Proposed IP Treaty declared a 'National Security' Secret

[CWuestefeld]

(this borders on the political, but its implications in software and the Internet make it topical, I think)

If ratified, leaked documents posted on WikiLeaks and other comments suggest the proposed trade accord would criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing, subject iPods to border searches and allow internet service providers to monitor their customers' communications.
...
But now, like Bush before him, Obama is playing the national security card to hide details of the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated across the globe.
...
The national security claim is stunning, given that the treaty negotiations have included the 27 member states of the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand, all of whom presumably have access to the "classified" information.

See full article on Wired

[gexecuter]

That sucks!

[40hz]

Ahhh...National Security!

That argument worked for Stalin. It worked for Saddam Hussein. It worked for Bush & Son.

And now it's working for Barack...

The Who said it best:

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?

There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

[app103]

More information:

http://press.ffii.org/Press_releases/EU_Council_deliberately_obstructs_access_to_ACTA_documents

[app103]

I don't like what I am reading here:

A document released by the Canadian government shows controversial issues are discussed, such as termination of internet access without court order. A "three strikes and you are out" approach will ban people from the internet, exclude them from essential information and communication. They will be excluded from part of society just on allegations of infringement, without judicial review.

According to a leaked ACTA Discussion paper, non-commercial and non-intentional acts may be included in ACTA, which goes beyond the weak 'commercial scale' limitations of IPRED1. The leaked draft indeed includes such infringements. The drawbacks of such an approach are dreadful. Citizens may be branded as counterfeiters. Media companies may like to chase every kid on the block that shares a music or movie fragment. But this approach crimininalizes journalists that reveal a document as well.

A non-commercial publication of a document on the Internet would fall under ACTA. This is a threat to the freedom of speech. If an office worker emails a copy of a market research report to his colleague at work, he may be considered to have infringed copyright. Harsh anti-piracy measures can be invoked against journalists, whistle blowers, office workers, companies and citizens. It will create an unprecedented scope of secondary liability for ISPs. They may be excluded from liability, but only if they immediately comply with all rights-holders wishes - even the disproportional ones.

Treating private copies as piracy will be in conflict with EU Directive 2001/29/EC. Under this Directive member states are allowed to allow private copies. People pay levies, but what are they entitled to do for their money? Make a mistake while exercising your rights and end up in jail? If one would like to stop private copies, that can only be done by invading peoples homes.

More dreadful measures are proposed by certain stakeholders, like an obligation for ISPs to install network-level filtering, block certain websites and protocols. This will be the end of the "net-neutrality" principle. It would be like the postal services would be forced to look into all letters and parcels. Filtering is inevitably over inclusive, limiting permitted speech (e.g., parody and other fair uses) and other protected activities (educational uses, lawful conversions of content for the disabled, using the Internet to transfer personal copies between home/office/car/vacation, using the Internet as cloud storage, The costs of filtering are immense. The beneficiaries are unwilling to pay the costs, which shows that any potential benefits are outweighed by the costs. Encryption will render filtering useless.

Such measures are disproportional and will harm innovation and legal security. They can only be executed at the price of privacy and the freedom of speech.

http://action.ffii.org/acta/Analysis