ACTA Treaty: Opinions

mortimer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ah, okay.

Sure. I, too, would like them to explain why. I think it would be neat to learn more about this aspect of governance. But I don't see it as a problem that they haven't explained why, and I don't take this particular issue so seriously that I'm going to a lot of trouble to find out why.

I can speculate about several reasons why. I've sketched out some of them. rwguinn has suggested another. On the basis of this speculation, I'm content to let things continue as they are.

I'm not convinced that your desire for transparency is justified, or possibly even justifiable, based on the information we currently have available to us. If you discover any new information that might shed further light on the subject please feel free to share it with us.

Meanwhile, what are your speculations, and what conclusions--if any--have you reached?
 
theprestige said:
Ah, okay.

Sure. I, too, would like them to explain why. I think it would be neat to learn more about this aspect of governance. But I don't see it as a problem that they haven't explained why, and I don't take this particular issue so seriously that I'm going to a lot of trouble to find out why.

I can speculate about several reasons why. I've sketched out some of them. rwguinn has suggested another. On the basis of this speculation, I'm content to let things continue as they are.

I'm not convinced that your desire for transparency is justified, or possibly even justifiable, based on the information we currently have available to us. If you discover any new information that might shed further light on the subject please feel free to share it with us.

Meanwhile, what are your speculations, and what conclusions--if any--have you reached?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I will be unable to discover any new information, as the negotiations are being held in secret.
 
mortimer said:
Unfortunately, I will be unable to discover any new information, as the negotiations are being held in secret.
Click to expand...
Have you considered filing an FOIA for a list of possible categories of national security concerns that might be relevant to these negotiations?

Have you considered consulting with a subject-matter expert, either directly (say, in an interview with them) or by proxy (say, by reading books or articles they've published on the subject)?

I'm just throwing out some suggestions, here.

Also, why do you say "unfortunately"? Other than unsatisfied curiosity, what misfortune do you believe has befallen you, on account of these negotiations being held in secret?

ETA: I mean, what's your opinion on secret treaty negotiations? Always justified? Never justified? Only justified in certain circumstances?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Have you considered filing an FOIA for a list of possible categories of national security concerns that might be relevant to these negotiations?
Click to expand...
That's not how FOIA works. A FOIA was filed and rejected based on national security concerns. You can't file a FOIA to get the reasons behind a rejected FOIA.
theprestige said:
Have you considered consulting with a subject-matter expert, either directly (say, in an interview with them) or by proxy (say, by reading books or articles they've published on the subject)?
Click to expand...
I have already.
theprestige said:
Also, why do you say "unfortunately"? Other than unsatisfied curiosity, what misfortune do you believe has befallen you, on account of these negotiations being held in secret?
Click to expand...
I have already voiced my concerns.
 
mortimer said:
That's not how FOIA works. A FOIA was filed and rejected based on national security concerns. You can't file a FOIA to get the reasons behind a rejected FOIA.
Click to expand...
I meant that you could file a FOIA for a list of things that officially fall under the scope of national security.

I have already.
Click to expand...
Who were they, and what did they say?

I have already voiced my concerns.
Click to expand...
Oh, right: So that people who might object to the terms of the treaty will have more time to do so.

You do realize that while the negotiations are secret, the terms of the treaty itself will be made public, prior to being ratified in public by the legislative bodies of the participating nations, right?
 
theprestige said:
I meant that you could file a FOIA for a list of things that officially fall under the scope of national security.
Click to expand...
No, I can't. That's not how the FOIA works.

theprestige said:
Who were they, and what did they say?
Click to expand...
Here's one.

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

theprestige said:
Oh, right: So that people who might object to the terms of the treaty will have more time to do so.

You do realize that while the negotiations are secret, the terms of the treaty itself will be made public, prior to being ratified in public by the legislative bodies of the participating nations, right?
Click to expand...
Have you been reading the thread? Apparently not as this was already discussed at length.
 
mortimer said:
No, I can't. That's not how the FOIA works.


Here's one.

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


Have you been reading the thread? Apparently not as this was already discussed at length.
Click to expand...
I have been reading this thread. However, I seem to have missed the part where this either allayed your fears, or you explained why not. Could you point out which posts cover this?

Thanks.
 
ThePrestige,

You asked him for a source, he gave you a source. Let it go


INRM
 
INRM said:
ThePrestige,

You asked him for a source, he gave you a source. Let it go


INRM
Click to expand...
INRM,

You have been told that you're wasting bandwidth

JREF Forum » General Topics » Computers and the Internet
» ACTA Treaty -- Anyone Heard of It
six7s said:
INRM said:
There's this anti-counterfeiting treaty called the ACTA treaty. The thing is being drafted up largely in secret -- it's only due to leaks that knowledge of it got out, and it's already being put into effect in Tennessee.
Click to expand...
This ain't news INRM

Nor is it a conspiracy, a secret, or any such nefarious act on behalf of the NWO
Click to expand...

Let it go
 
theprestige said:
I have been reading this thread. However, I seem to have missed the part where this either allayed your fears, or you explained why not. Could you point out which posts cover this?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
I don't think you've been reading the thread. It was covered; go look.
 
six7s said:
Please, answer the 'why indeed?' question
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what kind of answer you are asking for here. If there are objectionable parts to the treaty, I'm concerned that there will not be enough time to mount an effective opposition before it is brought up for a vote after it's been made public. Is that an invalid concern?
 
mortimer said:
I'm not sure what kind of answer you are asking for here.
Click to expand...
A simple answer would be great, thanks

If there are objectionable parts to the treaty, I'm concerned that there will not be enough time to mount an effective opposition before it is brought up for a vote after it's been made public.
Click to expand...
Yep... I got that, thanks

My question is WHY are you concerned?

For example: Maybe you have reason to think that the relevant processes are being controlled by nefarious agencies that are acting in an undemocratic, unaccountable manner
 
i think mortimer is just a lttle bit sceptic about it. so what does he have to join the Alex Jones clan now?

after all, this is a sceptics forum i heard.
 
I think Mortimer is perfectly entitled to be skeptical about the ACTA Treaty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom