UK Agrees That ACTA Secrecy Is Not In The Public Interest
from the as-if-it-were-ever-meant-to-be? dept
Michael Geist notes that the UK government appears to be unhappy with the lack of transparency in ACTA negotiations, stating:"More broadly with respect to ACTA the UK considers that transparency is crucial to ensure the legitimacy of the agreement and to stop the spread of rumours. We believe the lack of transparency is unhelpful and do not believe that it is in the public interest."Of course, the folks pushing for ACTA have no concern, at all, about "the public interest." Their only concern, all along, has been about further protecting their business models. The public interest might go against that, hence their opposition to such transparency.
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, public interest, secrecy, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please
Transparency is the opposite of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't realize most 'industry organizations' and 'government' had anything to do with that anymore.
Now if it sais "the corporate interest" - I could see that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm pretty sure this *is* from some sort of official source
http://arebentisch.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/and-the-draft-of-the-acta-reply-to-me-in-englis h/
Pretty sure that the "working party on information" and "council of the European union" are official sources.
True, it's in response to an "inquiry by a citizen", but the mere fact that the original quote does derive from an offial European Union council reply indicates that the quote itself is NOT from "a citizen", but from an official source.
But hey, Anti-Mike, don't feel bad. All it took to find that out was following two links. I can see how that would be difficult for you, given your other, fairly serious shortcomings (such as semi-randomly swapping the words "could" and "would" so as to completely obscure whatever argument you were trying to make, being excessively concerned about whether I kick my imaginary dog, random hamburger-related comments, etc.....
Glad I could help :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clarification to the above:
"So here is a Council draft document in English to the reply to my secondary request for document access related to an ACTA criminal provisions document. The draft is dated 17 Dec and (mostly) identical with the German language reply document I received around Christmas 2009 (also uploaded here). Interesting is a dissenting opinion of the UK delegation."
Notice: FROM THE U.K. DELEGATION
Dunno if that qualifies as "UK Government", but an official delegation is hardly merely a group of "citizens" in the way Anti-Thought tries to portray.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarification to the above:
I am not suggesting the reply is from a citizen or group of citizens, but rather a UK official REPLYING to a citizen, in a manner that is pretty much a brush. They agree that "secrecy is bad, m'kay" but they aren't doing anything about it.
I suspect if the citizen had said the deal is bad for cows, the reply would have been some sort of agreement about cows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Clarification to the above:
Sweet, time to start requesting private islands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Clarification to the above:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clarification to the above:
Darn, stop getting my hopes up Anti-Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet again, Anti-Mike worded something badly
Clarify please:
When exactly *doesn't* he "act like a douche?"
MIke's original post was that this qualifies as the UK admitting (in however "noncommital" of a fashion) that Acta-related secrecy is "not in the public interest". Did he say they would actually *do* anything about that? No. Different question entirely.
"Anti-Mike" wanted (as per usual) to make a big effort to find some kind of "gripe" with what Mike had posted. As per usual, he failed. What possible relevance was it whether the original question the statement responds to was "leading" or not?
Furthermore, what exactly would qualify as a "non-leading" question? Questions are, by their very nature, at least somewhat "leading", in that they EXPLICITLY REQUEST A SPECIFIC PIECE OF INFORMATION.
I guess by "leading question", Anti-mike could mean that the guy had asked whether Acta secrecy WAS "in the public interest" or not....but that wasn't the issue.
Personally, I'll cut Anti-Mike a break when it stops "acting like a douche" (in other words, when it decides to leave.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yet again, Anti-Mike worded something badly
But, in this instance he didn't say anything wrong, so please leave him be for now. In fact, I wholly agree with him: it's a reply to an inquiry by a concerned citizen, and what they said basically is, "Yeah, you're right. The secrecy is bad for you. Signed, F. Off"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yet again, Anti-Mike worded something badly
You got it right, I suspect that Mr F. Off writes a lot of non-committal government correspondence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yet again, Anti-Mike worded something badly
"Anti-Mike" wanted (as per usual) to make a big effort to find some kind of "gripe" with what Mike had posted. As per usual, he failed. What possible relevance was it whether the original question the statement responds to was "leading" or not?
Take out the personal attacks ("as per usual"), and I think it's a rational concern that he raises to your response.
I'm still having trouble finding the "fuck-off" tone in their response. The exact quote in question seems to indicate "We believe the lack of transparency is unhelpful and do not believe that it is in the public interest." Why can't that be taken literally? The UK delegation said that, in context to a question asking about said transparency (or lack thereof)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yet again, Anti-Mike worded something badly
Their reply is just one of those "we gently agree with you, now leave us alone" type of answers that tells you that absolutely nothing is going to come from it. They have no intention of action, no real sympathy, just a pat on the head and please go back to your room sort of answer.
As I said, if someone had said that the secrecy was bad for cows, their response would be some sort of bland sympathy for the impacted cattle, and "have a nice day". It's a non-answer, not some major policy statement.
If they have gone public with a major policy statement, had a press conference, summoned leaders, invited cameras, whatever, it would be something of action. This is just a buried comment that wouldn't have existed without the leading question asked by the citizen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yet again, Anti-Mike worded something badly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]