Compare The Process Between Engstrom's Internet Bill Of Rights And ACTA

from the which-is-more-reasonable? dept

Thu, Dec 10th 2009 5:26am — Mike Masnick

As a bunch of countries and lobbyists continue to debate ACTA in secret, it's interesting to compare that to an ongoing effort by Christian Engstrom, one of two Pirate Party representatives in the European Parliament, to create an Internet Bill of Rights by asking people what they want. Which one sounds more like government for the people, by the people?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: acta, bill of rights, christian engstrom, copyright, europe, openness, pirate party, secrecy, transparency

30 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dementia (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 5:33am

We all know the answer to your question Mike, my question is since when has our gov't been run by the people and for the people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2009 @ 5:33am

One of them sounds like elected officials doing what they have been elected to do, and the other sounds like a politician pandering to the vocal minority that will show up at public hearings and scream for this and that.

There is a reason people get elected, and it isn't to ask the public to do their job for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brian (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 5:41am
  
  Re:
  Hmmm I didn't realized the elected officials were supposed to keep documents that would change how we use the products we bought and be kicked off the internet because someone accused us with no proof of doing something and do that process in secret, letting only those who it would benefit(entertainment industries) in and keeping anyone who has other input on the matter out and screaming NATIONAL SECURITY RISK!!!! when someone asks why they can't see the document.
  
  But that's just me :D
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2009 @ 5:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    Sigh.
    
    Brian, there is no indication that anyone is getting kicked off the internetwebz. Please. There is also no indication that anything done would change how you use a product, unless you were using it illegally to start with.
    
    The government is negotiating with many other countries on this subject, and it is pretty normal to keep treaty discussions private until they are completed.
    
    You need to reline your tin foil hat.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Doe, 10 Dec 2009 @ 5:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sigh, you must be an industry shill? The push by the industry and several governments now is to kick people off the internet after being "accused" 3 times. No trial, no due process, not proof, just accused. See any potential for abuse there?
      
      Also, this treat is not one of national security so why the secrecy? It is also open to entertainment lobbyist but not the public so it isn't actually secret. Only secret from the people.
      
      Still don't see a problem with this?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Killer_Tofu (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 6:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (S)He is paid to not see a problem with this. If they aren't paid .. well then I have no idea how they can possibly stand by their ideology this blindly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 6:05am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You are here every single day trying to tare down the Techdirt articles. One would think that you would actually read the articles. Have you not seen the leaked documents? You know, the ones that Mike posted and then was told to not comment on it until it was done.
      
      If you are attempting to get people on your side you may want to actually pay attention to arguments and then put in your own logical response. Arguing with no idea what your talking about won't gain you any followers, you will lose them. Unless that's your intent.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 6:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A note on trolls: "Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 6:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I was offering him a way out (and possibly even a way to troll better), but if it isn't taken then it's open season on AC.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 7:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "A note on trolls: "Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them.""
        
        This is a truth that I struggle with, mostly because of the whole ability to comment as an AC, in that I keep trying to get people to find a middle ground and be reasonable, but half the time I'm doing so with this mindless idiot.
        
        Look, I try to be understanding of other viewpoints and all, but this is REALLY easy.
        
        "sounds like elected officials doing what they have been elected to do"
        
        God you're transparent. The chief American player in Acta is the Office of the US Trade Representative. You let me know the next time there are any elections for trade reps so I can vote for somebody less retarded than Ron Kirk, appointed by Obama, or Peter Algeier, appointed by Bush. You're clearly either shilling or else you have no understanding of how the US government, like, um, works and stuff....
        
        "There is a reason people get elected, and it isn't to ask the public to do their job for them."
        
        No, it's, to fairly represent the wishes of their constituents. This is why our federal government is simply too big. You tell me what the average citizen thought about those previous two appointees....NOTHING! They don't know and don't care, so theoretically their reps shouldn't either!
        
        "There is also no indication that anything done would change how you use a product, unless you were using it illegally to start with."
        
        More nonsense. From ACTA's wikipedia entry: "ACTA will make it harder for users of free operating systems to play non-free media because DRM protected media would not be legally playable with free software."
        
        "it is pretty normal to keep treaty discussions private until they are completed."
        
        Bull. To some degree, perhaps, but trade negotiation secrecy on this level is certainly NOT the norm: http://keionline.org/node/715
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rasmus, 10 Dec 2009 @ 9:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The point of arguing with a troll is not to convince the troll they are wrong but to convince the audience that the troll is wrong and have no real understanding of the subject.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2009 @ 12:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But with the techdirt shill/troll/shitroll you don't even have to argue with them to show the audience that the shill/troll/shitroll is wrong.
        
        The shill/troll/shitroll shows the audience that they're wrong all by themselves. With their initial argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Trevor, 10 Dec 2009 @ 6:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There is one like him on many (if not most) of the websites and blogs concerned with the topics discussed here on Techdirt. Take, for example, Torrentfreak: there is this guy called Reasoned Mind who has a discourse very similar to that of our own Anonymous Coward. There are also other minor trolls and shills, but that's natural for any blog, of course, but these guys like Reasoned Mind and our Anonymous Coward are quite different from them.
        
        All this makes me surmise that this is his day job, not just something that he does in his spare time. Also, I don't think it would be entirely paranoid to start guessing who is signing his paychecks:).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        aguywhoneedstenbucks (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 7:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Being a (mostly) reformed troll myself, I'd like to point out that it's done for fun. Come up with a semi-reasonable argument, or even a straw man outrageous argument and throw it at people. If enough posts are on the same basic topic you just keep throwing out the same basic lines.
        
        Let's face it, if he were a shill his arguments would be better. Half the time poor straw men are being sent to slaughter. The other half it's industry rhetoric that is sent out in press releases.
        
        The truth: he likes it. He likes the attention and probably sits naked in his house touching himself every single time someone replies to him. If you want him to keep posting, please continue to argue with him. If not, then don't reply to a single thing that he says.
        
        At least angrydude was fun. This guy isn't even entertaining.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - tracker1 (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 9:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If something done by a typical person, wouldn't be admonished by the vast majority of the population (99%+), then it probably shouldn't be illegal to begin with.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Brave Man, 10 Dec 2009 @ 6:25am

3 strikes
People are taking this discussion in the wrong direction. The discussions shouldn't be about whether or not proof will be required to banish one from the internet.

The discussion should rather focus on how stupid it is to banish one from the internet for any activity that's not actually directly life-threatening.

Today's internet is like a public library, except faster to search, it includes public domain and non-public domain material. It is always up-to-date with the newest technologies. As Spain and some other EU countries are realizing, it makes much more sense keeping it as a basic human right.

The world has no place for 3-strikes policies or whatever watered down versions of the 3-strikes policy that the lobbyists will try to push once they are once more defeated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Doe, 10 Dec 2009 @ 6:37am
  
  Re: 3 strikes
  You make a very good point. To take away the internet is to take away communication and knowledge, which hopefully would not be looked well upon in any other circumstance and so shouldn't be here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tor (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 6:43am
  
  Re: 3 strikes
  What you say is true, and the pirate party has indeed focused on this, but they are also pragmatists who don't let the best be the enemy of the good.
  
  I often compare internet disconnection with imprisonement - it's a way to limit the possibility of people to roam freely in the virtual landscape. It's limiting how you can meet friends, perform tasks necessary for daily life and create opinion and participate in a democratic discussion about important matters. The effect of limiting participation in the democratic society I think is extra serious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tyanna, 10 Dec 2009 @ 7:40am
  
  Re: 3 strikes
  I totally agree.
  
  I think the idea itself is stupid and hasn't been thought out at all.
  
  Can someone who has been kicked off the internet attend school? All levels of education provide the internet to their students and at some point you are required to use the internet to get course materials or do research.
  
  Can someone who has been kicked off the internet own a cell phone? Even the most basic cell phones these days can still connect to the internet. What about some printers (like HP) that connect to the internet, are they not allowed to own them?
  
  What about jobs? If their job requires them to use the internet on a daily biases, are they expected to quit, or will the employer be expected to not provide their work station with internet?
  
  What about owning a laptop or netbook? With built in wireless, these computers can access any open network. Will someone kicked off the internet not be allowed to purchase a netbook then?
  
  As you can see, kicking someone off the internet raises a lot of questions of how will you enforce it. How much money will be put into patrolling and enforcing this stupid idea? As we move into a world that is always connected, will there ever be enough money to enforce it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
R. Miles (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 6:57am

Hold on....
Which one sounds more like government for the people, by the people?
I don't recall anyone in our government formed ACTA and those participating are people not in government positions.

Is this accurate?

The bold statement would only apply if all members forming ACTA are government officials.

Clearly not the same thing, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 7:45am
  
  Re: Hold on....
  "The bold statement would only apply if all members forming ACTA are government officials."
  
  No, the entire problem is that it's gov't officials colluding with industry officials.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - R. Miles (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 9:20am
    
    Re: Re: Hold on....
    I don't see it this way regarding ACTA. Yes, I'm very well aware of the lobbying done with the past (successfully creating DMCA and copyright changes) and current, but this still doesn't include ACTA at this time.
    
    Instead, from what I've seen of it, ACTA (once finally drafted), will be pushed to the government to gracefully accept it at will.
    
    If we, the public, can't see it, I'm betting many politicians are getting word they can't either. In fact, TD recently wrote an article on two senators who have a very issue with this.
    
    So for me, to see the statement about government being made regarding this article is completely inaccurate nor appropriate.
    
    Let's see what happens when those same politicians do see it. Once they do, then we'll all see if they'll challenge it or accept it as representatives for the people.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skout (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 8:12am

I'm reminded of a fictional story I read a long time ago, where all the "dumb" criminals were rehabilitated or put to death, leaving only the really smart criminals behind to commit the crimes.

Even putting aside the issue of being innocent until proven guilty (which is a HUGE issue to any sane person), don't these guys realize that if you push people off the internet, they're just going to go underground, before they ever get a chance to prosecute?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake, 10 Dec 2009 @ 8:17am

A Philosophical Aside
The thought occurs to me that the phrase "government by the people, for the people" isn't particularly meaningful unless one specifies which people -and how many of them- it's being done by and for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matthew Cruse (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 9:15am
  
  Re: A Philosophical Aside
  Well it's supposed tyo be All of the people. All of those allowed to vote (in America all adults over the age of 18 allowed to care for themselves, with the exception of some who have been disenfrachised for crimes) are supposed to elect representatives that will represent the voters interests to the best of their abilty. And those able to vote are supposed to have consideration for the interests of those unable to vote (children, mentally disabled, prisoners). This is how a democratic republic is supposed to work. So it's supposed to be Elected by ALL of the People to Represent ALL of the People. However, the reality is not like this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 10:01am

Have to agree with the majority
Ya don;t need a bill of rights internet period. Honestly, it sounds like Orwellian 1984 Doublespeak. It's open to everybody already as common as the cable. We don't need another bureaucratic cost skyrocket protecting what is our basic rights are. Only thing you need to do is have a good search engine to weed out the child porn, crime ect. Oh wait we already have that.

Leave it the blank alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
known coward, 10 Dec 2009 @ 12:28pm

the interweb is not a public space
In this country the interweb is not a public space, it is a series of private companies hooking up their networks in a sort of hodge podge fashion with a bunch of naming and routing functions to figure out where all the packets want to go.

No freedom promoting government should have any rules and regulations on who or what can access the interweb no matter what they have done, or to whom they have done it too. Packets should only be accessible if there is a search warrant on that particular individuals communications. Now if a private company wishes to throw out users who violate some sort policy as long as the policy does not discriminate against any protected groups (i.e we can not throw you off the web if you are black), it should be OK. IF ATT wishes to have 3 strikes your out, fine it is company and their lines. Johnie downloader can give their money to an ISP that does not have such a policy. Too have the feds enforce it, or have a blackball list absurd, and what the second amendment was created for.

Now a country that does not value individual privacy ahead of the public good, like china a policy like this makes sense. Use it in a way we do not approve, you lose it.

now excuse me while i touch myself when this is replied too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chronoss, 10 Dec 2009 @ 1:52pm

and the real chornoss steps in and says
That guy even offends me
1st ill make a few comments

A) go read the leaked document
IT is bad for everyone

B) michael geist is a lawyer, if you notice he hasn't been really making comments for a long time , hes just presenting the "facts"

C) when the conservatives posted there warrant less search and seizure which is effectively a part of acta ( go look at other laws and lil tidbits and jigsaw it together what they are really doing )
i called such a law a piece a nazi bullshit
geist banned me form posting.

D) the pirate party in Canada HAD a decent leader who they kept at and he stepped aside for this guy who admits to being big time friends with the CBC a govt run news agency and he also admitted to being friend with many artists in bc and California, also i had to put up on the united hackers association website they were anti p2p and they ARE. go ask them about this, they know whom i am.
They backed down after i showed them the website.
Further proof is the silly lil tracker that had a few artists "in the industry" that was applauded by the CRIA?
Since when does the cria like trackers....unless

E) this attempt at control of the net via a bill of rights is at best going to fail and at worst it will result in some parent of some religion i profess not of having there way with what i can and can't do.
FAIL
to use a euro term..EPIC FAIL

F) ACTA = NON democratic fascist piece a garbage PERIOD
more leaks to come
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BigKeithO, 10 Dec 2009 @ 2:43pm
  
  Re: and the real chornoss steps in and says
  Huh?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The eejit (profile), 11 Dec 2009 @ 12:35am

Write to your rep. NOW. Askt hem to show you what the ACTA is in full. Ge thtem to request seeing it and releasing thew info.

Do it NOW before they finalise talks in March next year.

I point you to the BoingBoing URL...http://boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html

(Now, if only I could write url tags.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]