Congressman demands details of secretive ACTA treaty be made public(venturebeat.com)
venturebeat.com
Congressman demands details of secretive ACTA treaty be made public
http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/06/darrell-issa-acta-secretive-madison-open-treaty/
8 comments
The only critic allowed to officially voice concerns during the hearings last week was Canadian law professor Michael Geist. He provided a very good and detailed overview on the issues and dangers already foreseeable. When people applauding his speech at the end the chairman of the EU parliament workshop treated with throwing people out.
Video of his speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=gzieTzart5s Transcript on his site: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6350/125/
Video of his speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=gzieTzart5s Transcript on his site: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6350/125/
Congress is angry because usually their approval is needed to ratify a treaty - see the letter below -
http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=12a5b1cb-...
http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=12a5b1cb-...
Treaties are ratified by the Senate. Not the House. Congress refers to both houses, or sometimes just the House of Representatives, but never to the Senate alone. Anyway Issa is a Congressman, not a Senator.
Important difference to point out. You phrasing tripped me up though, and I want to point out that Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) (who's linked above) is also upset about ACTA not being considered a treaty.
So members of both houses are angry (thus Congress in general), but only the Senate's approval is needed for a treaty. It is unconstitutional for a president to enter into a treaty w/o Senate approval.
Article II, Section 2, Paragraph II of the Constitution states that the President: "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"
(Sorry, I've recently gotten into constitutional law and wanted to post this FYI)
So members of both houses are angry (thus Congress in general), but only the Senate's approval is needed for a treaty. It is unconstitutional for a president to enter into a treaty w/o Senate approval.
Article II, Section 2, Paragraph II of the Constitution states that the President: "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"
(Sorry, I've recently gotten into constitutional law and wanted to post this FYI)
Maybe he had help from Sen. Wyden. I know he was trying to open up ACTA and get it ratified by the Senate.
[deleted]
I don't get it. The text has been public for a while now, e.g. on the website of the European Commission:
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/acta/index_e...
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/acta/index_e...
And the US Trade Representative: http://www.ustr.gov/acta (see "ACTA Text" link on the right)
Does this count as a breach of some sort of constitutional duty on behalf of the President? Or would it just be a valid argument that the "treaty" is null and void?
Sorry - not intimatey familiar with the US government.
Sorry - not intimatey familiar with the US government.
No, that's the beauty of the thing -- if you can call a shitstorm on net freedom beautiful.
Usually when the legislative and executive branches get crossed up, the courts sort it out. But in this case Congress (the Senate) already ceded these powers to the executive branch under some other treaties. So there's really nothing to sort out. Congress (the House of Representatives and Issa) could make a big fuss and cause the administration not to implement ACTA, but it'd just be a temporary measure. You'd have to have a law passed specifically restricting the Executive branch from interfering with internet rights via previously existing treaties in order to really fix this thing. A long shot at best. You'd probably have more luck trying to teach beavers to fly airplanes than actually straighten out this situation "correctly."
Internet freedom, including privacy, anonymity, access, and publishing rights, are in desperate need of a constitutional amendment. Nothing else is going to work. There's simply too many structural avenues for attack by vested corporate interests.
Usually when the legislative and executive branches get crossed up, the courts sort it out. But in this case Congress (the Senate) already ceded these powers to the executive branch under some other treaties. So there's really nothing to sort out. Congress (the House of Representatives and Issa) could make a big fuss and cause the administration not to implement ACTA, but it'd just be a temporary measure. You'd have to have a law passed specifically restricting the Executive branch from interfering with internet rights via previously existing treaties in order to really fix this thing. A long shot at best. You'd probably have more luck trying to teach beavers to fly airplanes than actually straighten out this situation "correctly."
Internet freedom, including privacy, anonymity, access, and publishing rights, are in desperate need of a constitutional amendment. Nothing else is going to work. There's simply too many structural avenues for attack by vested corporate interests.
And for purely political reasons, you will NEVER see Congress as a whole come out against the President like that. For example, back when Obama (illegally) attacked Libya, our Congress wouldn't even formally condemn Obama's actions.
The Democrats won't put the brakes on it because it would interfere with the power they're currently enjoying. And the Republicans won't do it because they too covet that power after the next election.
The Democrats won't put the brakes on it because it would interfere with the power they're currently enjoying. And the Republicans won't do it because they too covet that power after the next election.
For those looking for more information:
Problems with ACTA, from Michael Geist, a Canadian on the EFF advisory board: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6350/125/
From his points, the main substantive change from what I can tell is more oversight and liability for 3rd parties, with one likely target being ISPs: "Within ACTA, Articles 8 and 12 apply in the civil enforcement context, Articles 23 and 24 add “aiding and abetting” to criminal offences, and Article 27 targets third parties in the online environment. "
A defense of ACTA from the European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/acta/index_e...
Defense summarized here: http://venturevillage.eu/acta-myths-explained
All in all it seems like a pretty vague agreement designed to bring all the signers on the same page in terms of oversight and investigation of ip importing and exporting activities. It hardly says that countries must do anything, but that they "may" do many things they agree on. That's not to say that the agreement would be a good thing in its current form. Agreeing to potentially criminalize activities without mandating protections from false charges etc seems like a poor decision to me.
Problems with ACTA, from Michael Geist, a Canadian on the EFF advisory board: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6350/125/
From his points, the main substantive change from what I can tell is more oversight and liability for 3rd parties, with one likely target being ISPs: "Within ACTA, Articles 8 and 12 apply in the civil enforcement context, Articles 23 and 24 add “aiding and abetting” to criminal offences, and Article 27 targets third parties in the online environment. "
A defense of ACTA from the European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/acta/index_e...
Defense summarized here: http://venturevillage.eu/acta-myths-explained
All in all it seems like a pretty vague agreement designed to bring all the signers on the same page in terms of oversight and investigation of ip importing and exporting activities. It hardly says that countries must do anything, but that they "may" do many things they agree on. That's not to say that the agreement would be a good thing in its current form. Agreeing to potentially criminalize activities without mandating protections from false charges etc seems like a poor decision to me.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet-awa...
"That final version has been publicly available for months, but many ACTA opponents continue to focus on these deleted provisions in their arguments against the treaty."
"That final version has been publicly available for months, but many ACTA opponents continue to focus on these deleted provisions in their arguments against the treaty."
I don't want to ding a politician for doing the right thing, but Issa is also a sponsor of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Works_Act, (co-sponsored with a Democrat, btw) so this looks more like an act of political grand-standing than political idealism.
He was also one of the key Congressmen fighting against SOPA. I think Issa is generally a good guy, who just like any other politician (except Ron Paul) can be swayed by lobby money to support a certain bill that in the end the public might not like.
It's not that different than Al. Franken supporting net neutrality, only to become a strong supporter of PIPA later on. Although, I'm not sure Al Franken ever was a good guy. Perhaps he was just generally for more Government control of the Internet - which I guess net neutrality could be part of that.
Either way, the core problem still seems to be how campaign financing works right now, getting politicians desperate for campaign money, and ending up supporting bills that may or may not be compatible with their own ideals.
It's not that different than Al. Franken supporting net neutrality, only to become a strong supporter of PIPA later on. Although, I'm not sure Al Franken ever was a good guy. Perhaps he was just generally for more Government control of the Internet - which I guess net neutrality could be part of that.
Either way, the core problem still seems to be how campaign financing works right now, getting politicians desperate for campaign money, and ending up supporting bills that may or may not be compatible with their own ideals.
He also led the all-male congressional hearings against contraception. I support most of his opinions, but I wish I could elect politicians with authority in specific fields only.
You're thinking of liquid democracy if you want to demand that from your representatives.
> He also led the all-male congressional hearings against contraception.
The hearings weren't "against contraception". They were about whether the current status quo, where certain institutions aren't required to pay for contraception, can continue to do so.
Also, the panels weren't weren't all male - there were women on the second panel from Catholic schools supporting the "religious freedom" position.
And no, contraception isn't anywhere near $1000/year. Walmart charges $4/month while Target and CVS charge $9. Even at $20/month, we're looking at less than $250/year. (The required medical appointment is already covered so it doesn't need to be added.) IUDs and the like are less.
Condoms don't account for the difference. Yes, you can pay $1 each, but if you're going through $750/year, you should be buying multi-condom packages. Amazon charges $0.14-$0.30 for small packages.
Then again, the person claiming to spend $1000 is a lawyer-wanna-be, so maybe she's engaged in creative billing.
The hearings weren't "against contraception". They were about whether the current status quo, where certain institutions aren't required to pay for contraception, can continue to do so.
Also, the panels weren't weren't all male - there were women on the second panel from Catholic schools supporting the "religious freedom" position.
And no, contraception isn't anywhere near $1000/year. Walmart charges $4/month while Target and CVS charge $9. Even at $20/month, we're looking at less than $250/year. (The required medical appointment is already covered so it doesn't need to be added.) IUDs and the like are less.
Condoms don't account for the difference. Yes, you can pay $1 each, but if you're going through $750/year, you should be buying multi-condom packages. Amazon charges $0.14-$0.30 for small packages.
Then again, the person claiming to spend $1000 is a lawyer-wanna-be, so maybe she's engaged in creative billing.
Condoms are almost completely irrelevant. A primary issue is women being prescribed contraceptives for medical conditions other than preventing pregnancy. Contraceptives like "the pill" contain powerful and varying hormone cocktails which have numerous uses. Different brands/types contain different cocktails at different doses, meaning that the situation is not as simple as "just get the cheap one". The particular one that works for that use is prescribed, which most certainly can be 1000USD/year.
> A primary issue is women being prescribed contraceptives for medical conditions other than preventing pregnancy.
A "primary issue"? No. Most contraceptives are used for preventing pregnancy.
However, the "other conditions" case IS covered, and this wasn't about that.
> The particular one that works for that use is prescribed, which most certainly can be 1000USD/year.
The question is never "how much can you get someone to pay" but "how little can be paid".
Walmart sells multiple varieties, so citation needed that $1k/year is at all reasonable.
A "primary issue"? No. Most contraceptives are used for preventing pregnancy.
However, the "other conditions" case IS covered, and this wasn't about that.
> The particular one that works for that use is prescribed, which most certainly can be 1000USD/year.
The question is never "how much can you get someone to pay" but "how little can be paid".
Walmart sells multiple varieties, so citation needed that $1k/year is at all reasonable.
The primary issue, not the primary use of birth control. Though I suspect you would be surprised by a breakdown.
"However, the "other conditions" case IS covered, and this wasn't about that."
Depending on the organisation, it often times it is not. That is why the issue has been in the news so much recently.
"However, the "other conditions" case IS covered, and this wasn't about that."
Depending on the organisation, it often times it is not. That is why the issue has been in the news so much recently.
>> "However, the "other conditions" case IS covered, and this wasn't about that."
>Depending on the organisation, it often times it is not.
Citation needed because the Catholic organizations in question DO cover the use of birth control drugs and procedures to address "other conditions".
There's even a papal statement to the effect that doing so is a good thing - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae , specifically the "Lawful Therapeutic Means" section.
>Depending on the organisation, it often times it is not.
Citation needed because the Catholic organizations in question DO cover the use of birth control drugs and procedures to address "other conditions".
There's even a papal statement to the effect that doing so is a good thing - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae , specifically the "Lawful Therapeutic Means" section.
The ACTA worries Medecins sans Frontieres: http://www.msfaccess.org/content/counterfeit-substandard-and...
More:
http://www.msfaccess.org/content/counterfeit-confusion
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2155038/acta-kills-...
More:
http://www.msfaccess.org/content/counterfeit-confusion
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2155038/acta-kills-...
If we're modifying huge sections of IP law administratively without legislative oversight, that opens up a whole new area for fun and games. Now you have to petition your Congressman to petition the president to use a certain process just so your elected representative can actually have a say in how the laws are changing.
There's nothing new here -- Congress has been ceding it's authority away for decades and this is just a bit of political posturing on Issa's part -- but still, it's really quite breathtaking when you stand back and think about it. The bureaucracy saw what it thought was a problem, then used existing international treaties as a framework to "fix" the problem without having that pesky review or oversight process.
Next time they want more restrictions on the net instead of trying to get a bill through the Senate and the House they'll just use this avenue.
I gotta admit it, the folks waving their arms and saying ACTA was much worse than SOPA were right. This not only does the same and more, it sets up a process to make future restrictions easier to get by.
Wish I had something positive and upbeat to add, but if there's a silver lining here I don't see it. Perhaps the community can use Issa as a prop to get this thing opened up and eviscerated. Using the government oversight committee is probably the only road open at this point.