Daily Show Takes On NSA Surveillance: It's A Little Weird That Feds Didn't Have To Break Any Laws To Spy On Everyone

USTR Nominee Confuses Transparency With Listening

from the other-direction,-mr.-froman dept

Tue, Jun 11th 2013 4:29pm — Mike Masnick

We've already explained why were were worried that new USTR nominee Michael Froman would be as bad, if not worse, than his predecessor, Ron Kirk. And, in his Senate approve hearings he provided little to change that opinion:

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) raised the extraordinary secrecy shrouding the Obama administration's trade negotiations to date. Wyden has blasted USTR's incredible decision to keep the negotiating text of the sweeping TPP pact, affecting everything from food safety to Internet freedom, hidden from the U.S. public and even from members of Congress. Not even the Bush administration attempted that degree of secrecy. Wyden asked, "If confirmed, will you make sure that the public...gets a clear and updated description of what trade negotiators are seeking to obtain in the negotiations so that we can make this process more transparent in the future?" Wyden further asked that negotiating texts be placed online. Froman responded by saying he agrees with the principle of transparency. But instead of committing to a meaningful fulfillment of that principle by releasing the TPP text online (as done under Bush), he reiterated USTR's general desire to seek input from "stakeholders." It is of course difficult for stakeholders to provide meaningful input if they cannot see the thing in which they have a stake.

Of course, as we've explained many times, transparency has nothing to do with seeking input from stakeholders, but the opposite: providing information to the public. Listening is important to understand what's going on, but that's not transparency.

It's pretty simple: information flowing into the USTR is not transparency. Information flowing to select interests is not transparency. Releasing information to the public is transparency. How does the USTR continually get away with pretending otherwise?

Separately, as the article linked above notes, Froman refused to comment on whether he supported investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms that are showing up in trade agreements and which, as we've been highlighting, are so dangerous. He'd only say it's a matter worthy of discussion. But then refused to discuss it. Which says a lot. He also claimed he was going to continue to seek fast track authority, which they renamed Trade Promotion Authority -- which basically forces Congress to sign away its right to oversee what's in TPP. These are all very worrisome statements, because it means we're getting more of the same: a USTR that wants to make an end-run around the public and Congress, but which is driven by the interests of some of the largest companies.

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: michael froman, tafta, tpp, transparency, ustr

11 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 11 Jun 2013 @ 5:00pm

Mike describes Mike on copyright:
"He'd only say it's a matter worthy of discussion. But then refused to discuss it. Which says a lot." ... Assuming any new here, that's technically off-topic but an ongoing complaint that I'll only link to:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130121/14473121743/global-hackathons-prepared-to-carry-forwa rd-work-aaron-swartz.shtml#c377
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2013 @ 5:04pm

"How does the USTR continually get away with pretending otherwise?"
Secret interpretation of transparency.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rapnel (profile), 11 Jun 2013 @ 5:05pm

Damn horses. Sometimes they just need to be put down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rapnel (profile), 11 Jun 2013 @ 5:07pm

Re: Mike describes Mike on copyright:
babble babble what?

I think OOB has been hijacked by clown face.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jun 2013 @ 5:10pm

My input:
You're hiding the info from me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 11 Jun 2013 @ 10:45pm

Re: Mike describes Mike on copyright:
Stop stealing my name, asshole..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 12:38am

Fearing input from stakeholders
Like any vampire, they rely on secrecy, are afraid of sunlight, want to suck your blood and are really, really scared of genuine input from stakeholders.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 1:55am

The USTR goes around any democratically elected oversight...
The NSA goes around any democratically elected oversight...
The CIA goes around any democratically elected oversight...

Why bother electing any officials anymore? Just be blunt and call it an oligarchy...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jun 2013 @ 4:11am

while this and other similar bodies exist, there will be nothing done that allows the public to have any input. they get no say in anything, they get to see nothing! the part about 'driven by the interests of some of the largest companies' is oh so true! and goes straight to the post above about Orwell's books. 1984 is so near, although late. if we allow that to happen, for the world to be run by industries and corporations, we will end up in disaster, and we may never recover from that. profit is all they understand and they will go to any lengths to have as much as possible. if that means turning everyone into a mindless moron to get and keep control, that's what they will do! it has already started. look at what Hollywood and the entertainment industries have done to the people and the 'law'. look what they are still doing to the people and the 'law', just to stop people from keeping control of their own lives, their own things! and it's spreading fast!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 12 Jun 2013 @ 4:34am

Input from Inigo Montoya
Transparency.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tex Arcana (profile), 15 Jun 2013 @ 2:45pm

Re:
Wrong.

Secret representations, not of the PEOPLE of the United States; but of a select and secret group of industries, including the *IAA's, whose sole objective is to corporatize America, and make it impossible for the c̶i̶t̶i̶z̶e̶n̶s̶ slaves to know what's being done to them.

We are being screwed, any way you look at it; and those abomination is just the tip of the iceberg.
[ link to this | view in thread ]