$17,000+ Bounty Offered For Leaks Of TPP Negotiating Texts
from the go-ahead-and-claim-the-money-ustr dept
We've talked about the ridiculous secrecy around the negotiating texts for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. It makes no sense to have these documents secret and out of the view of the public, but it's what's happening. Because of that, we're forced to deal with very occasional leaks to get a partial view of what's being negotiated in our name without any oversight. ACTA was a somewhat similar situation, but there were more regular leaks there -- and we've heard that the USTR, in particular, has taken great pains to make it much more difficult to leak TPP text without revealing who leaked it.However, it appears that some are (in some ways, quite literally) upping the ante in trying to pressure people into leaking the text. The folks over at ZeroPaid point us to some group that claims to have raised over $17,000 as a bounty for leaked TPP negotiating texts. They're asking for more pledges, though I have no idea whether or not the effort is legit. ZeroPaid points out that the site appears to be a project of Just Foreign Policy, which seems to at least be a legitimate organization, according to Guidestar. For what it's worth, the site also claims that you won't actually have to pay until the text is leaked, at which point they will ask you to fulfill your pledge.
The group's concerns seem reasonable as well:
The TPP negotiations have taken place under an unprecedented shroud of secrecy, denying all but a very few any input into the terms of the agreement. The chapters that have been leaked are quite disturbing, revealing plans that would threaten public health, the environment, internet freedom, and the general well-being of perhaps billions of people. Here's a little taste of what the agreement would include: foreign investor protections that would help corporations offshore jobs, powers that allow multinational corporations to challenge domestic regulations before international tribunals, a strengthening of patent and intellectual property rules which would, among other things, raise the price of life-saving medicines in third world countries, and the ability for Wall Street to roll back safeguards meant to restore financial stability worldwide.Will this be incentive enough for someone to leak the text? I'm not so sure. I'd think that someone's basic conscience about having access to such a document should be a better reason, but you never know...
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: bounty, secrecy, tpp, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm actually interested to know, if it is leaked, who cracked first. A representative in government, who we shouldn't have to pay to release public information (isn't it illegal for them to accept that money, anyway?) or one of the industry shills in it for the cash?
It's disappointing either way. This initiative shouldn't have to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, it has to come to this. People are offering to pay big money just to see bills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
RICO
Conspiracy to commit RICO
Conspiracy to violate the CFAA
If I were in their shoes, I would be getting the hell OUT of America right now to a country where there is no extradition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I AM ABOVE THE LAW!"
(what's left of hair falls on face)
(readjusts with hair gel)
(carries on as feds leave)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWUGHGGHHGHGH"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ahem. I'd say it's about time we started lobbying via crowdsource.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Rabid TD Pirate Dogs
Can I use it?
Almost as good as Lord high Pirate Apologists.
And yes, it appeared to me that way too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As in, THATS MOTHERFUCKING EAGLES, THEY WANT TO LEAK IT TO THE PUBLIC!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am merely suggesting that our politicians are so bought that buying them to act in the public interest is probably a more effective method of getting them to act in the public interest than actually trying to convince them that it is the morally right thing to do. These people don't give a darn about morals, the only morals they care about is their own personal benefit and if you show them what's in it for them they'll act in the public interest).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just send them the 17k and call it even.
Oh wait, are you suggesting that the story that ran yesterday was full of shit? NAhhhhh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why, then, would the EFF waste their time with the infographic - why wouldn't they just share the details? Surely the facts would speak better to the situation, even if, as I'm sure you will claim, the EFF's goal is to spread FUD?
Please explain how this makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thus, either they know it, and they should get the 17k, or they don't know it and they are full of shit on the issue.
Which one do you think it is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The EFF info graphic draws all sorts of conclusions and makes definite statements about the effects of the TPP, which would be impossible without knowing the content.
Then why don't the UTSR make it transparent and available to the public already to dispel all these full of shit statements?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think they are doing it this way to keep the noisy minority (like the people around here) from hijacking the discussions and turning it into a shitfest. Basically, they want to avoid getting into long, drawn out, emotional discussions about which i should be dotted first, and actually get on with getting things done.
Put out in public for discussion at every turn, it would be endless. It would reach a point where "why bother" would come to mind. Sometimes thing just have to be done without consulting the masses on every little item.
Sorry you were left out, but that is why you elect your politicians to do the work for you, so you won't have to micromanage them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Politicians are fucking up. They need to be fired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're admitting that they are intentionally leaving the public interest out of these negotiations because they want to ram-rod bad legislation that will harm the general public through? Good to know.
Yeah, if the system still worked, I suppose, but none of those buys are in on these things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, they are intentionally not allowing this to turn into an emotional cry baby process. If you can imagine, there are groups in each country who might not like to see this happen, or might want it the be MORE restrictive. If you give each of those groups (and each person for that matter) a "seat at the table" it turns into something like the comments here on Techdirt.
It's very easy for 1%'ers like Mike Masnick to hijack a process, and turn it into a shambles. Multiply that by the number of countries, and you can see where this can go.
In every treaty negotiation, there is some good and some bad for each country at the table. The question isn't individual gain or loss, but a question of a group advancement, or finding a way that the group as a whole can work together.
You don't need 300 million back seat drivers swatting the negotiators on the head every time they suggest something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike Masnick, 1% of what exactly?
No, they are intentionally not allowing this to turn into an emotional cry baby process
Right, so why do the special interest groups' reps get access then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, that would be democracy.
Every other bill in existence is something I can go and readily read up on at a moments notice. Even ACTA allowed me to read it before my representatives signed it. Why can't I do that here? Is it because they're trying to "git hurr dun" or it's because they have something to hide?
Careful when answering because your answer might reveal to everyone the true scope of how misled and stupid you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
Remember, the petitions opposing SOPA received many (millions of) signatures very quickly and the opposition resulted in many phone calls. The RIAA/MPAA tried to set up an astrotufring group to try and get signatures supporting the petition and it completely failed. Many people who did sign the petition were mislead into doing so and the RIAA/MPAA were even initially misleading about the number of people who signed the petition, suggesting a much higher amount (and even the Techdirt IP extremist shills didn't suggest the MPAA's response until after the MPAA released it, so their response was not at all obvious). They even tried to pay people to get signatures supporting the bill and that failed.
Where are all the protesters in support of these laws? There were many protesters opposing laws like ACTA all over the streets all throughout the world.
How much noise can such a small minority make? Are you seriously suggesting that the majority are the ones who want 95+ year copy protection lengths? Are you seriously suggesting that the majority want these negotiations to be made secret? You are truly deluded ... or bought. No, the reason that these negotiations are occurring in secrecy is because our bought politicians know very well that the public doesn't want these laws. It is a very very small minority of interests that are being invited to these negotiations and those opposing it far outnumber them.
"Basically, they want to avoid getting into long, drawn out, emotional discussions about which i should be dotted first, and actually get on with getting things done."
and what if the public doesn't want anything done? Why must something be done? and why should something be done just because a few industry interests want them done despite the fact that the public doesn't. Why must something be done at the discretion of a few industry interests?
Something does need to be done. Copy protection lengths need to be substantially reduced or IP laws need to be abolished. You want something done, lets do something. Abolish IP. That's something.
" Sometimes thing just have to be done without consulting the masses on every little item."
If the objective is to serve someone other than the masses, then I absolutely agree. Are you suggesting that industry interests are somehow more capable of determining what's in my best interest than me? That's ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
politicians to do the work for you, so you won't have to micromanage them.
Sorry people will respect your laws even less since you willingly kept them in the dark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I did not elect politicians to pass laws for me without my consult or input. That's not how democracy is supposed to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But that's okay, you can continue to be ignorant on the internet, it's not like anyone needs to know more than the small document or two in a likely thousand-page-long bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny how even 20 years later, Bevis still manages to find a way to pop back into your mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happens when a copy leaks?
Someone makes a claim on the 17K bounty.
Group pays bounty to claimant.
Government gets a court order for the name of the claimant.
Claimant is caught in the same situation as all the other whistleblowers.
Why would anyone want to try claiming the bounty?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What happens when a copy leaks?
It would be more likely that the people who paid the reward would go to jail for 45 years, 20 years for RICO, 15 for CFAA, and 5 years each on two conspiracy counts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
now.. how do i collect the bounty?
i have a tired cat to feed :p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, you know, if I was in some of these meetings and had the text but my conscience wasn't quite enough for me to choose to leak it, $17,000 could definitely tip the scale in favor of leaking it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who pays more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who pays more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who pays more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
need to know
Apparently things like the future are on a need-to-know basis, and we just don't need to know. The future isn't for us, it's for those that deserve it. You know, the "job creators".
Our economic elite are a bunch of sociopaths who mean us no good. I think it's long past the time for us to make them fear us instead of the other way around. I guess this is something that needs to happen a few times a century, and this is certainly one of those times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: need to know
And how about the growing Profit the Upper Class gets while the poor get poorer and the middle class disappear.
The day is going to come !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Back seat drivers"?
Are you kidding? Who the fuck are you that you believe laws of this magnitude should be done in Mitt Romney's "quiet rooms" well out of the public view? You've got to be kidding. Maybe I'm missing the joke, but that is very disturbing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Back seat drivers"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Back seat drivers"?
So why again, do lobbyists get to see the text instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Back seat drivers"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Foreign Policy: "we are indeed a legitimate organization"
2. Our effort is legit: we plan to do exactly what we've said we'll do; if WikiLeaks publishes the TPP negotiating text, we will write to everyone who made a pledge to donate to WikiLeaks and encourage them to fulfill their pledge, giving them the information on how to do so.
3. We certainly agree with everyone who says that the TPP should never be secret in the first place and no-one should have to issue a reward for it and whoever has it should certainly leak it by any means they have available. But, since it had not leaked so far, we thought it was a good idea to "up the ante," as you say.
4. Note that our reward is not for the leaker, but for the publisher. So, the dynamic of the leaking act is still loyalty to the public interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pasting it as a raw .txt file will get rid of the "watermark" making the actual leaker impossible to trace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: "There's a way leaks cld be done w/o finding out who did the leak"
Here are some further considerations:
- It may be that the document is a PDF, not a Word file.
- It may be the case that the PDF that someone has access to is not text-copyable.
- So, it might be the case that as a first step a person with access to the document might need to first get it on an unsecured computer, transfer it to a thumbdrive, take the thumbdrive to another private computer with OCR software, and do OCR on the copy of the PDF to get ASCII.
But then I think the rest of your suggestions might work; though I should stress that the world is full of people who know more about this than I do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]