ACTA Negotiators Still Claiming Secrecy Is Needed; Turn Off WiFi At Briefing

from the it's-not-war dept

EU's ACTA negotiators apparently held a briefing about the latest draft, and apparently they ordered the WiFi in the room turned off, to stop real time reports from "leaking" to sites like le quadrature and Wikileaks. Apparently, EU negotiators are unfamiliar with mobile data and sites like Twitter, where reports of the meeting were posted in real time by folks like David Hammerstein.

So why would EU's head negotiator, Luc Devigne, want the WiFi turned off in a meeting about an agreement that can impact everyone and should be debated in public? Apparently, he claimed "without secrecy, no trade agreement can be successful." Huh? This must be from the secret negotiators handbook, because it makes no sense, and there's absolutely no support for such a statement. And, he's being willfully misleading in pretending that this is a trade agreement. It's not. And if you want to know how an agreement will be unsuccessful? It's by keeping out those stakeholders who such an agreement will most impact.

Separately Devigne insisted that Mexico will sign the document, despite the unanimous vote against the ACTA process.

Finally, he claimed that "ACTA text is finalized but not stabilized." What does that even mean? It means it's not finalized and negotiators are trying to sugarcoat the fact that there are still substantial differences between participating countries.

Filed Under: acta, eu, secrecy

USTR Behind ACTA Secrecy; This Is Not The Transparency We Were Promised

from the transparency dept

This is hardly a surprise given previous reports and previous actions of the USTR, but it does highlight the blatantly false claims from the USTR that it is being as transparent as possible when it comes to ACTA negotiations. The Obama administration has repeatedly told different groups in the administration to be as transparent as possible, but apparently the USTR simply doesn't care. It puts out content free statements claiming that it's "committed to improving transparency," but when it comes time to release the latest draft of the document, it's not released officially at all... and reports are now coming out to say that this is due to US demands to keep it secret. Transparency? Not around the USTR, apparently. They've been using transparency as a negotiating ploy, and when they don't get what they want, they refuse to let the document be released. Of course, in being so childish, all the US has really done is draw more scrutiny, and pretty much guarantee that a draft (including the markup that the one and only official release left out) get leaked.

Filed Under: acta, eu, secrecy, transparency, us

EU Legal Review Says ACTA Negotiators Broke The Law In Not Revealing Text To EU Parliament

from the so-sorry,-it's-secret dept

Remember back when the EU Parliament voted 663 to 13 against what was going on with ACTA negotiations? The EU negotiators, who worked for the EU Commission, not the EU Parliament, seemed to brush off Parliament's concerns. However, some in the Parliament asked their legal services to determine if the EU Commission was allowed to keep ACTA secret. While ACTA has now been released, the review still happened. Hephaestus points us to the news that the analysis found that negotiators were not allowed to keep the document secret (pdf) from Parliament, and that if it had continued to the Parliament could have taken legal action. The key points:

• Confidentiality cannot be used as a justification for not complying with the obligation to keep Parliament fully informed. Where a degree of confidentiality is justified to ensure the proper conduct of negotiations, the Council and Commission may request that agreed measure on the confidentiality of the documents be applied.
• The obligation to inform Parliament cannot be modified or limited by any agreement among the institutions or by an arrangement with third parties which does not involve Parliament. Where documents originate from a third party, the Union negotiator may be justified in agreeing not to disclose such information without the consent of the third party concerned. In such circumstances, Parliament should nonetheless be provided with sufficient information.
• In the case of a persistent refusal to provide it with sufficient information, Parliament could initiate proceedings for illegal failure to act.

While this might all seem moot now that the document has been released, it is worth noting that the EU's chief negotiator has said that the release was a one time deal, and they won't be releasing future drafts...

Filed Under: acta, eu, secrecy, transparency

Overwhelming Majority Of EU Parliament Votes Against ACTA

from the wow dept

Wasn't expecting such a lopsided result, but EU Parliament voted 663 to 13 against ACTA, saying that "it flouts agreed EU laws on counterfeiting and piracy online." Beyond that, apparently the Parliament is ready to go to court to stop EU negotiators from continuing down the path they're on:

MEPs will go to the Court of Justice if the EU does not reject ACTA rules, including cutting off users from the Internet "gradually" if caught stealing content.

Some Members of Parliament are also pointing out that the EU negotiators are violating the Lisbon Treaty, which says that EU Parliament Members should have "full and immediate access at all stages of international negotiations."

This is pretty big -- and a massive setback for ACTA supporters. The MEPs didn't just reject the lack of transparency, they were blatantly rejecting some of the proposals that were in the leaked documents.

Filed Under: acta, eu, secrecy, transparency

Danish Politicians Questioning Why Denmark Is So Against ACTA Transparency

from the where-are-the-politicians dept

One of the really amazing things in witnessing the reactions among various politicians to the ACTA negotiations is realizing how out of the loop they are as well. They're often just as angry that things are being done in the name of their country that they have no visibility into. Of course, this adds to the impression that this whole process is not about figuring out what's best for the people of each country, but an end run around the democratic lawmaking process, pushed mainly by big industries (led by the entertainment and pharmaceutical industries).

So, with last week's leak showing that Denmark was one of the countries that was most against transparency for ACTA negotiations, Danish free culture activists like Henrik Moltke have been speaking up, going on TV and questioning why Denmark is being the transparency roadblock. And it appears to be working.

Danish politicians are questioning why Denmark is so against ACTA transparency:

"It is news to me that Denmark is so close to the negotiations. And it's pretty shocking that Denmark should have taken the position that you actually want to give priority to secrecy," said Morten Messerschmidt, a member of the European Parliament

Messerschmidt has gone on to say that he's going to demand that Denmark support a more transparent ACTA process, and it appears that some other Danish politicians are agreeing as well.

Filed Under: acta, copyright, denmark, politics, secrecy, transparency

U.S., Korea, Singapore, Denmark, Germany, Belgium And Portugal: Against ACTA Transparency

from the and-why? dept

One of the biggest issues in discussing ACTA is the rampant secrecy behind the negotiations. We've heard calls from many different politicians to get rid of the secrecy and be more transparent, but we hadn't heard who was against the transparency (other than some industry lobbyists who, in theory, shouldn't have much say in this). The only statement came from the USTR, who claimed that countries would leave the negotiating table if the text were made public -- but wouldn't say who or why.

Well, now we know who. A leaked document highlights which countries are against transparency and the list includes Belgium, Portugal, Germany, Denmark, South Korea and Singapore. Many other countries -- headed by the UK -- have been in support of opening up the process and being more transarent. Among those in favor of transparency are the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Austria, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. And then there's the US, who simply claims it's being transparent, but apparently refuses to take a stand on transparency in the negotiations (why should it -- when those negotiations themselves are secret). Apparently the real stickler for secrecy is Denmark, which perhaps isn't that surprising. While there are many Danish people who are fighting the copyfight, Denmark's "anti-piracy" organization has been among the most aggressive in suing pretty much anyone, and demanding all sorts of sites be shut down or blocked. Unfortunately, it sounds like they're now the main blockers in keeping the ACTA process secret.

But, of course, for all that attempted secrecy, the documents keep leaking, and they're definitely problematic. It seems like it's time for the supporters of transparency to stand up to Denmark and the others and tell them that if they don't want the process to be transparent, then they should walk away from the agreement. And, in the meantime, it's time for the USTR to stop pretending it's being transparent and to actually support real transparency in these negotiations.

Update: And another report points out that "Italy and France fear retaliation" from the US if they vote for transparency...

Filed Under: acta, denmark, secrecy, transparency

USTR Insists Gov't Isn't Keeping ACTA Secret

from the up-is-down,-black-is-white,-you-said-what-now? dept

Stan McCoy, the assistant US trade rep, is apparently the new point man from the USTR office on jaw-dropping political doublespeak about ACTA. You may recall a few days back when McCoy insisted that there was a lot of misrepresentations about ACTA, but failed to clarify any of them. Instead, he started talking about the dangers associated with counterfeiting (something no one denies) and then simply wrapped copyright infringement into that -- even though copyright infringement and counterfeiting are entirely different. Now, McCoy has gone even further. Jamie Love points us to a letter he sent the Financial Times, where McCoy insists that there is great openness about ACTA. He kicks off with another bogus attempt to blur the lines between counterfeiting and copyright:

Intellectual property protection is critical to jobs and exports that depend on innovation and creativity. Trade in counterfeit and pirated products undermines those jobs and exports, exposes consumers to dangerous knock-offs from toothpaste to car parts, and helps fund organised crime.

See the switcharoo in the middle there? He starts of talking about intellectual property... but then in the middle lumps counterfeiting and infringing (which he falsely calls "piracy" even though he's not talking about what's happening off the Somalia coast) together, and then at the end he's really only talking about counterfeiting, but to the untrained observer, they still think he's talking about copyright infringement. That's political bullshitting. And I won't even get into the evidence that raises serious questions about whether his first sentence is true at all, but will mention there's a lot of data that suggests IP actually limits jobs and slows down innovation and creativity. But, at this point, I think McCoy has already established that the USTR is not a fact-based organization.

The ACTA negotiations are one of many international efforts to fight counterfeiting and piracy -- not to "transform" already strong US and European Union copyright laws. Far from keeping them secret, governments participating in these negotiations have sought public comments, released a summary of issues under discussion, and enhanced public engagement.

Okay. Pick your jaws up off the floor. That last sentence is so ridiculous and so false; it's amazing he thought that he could get away with it. Exactly which governments have "sought public comments" on ACTA? The answer? None. Why? Because no government has yet revealed what ACTA is officially. Hell, in the most recent ACTA negotiations, held in Mexico, the government wanted to force the public to sign NDAs just to attend a public meeting, and then had industry representatives mocking public concerns and demanding that a blogger leave the proceedings for live Tweeting the meetings. Yes, "sought public comments" indeed. Does he think that if he says day is night people just believe him? And the idea that the government is "far from keeping [ACTA] secret" is pure hogwash. A comparison of ACTA secrecy to similar negotiations suggest that ACTA is being kept exceptionally secret.

Furthermore, if the laws are already strong, then what's the point of ACTA?

Among other things, the summary states clearly that "ACTA is not intended to interfere with a signatory's ability to respect its citizens' fundamental rights and civil liberties".

Oh, well, if the summary states it, then why didn't you say so in the first place? Obviously there's nothing to worry about at all. Except... it doesn't appear that the actual documents follow what the summary says. Of course, we've only seen the "leaked" documents, but they certainly suggest plans to interfere with fundamental rights and civil liberties on a pretty widespread basis. Supporters of ACTA even talk about "dragging countries in the 21st century" by forcing on them DMCA-type laws and requiring secondary liability that flat out violates basic fundamental rights. The fact that the "summary" says so isn't convincing, Mr. McCoy. It just highlights that you're hiding what the document actually says.

So, come on, Mr. McCoy. Stop treating concerned citizens like we're idiots and maybe respond to the actual concerns of citizens around the world.

Filed Under: acta, copyright, counterfeiting, secrecy, stan mccoy

USTR: A Lot Of Misperception Over ACTA, But We Won't Clear It Up Or Anything

from the um...-why-not? dept

Via Michael Geist, we're pointed to a short interview with a representative from the US Trade Reps office, where the issue over ACTA concerns is raised, and the response is almost comically ridiculous. Stan McCoy, the assistant US Trade Representative for intellectual property and innovation, responds to complaints by saying that there has been a lot of misrepresentation about ACTA and that it really has a lot about counterfeiting and isn't just about copyright. And....? Well, that's it.

You see, this is the point where Stan McCoy or Ron Kirk or anyone in the USTR's office should explain what those misperceptions are, by telling us what's actually being negotiated. But, of course, they don't. The USTR keeps insisting that it's going to be more transparent, but hasn't actually done anything. If anything, over the last couple months, the USTR has become even more secretive about ACTA. Saying that people aren't accurately describing what's in the document, and then not saying what's actually in the document, doesn't help matters. It just makes us wonder who the USTR is representing, because it certainly does not appear to be the American people.

Furthermore, McCoy is being willfully disingenuous, in saying that the "misperception" is that "this agreement will focus mostly or exclusively on copyright infringement in the digital environment." No one has been suggesting that at all. Everyone knows that it covers real counterfeiting as well -- but the part people are concerned about is the intellectual property part, because it's being shoved into ACTA as if copyright infringement and counterfeiting are the same thing (or at least very similar) when they're not. So his next statement is meaningless:

"The threat of physical goods bearing counterfeit trademarks is a real one and it is a priority for ACTA. Americans do not want to brush their teeth with counterfeit toothpaste or drive a car with knockoff brakes."

That implies people are arguing otherwise, but no one is. Of course, we don't want dangerous counterfeits, but that's not the issue. The issue is using ACTA as a back door to changing IP laws in a way that does not reflect what's best for the country.

Filed Under: acta, secrecy, transparency, ustr

UK Gov't Tells MPs They Can't See ACTA Details

from the you-only-represent-the-people dept

While there have been more and more calls for transparency on ACTA negotiations, it seems that even government officials are being stymied. Some UK Parliament Members have asked for the details and are being told they cannot see the document because mysterious, nameless "others" require it to be kept secret. Of course, if you're an industry lobbyist, it's not hard to see the document. But, if your job is to represent the people? Get in line. You'll see it once it's been signed, sealed and delivered.

Filed Under: acta, public interest, secrecy, uk

Senator Wyden Demands ACTA Details Be Revealed

from the good-for-him dept

Late last year, we noted that Senator Bernie Sanders had questioned why ACTA negotiations were being kept secret well beyond normal -- even to the point of being classified as a state secret. The USTR gave the usual non-answer in response, and it appears that other Senators are beginning to worry about this as well. Senator Ron Wyden is now demanding that the USTR confirm or deny the various leaks about ACTA that have raised so many concerns.

Wyden also pointed out that "objectives behind the negotiations still remain inadequately clear to the American public." I actually don't know that this is true. The objectives seem abundantly clear from what's been leaked: to put up artificial barriers to help prop up an industry unwilling to adapt to changing times. The letter itself (pdf) includes 11 questions for the USTR including asking for assurances that ACTA would neither force changes on US IP laws nor would it constrain Congress from adjusting such laws in the future.

Update: Looks like politicians around the world are starting to wake up and question all this ACTA secrecy.

Filed Under: acta, copyright, secrecy, senator ron wyden, transparency