Petition With 90,000 Signatures Of People Worried About TPP Hand Delivered To USTR Negotiators
from the will-it-matter dept
USTR negotiators have basically acted as if they represent the interests of big businesses in their negotiations on various trade proposals. That's why we get things like ACTA, TPP and various "free trade agreements" (FTAs) that all seem to focus on carving out protections for specific special interests who just happen to sit on the USTR's "advisory committees." What they often forget is that they're supposed to be representing the public. But, at times, they're so disconnected from the public that what's best for the actual country rarely seems to enter into the thought process. Of course, with the uprising against ACTA, perhaps some people at the USTR are beginning to wake up to the fact that their roles aren't just about making special interests happy. The recent admission that limitations and exceptions are important in copyright is a sign that this kind of thinking may be filtering through.Last week, a group of public interests organizations also hand delivered an online petition that was signed by over 90,000 people raising concerns about TPP. I generally don't think much of online petitions like this, but in this situation, where's it's incredibly important for the USTR to recognize that the public and internet users are watching -- and are concerned -- something like this seems like it could be helpful in at least making the USTR negotiators recognize that the public matters.
Of course, for them to prove that they really understand that, they'd need to start being a hell of a lot more transparent, such as by releasing the US recommendations that are being negotiated. Until that happens, it's difficult to trust the USTR to really be looking out for the public's best interests.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
2 > 90,000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 > 90,000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2 > 90,000
And how many of those signed on for reasons other then extreme copyright, or, hell, the abolishment of privacy.
For those that did, well, i dont need their works in my life, after all, its only a "luxury item..../s"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 > 90,000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 > 90,000
1 dollar = 1 vote.
And for the metric version:
1 euro = 1 vote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2 > 90,000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 > 90,000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 > 90,000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 > 90,000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 > 90,000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
90,000 is a very low number for an online petition anyway, perhaps no sites like Techdirt got on the bandwagon to send them flock over to sign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First two comments complement each other nicely
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes - thats it!
These people are backed by pure evil. Only flying lead would have any real effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes - thats it!
Could we add some silver and fire to that, just to be safe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes - thats it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes - thats it!
"I say we take off and nuke em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
no, no, no, no, thats a bit extreme My good chap, its not like thEy would do somethinG equally extreme, you understAnd, we mUst treat them with the same gracious resPect they've so humbLy given us. tally hO AnD all that, what what
Arrr matey - a pirate I am sez I
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes - thats it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and that's after USTR saying it recognises copyright exceptions and limitations as well. too many lies from these, especially Kirk, over TPP to let the guard down!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's so amusing to me about this is that I'll wager that the major non-participant, China, has cleaved the veil of "transparency" around TPP and knows every word, sentence, dot, comment and observation and who said or proposed it all.
Not that I'm saying this as if China is doing something nasty here. If an agreement of this scope were being negotiated with the United States on the sideline I'd be sure they'd be doing exactly what China is doing now.
The other reason for saying this is that between the petition and China's "national interest" is to let the USTR know that they're being watched. Closely. Being so opaque about this while claiming transparency just raises suspicions and cynicism about what's going on behind the veil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Email?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Email?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
laugh at them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corruption !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(example: it's amazing how much of the economic issues of any country can be put down to a combination of using a national or super-national currency (rather than one per city-region) and insisting on treating the Nation as a (the) meaningful economic entity, (which it Isn't. economically, you've got the city-region (or a couple of types of equivalent entities which don't have a city in them) and then... the entire world. ) both of which result in false feedback on economic conditions and thus incorrect actions in response.)
there are, of course, exceptions. (the whole IP and transparancy issue(s) is pretty much pure corruption.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or, perhaps they used the petition to stop the table from wobbling, thus allowing them to say that the petition made a difference at the bargaining table!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"What they often forget is that they're supposed to be representing the public."—Masnick
I think that's a false assumption. The USTR is an appointed, Cabinet-level position, and the USTR office's mission is to promote trade, i.e. boost international business for American companies. The USTR simply isn't tasked with "representing the public" other than by taking steps to ensure that U.S. trade goals can be realized. That is, the American public has an interest in American companies doing well (as related to business conducted with other nations), but any other concerns the public might have aren't relevant. Not saying I agree with it.
International trade agreements often involve making concessions that are certain to incense a sizable number of people across party lines, be it the public or companies and industries which benefit from the status quo. That's why these agreements get on the "Fast Track" and are negotiated, approved and implemented with as little public involvement and awareness as possible. Again, not saying I agree with it.
Petitioning the USTR and its negotiators not to undermine the public interest can't hurt, and as a step toward raising public awareness it's rather a good thing. But arguing that the USTR is "supposed to be representing the public" is surely unpersuasive to those who actually work there, since the office's structure and mission, and the fact that it's in the Executive branch, have long meant it is by design wholly oblivious and unaccountable to the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you can get people to sign a petition to ban drinking water
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]