So Much For Transparency: Latest ACTA Draft Won't Be Released

from the wait-'til-it's-done dept

Mon, Aug 23rd 2010 2:28am — Mike Masnick

Last week, the reports from the ACTA negotiations in Washington DC suggested that many of the negotiators favored releasing the latest text, knowing that even if it wasn't released, it would almost certainly get leaked anyway. However, the negotiations have ended and guess what? It appears that the text will not be officially released (expect the "unofficial" release shortly...). Once again, it looks as though it was the US negotiators -- who keep insisting they're all for transparency -- that have blocked the release, perhaps once again using transparency as a bargaining chip to try to get other things they want. They don't get what they want, the document doesn't get released.

The latest reports are that this meeting closed some of the substantial gaps, and negotiators are hopeful that they'll wrap up the details next month in Japan. The reports also claim that the next version of the text that will be released will be the final "take it or leave it" version of the agreement. That's downright ridiculous. With every released or leaked draft so far, many people have pointed out serious problems with it, and how it will contradict various local laws. It's simply preposterous to hide such an agreement (especially since there will be no Congressional review of it in the US -- since it's been called an "executive agreement" in order to get around Congressional oversight) when it could have serious implications for many people around the globe. For an administration that has promised us transparency from the beginning, the ACTA negotiations have been the exact opposite. What's really disappointing is that the negotiators don't seem to care. Perhaps that's because they know that by keeping their mouths shut and giving trade groups everything they want, there are lucrative jobs waiting for them whenever they want.

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, transparency

9 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2010 @ 4:36am

Fuck, it isn't looking good at all =/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 23 Aug 2010 @ 4:52am
  
  Re:
  Just hope the Bolshier parts of the EU (Sweden, Poland and the Parliament) will block it altogether.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 23 Aug 2010 @ 7:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    There are so many things that violate EU law in ACTA that its basically going to get shredded. It will also propel the pirate party forward in a major way. Which will lead to change in the patent and copyright arena. Action ... reaction. I love the way that works.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BoloMKXXVIII, 23 Aug 2010 @ 4:51am

vote!
This is a great reason to vote out all incumbents, regardless of party affiliation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2010 @ 5:02am

Sack Them, Let Them Go To Their New Jobs
If the US negotiators decline to serve the US public and instead are already working as loyal employees for their future employers, then why is the US taxpayer still paying them their salary? Sack them, appoint someone else who might at least try to serve the public. Public servants are supposed to serve the public, nobody else. If the negotiators decline to do that, then they should not get to keep their public service jobs. They are apparently eager to serve their future employers, and contemptuous of their present employer, the US taxpayer. So let them go.

For their replacement, how about people who are not members of the US privileged class, who might be able to understand what it is like being just an ordinary citizen? How about hiring people over the age of 50? Such people are a lot harder to bribe because when they leave the government, they retire, and they do not expect to have to find another job. They also know how the world is supposed to work and how it does work, so corporate sleaze will not impress them so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2010 @ 5:17am

So what exactly...
...are US citizens supposed to do? Protesting has such a high rate of success and voting these guys out will take too long. Overall, it doesn't seem like the issue even has enough attention in the public eye to even matter to most people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2010 @ 6:46am

Get the names of all the people who had a say in the drafting and signing of the agreement. Then when you sue because of the unfairness or the illegality of the agreement, you can personally sue each and every individual who signed it. Once the people who sign the agreement become liable for it's unfairness or illegality, they will think twice about stacking the deck. Right now our elected officials and other private business people mandate agreements and then they bear no responsibility for their actions. This is bad for business and politics because it puts power in the hands of the few rather than the many.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 23 Aug 2010 @ 4:27pm

The reports also claim that the next version of the text that will be released will be the final "take it or leave it" version of the agreement. That's downright ridiculous.

That's by design.

With every released or leaked draft so far, many people have pointed out serious problems with it, and how it will contradict various local laws. It's simply preposterous to hide such an agreement (especially since there will be no Congressional review of it in the US -- since it's been called an "executive agreement" in order to get around Congressional oversight) when it could have serious implications for many people around the globe.

They don't care what people think. They want things their way and that's all that matters.

For an administration that has promised us transparency from the beginning, the ACTA negotiations have been the exact opposite.

Yeah, that's called "lying", it's SOP for every politician, and doubly so for governments.

What's really disappointing is that the negotiators don't seem to care.

The words "seem to" don't belong in that sentence.

Perhaps that's because they know that by keeping their mouths shut and giving trade groups everything they want, there are lucrative jobs waiting for them whenever they want.

You think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2010 @ 4:40pm

I don't even understand their reasoning according to their own flawed thinking. It's going to be leaked anyway, so what is trying to prevent that going to accomplish besides giving opponents even more evidence against ACTA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]