Odd That Microsoft Demands Google Take Down Links That Remain In Bing

from the how-about-that... dept

We just wrote about Google's very cool, new copyright transparency tool, which lets you dig into the details of all the search takedowns that Google gets. As people start to play around with the site, some interesting things are coming to light. Lots of people noticed that the number one copyright holder requesting takedowns from Google search was... Microsoft. While some have suggested this is an attempt by a competitor to worsen Google's search rankings, that's difficult to believe for a variety of reasons. If Microsoft were issuing bogus takedowns, that would certainly come to light pretty quickly.

However, what is interesting is that you can use the new system to play around and notice that Microsoft doesn't always seem to take down from its search engine, Bing, the same links that it orders Google to takedown. As we noted in our original post, there's been plenty of talk suggesting that Google isn't fast enough in taking down things upon DMCA request, but the company claims that they average less than 11 hours -- and considering that they're processing over 1 million takedowns per month (and are checking them by hand), that's pretty impressive. How long does it take Microsoft to take content down?

Well, you would think that if Microsoft is sending a takedown notice to Google to remove a site from its search engine, that it's almost certainly letting Bing know to remove it too, right? Why wouldn't it. But if you do some digging, you can find sites that Microsoft has ordered taken down from Google, but which are still available via Bing. Here's just one example. If you look through Google's transparency report, there's a specific search takedown request that was filed on May 11, so not too long ago. You can see the full ChillingEffects notice here as well. The takedown was sent, on behalf of Microsoft, by a company called Marketly, who appears to send a large number of takedowns, according to the Google data. In this case, Marketly had sent a takedown to Google demanding the removal of a bunch of URLs from its index concerning a variety of XBox 360 games, including DiRT 2. The 20th URL listed goes to a page on TorrentRoom.

Now, if you take that URL and put it into Google and Bing, you get two very different responses. First, there's Google: Okay. As per the takedown, clearly Google has removed that URL from its index. Now how about Microsoft: Whoops! There it is. Now, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that if Marketly is sending a takedown to Google to get such a link taken out of its search engine, on behalf of Microsoft, that it quite likely is issuing the same kind of takedown to Microsoft's Bing (hell, you'd perhaps think that Microsoft could just pull the link without a takedown). And yet... the site, which Microsoft supposedly wants to disappear, is gone from Google, but found easily on Bing.

This would suggest that, either Marketly and Microsoft decide to leave up certain infringing content on Microsoft's own search engine while taking it down from Google... or that Microsoft certainly isn't that fast at doing removals. And yet, why don't we hear the people who always bitch about Google complaining about Microsoft?

Of course, the data is also revealing some other interesting "issues" with Microsoft's takedowns. Kurt Opsahl, for example, noticed that Microsoft sent Google a takedown, you can view here, which claims that previous takedown notices, also from Microsoft, are in fact, infringing. This one was also sent by "Marketly" and suggests that they don't do much research to make sure the sites are legitimately infringing before issuing takedowns.

Filed Under: bing, search, takedown, transparency
Companies: google, marketly, microsoft

Apparently The USTR Thinks 'Unprecedented Transparency' Means Hiding TPP Details From 98% Of Congress

from the that's-mighty-opaque-transparency dept

We just wrote about the new bill proposed by Senator Wyden after discovering that the USTR refused to share the TPP with the staff director of the Senate Finance Committee's Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs and Global Competitiveness -- who, officially, is supposed to have oversight on trade negotiations. However, the USTR (apparently with the support of the administration) has gone rogue, and is effectively hiding all the details of what it's negotiating on from Congress. While Ron Kirk likes to continually talk up how many meetings USTR has held (behind closed doors) with Congress, he conveniently ignores the fact that he is still keeping the US's negotiating position away from Congress.

Reading through the specifics of Wyden's speech, you begin to realize that the USTR and the Administration appear to have interpreted the law that creates the Congressional Oversight Group (COG) to mean that the USTR no longer has to share information with anyone in Congress (as it has claimed in the past), but that it only has to share TPP negotiating documents with the members of Congress who are on the Congressional Oversight Group. That's around 12 members. Out of 535 members of Congress between Senators and Representatives (in the House). In other words, despite the fact that Congress has clear oversight concerning international trade negotiations, and despite the fact that the Congressional Oversight Group was set up specifically to increase oversight of the USTR, the administration has decided that it really means it can keep its negotiating position from about 98% of Congress.

This is part of why Wyden seems so reasonably concerned. The USTR is taking the creation of COG, and basically flipping it on its head. The whole purpose of COG was to increase transparency. And yet, the USTR continues to effectively ignore it, while pretending that it only has to share TPP info with a tiny fraction of Congress, leaving the rest in the dark until it's too late. That's insane. How is the Senate supposed to have oversight if the USTR's own interpretation of the law means that it can effectively reject any effort to oversee it? It's incredible that the USTR seems to be claiming significant powers that it simply does not have -- and even more obnoxious and intellectually dishonest for it to then claim that it's offering "unprecedented transparency."

I'm sure that the USTR is holding the meetings with Congress that it claims, but until Ron Kirk learns that transparency means revealing what you're doing, not just listening to what others say, the USTR is not being even the slightest bit "transparent." Instead, it's abusing the process at the expense of the American public.

Filed Under: congress, ron kirk, ron wyden, tpp, transparency, ustr

Google Lifts The Veil On Copyright Takedowns: Reveals Detailed Data On Who Requests Link Removals

from the data-data-data dept

As part of Google's ongoing Transparency Report efforts, today the company has released a whole new section on copyright takedowns, containing a huge amount of information on the many takedown requests Google receives. It focuses specifically on the takedowns for search links, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them add other areas later. As you may recall, we were among those who were victimized by a bogus takedown, and a key post about SOPA that we had written was missing from Google search for about a month.

The new transparency platform lets you dig in and see quite a few details about exactly who is issuing takedowns and what they're removing from search. It's using data since last July (when Google set up an organized web-form, so the data is consistent). It may be a bit surprising, but at the top of the list? Microsoft, who has apparently taken down over 2.5 million URLs from Google's search results. Most of the the others in the top 10 aren't too surprising. There's NBC Universal at number two. The RIAA at number three (representing all its member companies). BPI at number five. Universal Music at number seven. Sony Music at number eight. Warner Music doesn't clock in until number 12.

There's also data on which sites are most frequently targeted, which (not surprisingly) lists out a bunch of torrent search sites and file lockers and such. Don't be surprised to see some try to claim that this is an accurate list of "rogue sites" that Google should block entirely. However, if you look carefully at the data, Google also highlights the percentage of pages on those sites for which they've received takedowns, and the vast majority of them are well below 1%. In other words, no one has complained about well over 99% of the pages on these sites. It seems pretty drastic to suggest that these sites are obviously nothing but evil, when so many of their pages don't seem to receive any complaints at all.

Perhaps more important, however, is that Google is also revealing the incredible deluge of takedown requests it receives in search, each of which it tries to check to make sure they're legitimate. As it stands now, Google is processing over 250,000 such requests per week -- which is more than they got in the entire year of 2009. For all of 2011, Google receive 3.3 million copyright takedowns for search... and here we are in just May of 2012, and they're already processing over 1.2 million per month. And while we've heard reports from the usual Google haters that Google is slow to respond to takedowns, it says that its average turnaround time last week was 11 hours. Think about that for a second. It's reviewing each one of these takedowns, getting 250,000 per week... and can still process them in less than 12 hours. That's pretty impressive.

It's also interesting to hear that these reviews catch some pretty flagrant bogus takedown requests:

At the same time, we try to catch erroneous or abusive removal requests. For example, we recently rejected two requests from an organization representing a major entertainment company, asking us to remove a search result that linked to a major newspaper’s review of a TV show. The requests mistakenly claimed copyright violations of the show, even though there was no infringing content. We’ve also seen baseless copyright removal requests being used for anticompetitive purposes, or to remove content unfavorable to a particular person or company from our search results.

It's good to see Google catch these, as plenty of other sites would automatically take such content down, just to avoid any question of liability. Of course, it doesn't catch them all. Some get through -- as we ourselves discovered a few months ago. That led us to wonder if this tool could drill down and find the details about takedowns targeting Techdirt, but unfortunately at the moment there doesn't seem to be any way to actually search the list. Hopefully that will change soon. Update: The search function is not currently advertised anywhere, but you can access it by using a URL: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/domains/yourdomain.com/

Of course, this is also a good reminder -- as they note in the Google blog post -- that if you run a website, you should absolutely sign up to use Google's Webmaster tools, which will quickly inform you when one of your URLs are targeted by such a takedown, allowing you to easily file a counternotice.

Either way, this is really fascinating data and an interesting platform, shedding some significant light on just how often copyright holders are trying to take links out of Google, who's doing it and who they're targeting.

Filed Under: data, dmca, takedown, transparency
Companies: bpi, google, microsoft, nbc universal, riaa, sony music, universal music, warner music

Wyden To Obama: Hollywood Shouldn't Know More About TPP Than Congress

from the transparency? dept

Senator Wyden has been at the forefront of raising concerns about the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement (as with many other issues we follow), specifically over the total lack of transparency from the USTR on the issue. While USTR Ron Kirk has pretended that "listening" to a few people is transparency, it's not. Actually sharing what you're doing is transparency.

Now, it's one thing for the USTR to refuse to share with the public what it's supposedly negotiating on their behalf -- but what if it is refusing to share with the very people in charge of overseeing its actions? As you hopefully know it's Congress, not the Executive branch, that has the authority to regulate foreign commerce. While the USTR is often granted the power to handle negotiations, it is only to be done with oversight from Congress.

So, you would think that the staff director on the Senate Finance Committee's Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs and Global Competitiveness, would be able to "oversee" what the USTR is doing by getting a copy of the USTR's positions. That staffer, who works for Senator Wyden, got all the proper security clearances... and the USTR basically gave him the finger. According to Wyden:

As the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee’s Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, my office is responsible for conducting oversight over the USTR and trade negotiations. To do that, I asked that my staff obtain the proper security credentials to view the information that USTR keeps confidential and secret. This is material that fully describes what the USTR is seeking in the TPP talks on behalf of the American people and on behalf of Congress. More than two months after receiving the proper security credentials, my staff is still barred from viewing the details of the proposals that USTR is advancing.

But you know who's not having any trouble seeing the details? The MPAA, Comcast, PHRMA and others. Again, from Senator Wyden:

The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations – like Halliburton, Chevron, PHRMA, Comcast, and the Motion Picture Association of America – are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement.

Wyden is introducing some new legislation in response to this, called the Congressional Oversight Over Trade Negotiations Act, which is actually just a clarification of legislation passed in 2002 that created the Congressional Oversight Group in an attempt to increase coordination between Congress and USTR on such matters. Again, Senator Wyden:

Congress passed legislation in 2002 to form the Congressional Oversight Group, or COG, to foster more USTR consultation with Congress. I was a senator in 2002. I voted for that law and I can tell you the intention of that law was to ensure that USTR consulted with more Members of Congress not less.

In trying to get to the bottom of why my staff is being denied information, it seems that some in the Executive Branch may be interpreting the law that established the COG to mean that only the few Members of Congress who belong to the COG can be given access to trade negotiation information, while every other Member of Congress, and their staff, must be denied such access. So, this is not just a question of whether or not cleared staff should have access to information about the TPP talks, this is a question of whether or not the administration believes that most Members of Congress can or should have a say in trade negotiations.

Again, having voted for that law, I strongly disagree with such an interpretation and find it offensive that some would suggest that a law meant to foster more consultation with Congress is intended to limit it. But given that the TPP negotiations are currently underway and I – and the vast majority of my colleagues and their staff – continue to be denied a full understanding of what the USTR is seeking in the agreement, we do not have time to waste on a protracted legal battle over this issue. Therefore, I am introducing legislation to clarify the intent of the COG statute.

The legislation, I propose, is straightforward. It gives all Members of Congress and staff with appropriate clearance access to the substance of trade negotiations. Finally, Members of Congress who are responsible for conducting oversight over the enforcement of trade agreements will be provided information by the Executive Branch indicating whether our trading partners are living up to their trade obligations. Put simply, this legislation would ensure that the representatives elected by the American people are afforded the same level of influence over our nation’s policies as the paid representatives of PHRMA, Halliburton and the Motion Picture Association.

How ridiculous is it that a Senator in charge of oversight of the USTR has to introduce special legislation just to find out what's being negotiated by the USTR, supposedly on the public's behalf? The ridiculous levels of secrecy from the USTR are shameful. It's sad that it hasn't received more attention.

Filed Under: mpaa, obama, ron kirk, ron wyden, tpp, transparency, ustr

Dear Ron Kirk: Transparency Isn't Hearing From Critics, It's Telling The Public What You're Doing

from the that's-not-the-transparency-we're-looking-for dept

We've been spending a lot of time talking about just how secretive the USTR (led by its boss Ron Kirk) has been concerning the TPP negotiations. However, what may be even worse isn't just Ron Kirk's stonewalling, it's the fact that he either does not know what transparency means, or is playing dumb when confronted on the issue. Last week, we noted that his response to a letter from legal scholars requesting more transparency insulted the intelligence of those scholars, when he said he was "insulted" himself by the claim that the USTR was not transparent in the TPP negotiations. As evidence of his supposed transparency, he noted: "USTR has conducted in excess of 400 consultations with Congressional and private stakeholders on the TPP, including inviting stakeholders to all of the twelve negotiating rounds."

We already noted that he was playing word games here and being disingenuous, but it's even worse than that. As Sherwyn Siy properly points out, what Kirk is pointing out isn't transparency. All he's talking about is hearing various opinions -- not sharing what the USTR is actually doing. As Siy points out transparency is about information flow in the other direction:

This is a key point that needs to be made about transparency—it's not about whether or not the government has the relevant opinions of the public. Transparency is about the flow of information the other way—information about the workings of government being visible to the people it is supposed to represent. That is precisely what is lacking in this process. This should be an obvious point, but it's one that Kirk's response either fundamentally misunderstands or deliberately sidesteps. So long as no actual proposed text comes to light (you know, the way draft laws and international treaties are published), the process remains opaque, and no amount of input from whatever stakeholders into the TPP process makes up for a lack of real information flowing the other way.

Until Ron Kirk is willing to address that point, his disingenuous and insulting claims about how many meetings he's holding are meaningless fluff from someone who is avoiding his official duty as a representative of the American public.

Filed Under: congress, ron kirk, tpp, transparency, ustr

Sparkfun Explains Why It Provided Customer Info In Response To Subpoena

from the tough-situations dept

When you receive an official law enforcement document/request, like a subpoena, it can actually be pretty scary. An official-looking document from a court in association with law enforcement may leave many people with the impression that they absolutely have to comply. While there are circumstances in which you do need to comply, you can often fight back. Tragically, many companies don't. They just roll over and hand over the info, even if it violates their own policies (and sense of right and wrong). There are (unfortunately few and far between) cases like Twitter, who has shown a willingness to fight for user privacy, but it's still a tough issue for many companies.

Shawn Sims points us to the interesting story of how the popular electronics company Sparkfun publicly explained how it dealt with a very broad subpoena demanding all sales information on sales made to addresses in Georgia over a six month period. The reasoning was that a Sparkfun device was found as a part of a credit card skimmer device.
Sparkfun CEO Nate Seidle explains that the subpoena came after an initial call requesting the same info, where the company politely refused to provide the info, noting its support of the privacy rights of its consumers. As Seidle noted, no one supports card skimming, but there are issues of principle here:

I want to be very clear: creating devices that steal credit card numbers are illegal and cause pain for a lot of people. We know our parts can be used for good or for evil. We have zero tolerance for those who use them for evil. I will offer our technical services to any law enforcement that may need help reverse engineering a device. It is obvious the law enforcement agency is requesting this information to put a stop to this activity. However, I also believe strongly in the right to privacy and the protection of personal data.

After talking to their lawyers, and realizing that you don't have to fully comply with a subpoena -- but also that a subpoena can turn into a warrant which you do have to comply with -- the company worked with the law enforcement to try to limit the type of information requested, and eventually came to a compromise:

Please read the subpoena carefully. The request for 'all orders' seemed like they were casting a very wide net without cause. Discussing this issue with our counsel and working with the law enforcement agency, we agreed to obtain the orders that had the product on it, not all orders as required by the subpoena. This ended up being about 20 orders. In my opinion, one order is too much information. While I believe this legal process protects us all from wrong doing, turning over any piece of data goes against every fiber in my being. But without any further legal options, I made the decision to turn over the sub set of data.

I want everyone to know that we take your data and privacy extremely seriously. We guard it with the highest levels of security and confidentiality. If we are legally forced to turn over data, we promise you we will work with the law enforcement agency to do everything in our power to limit the amount of information released.

This is a tough position to be in -- and you can certainly argue that the company could have (or perhaps should have) continued to fight the subpoena. But in the end, it's likely that it would have to turn over the info eventually no matter what. At the very least, you have to respect the company for being totally transparent and open about what happened and why (and how Seidle personally felt). Plenty of other companies would hand over the data and then never discuss the issue publicly ever.

Filed Under: nate seidle, privacy, subpoena, transparency
Companies: sparkfun

Darrell Issa Puts Old Leaked TPP IP Text Up For Discussion

from the why-isn't-ron-kirk-doing-this? dept

We've written a few times now about Rep. Darrell Issa, and the Madison platform his office has set up to allow for crowdsourcing opinion on legislation and other government documents. He originally used it for his OPEN Act, but then later posted the text of ACTA as well. His latest move is to post the leaked text of the US's negotiating position on TPP. This is the same text that leaked out last year. It would be nice if the USTR did something like this itself with the latest text, but that's not how USTR Ron Kirk works. To him "transparency" is only sharing the text with big industry special interests, and declaring it a matter of "national security" if anyone else wants to see it.

Issa recognizes how this is dangerous to a functioning democracy, when our federal government is negotiating deals in back rooms, despite the fact they will have a massive impact on the public:

“At a time when the American people and Internet users all around the world are rightfully wary of any closed-door negotiations that could adversely impact their ability to freely and openly access the Internet, the Obama Administration continues to pursue a secretive, closed-door negotiating process for the Trans Pacific Partnership,” Issa said. “I have decided to publish the intellectual property rights chapter of TPP in Madison so that the public can provide input to those negotiating this agreement, and to push this Administration - and the federal government as a whole - to be open, transparent and inclusive when it comes to international intellectual property rights agreements that have potentially serious consequences for the Internet community.”

Again, it's great that he's added this text to the Madison platform, but it's disappointing that it's still the old leaked version, rather than anything more up to date. The version he posted is now 15 months old, and there have been a bunch of additional negotiations since then. Still, it's good to see others in the federal government trying to encourage discussion on this agreement, even if the USTR continues to hide in secrecy (unless you're a big corporate lobbyist, of course).

Filed Under: crowdsourcing, darrell issa, madison platform, ron kirk, tpp, transparency, ustr

USTR Insults The Intelligence Of Legal Scholars After They Challenge Him On Lack Of TPP Transparency

from the a-complete-travesty dept

As another round of negotiations over the TPP agreement is ongoing in Dallas, a group of legal scholars have sent an open letter to the USTR, Ron Kirk, decrying the ridiculous lack of transparency that has been driven in large part by the policies of the USTR, which seem almost entirely focused on avoiding hearing any outside opinions at all. Kirk shot back a quick response that isn't just dismissive, but downright insulting to the intelligence of these distinguished scholars. But, first, let's discuss the letter itself:

We are particularly and specifically concerned that by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) took the opportunity of its hosting of the latest round of negotiations in Dallas, Texas, to begin this week, to further restrict public involvement in the negotiations by eliminating the full-day stakeholder forums that have been hosted at other rounds. We call on the USTR and all TPP negotiating countries to reverse course and work instead to expand, rather than contract, the opportunities for public engagement in the formation of the TPP’s intellectual property chapter.

What's really incredible is that the USTR should know better after all the outcry over ACTA, but that seems to have only strengthened the USTR's resolve to be about as opaque as possible on the TPP negotiations. The scholars point out that in a post-SOPA world, that doesn't play. They specifically call out the likely collapse of ACTA in Europe -- due in large part to the secretive process there (which was just slightly less secretive). It's amazing that the USTR is so short-sighted that it doesn't realize the backlash it's going to create:

At a time when the last international intellectual property law to be negotiated under a similar process, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, teeters on the edge of rejection by the European Parliament in large part because of the loss of faith in its secretive process demonstrated by hundreds of thousands of marchers across Europe, the move to scale back participation in the TPP appears highly unwise and counterproductive. The functional and theoretical impact of the lack of transparency and accountability in the TPP and other trade negotiations institutionalizes the kind of process that the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan criticized as policy making through “ignorant armies clash[ing] by night.” This is no way to build support for a broad reaching new international law that will constrain democratic law making over intellectual property matters in the US and abroad, particularly in an era of massive and rapid technological change that is testing the bounds of our current policy framework.

The scholars have a simple suggestion in response -- one that would not be difficult to do, nor would it be controversial (contrary to Kirk's statements on this matter in the past). Publicly release the US's positions on things. They don't have to release the other details of the negotiations. Just what the US's position is.

Our first and most important suggestion is to immediately begin a policy of releasing to the public the kind of reports on US positions and proposals on intellectual property matters that are currently given only to Industry Trade Advisory Committee members under confidentiality agreements. The USTR has previously refused to share its own proposals with its own citizenry claiming that, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), to do so would damage the national security of the United States. While we are sympathetic to the need for some confidentiality in the negotiation of international agreements, just as there is in domestic law making, there can be no national security justification, much less one sounding in good governance concerns, for preventing the United States public from seeing its own government’s proposals to restrain its own domestic legislation.

Indeed, there are many examples where the US engages in precisely the kind of information sharing about its proposals for international law making we request here. If, for example, this negotiation was happening in the World Intellectual Property Organization or World Trade Organization, all country proposals would be released to the public as a formal part of the negotiation process. This is, of course, also the process followed in a Congressional Committee mark up of a bill. And just last month USTR released to the public a 2012 revised model bilateral investment treaty (BIT), which one must assume reflects its positions in the TPP negotiation on the same titled chapter.

Of course, the legal scholars also make it clear that they know what is going on. The TPP is not about "trade." It's about exporting laws and expanding our own laws -- and doing so because of a few special interests, in this case Hollywood and the big drug companies:

The unbalanced product results from an unbalanced process. The only private individuals in the US who have ongoing access to the US proposals on intellectual property matters are on an Industry Trade Advisory Committee (ITAC) which is dominated by brand name pharmaceutical manufacturers and the Hollywood entertainment industry. There is no representation on this committee for consumers, libraries, students, health advocacy or patient groups, or others users of intellectual property, and minimal representation of other affected businesses, such as generic drug manufacturers or internet service providers. We would never create US law or regulation through such a biased and closed process.

Kirk sent back a quick email to the organizer of the letter, Sean Flynn, in which he claims that he'll look at the full letter in more detail, but finds some of the suggestions in the letter "offensive." But Kirk is the one who's being offensive here, playing word games and insulting the intelligence of these respected legal scholars:

Mr. Flynn – I look forward to reviewing your letter, and will provide a more detailed response later. In the interim, you may be surprised to know that USTR has conducted the most, active outreach to all stakeholders relative to the TPP than in any FTA previously, including, the proposed disciplines on intellectual property.

I do not quarrel with any assertions that our work may not reflect the exact wishes of your colleagues, but, I am strongly offended by the assertion that our process has been non-transparent and lacked public participation. USTR has conducted in excess of 400 consultations with Congressional and private stakeholders on the TPP, including inviting stakeholders to all of the twelve negotiating rounds.

I trust that after you have received my more formal response you will make every effort to educate your colleagues as to the extraordinary efforts our staff has engaged in relative to drafting our proposed texts for the TPP.

Okay, first the claim that that they're "active" on outreach is Kirk playing word games. First of all, note that he only refers to "FTA" (free trade agreements). That's being accurate, but disingenuous. The main problem -- as clearly expressed in the letter -- is that the IP issues that have these scholars concerned are not "free trade" issues, but rather a way to spread IP legislation globally. In other words, it's an IP trade agreement, hidden inside a FTA. And, again as the letter makes clear, IP trade agreements are normally much, much more open. Kirk knows this. He's just being obnoxiously disingenuous.

Next, if he's offended, too bad, because he's the one being offensive here. The "400 consultations with Congress" is misleading in the extreme. First of all, that's entirely different than consulting the public. Second, TPP covers much more than the IP sections that have these scholars concerned, and it's never explained how many of these consultations were on IP. Third, how many of those "consultations" were done in public where the public knows what's being talked about.

As for the claim that stakeholders have been invited to all of the negotiating rounds, he totally ignores that the USTR has made it nearly impossible for public interest stakeholders to be heard -- getting them kicked out of hotels, or forcing them to hold meetings either while negotiations were going on or far away from the negotiations, meaning that negotiators won't take part. He's paying lip service (barely) to the public interest.

On top of that, he completely ignores the fact that special interest groups -- mainly Hollywood and big Pharma -- have access to the document, while public interest groups have not been told what the US's position is at all.

Really, the proof of the lack of transparency is simple and is easy to highlight, despite Kirk's disingenuous and insulting response: how many people in the public, or even working for a public interest organization, know what the US is pushing for in the TPP's IP section? The answer is zero. That's not transparent, no matter how much Kirk wants to tap dance around the issue.

Ron Kirk needs to learn that his job is to represent the citizens of the United States, not the special interests. He clearly thinks that as long as he keeps telling people he's being transparent he'll be able to get away with this incredibly secret government handout to Hollywood and the big drug companies. He needs to learn that's not the way this works.

Filed Under: acta, fta, ron kirk, sopa, tpp, transparency, ustr

Pakistani Court Says Internet Censorship Plan Is Unconstitutional

from the well-look-at-that dept

We recently wrote about Pakistan's attempts to build its own internet censorship regime, capable of blocking 50 million sites that the government doesn't like. However, a petition by civil rights groups has apparently resulted in a court ruling saying that such censorship is unconstitutional under the Pakistani constitution. Of course, from the writeup linked above (from Reporters Without Borders), it appears that there is at least some skepticism that the Pakistani government will obey its own court:

The high court’s ruling, if respected, would make it impossible for the government to introduce any nationwide website filtering system.

While welcoming the ruling, which penalizes the lack of transparency in the PTA’s past website blocking, Reporters Without Borders calls for vigilance because the PTA could try to circumvent it by devising a constitutional procedure based on the anti-blasphemy law and national security provisions.

Still, it's good to see courts around the globe pushing back on this desire to censor the internet.

Filed Under: censorship, pakistan, reporters without borders, transparency

Once Again, Public Interest Groups Kicked Out When Trying To Present Concerns About TPP

from the no-respect-at-all dept

It's really quite astounding how terribly obnoxious supporters of the ridiculous TPP agreement have become. This Trans Pacific Partnership agreement is being negotiated entirely in secret -- even as the USTR lies and claims the process is transparent at an "unprecedented" level. Of course, it seems that transparency only extends to big industry lobbyists who support the agreement's concepts already. For everyone else, we're told it's a matter of national security. Furthermore, rather than be transparent, it appears that the TPP negotiators are bending over backwards to (a) not allow those representing the public to even speak, while (b) spending as much time as possible with Hollywood lobbyists. It's as if the USTR and other TPP negotiators are so sure they've completely rigged the process that they're showing off just how little they care about the public.

Honestly, the whole thing is a scandal in the making.

In February, a bunch of groups representing public interests scheduled a public hearing about concerns with TPP in the same hotel where the TPP negotiations were going on... and the USTR apparently contacted the hotel and had them kicked out. The night before all of this? The negotiators went and partied at a Hollywood studio with the key lobbyists. Yeah, the USTR can't even stand to be in the same building as those concerned about the public, but will party with the lobbyists. A few weeks later, some big corporate interests hosted a dinner for ACTA negotiators. Public interest groups found out about it at the last minute and were told they were not welcome. When questioned about this in a Senate hearing, the USTR Ron Kirk took a totally condescending attitude, still insisting unprecedented transparency, even as Senator Wyden pointed out that wasn't even close to true.

And, of course, it gets even worse. One of the things that the USTR had talked about in the past was about how "transparent" they were when holding various "stakeholder" sessions that let people express their concerns. Of course, most of these are free-for-all's and they're positioned to limit the exposure of the concerns -- but at least there was some attempt in the past to offer people a voice. Not any more. As we noted recently, the US has done away with the stakeholder meeting. So the public interest groups are, once again, left out.

Now, the very latest is that during meetings in Chile, public interest groups once again sought to host a stakeholders meeting, and got an agreement to host it at the University of Chile School of Law. The whole thing was organized, and they even had a big name local politician signed up as the keynote speaker. The dean of the school was all for it... and then, two days before the meeting, the University canceled the meeting. Once again, the public interest groups were shut out. It's not entirely clear why, but there is tremendous speculation that the cancellation was due to a faculty member who consults heavily with the pharmaceutical industry.

Either way, it seems clear that there is influence peddling going on here, and it's astounding that the USTR seems to think that these moves won't backfire and just make it look worse. In talking to someone who was in Chile working with the public interest groups, it's been claimed that many of the delegates had no idea this would happen -- and were quite upset that the USTR had basically hijacked the process. The organizers of the event were actually able to find an alternative, but it is too bad that they had to spend days scrambling to figure this out.

Filed Under: chile, national security, negotiations, tpp, transparency, ustr