Uniform Two Six wrote:Yeah, I think that's the heart of the disagreement here. I don't see it as the business interests getting special treatment. These conferences are somewhat akin to diplomatic summits in some ways (although obviously not in the technical sense -- I doubt State Department was even involved in these things), so from a legal perspective the stuff getting discussed is more along the lines of diplomatic proposals. In order for any of this to become United States law, there has to be some sort of legislative involvement. Some of this stuff consists of genuine treaties, which require full ratification by the Congress. That's the proper venue for the citizenry to get involved, not the negotiation part. You're trying to hold other countries to our standards of citizen involvement and transparency. That's the part that feels like special treatment to me.
The problem is, though, that they're still drafting what they hope to become law; stuff that will affect our rights as consumers, independent creators, and small businesses. Big businesses and corporations have access and input, you can bet, while we don't.
So while, legally, the
may be doing nothing wrong yet, it still reaks of corporate favoritism, with no valid reason to keep us in the dark. The question to ask is "Why should we be kept out of these negotiations?" not "Why should we be let in to these negotiations?". And personally, "Because some countries don't want us to know before it's too late to do anything." is not an acceptable answer.
Apples and oranges. PATRIOT was a bona fide law. It was ratified by the Congress. It was not legally the equivalent of an executive order. In order to fool around with PATRIOT, you cannot make the argument that it is illegal -- because it's a law. By definition it is legal. In order to mess with it, you have to prove that it is unconstitutional, which is vastly more involved.
If ACTA is ratified by the US, it will have the full weight of law, giving it the same "legality". In some ways, ACTA is even worse because it will be replacing existing IP laws and not necessarily be unconstitutional. But because of it's size and scope, and the amount of work being put into it, it will be a lot harder to reject it all because of some things we don't want.
My question was more along the lines of should the government be required to share stuff like that with the public as a matter of course as long as national security is not at risk, not the practicality of encryption schemes.
IMO, if it does not harm national security, it should be public. At the very least, disclosed on request. The government works for us, so in general, it's in our best intereest to keep tabs on what it's doing.
I might buy that line with regards to commercial encryption, but (although admittedly not a computer expert) I have serious difficulty believing that the governmental encryption that few people have laid eyes upon is that unsecure.
There's no use in hypothesizing about what we don't know (ie, encryption that only a few select people have seen). But we do know that the more effective encryption algorithms are those that are the most open so anyone can poke at and find flaws in it and improve it, which the government does use. Well-tested armor is better protection than unrecognized armor. Being closed does not prevent people from poking at it and looking for flaws, but it does attract the less reputable people with questionable motives to do so.
Chris wrote:It may be one thing if it doesn't affect the rights of people, but that's not the case here. It will affect people, and they should have the right to have their voices heard on the subject.
Aha! But if it's
secret how do you know that the contents of those diplomatic proposals don't violate the rights of the people?
Precisely, which is why it should not be secret, so that we can know. If it doesn't, no harm no foul. If it does, then we have a problem and the sooner we can get to rectifying it, the better.
In the particular case of ACTA, there have been some leaks of it that have popped up (which, ironically, would be illegal to distribute under copyright law; but laying a copyright claim would just serve to validate its authenticity). By all reports, it's basically an extended, global DMCA; something which has done enough to damage our rights, at the behest of corporations, as it is.
