Edward Snowden – thorn in the authoritarians side.

Edward Snowden seems a mild mannered geek not to dissimilar to myself and many other techies that I know. So what makes him a man who has rattled many of the largest political institutions in the world and become the target for a world-wide manhunt, while I merely sun myself on my holibobs?

Knowledge & Action.

Knowledge is power as the age old adage goes, due what’s done with the knowledge one has garnered.

Has Snowden used his garnered knowledge wisely?  I think this is the most important issue, and also the most subjective. To answer it, we should really answer it from a very broad perspective, that is, not from some small tribal perspective, but from the largest human perspective possible.

Of course many subsets of humanity will not be pleased by Snowden’s revelations, be those subsets nations; political groups; etc, and many subsets of humanity will be very pleased by Snowden’s revelations, but overall, is *humanity* better or worse off for Snowden’s actions?

I think humanity is better off with Snowdens revelations. Humanity is better off being aware of reality, and the reality is that we are not living in a world as free as we would like to think & are told by those in authority we are.

We are often controlled, cajoled, and manipulated for others’ ends, and while some of this has a positive outcome for humanity (the rule of sensible, adhered-to-by-all law, for example), much of it only serves the interests of a small subset of humanity; a group; a single nation; etc.

So, to bastardize a common phrase, ask not you can do for your country or group at the expense of very many other countries & groups, but what you can do for humanity.

 

William Hague’s speech on Equador & Julian Assange asylum.

From William Hagues speech, the transcript:

I am left wondering if William Hague is confused.

At the start it is reported he says, “We are disappointed by the statement by Ecuador’s Foreign Minister today that Ecuador has offered political asylum to Julian Assange.“

Note “political asylum“.

Later on he mentions, “The UK does not accept the principle of diplomatic asylum. It is far from a universally accepted concept: the United Kingdom is not a party to any legal instruments which require us to recognise the grant of diplomatic asylum by a foreign embassy in this country.“

Note in the latter “diplomatic asylum” is mentioned.

I wonder does the UK accept Assange has been given “political” asylum, or “diplomatic” asylum. I further wonder if the UK still accepts the principle of “political” asylum?

Another quote from the transcript reads, “No-one, least of all the Government of Ecuador, should be in any doubt that we are determined to carry out our legal obligation to see Mr Assange extradited to Sweden. He faces serious charges in a country with the highest standards of law and where his rights are guaranteed.“

I wonder what “charges” William Hague thinks Assange faces. William Hague intimates these charges are in Sweden, but perhaps by “in a country with the highest standards of law and where his rights are guaranteed” he means some other country – the USA perhaps, or perhaps another. William Hague needs to be clear which country he means and which “charges” from this country he is referring.

Having a break from Politics for a while, after #ASOT550, I re-found my love for my #TranceFamily

Get the whole of ASOT550 here: http://weloveatrance.com/asot-550-day-5-live-at-ultra-music-festival-miami-usa-a-state-of-trance-550-celebration-with-armin-van-buuren-march-25-2012/comment-page-1/#comment-6794

 

I shall be busy trying to sort through all those tracks to decide my favs ready to create a couple of sets for my birthday – Woohoo!!!

awbMaven aka DJ <fingers crossed> Savoir Faire

Anti-Semitic attitudes are off the charts in Hungary – ADL #Jews #Israel #Loaded #Survey

There’s a report out today from the with some question concerning European attitudes towards Jews in some European Countries.

It’s a pretty emotive topic at the moment considering what is happening in Toulouse, France (perfect timing from ADL’s pov), indeed, pretty emotive much of the time since the State of Israel was created with no parallel State of Palestine in existance.

The questions posed where as follows:

“Respondents across the continent were asked whether or not they thought the following four statements were “probably true” or “probably false.” 

1) Jews are more loyal to Israel than to this country. 
2) Jews have too much power in the business world. 
3) Jews have too much power in international financial markets. 
4) Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust. 
5) Jews are responsible for the death of Christ. True of False
6) .. if their opinion of Jews was influenced by actions taken by the State of Israel and whether they believed the violence directed against European Jews was a result of anti-Jewish feelings or anti-Israel sentiment?”

Firstly, the question set were pretty loaded. Secondly, which ‘Jews’? A religious Jews, Ethnic Jews, or people who are both Religious and Ethnic Jews? Dual citizen Jews (with one citizenship being with the State of Israel) or single citizen Jews?

Regarding question 1, I think it is reasonable to assume that someone who has two passports [which many Jews have] has dual loyalties so it is not surprising to me to feel that persons who hold two passports (especially if they have to swear allegiance to a second state get their second passport) is likely to to have questionable loyalties, ie, it is not surprising that many “continue to question the loyalty of their Jewish citizens” as in my view they should question the loyalties of anyone who has two passports. If push came to shove, just which side of the fence would a dual-passport holder back?

Regarding question 2, I have very little knowledge of what the ethnicity and/or religion of those who work in finance are, even those I work with. I’d have to pass on that question.

Regarding question 3, It’s the same answer and pass as question 2 for me.

Regarding question 4, I do think many Jews go on about the Holocaust™ too much. Granted, it was traumatic for those Jews that lived through it [which is an ever decreasing percentage of Jews as it was 60+ years ago], but I think there is a large element of mawkish Holocaust™ remembrance in Jewish society from those who never experienced the Holocaust™ first hand. I think this mawkish Holocaust™ remembrance is detrimental to Jewish society, especially to Jewish youth who are faced with horrifying pictures and stories when they are still children. Frankly, lots of what I hear them being taught about is banned from being shown on TV until after the watershed because it is considered too horrific for young peoples. I think there is an element of child abuse in forcing horrific Holocaust™ rememberance on Jewish children. I think mawkish Holocaust™ Remembrance has caused Repetition Compulsion in parts of Jewish society and this I think explains many Jewish attitudes towards Palestinians who I think many, especially those who have made aliyah to Israel, view as untermenschen.

Regarding question 5, I’d have to pass.  Sure, some Jews were allegedly involved, sure many Jews were not, but “responsible for – true or false”, it’s a loaded question imv with no chance at granularity, and being ~2000 years ago, who the heck knows what really happened and who shared the responsibility (if indeed Jesus, the Son of God, did exist).

Regarding question 6, I think many link Jews with the State of Israel [often because of dual-citizenship] and I think it impossible to separate the two when talking specifically about Jews who are citizens of the State of Israel. I do think that much of the violence towards Jews is not anti-Semitic™ per se, it is anti-Israeli, it’s part of the eye-for-an-eye dogma that many Jews and Muslims adhere to and seek vengeance to quench. I dislike some Jews not because because they are Jews, I don’t them because of their views concerning the actions of the State of Israel. I similarly don’t like some Christians because of their views concerning the actions of the State of Israel. The State of Israel is evidently a terrorist state imv and anyone that supports a terrorist states’ actions is to be disliked imv.

I wonder if these answers make me anti-Semetic™ or not.  Some will think yes, others no, others something else, and others another thing 🙂

Sincerely,

awbMaven

My Blog: note to Branka Totić, director of the Serbian Intellectual Property Office, think outside the box re. #ACTA

From EurActive, we have an article entitled, “Serbia to adopt ACTA for EU membership: Official “. From that article:

“Totić dismissed fears that ACTA could lead to infringement of citizens rights, privacy and data protection rules, arguing that national implementation and judicial review of cases of suspected copyright violations would guard against this.
“Therefore, I believe that there is no risk,” she said.
…
“One is of an impression that, although the law envisages strict penalties for the crime of unauthorised use of copyrighted materials and brands, sentences pronounced are lower than for stealing physical, material goods,” she said.”
How Serbia, or indeed any Party to ACTA, implements ACTA locally could become irrelevant.

A harsh implementer of ACTA, a Party who has “strict penalties for the crime of unauthorised use of copyrighted materials and brands” to use Totić lingo, can request the extradition of a citizen of a Party to ACTA to face the IPR justice of that harsh implementing ACTA Party.

Thus, by signing ACTA, Parties to ACTA in effect accept the harshest implementation of ACTA a Party to ACTA has chosen.

Potential Parties to ACTA, and indeed many other Treaties in the making (ie, the Trans-Pacific Partnership – TTP), need to be aware of this and not delude themselves that “there is no risk“.

I have explained this before, here.

Here’s a good article from Techdirt on the issue.

Sincerely,

awbmaven

My Blog: “ACTA is a blessing in disguise for UK PLC”. Run that by me again … cc @_AskTheExperts_ @_JayMcGregor

I have some issues with the idea that “ACTA is a blessing in disguise for UK PLC” as stated in this article.

Let me go through it in my usual style:

From the article:
“The World is on the brink of changing the landscape of Internet communication freedom, and, as many agree, much for the worse.

Well, for the docile legislation drone countries anyway. For us Brits however, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement currently trailblazing its way over the face of the planet leaving behind scorched earth with little public discourse offers the UK a unique opportunity to be the Cayman Islands of the digital world.”

The UK has signed ACTA and has shown very few signs it will not ratify it. Anti-ACTA demonstration in the UK on 11/2 and 25/2 where muted compared to the rest of mainland Europe. Arguably that lumps the UK as a “docile legislation drone countries”.  The UK is part of the EU and unlike the Cayman Islands, is subject to EU acquis.

“Censorship is a contentious topic. In some cases, like age restrictions on adult material, it’s necessary. In others, like restricting free discussion in chat rooms in Communist China, it’s not. Censorship should always be the subject of common sense, it should not be the plaything of the rich and powerful who are more concerned with protecting their interests.

This is exactly what’s happening in the United States at the moment with the ACTA, powerful conglomerates (mainly in the music and film industry) have spent two years and a significant amount of money lobbying politicians to fortify copyright law. And they’ve succeeded. Big corporations are quite adept at penetrating the political process and know exactly how much re-election donation lubricant is needed to help smooth the deal through. ”

That is exactly what is also happening in the UK with DEA, CCDP, and other legislation both home-grown and enacted by the EU, of which the UK is a member and which the UK will have to obey.

“If the agreement comes into force it puts a lot of countries in a precarious position, mainly the US because certain law makers already attempted to push through the now defunct SOPA. By appeasing the entertainment industry, they will be slighting many Internet start-ups. An impressive list of wide ranging opponents have signed a letter or spoken out against the act.”

That is the wrong way around. The other countries (sans US) are in a precarious position because ACTA exports worst of US copyright law.

“The brat pack of the entertainment industry, and arguably the future of the American economy, will have been completely ignored in favour of a powerful lobby. Companies like YouTube and Wikipedia would have struggled under the new legislation and similarly new companies like SoundCloud and Vimeo could be strangled out of the market before they get a chance to flourish.

This is bad news for the US, but it’s not all doom and gloom for the UK. The UK has an opportunity to position itself as an Internet friendly island ready and waiting with open arms to accept scorned Internet start-ups from across the Atlantic. But this needs to be done properly, we’re not a haven for every seedy underhanded website operating illegally over the net, no, we’re simply a proponent of Internet freedom. ”

The UK is a physical island. It has an opportunity, yet, as the proposed changes to UK and EU legislation indicates, it is definatly NOT positioning itself as “an Internet friendly island ready and waiting with open arms to accept scorned Internet start-ups from across the Atlantic“. I would argue it is falling in line with US wishes [so no change there for the UK]. The UK is quite defiantly not a proponent of Internet freedom based on the evidence of proposed and enacted UK legislation.

“Cameron and co talk of ‘Britain being open for business’ and ‘investing in the future’ this a chance to do that. Our international reputation as a scientific thought leader is eroding and as our financial institutions crumble we’re scrambling to figure what it is that we’re good at – something that’s good enough to be exported. Ideas should be the answer. Multi-billion dollar Internet start-ups like Facebook, Linkedin and Wikipedia are companies that would fit well with the UK’s ideology. ”

Talk is cheap. Cameron may say one thing, but I’m afraid his coalition governments’ actions tell us something completely different.

“What about the Digital Economy Act rushed through Parliament in the dying days of the last Labour government I hear your cry. Well, what about it. The act is much more specific than the broad ACTA. If someone is suspected of downloading illegal copyrighted material, they are told, in a typically British way, to stop – three times – and if they don’t they might have their connection cut or stripped down to a slower speed. All of which under the watchful eye of an extensive appeal process.

Also, the act is currently languishing in Brussels waiting for the European Commission to approve changes. Similarly, Ofcom, the architects of the intricacies of the act, simply haven’t drawn up plans of what the rules are and how they would be enforced. Compare this to the ACTA where entire websites will be shut down because small numbers of users may be swapping or uploading copyrighted material and you have two very different pictures. ”

Dismissing the DEA shows a distinct lack of understanding of what DEA could mean, this may help. Entire websites can already be shut down in the UK, and they have been. Additionally, if you think .com, .net, .org sites hosted in the UK are free from extra-UK jurisdiction, this from Micheal Geist may dispel that erroneous notion.

“The UK’s very own silicone valley over in East London is building a reputation for itself and, with a little bit of encouragement and across the Atlantic investment, it could rival the original. Seducing some key players from the US could be just what is needed to restore this nation’s ingenuity credentials.”

I’d like examples of this UK silicone valley. I guess it could rival the original just as I could win the lottery one day.  What is needed are reasons why key players would want to exit the US and base themselves in the UK. I would suggest the author write a list.

I’m trying not to chuckle too much at this article a site called asktheexperts.org.uk, I think if I had a Fail-of-the-Day award, Jay McGregor and asktheexperts.org.uk would be recieving it today.

La Quadrature Du Net’s “A Strategy Looking Through ACTA and Beyond” lacks outside-the-box vision.

La Quadrature Du Net has an article out today titled,  “A Strategy Looking Through ACTA and Beyond” that I have to say seem blinkered and lacking lateral thinking.

From the article,
“Over the last two weeks, events have radically altered the course of the debate on ACTA and its ratification procedure, both at the EU and Member States levels. The tremendous citizen pressure definitely had an effect and altered the balance of power. Scared that ACTA might promptly be rejected, EU Commissioner De Gucht managed to delay the procedure by one or two years. With clear objectives in mind, it might be time to look also beyond ACTA to understand how we can collectively attempt to protect our freedoms online while fixing the broken copyright regime currently waging war on the free Internet.”

I agree recent events have altered the balance of power, and citizens have been mobilized into action.  I wrote this article explaining what I thought could be done with this mobilized citizen force.

I am a supporter of LQDN, but I think  they have missed several large elephants in the room with regards to what is “beyond ACTA“.

In this article is what I believe is beyond ACTA, and that article is only the tip of the iceberg I think.

I would like LQDN, other Civil Society organizations, and concerned citizens to expand on that article so we may all know ALL the proposed new and to-be-modified legislations/agreements/Treaties there are being planned by our authorities that will have an impact on our “freedoms online“; their names, the stages at which they are at, time-frames, etc etc [with information via links].

Further, as well as online freedoms, there is a lot of works that needs to be put in to shore up citizens’ data. I have written this article that explains some of the attacks on citizens privacy and this article to try to show some of the ways a netizen could help protect themselves against privacy snooping.

• 1. Copyright needs to be fixed, there is no question on that.
• 2. Online freedoms need to be protected, indeed, expanded.
• 3. Citizens’ data needs more protecting than is currently in place/currently planned.

These are the three issues I think citizens whom were mobilised against ACTA would also feel very strongly about and I think Civil Society organizations like LQDN should help inform them fully regarding these other attacks  and deficiencies in citizens’ protection.

For me, the most pressing matter is the proposed Passenger Data Records legislation, for details on that, see this article.

If the above comes across as sharp, I apologize.  I am very concerned (and a little emotional) about much more than one Agreement (ACTA, and the footnoted TPP) and trying to get changes to copyright law. I believe there are many more lines of attack being perpetrated on citizens and I think Civil Society and netizens need to become and remain seized of them.

Sincerely,

awbMaven

My blog: Response to @Europarl_EN’s “ACTA: experts reveal how it could effect civil liberties…” article.

The European Parliament have composed an article entitled, “ACTA: experts reveal how it could affect civil liberties and access to generic medicine“. I’m going to go through it in my usual style, commenting where I see fit

.

From the article:
“Does ACTA pose a threat to civil liberties and developing countries’ access to generic medicine? Many people oppose the controversial anti-counterfeiting agreement because of concerns over these two issues. MEPs, who will be crucial to deciding the treaty’s fate in the EU, staged a special workshop on 1 March to grill experts about their insights into ACTA. Find out how they think the treaty will affect civil liberties and access to generic medicine.

Civil rights

Dr Olivier Vrins, of Altius Lawyers, said ACTA states that its provisions should be transposed with respect to fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and freedom to have a fair trial. “Fundamental rights of European citizens are not  in serious danger because of ACTA. The idea of proportionality is particularly important because it is applied as well by the European Court of Human Rights when balancing out various fundamental rights which might be in conflict, here the right on property on the one hand and on the other the right of protection of private life, freedom of speech and freedom of access to information. This preservation of fundamental rights means that not only that people would be able to say that certain acts do not infringe intellectual property, but parties must foresee certain exceptions and limits to intellectual property” ”

I have issues when caveats are loaded in front of, or behind, statements or words. They’re a red-alert for me.  In the above statement from Dr Olivier Vrins, note he uses the word “serious” in “Fundamental rights of European citizens are not  in serious danger because of ACTA.”  This indicates to me that they are in danger – just not what Dr Olivier Vrins views as “serious danger”.

Secondly, I was intrigued by the mention of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). After a two second Google, I am now concerned.  The European Commission and the European Parliaments INTA committee have both said they are going to ask the European Court of Justice (ECJ) some questions regarding ACTA. But, the two institutions are very separate, read about that here.

I think both the ECHR and ECJ need asking various questions with regard to ACTA and I would be very concerned if only the ECJ is asked questions.

Further from the article:
“Rupert Schlegelmilch,  of the European Commission’s directorate-general for trade, said that the Commission took concerns over civil rights extremely seriously, but there was no real reason to be worried. “Intellectual property is property but it’s not property only. Privacy and access to the net are just as important. We believe the treaty strikes a fair balance in that respect. ACTA does not impose a new standard. What will be imposed is what we have. Nothing new will be enforced. What is legal is legal, what is illegal is illegal. ACTA is just about making sure that people do something about it.” ”

I don’t think the evidence points to the European Commission (EC) taking concerns over civil rights extremely seriously at all, otherwise they would have asked the ECJ questions much earlier in the ACTA process.  I would have thought that the very latest they should have asked questions, was right after the Final ACTA text was available. To my knowledge, they have still not said they will ask the ECHR questions, regarding ACTA.

I am not sure by what Rupert Schlegelmilch means by, “Intellectual property is property but it’s not property only.” This seems to give Intellectual Property additional properties.

Mr Schlegelmilch’s “ACTA does not impose a new standard.” contradicts the so called “gold standard” other ACTA proponents use to describe ACTA. This mixed message from ACTA proponents is becoming the norm. Commissioner De Gucht has described ACTA as “a relatively modest agreement” as well as “significant”.

The line, “Nothing new will be enforced.” is misleading.  ACTA’s very role, is as an enforcement treaty – as De Gucht makes very plain. This is because current IPR are not enforced as strictly as ACTA proponents would like them enforced.
Further from the article:
“Generic medicine

Dr Meir Pugatch, of the Universityof Haifa, argued that ACTA will not have an impact on access to generic medicine, as the agreement does not cover patents. ”I think that we already have the necessary safeguards today to ensure access to generic medicines, and therefore I don’t think ACTA poses any serious concern, nor does it create a serious contribution to the issue. The problem is counterfeited medicines and substandard medicines.  If you end up using counterfeited medicine or substandard medicine, it could seriously damage your health. Those who suffer the most from substandard medicines and counterfeited medicines are poor populations.“

Serious concerns have been posed by developing countries, – most recently when ACTA was discussed at the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) TRIPs committee meeting. For more info on the fight that went on there, read this.

And lastly,  from the article:
“Commission representative Mr Schlegelmilch later added: “Developing countries will be able to continue to buy the generic medicines that they need just as before.“

However, the British Social Democrat David Martin, who is responsible for steering ACTA through Parliament, said that many questions still remained about how the treaty could affect access to generic medicines: “What we don’t know is how border agencies will be asked to define counterfeit medicine as opposed to generic medicine, especially when many of these medicines that arrive at the frontier are packaged and labelled similarly to the original medicine. How will this operate?“

Mr Martin said the workshop showed there was a need for more information, which is why it would be good for the European Court of Justice to give a ruling on questions to be prepared by Parliament. “There is an English expression where we say the devil is in the detail. The problem with ACTA is that the devil is in the lack of details. We don’t have enough information on many of the areas where in the end we will have to make a judgment on.” “

Mere assurances from proponents of ACTA are not reassuring. New/modified legislation/Treaties must be tested fully by the highest Court(s) so a fully informed view can be held by those (MP’s MEP’s) who have responsibility for that legislation’s/Treaty’s acceptance (i.e. passing it into law). David Martin (MEP) does seem to fully understand this and seems to be on-the-case, as the phrase goes.

Concerned citizens need to let their representatives (MP’s, MEP’s) and rapporteurs for new/modified legislations know of any concerns they have, so these representatives can answer those concerns. The alternative is for the concerned citizens to search for these answers themselves.

Sincerely,

awbMaven

My blog: A netizens’ response to #EU’s “IP Enforcement Trends” statement. #ACTA #IPR #Trend

(this is a re-post after having accidental over-written the original due to a hangover, I will edit this to get the links and formatting right a little later)

 

I read an article today on “ACTA: European Union’s statement on IP Enforcement Trends at WTO Council for TRIPS”: http://keionline.org/node/1380

I will comment below in the style of the Statement:

Agenda item N.a. – Necessary Netizens’ Rights trends

In the European Union our strengths are our citizens and our cultures. Our strengths are inside our heads – in our creativity, our capacity to innovate and our commitment to quality.

If citizens are to be creative, they require both protection and enforcement their Fundamental rights and their Lesser rights. EU citizens’ Fundamental and Lesser rights are protected by law (acquis) and by Courts including the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

It is outlined in EU acquis and case law what are the primary Fundamental rights and secondary (Lesser) rights and how they can be protected, the means to enforce them, and the balance of Fundamental and Lesser rights.

EU creators of Intellectual Property enjoy protections of their creations through Lesser rights. Those Lesser rights have the aim of incorporating safeguards to the Fundamental Rights that have primacy over Lesser rights. Any  elaboration of IPR protection systems must safeguard Fundamental Rights. Lesser Rights such IPR must protect the Fundamental Rights,  rights of citizens to free speech, data protection and access to information as well as the rights of Internet service providers and other intermediaries who deal with protected goods. These two goals must be compatible and mutually supportive, and they should be shown to be compatible and mutually supportive before they become part of EU acquis.

There are forces in Europe attempting to evolve IPR enforcement. The stated aim is for IPR enforcement to become increasingly effective. This must be shown to remain compatible and mutually supportive of Fundamental Rights. Customs enforcement legislation is currently being reviewed and this review must assure that modifications to Customs enforcement legislation is compatible and mutually supportive of Fundamental Rights.

There are forces in Europe attempting to revisit the civil enforcement legislation in the coming years. Any review of civil enforcement legislation must include knowledge that modifications to civil enforcement legislation are compatible and mutually supportive of Fundamental Rights. A European Observatory on the protection of IPR has been created, whose primary goal is to obtain factual and accurate information that is so necessary to better substantiate new policy measures and to optimise resources.

I propose a European Observatory on the protection of Citizens rights. Its primary goal is to obtain factual and accurate information that is so necessary to better assure that modifications to Fundamental rights, Lesser rights, other proposed acquis and Treaties are compatible and mutually supportive of Fundamental Rights  so we can substantiate new policy measures with the aim of optimising resources.

The Commission is preparing initiatives to make digital content more accessible to citizens. For instance, there is work in progress on a pan-European license for music; easier licensing for so-called “orphan works”; and the creation of online digital libraries. These initiatives should be created in tandem with the proposed European Observatory on the protection of Citizens rights to assure that these initiatives are compatible and mutually supportive of Fundamental Rights.

The aim of these initiatives is stated as giving consumers and users better access to cultural content while allowing for new business models to thrive. These initiatives must be shown to be compatible and mutually supportive of Fundamental Rights.

Another tool being proposed which aims to ensure a more ‘efficient’ international level of IP enforcement is ACTA.  ACTA too must be compatible and mutually supportive of Fundamental Rights.

ACTA is an enforcement treaty. It currently does not cover the details of what is legal and what is illegal; it has not been though the process of ensuring it is compatible and mutually supportive of Fundamental Rights. It’s proponents aim to address procedures for ensuring that what is illegal can be redressed. It aims to deals with civil, criminal and border enforcement. It sets out some basic principles for internet enforcement. It forces as well as encourages international cooperation on enforcement between 38 countries and can effect non-ACTA countries. ACTA, like all acquis and Treaties, should need to pass through the proposed EuropeanObservatory on the protection of Citizens rights to assure that these it is compatible and mutually supportive of Fundamental Rights.

Proponents of ACTA aims are that companies and individuals who wish to protect their ideas so as to defend their livelihoods will find it easier to do so in the 38 countries that have signed the treaty and effect to a degree non-ACTA Parties. These aims need to be compatible and mutually supportive of Fundamental Rights.

ACTA is an agreement between a limited number of countries that also could effect all countries.

Proponents of ACTA say it is a significant first step as well as a modest first step. Proponents of ACTA aim to establish a nucleus of countries that are committed to the standards of intellectual property rights enforcementset down in their respective countries. Proponents of ACTA aim is that this nucleus of First Parties & Ratifiers of ACTA will grow.

Proponents of ACTA would have liked to have negotiated this agreement at a global level. That was not possible. Some countries who have joined this agreement are having second thoughts as issues have been raised about ACTA’s. The Senate of Mexico voted unanimously to withdraw from ACTA [1]. Some Parties which were expected to sign ACTA, such as Germany and the Netherlands have not yet signed ACTA. Some Parties have halted their ratification process Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, and the Netherlands, Poland.

There are touted “misconceptions” about ACTA:

There are no provisions in ACTA that could directly or indirectly affect the legitimate trade in generic medicines or, more broadly, global public health.
ACTA, like the TRIPS, also excludes patents from criminal and border measures. The text of ACTA is publicly available to all since April 2010, and has already been made public during the negotiations.
ACTA was not negotiated as a secret: As the US mentioned, the text was available during the negotiations. The European Commission organised four stakeholder conferences on ACTA which were open to all – citizens, industry, NGOs and press.

These “misconceptions” conceal and reveal other concerns through the  language used and what is missing from their explanations.

There is little if any proof offered, merely broad statements masquerading as fact. What is included, as opposed to excluded, in criminal and border measures is missing in the tout. The documents that have not been made public have not been highlighted or mentioned, and neither has the highlighting or mentioning of documents being released with redaction of text in those documents. There is no mention of the force that had to be applied by interested parties to gain access to some of the documents that have been released.

A bare-faced lie is that ACTA was not negotiated in secret. What is true is that ACTA was not negotiated in public and that all key preparatory documents are still not available to the public or to Interested Parties and Civil Society.

ACTA does not contain unequivocal language safeguarding access to health while it does refers to the Doha Declaration on intellectual property and public health, it is not binding.

During ACTA negotiations, there is no doubt that certain Interested Parties had greater access and influence in the negotiation procedure than other still-Interested Parties.

Proponents of ACTA say NGO’s were extensively debriefed, that academia and representatives from political parties were represented during the last four rounds of negotiations in side events during the negotiation sessions. Proponents of ACTA say this shows there was no secrecy in ACTA negotiations and shows that ACTA was negotiated in a transparent and open manner.

I think it shows no such thing, indeed, it shows the opposite, and together with NGO’s, academics, representatives from political parties, Civil Society and other interested citizens, I say no, ACTA was negotiated in secret from where I am standing, that negotiations were not transparent to me and still are not, and that some negotiating actors were not and are still not being open to me.

In short, ACTA may do a lot of things; it may improve systems currently in place; it may break and/or make worse current systems in place; it may or may not be compatible and mutually supportive of Fundamental Right.

When analysis what ACTA will do and could do, we need access to all the key preparatory works. These will show what the proponents of ACTA wanted to do, and as proponents of ACTA say ACTA is just a small, modest and significant step, we should decide whether we want to lay a step down the road they want us to build, or not.

I hope the various Parties to ACTA and Interested Parties around the world look very hard at what ACTA would and could do, and trend ACTA is a ‘modest/significant‘ part of.

[1] – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

My Blog: Comments on #INTA #ACTA Workshop (#ACTAws) – the #IPR and Copyright Enforcement Treaty

[oops, I’ve Published a draft, will add to this post later …]

(The workshop can be viewed here or downloaded (1.7 Gb) and played in VLC open source media player here. Thanks to François Revol @mmu_man for those.)

 

Commissioner for Trade, Kavel De Gucht, made completely transparent that ACTA is an Enforcement Treaty.

It is a Treaty to impose and allow others to choose to impose, in his view and that of ACTA supporters, some much needed enforcement of current laws [acquis] and Treaties (with a couple of ,they say, minor acquis changes) with regards to Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright (IPRC).

De Gucht is a big Dutch man, evidently has a temper, and evidently does not take kindly to having his fundamental views doubted.  I think we can accurately term him an IPRC Fundamentalist.

(He seems to have the “R” “P”, “F” from my term, BRPF, and with the insistence of enforcement, perhaps with the “B” or at the least, a small “b”)

Marietje Schaake ‏MEP (@MarietjeD66),  asked questions of the European Commission in 2010, regarding whether ACTA was an enforcement treaty or trade treaty.

De Gucht drilled home that the final version of ACTA before the INTA committee and European Parliament was, in his view, a very mild version compared to previous drafts and compared to what he and others would like to see. He called ACTA a “modest first step” in IPRC enforcement.

Evidence that ACTA is modest can be gleaned from what is missing from this final version of ACTA, that Parties to ACTA and member states of the EU have been asked to ratify. We have some access to some past drafts of ACTA, and such things as the Three-Strike-Rule did not make it to the final version of ACTA. Also, some of the compulsion in the wording has changed from “shall” to “may“.

I think it is fair to say that ACTA has been watered down and that IPRC Fundamentalists are planning to create less and less “modest” versions of ACTA in the future.

De Gucht drilled home that ACTA will merely be enforcing aqcuis and Treaties are currently in force and that were passed by previous EU institutions.  He said what is illegal now, will stay illegal; and what is legal now, will stay legal – that ACTA does not change any specific legalities. [I disagree with that, mainly on the criminality aspects of ACTA.] I note here that the EP now has much changed duties and responsibilities, post-Lisbon Treaty, and I think with ACTA we are seeing the EP flex its muscles more. I think this is causing (and will continue to cause) friction with the European Commission (EC).

Various speakers made mention of the various current EU acquis that ACTA is meant to enforce, these I have described more in previous posts in February. Many if not all of these acquis are in the process of being modified. I view these modifications and new instruments as additional “steps” and part of the IPRC Fundamentalist ideology of continued harsher terms for IPRC enforcement. De Gucht would (I believe) view them as being modest additional steps.

The European Commission was the main Party negotiating the non-criminalising elements of ACTA. De Gucht was forceful in reminding listeners thatMemberStatesand other Parties negotiated and have responsibility for the criminal elements within ACTA.

De Gucht and other IPRC Fundamentalists welcome the criminalising elements of the treaty, since they view copying IPRC as stealing. In their view, just as one is a thief if one steals an apple, one should also be considered a thief if one downloads a song/film without the IPR holders consent or if one sells/buys counterfeit goods.

…. to be continued