Here's Why The EU Is Crazy Not To Insist On Full Transparency During TAFTA/TTIP

from the information-asymmetry dept

One of the most recent Snowden stories has garnered relatively little attention, perhaps because it appeared (in English) on the Danish site Information.dk:

At the Copenhagen Climate Summit in 2009, the world's nations were supposed to reach an agreement that would protect future generations against catastrophic climate change. But not everyone was playing by the rules. A leaked document now reveals that the US employed the NSA, its signals intelligence agency, to intercept information about other countries' views on the climate negotiations before and during the summit. According to observers, the spying may have contributed to the Americans getting their way in the negotiations

As the report on Information.dk explains, the US was able to use inside knowledge of the negotiating positions of other countries to strengthen its bargaining position. Indeed, it didn't bother bargaining at all, since it learned that there was a "final" proposal being held in reserve to reach an agreement that would give it pretty much what it wanted. It knew that it only had to wait.

It's a great story, and well-worth reading, but here I want to concentrate on its implications for another major agreement, currently being negotiated: TAFTA/TTIP. On the one side is the US, on the other, the 28 nations that go to make up the European Union. Because they have differing views on the TAFTA/TTIP negotiations, it's necessary to pass around many documents conveying information about the current negotiations, and seek to obtain some kind of consensus on future EU proposals and flexibilities.

In the wake of Snowden's revelations, security will doubtless be much better than during the Copenhagen Summit, when supposedly secret messages were sent using unencrypted emails. But it only needs one weak link in the European Union's security chain -- somebody who forgets to encrypt his or her message, or who leaves it on a system that has been compromised -- and the NSA will be able to access that information, and pass it on to the US negotiators, just as it did in Copenhagen.

The key point is that there is a profound information asymmetry in the TAFTA/TTIP talks. Although the spy agencies of the EU countries will doubtless be trying their best to obtain confidential information about US negotiating tactics, it will be much harder than it is for the US to do the same about EU positions. That's because the NSA is far larger, and far more expert than the EU agencies. GCHQ is probably the nearest in terms of capabilities, but is so closely allied with the NSA in other areas that it probably won't be trying too hard so as not to annoy its paymaster.

This more or less guarantees that the US will know everything about the EU's negotiating plans during TAFTA/TTIP, while the EU will remain in the dark about the US intentions. That not only undercuts the European Commission's argument that releasing documents is not possible because they must remain secret during the negotiations -- they won't be -- it also gives the EU a huge incentive to insist on full transparency for the talks. That way, the EU negotiators would be able to see at least some US documents that currently are hidden from them, whereas the US would gain little that it didn't already know through more dubious means.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: eu, nsa, secrecy, surveillance, tafta, trade negotiations, transparency, ttip

USTR Claims It's Transparent On TPP Because Congress Is 'The People's Representatives'

from the do-they-even-believe-the-crap-they're-spewing? dept

The NY Times has, somewhat bizarrely, almost totally ignored the mess that is the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, and all of the secrecy behind it. There was a bizarre editorial in December that seemed to present support for the agreement, while admitting that they hadn't actually seen the agreement. There was a terrible piece by Paul Krugman in which he incorrectly assumed that the TPP was just like any other trade deal. Last week there was an OpEd by David Bonior that highlighted the failures of NAFTA and pointed out that the TPP would likely make income inequality worse in the US, despite the President's claimed desire to reduce that problem.

However, there's now finally a piece that takes a look at the key issue most of us have had about the agreement from the beginning: the insane lack of transparency -- and the fact that it's been set up entirely to be about benefiting legacy industries, rather than actually benefiting the public. The piece, by Thomas Edsall, highlights what a disaster the USTR and President Obama have done in negotiating the agreement in such a secretive manner. He notes that while it's expected that certain groups (such as unions) will almost always fight free trade agreements, the TPP's secrecy has resulted in supporters of free trade coming out against it as well.

Indeed, if this agreement were actually about free trade -- i.e., decreasing tarriffs and lowering barriers to trade across nations -- many folks (likely including myself) would be a lot more interested in supporting it. And while there are some elements of that in the agreement, that's not the problematic stuff. Having an entire chapter on IP? That's not about lowering barriers to trade, but increasing them. The "corporate sovereignty" section that allows companies to sue governments for not having regulations they like? That's just an out and out corporate handout designed to harm the public.

But the real issue here is the incredible level of secrecy that the USTR has engaged in throughout this process -- and the constant lies it tells anytime anyone calls them on it. In the past, we've pointed to Senator Elizabeth Warren's point that if, as former USTR Ron Kirk claimed, they can't make the text public because the public wouldn't allow the agreement to move forward, well, then that seems like a reason not to move forward.

Edsall has that quote from Warren, and then gets the USTR to respond -- though the "spokesperson" for the USTR was apparently too chickenshit to actually sign their name to the statements. There's a reason for that. Whoever said the following knows that it's pure crap:

“Members of Congress, as the people’s representatives, and staff for our Congressional committees of jurisdiction see and advise the Executive Branch not only on U.S. proposals, but also negotiating text for the TPP. Negotiators are available to walk Members and committee staff through that text and have done so on request. Moreover, USTR regularly briefs additional Congressional staff on the negotiations and U.S. approaches, taking input there as well. All told, we’ve held more than 1,100 briefings on Capitol Hill on TPP alone.”

This is just smoke and mirrors. The idea that Congress is actually "the people's representatives" is a joke that no one believes. Sure, they're supposed to be that, but find me anyone who actually believes that's accurate? Are there a few members of Congress who do really represent the public? Absolutely, but it's few and far between. In an era where politicians spend between 40% and 50% of their time "dialing for dollars" from wealthy donors and companies, the idea that Congress is actually looking out for the best interests of the public is clearly hogwash.

Of course, even if we accept that crazy statement as true, the rest of the quote is still crap. The USTR loves to tout all those "briefings" it holds with Congress, but most of those are one-directional, in which the USTR hears what someone is saying, but provides no real transparency on what they're doing. The claim that they allow members and staff to see the agreement? Well, note the careful choice of words. They say "staff for our Congressional committees of jurisdiction." And yet, as we pointed out not too long ago, when Senator Ron Wyden tried to get his senior staffer who's an expert on international trade access to the document, he was denied. And Wyden chairs the Senate's subcommittee on international trade (and is likely to take over the Senate Finance Committee, which is in charge of the whole "fast track" thing). You'd think his staffer wouldn't have any trouble getting access. But he did.

Given all this, Edsall quotes the still nameless USTR official who argued -- apparently with a straight face -- that there was transparency because of the USTR's "advisory committees."

Froman’s spokesperson, who declined to be identified by name, argued that outside groups are able to present their views on trade negotiations through a system of so-called “advisory committees.”

I like that sleight of hand. "Outside groups." Except, as we've detailed multiple times, these "advisory committees" -- such as ITAC-15, which handles intellectual property, is almost entirely made up of giant legacy players looking to protect their position, with no room for input on the impact on the public, or even innovative upstarts who provide a better product for the public. Instead, it's all about the giant old guard who play the political game to protect their position against upstarts.

Edsall notes that this is a bogus response from the USTR which apparently chose not to respond at all any further.

The good news in all of this, though, is that it highlights that this is a much bigger issue than just the usual opponents of free trade. It's become such a problem that a lot of traditional supporters of free trade have recognize that the secrecy and lack of transparency over the TPP has resulted in a horrible document that is damaging for the American public and the basic concepts of democracy.

Filed Under: congress, free trade, secrecy, tpp, transparency, ustr

Canadian Government Refuses To Release Any Text Of CETA, While Claiming It's Mostly Finished

from the something-to-hide? dept

Back in November, we reported that the EU and Canada were claiming that "a political agreement" on the key elements of the Canada-EU trade agreement, CETA, had been reached. One of the supposed reasons why the negotiations were being conducted in secret was that it was "obviously" not possible to release texts while talks were still going on -- even though that is precisely how WIPO operates. So, now that key parts of the CETA have been agreed upon, presumably the public will finally get to see at least those sections of the text, right? Apparently not, as the Council of Canadians found when it put in a freedom of information request to the Canadian government:

The federal government has denied an access to information request from the Council of Canadians for the working text of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). The grassroots public advocacy organization is accusing the Conservative government of unnecessarily depriving Canadians of the information they need to pass judgement on CETA, and of any opportunity to alter the deal before it is signed.

"It's a new year, but we're seeing the same old secrecy from the Harper government. How is anyone expected to say yes or no to this EU deal if Ottawa is not prepared to release it publicly before CETA is signed, sealed and delivered?" asks Stuart Trew, trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians. "The Prime Minister is misleading Canadians by claiming the CETA negotiations are the most transparent in Canadian history. A fully redacted copy of the text would be more transparent than this."

This exposes nicely the dishonesty of governments around the world when they claim that regrettably they "have" to keep texts secret, but will release them just as soon as they can. Here, we have major parts of CETA that have been agreed upon and where there is no need to keep them secret -- apart, that is, from the real reason why there is no transparency: because the governments concerned know that once the public find out how they have been let down by their representatives, there will be widespread outrage. In a blatant attempt to stifle democratic debate, it has become standard practice with these trade agreements only to release the texts after they have been passed, and there's nothing that can be done about it.

As the Council of Canadians' trade campaigner points out:

"It is not OK to negotiate sweeping corporate rights deals like CETA behind closed doors and then to deny the public or parliament the opportunity to change anything about them before the deals are signed and passed into law," says Trew. "If the government is so proud of this deal they should gladly present it to Canadians for their approval before signing. Otherwise, the Conservatives could find CETA backfiring for them at election time."

That's certainly how it should work, but among the general public, awareness about the important knock-on consequences of agreements like CETA, TPP and TAFTA/TTIP remains low. And that's how the governments involved aim to keep it, not least by avoiding at all stages any kind of real transparency.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: canada, ceta, europe, stephen harper, tafta, tpp, trade agreements, transparency, ttip

Feds Reach Settlement With Internet Companies Allowing Them To Report Not Nearly Enough Details On Surveillance Efforts

from the too-bad dept

It appears that the lawsuit that a bunch of big internet companies had filed against the NSA in an attempt to reveal just how often they get FISA court information requests and how many of their users are impacted is now over, as the government has reached a settlement with the companies, allowing them slightly more leeway in sharing information, but in a very limiting way.

Not too long ago, the government had started allowing companies to reveal, for the first time, how many national security letter (NSL) requests they get, but said they had to reveal that number in ranges of 1,000 starting with 0 to 999. However, they did not allow any such reporting on FISA Court (FISC) orders, which covered things like the now infamous PRISM program under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. It appears that the settlement more or less follows the outline of what the government allowed with NSLs. Companies are given two options. One is to basically report FISC requests like NSL requests, in bands of 1,000, and to similarly report "number of customer accounts affected" for NSLs, "FISA orders for content," "number of customer selectors targeted under FISA content orders," "FISA orders for non-content," and "number of customer selectors targeted under FISA non-content orders." All of those can be revealed separately, but always in bands of 1,000, starting with 0 to 999.

Alternatively, if companies are willing to lump these various programs together, they are allowed somewhat more granularity. So, if they lump together NSLs and FISA orders into a single number, they can reveal the details in bands of 250, starting with 0 to 249. Similarly, they can list the lumped together "customer selectors targeted" under combined NSLs and FISA orders in bands of 250.

This is a step forward, but it's not nearly far enough. As Kevin Bankston notes:

"Asking the public and policymakers to try to judge the appropriateness of the government’s surveillance practices based on a single, combined, rounded number is like asking a doctor to diagnose a patient’s shadow: only the grossest and most obvious problem, if even that, will be ever be evident."

Among the problems here, are that while they can reveal the number of customer accounts impacted for NSLs, that's not what they can do with FISC orders. Instead, they can only reveal "customer selectors targeted." That can be very different. You can imagine a "customer selector" that impacts many, many user accounts. And that's what many people are worried about -- and with this agreement, we won't actually know.

Furthermore, the agreement has a ridiculous clause that says if a FISA court order covers a "new capability" (i.e., getting access to a service that previously was not being tapped by the NSA/FBI), the companies cannot share that information for two years. The thinking here is rather obvious. Say, for example, a company launches a new voice communications service, like Skype -- and then gets hit with a FISA court order demanding that the NSA be able to listen in. The companies would be blocked from revealing that for two years. Clearly, the idea is to keep people from knowing how quickly the NSA is able to tap into any new form of communication, but that also opens up plenty of opportunities for the NSA to abuse its powers.

There is still some indication that Congress may require greater transparency here. I can understand why the tech companies agreed to settle, but it's a bit disappointing that they threw in the towel so quickly.

Apple has already updated its transparency report to note 0 - 249 "national security orders" and 0 - 249 "total accounts affected." Since they're doing ranges of 250, they're clearly lumping together both national security letters and FISC orders as "national security orders" though that's a bit confusing. Also, I don't think Apple is actually allowed to say "total accounts affected" from the terms of the agreement. When it comes to FISC orders, they can only list "customer selectors targeted," and saying "accounts affected" would suggest more information than the agreement appears to allow. Still, the obvious suggestion is that the government isn't requesting that much information directly from Apple, though other reports suggest it gets plenty of information, not directly via Apple, but by hacking their way into iOS devices....

Filed Under: doj, fisa orders, fisc, internet companies, national security letters, nsls, transparency, transparency report
Companies: apple, facebook, google, linkedin, microsoft, yahoo

Verizon Finally Releases Transparency Report Showing Many Requests, But Scale Of Those Requests Is Missing

from the details-please dept

After quite a lot of pressure, both Verizon and AT&T agreed last month to issue transparency reports like those that Google has offered for years, and which most of the other large internet companies have started offering in the last year or two. Verizon released its first one today, showing that it's pretty busy handling government requests. These are the numbers from 2013:

• Suboenas: 164,184
• General court orders: 62,857
• Pen Registers/Trap & Trace: 6,312
• Wiretap orders: 1,496
• Warrants: 36,696
• "Emergency requests" from law enforcement: ~50,000
• National Security Letters (NSLs): between 1,000 and 1,999

The report provides some further explanation. For example, it notes that over half of the subpoenas requested customer info -- i.e., the name and address of someone based on a phone number or IP address. Verizon does not say how often it refuses to provide information in response to a subpoena. In terms of getting access to content, Verizon notes that 14,500 of the warrants were for "stored content" which would be things like emails or text messages stored on Verizon's servers.

Of course, what this leaves out may be more interesting than what's included. While it lists the numbers for these requests, it gives no indication how many of its users are targeted. A single subpoena could, for example, request information on everyone. While that may be an extreme example, the point is that the number of requests doesn't really tell you very much overall. Or, perhaps not an extreme example. This report doesn't show, for example, what Verizon hands over under orders from the FISC under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. We already know that Section 215 has resulted in FISA orders for metadata on every Verizon mobile phone customers. That's probably counted as one single "court order" in that big list above. Similarly, as has been revealed in the past, the NSA works with telcos to directly tap the internet backbone for information. Where is that included in the list above?

Point being, this isn't all that "transparent," because bare numbers don't really mean that much.

Filed Under: government requests, transparency, transparency report, warrants
Companies: verizon

Wikileaks Releases TPP Environmental Chapter; Once Again Shows Why Negotiators Wanted Details Hidden

from the fuck-the-environment dept

Wikileaks, who had already leaked out the Intellectual Property chapter of the TPP has now leaked the Environment Chapter as well. And, as had been expected by many civil society groups, it is now clear that the USTR, in particular, has "retreated from previous demands of strong international environmental protections." The USTR likes to talk big about how things like the TPP would actually increase environmental protections, but it looks like (as many expected) this was just a negotiating position, to be traded away to get other benefits for big corporate donors (such as corporate sovereignty and intellectual property issues). As Wikileaks notes:

When compared against other TPP chapters, the Environment Chapter is noteworthy for its absence of mandated clauses or meaningful enforcement measures. The dispute settlement mechanisms it creates are cooperative instead of binding; there are no required penalties and no proposed criminal sanctions. With the exception of fisheries, trade in 'environmental' goods and the disputed inclusion of other multilateral agreements, the Chapter appears to function as a public relations exercise.

It is clear that the US was pushing for some environmental controls, nearly all of which were opposed by various emerging nations in Asia, who fear that things like pollution controls will make it more difficult for them to develop their economies. Rather than figure out a way to still protect the environment, it appears that the USTR treated these as issues that can be bargained away in favor of other more important aspects of the deal, like exporting extreme copyright polices.

Once again, we see exactly why the USTR has flat out admitted that if the American public was fully aware of what was in the TPP all along that it would never get approved. And, once again, we're reminded that if the USTR can't get a transparent deal approved, then it shouldn't be supporting that deal in the first place.

Filed Under: environmental chapter, environmental protections, secrecy, tpp, transparency, ustr

Administration Finally Responds To A Petition... About Something A Child Said On The Jimmy Kimmel Show

from the wow-such-power-to-the-people dept

As we just noted, the administration has put a wide variety of We the People petitions on the back burner with the average wait for a response currently sitting at 298 days. This includes one of the petitions to first hit the signature threshold back in 2011. While we're still waiting for the government to address the labeling of GMO foods, the dismissal of charges against Ed Snowden and allowing Tesla to sell vehicles in all 50 states, the administration has stepped up to declare it won't be removing Jimmy Kimmel from the airwaves.

Confused? Here's the petition in all of its clumsily-worded glory.

Investigate Jimmy Kimmel Kid's Table Government Shutdown Show on ABC Network

I was very disturbed by Jimmy Kimmel’s ‘Kids Table’ show. It was aired on ABC recently and talked about killing all the Chinese so that the states do not need to pay back their debts to China. The kids might not know anything better. However, Jimmy Kimmel and ABC’s management are adults. They had a choice not to air this racist program, which promotes racial hatred. The program is totally unacceptable and it must be cut. A sincere apology must be issued. It is extremely distasteful and this is the same rhetoric used in Nazi Germany against Jewish people. Please immediately cut the show and issue a formal apology.

A single quote from a single child was construed by this petitioner as being indicative of Jimmy Kimmel and ABC's inherent racist attitudes and the petition itself achieved full Godwin in less than seven sentences. It also instructed to government to trample the First Amendment by removing Kimmel's show from the air and apologize on its behalf. Lost in the shuffle is the title's request for an investigation, but apparently just killing the show without checking anything out would also be acceptable.

The administration has responded, pointing out that both parties have already apologized and that instructing ABC to remove the show would be a gross misuse of government power. It then invites the 100,000+ troubled petitioners to contact the FCC, presumably because their use of the We the People site shows they don't mind being ignored by government agencies.

This particular petition isn't even that old. It was created on October 19 and its deadline for a response would have been a month later. Less than 90 days from creation to response. That's some sort of land speed record for the Administration of the People, whose approach to open government is long on talk and short on action. And of the limited actions, it's most famous creation is the We the People site, which serves to remind users just how ineffective it is to petition the government directly. If nothing else, lobbyists can point to the ~300-day wait time (and the often-ineffectual, long-delayed responses) as an indication of the worth of their services. Not exactly the sort of message the administration should be sending.

Filed Under: jimmy kimmel, petitions, responsive, transparency, we the people

Copyright Week: Why Hollywood And The USTR Hate Transparency

from the the-public-needs-to-have-a-say dept

Two years ago, then US Trade Representative Ron Kirk told Reuters, effectively, that he would not release the negotiating texts of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, because if the public knew what was in TPP, it would not allow the agreement to be approved. His reference was to a previous attempt at a trade agreement, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, which failed after negotiators released some draft texts. Kirk and the entire USTR seem to have taken exactly the wrong lesson from this. Rather than recognizing that the way to pass comprehensive trade agreements is to actually be more open and involve the public from the very beginning, so that there's more widespread agreement and support for what the USTR is doing, they've gone in the other direction. Believing that keeping the negotiating position of the US a total and complete secret is the way forward. As Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote to the current USTR, Michael Froman, last summer:

I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Administration's policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States. I believe in transparency and democracy and I think the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) should too.

The EFF and a bunch of other organizations have designated this week as Copyright Week -- a chance for the public to weigh in and discuss copyright law and where it needs to go. They've put together a series of principles, that are worth reading. Each day will discuss different topics related to copyright law, specifically focusing on the aspects that are important to the public -- and which seem to be ignored (or pushed to the side) by copyright maximalists.

Today's principle is "transparency" -- something that has been sorely lacking in copyright law for quite some time. As you know, the history of copyright law is that it's supposed to be about using limited monopolies to encourage the dissemination of knowledge for the purpose of scientific advancement and learning. Yet, from the very beginning, it's been used for other purposes: initially for censorship and control, usually by gatekeepers, who are attempting to limit and control content production and dissemination for the sake of keeping the costs artificially high, allowing them to take the majority of the profits, often leaving the actual creators with little -- and the public with extreme limits on how they can communicate.

In recent decades, this has gotten much more extreme, as those gatekeepers have hijacked the legislative process multiple times with a very clever, but ultimately bogus "story," in which they pretend that they are representing content creators, even as they work hard to screw over those artists. Maximalist lobbyists have taken an incredible approach to ratcheting up copyright laws around the globe, hitting on dozens of different ways to continually push through changes without public input or opinion.

One recent example: in 1995, President Clinton's "commissioner of patents and trademarks," Bruce Lehman, released a white paper that pushed for the draconian copyright provisions of the DMCA, including takedowns and anti-circumvention provisions. In the light of day -- where at least some people were watching what Congress was doing -- no such laws could be passed. However, Lehman was so tied to Hollywood's interests, that he's actually happy to admit that when Congress wouldn't pass such a law he did "an end-run around Congress" by running to WIPO (where the public was not watching), and getting a "treaty" passed, which basically required the DMCA.

Treaty in hand, maximalists ran back to Congress, screaming about how we had to pass the DMCA or violate our "international obligations." And, it worked. While large ISPs were (thankfully) able to make enough noise to include the one good part of the DMCA -- the safe harbor provisions for service providers -- the rest of the terrible DMCA came into law entirely because of this sneaky process used by Lehman and other maximalists to hide away from where the public was looking, and push through some agreement. This has been the ongoing plan for quite some time. Maximalists will push through bad legislation wherever possible, and then use international treaties and trade agreements to try to take the worst laws they were able to get in one place, and "harmonize" them, to make them required everywhere.

And it's been quite effective. Using international agreements, negotiated in secret, to then tie the hands of legislatures has been used countless times to expand copyright law around the globe over the last couple decades.

But in the last couple years, something changed. It started with SOPA. A deal that was entirely negotiated in the backrooms by copyright maximalists and their friends in Congress failed completely when the public realized what was going on. Soon after that, ACTA, yet another "international agreement" that pushed for "harmonizing" maximalist rules, and which was negotiated entirely in secret, flopped in Europe after the public was exposed to it. And yet, the maximalist lobbyists and their friends at the USTR (who, surprise surprise, are often the same people), continue to believe that they can use this strategy going forward. Negotiate in secret, refuse to be open to the public, and then tie Congress' hands.

That's what's happening now with the TPP and the TTIP/TAFTA agreements. The USTR has absolutely refused anything resembling transparency -- while insultingly insisting that they're being incredibly transparent, because they'll "consult" with anyone. But, as we've explained countless times, listening is not transparency. Transparency is about providing information back, sharing what's being negotiated in our name, and then not supporting Congress limiting itself from actually discussing what's in the document.

The USTR and Hollywood have a playbook from the last couple of decades to continually ratchet up copyright law, and limit any attempt to roll back its excesses. And it starts with a complete lack of transparency. It has to. Because, as we saw with SOPA and ACTA, when you actually let the public see what's being pushed for in our name, they fight back, and they say "we do not want this." And, as Senator Warren pointed out, if the American people do not want it, then it should not be the policy of the United States.

A lack of transparency in copyright policy serves only the desires of the maximalist to control speech, to limit innovation and to harm creators and the public (who are often one and the same). It's an undemocratic attempt to aid a group of greedy gatekeepers, whose interests are antithetical to the intent and purpose of copyright law. That the USTR has been willing to support this effort, and works hand in hand with Hollywood to make sure there is no transparency at all is the true travesty in all of this, and should raise significant questions about whom the USTR really works for. Is it the American public or is it Hollywood?

Filed Under: acta, bruce lehman, copyright, copyright week, dmca, international agreements, lobbyists, maximalists, sopa, tafta, tpp, transparency, ttip, ustr

Ford VP Claims The Company Is Tracking Everyone's Driving Habits... Then Denies It

from the just-great dept

At a time when we're learning more and more about the vast level of surveillance by the NSA, Ford's global VP of marketing and sales, Jim Farley, made some monumentally stupid comments at CES recently, claiming that the company knows every driver who breaks the law, thanks to GPS devices in cars. After realizing how bad that looked, he insisted he only meant "hypothetically" in talking about the kinds of things that could be done in the future.

Of course, in between point A and point B, you have to imagine someone at the NSA rushed down to the FISA court seeking a Section 215 bulk "business records" order from every American car company for "mere metadata" on every driver in America, right? Just joking. Maybe.

Of course, even if Farley wasn't accurate in his initial statement, it's close enough to true anyway, since so many people carry mobile phones in their pockets, and those are easily tracked as well. In many cases, people are willing to get the benefits of location information, but we don't have nearly enough transparency or knowledge about what's being done with that information, or given the right to control or limit how that information is shared or used.

In an age where so much information is shared with companies, those companies need to move to solutions that involve much greater transparency and controls. Companies making use of your information need to start being upfront about the type of data they collect and how it's being used. The problem with the idea of Ford keeping track of which one of you has a lead foot isn't in that this is possible. Everyone knew it was already possible. It was just been the assumption that no one would actually do it. And that's the kind of thing that needs to change. Companies want to make use of our data, and sometimes it's for very useful purposes -- things that we're happy to get in exchange for the data. The problem is that too often, how the data is being used is hidden from us, and the "benefits" are not clearly laid out. Furthermore, once the data is gone... it's gone, and there are little to no controls about how it's used and shared.

Whether or not Ford in particular is tracking how fast you drive is barely the point. These days, someone is tracking how fast you drive, and as a driver, you should know who it is, and be able to limit how that information is used.

Filed Under: data, gps, information, jim farley, privacy, tracking, transparency

The Lies The USTR Is Spreading About Fast Track Authority To Push TPP Through Congress

from the don't-buy-it dept

With the introduction of fast track authority (also known as "trade promotion authority") in Congress, by which Congress abdicates its constitutionally-granted sole power to regulate foreign commerce, the USTR (which gains that power) is out in force, spreading all sorts of lies about what this means. It's not exactly encouraging when the organization that has been hiding all the details of the TPP agreement for years is now trying to push it forward by directly lying to the American public. It's almost as if the USTR can't be honest or people might realize that it's spent the last few years pushing forward on an agreement designed to prop up old legacy businesses at the expense of the public and new innovators.

The USTR's statement on the fast track proposal is full of lies, half-truths and misleading statements. Let's look at a few.

TPA does not provide new power to the Executive Branch.

Hell yes, it does. Trade Promotion Authority gives the power of regulating foreign commerce directly to the USTR, rather than Congress. It allows the USTR to negotiate a "final" agreement with other countries, which Congress cannot seek to change, amend or fix. Instead, Congress can only give a simple "yes or no" vote on what the USTR comes back with. Without TPA, the USTR actually needs to engage Congress, and win its support and approval on everything within the agreement. That gives Congress -- which is supposed to represent the public -- a chance to make sure that (as the USTR has shown a proclivity to do) the agreement is not filled with ridiculous "gifts" for cronies and friends at the expense of the public and disruptive innovation.

TPA is a legislative procedure, written by Congress, through which Congress defines U.S. negotiating objectives and spells out a detailed oversight and consultation process for during trade negotiations.

If TPA didn't tie Congress' own hands, the USTR might have a point here. But it's not true. While the TPA bill does officially "define" the negotiating objectives, those objectives listed in the current bill are basically the USTR's own list of what it's working on, reprinted by friends in Congress. And, honestly, how is it possible that it "spells out detailed oversight," when what the bill really does is make sure that the USTR can give Congress whatever it comes up with and say "take it or leave it"? Without TPA, the USTR actually has to go convince Congress that what it's been proposing (secretly and with no public review) is actually in the public interest.

Under TPA, Congress retains the authority to review and decide whether any proposed U.S. trade agreement will be implemented.

Misleading at best. Insulting to anyone with at least half a brain. Congress has significantly less authority under TPA to review and decide any trade agreement. That's because without TPA, Congress can review and question different aspects, or introduce amendments and fixes to all the stuff that the USTR screwed up. With TPA, Congress can only give an up or down vote on the entire package. That means, as long as the USTR includes enough "pork" to outweigh the crap for the majority of Congress, it can get through a ton of dangerous proposals -- like those we've already seen in the still officially "secret" intellectual property chapter.

TPA ENSURES TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN TRADE

TPA bills establish consultation and notification requirements for the President to follow throughout the trade agreement negotiation process – ensuring that Congress, stakeholders and the public are closely involved before, during and after the conclusion of trade agreement negotiations.

It's tough to read this and not laugh. This is an out and out lie. And it's a direct insult on the public. Remember, the TPP negotiations have been going on for years, and we still don't officially know what's in the TPP, other than what's been leaked. The idea that the public is "closely involved" is an insult. The public is not involved at all, entirely by the choice of the USTR, which has chosen to keep them out. As for Congress? They're also mostly in the dark. Yes, elected officials can go see the negotiating text, but they have to go to the USTR's offices, and they're not allowed to bring any staffers, make any copies or take any notes.

The USTR keeps pretending that because it will "meet with anyone who asks" that it's being transparent. But transparency is not about listening to whoever knocks on your door. It's about the other direction: it's about providing information out to the public -- something that the USTR has absolutely refused to do. The TPA does absolutely nothing to increase transparency, and actually gives the USTR fewer incentives to be transparent because now it knows there's no real oversight any more.

The USTR is flat out lying here, and it's a disgrace.

In addition to our congressionally mandated committees of industry and public sector advisers , the United States consults with all interested stakeholders at each trade agreement negotiating round and in between. We do this to share information and get views that make the negotiated product better. For TPP, these stakeholders have included representatives from academia, labor unions, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations. Under TPA, this activity would continue and be strengthened.

Misleading again. Yes, the USTR "shares" information, but only with a very small list of advisors -- who almost exclusively come from old legacy businesses. Everyone else? The USTR's response is to give them the middle finger. The claim about consulting with "interested stakeholders" at each round is also misleading. As we've covered in the past, at many (though not all) of the negotiating rounds, there would be an hour or two where "stakeholders" would have the opportunity to sit at a table and hope negotiators came to talk to them. Sometimes this would be done far away and at times when negotiators had better things to do -- like eat lunch. Sometimes stakeholders were allowed to give presentations, but with no guarantee that any negotiators would attend.

As for using those meetings to "share information" -- that's again highly misleading. Again, the USTR has been negotiating the TPP for years and still has not released any information at all on what's in it. What we know is what's been leaked out, and that little that's been leaked shows exactly why the USTR fears transparency and fears the public: because they're crafting an agreement designed to protect a few corporate interests at the expense of just about everyone else.

An honest an forthright USTR wouldn't fear the public, and it wouldn't insult and lie to the public as is happening here. The USTR is trying to pull a fast one over on the American public. It's negotiating an agreement in secret, pretending that it's being transparent, and then encouraging Congress to give up its right to review the agreement (without even seeing it), with insulting promises that by doing so, that will create more transparency.

Filed Under: congress, fast track authority, lies, tpa, tpp, trade promotion authority, transparency, ustr