the American people to know the details on it because they may fly in the face of the Constitution and our civil-rights, and know that if the people knew, they'd probably have a cow about it.

5.) The bill seems to have an enormous amount of influence from powerful corporate interests.

6.) It may illegalize legitimate file-swapping.

7.) The Treaty seems to act as if copyright violators are second only to terrorists in terms of evilness.


INRM

 

[theprestige]

1.) The fact that it may include provisions for people to be able to summarily confiscate and destroy computers on just suspicion without any recourse or appeal.

Since the treaty negotiations are secret, this isn't actually a fact at all, but rather a supposition based on unfounded rumors.

2.) The fact that the Treaty may require ISP's to record all the transmissions of it's users, and may give the government more leeway in monitoring people online without warrants (which is part of this country's bill of rights)

Since the treaty negotiations are secret, this isn't actually a fact at all, but rather a supposition based on unfounded rumors.

3.) The fact that it may allow content filtering which could be used for censorship purposes

Since the treaty negotiations are secret, this isn't actually a fact at all, but rather a supposition based on unfounded rumors.

4.) The secrecy around the Treaty, not just repeated stonewalling, but even claims it must be kept secret on national-security grounds indicate that there is a possibility, and a good one, that this Treaty isn't just kept secret "because treaties are secret" but because they don't want the American people to know the details on it because they may fly in the face of the Constitution and our civil-rights, and know that if the people knew, they'd probably have a cow about it.

Since treaty negotiations are often kept secret, please explain why keeping these negotiations secret is unusual. Please include something more than "in my ignorant opinion" in your explanation.

5.) The bill seems to have an enormous amount of influence from powerful corporate interests.

While it wouldn't suprise me at all if this were the case, and might even be a cause for concern, I'd dearly love to see you provide some evidence for at least one of your suppositions. This one should be easy. Can you do it?

6.) It may illegalize legitimate file-swapping.

Since the treaty negotiations are secret, this isn't actually a fact at all, but rather a supposition based on unfounded rumors.

7.) The Treaty seems to act as if copyright violators are second only to terrorists in terms of evilness.

Since the treaty negotiations are secret, this isn't actually a fact at all, but rather a supposition based on unfounded rumors.

 

[mortimer]

Since the treaty negotiations are secret, this isn't actually a fact at all, but rather a supposition based on unfounded rumors.


Since the treaty negotiations are secret, this isn't actually a fact at all, but rather a supposition based on unfounded rumors.


Since the treaty negotiations are secret, this isn't actually a fact at all, but rather a supposition based on unfounded rumors.


Since treaty negotiations are often kept secret, please explain why keeping these negotiations secret is unusual. Please include something more than "in my ignorant opinion" in your explanation.


While it wouldn't suprise me at all if this were the case, and might even be a cause for concern, I'd dearly love to see you provide some evidence for at least one of your suppositions. This one should be easy. Can you do it?


Since the treaty negotiations are secret, this isn't actually a fact at all, but rather a supposition based on unfounded rumors.


Since the treaty negotiations are secret, this isn't actually a fact at all, but rather a supposition based on unfounded rumors.

We get it. The ACTA treaty negotiations are secret, and you have no problem with that because you implicitly trust your elected officials to appoint negotiators which will only do exactly what you think they should do during the negotiations. That's fine, but why are you so bent on stopping others with questions regarding the treaty from finding out more about it? Do you have a vested interest in keeping this secret?

 

[theprestige]

We get it. The ACTA treaty negotiations are secret, and you have no problem with that because you implicitly trust your elected officials to appoint negotiators which will only do exactly what you think they should do during the negotiations. That's fine, but why are you so bent on stopping others with questions regarding the treaty from finding out more about it? Do you have a vested interest in keeping this secret?

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?

 

[rwguinn]

We get it. The ACTA treaty negotiations are secret, and you have no problem with that because you implicitly trust your elected officials to appoint negotiators which will only do exactly what you think they should do during the negotiations. That's fine, but why are you so bent on stopping others with questions regarding the treaty from finding out more about it? Do you have a vested interest in keeping this secret?

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.