Given the overwhelming amount of cynicism and ennui in most people's minds about any meaningful change to US policies for the Internet or NSA spying, I must applaud organizations like the EFF for continuing to fight the good fight. Even though at times it appears they may only be tilting at windmills.
> Given the overwhelming amount of cynicism and ennui in most people's minds about any meaningful change to US policies for the Internet or NSA spying
A lot of this is entitled whining in the sense that changing stuff is hard work. If you get cynical just because you voted for one president who didn't do what you want, you're failing in the persistency department.
Think about the history of the civil rights movement, for instance. Not to compare the two directly, just that some struggles are very difficult, and some are things you fight for in the hope that your children see the benefits.
Can anyone explain to me how this is a secret treaty?
My understanding is that the only way the treaty actually comes into effect for its main participant (the USA) is a vote in the Senate, which would make it a public treaty.
Or does the domain of 'secret treaty' include all treaties that were at one point secret (such as during the negotiations)? Doesn't this make the majority of significant treaties 'secret treaties'?
This treaty has been in secret negotiations for years and only the large content companies have been able to be part of the negotiations.
Information about the treaty has been shared with negotiators for the member states and large content companies, but no one who represents the 'normal' person. No legislators and no organizations like EFF, Wikipedia or Creative Commons have been allowed to advocate on behalf of ideas like fair use or limits to powers of content companies.
The text of the treaty was recently leaked by WikiLeaks and is contradictory to what politicians have promised it would represent. It represents a huge step back on the rights of users and extends copyright yet again.
I think the biggest problem or criticism with these deals is that they are being negotiated with special interests completely in the dark.
When it then comes up for public voting (in senate, congress, whatever) any attempt to amend or change it is turned down with the justification that "the deal has already been agreed upon by our international parties", parties which needless to say will be given the very same explanation when they too object.
This is special interests trying to frame something as an "agreement" which everyone somehow sees a benefit from, while it most certainly is not.
This sort of thing needs and deserves as little secrecy as possible, so that we can avoid long-term, fundamental damage to the internet. Serving these dinosaurs one last dish isn't worth much, and definitely not a price that big.
You're right that it's not a "secret treaty" per se. It's a "too secret treaty". Discussions have been ongoing in secrecy for years, despite the fact that the treaty does not regard a sensitive matter of national security and it does regard subjects that cause spirited public debate. This makes people feel disenfranchised for obvious reasons.
HuffPost: The proposed terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal are secret. The Obama administration, like many of its predecessors, has registered the trade platform as classified information, to the chagrin of lawmakers. - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/12/trans-pacific-partn...
The way that negotiating positions taken by nations are concealed in IP deals is in stark contrast to that taken in other trade negotiations: the negotiations for GATT, the US-EU deal, NAFTA and EEC have been very contentious and public.
Thinking about this scenario: Imagine they succeed with these policies, and implement it. If a given amount of users start using some tool that exchanges only encrypted content, will they be able to apply these policies against these users, this tool and the encrypted content?
Note that the treaties themselves are not secret (as strongly implied by the EFF), but the negotiation process is. The EFF has always been a fundamentalist organization, but shame on them for resorting to such blatant misinformation to make their case.
These secret negotiations very much resemble the frank, closed door negotiations between, say, members of Congress and the White House, where deals wouldn't be made if they had to be made in public. Politicians can't be seen giving concessions to the other side, nor do they want sound bites used against them in the next election.
It also appears that these negotiations are extremely slow, which is likely why only the executive branch is involved. It's hard to negotiate when there are 100 factious parties involved instead of just the President. I suppose that's the entire reason we have an executive branch.
Yet corporations get do get access to the negotiations. What makes them more essential to the process than the legislature that has to ratify the treaty?
In the end, it is the legislature that has to determine whether this treaty serves the interests of the public, if it serves them enough, and if enough has been done to defend the interests of the public during those negotiations. A very secretive process makes that evaluation very hard. Limiting the time to decide, may make it impossible for any honest representative to say anything other than "no". (So it'll probably be ratified.)
Well, not exactly. Negotiations between members of the Congress and the White House happen between parties that have already stated their grounds to the public. They negotiations themselves are secret but you know where each party stands.
At this negotiation we have no clue (we can speculate though) as to what the US or the EU were proposing in the first place. We will just be informed of the outcome.
>> Lawmakers in Congress are just about to introduce a bill to hand over their own constitutional authority to debate and modify trade law. It’s called Fast Track, or Trade Promotion Authority. It creates special rules that empower the White House to negotiate and sign trade agreements without Congressional oversight. Lawmakers won’t be able to analyze and change their provisions, and have only 90 days for an up or down, Yes or No vote to ratify the entire treaty. That means Internet and copyright provisions, buried in omnibus treaties, will get almost no oversight.
Yes, "shame on [the EFF] for resorting to such blatant misinformation to make their case".
I applaud your trust in the executive branch of the USA, and its incorruptibility when it comes to special interest groups.
