The thing I find most galling about this is not merely what it contains. It is an awful document, with horrible policy, yes.
But, what is most disgusting is that we had to learn of how bad it is from leaked documents.
The leadership in many nations (not just in one nation, this is effectively a conspiracy at the highest levels of several nations, most egregiously the US) supported the TPP, lobbied for the TPP on behalf of a select few corporate interests, and all around sold themselves to the highest bidder, while keeping the details of it a secret from the people they allegedly represent. Democracy doesn't run on secrecy. What these leaders are pushing is not democratic, it is oligarchic.
It isn't one party's doing, either. This secret deal is not a Republican deal, or a Democrat deal. It has, at various times, had vocal support (even petulant support in the case of Obama, when fast track powers were on the line) from the likes of Hillary Clinton (she now makes noises acting as though she doesn't like it, despite championing it dozens of times, and after the damage has already been done), most high ranking Republicans in the house and senate, and damned near everybody else who ever cashed a check from ALEC.
All while it was secret. All while the only people allowed to see it were the lawmakers supporting and writing it and the corporations that paid for it (seriously, legal representatives from several multinational corporations saw this deal before the people of the United States were allowed to see it). Even if the deal weren't awful, it would still be awful, because of the way it is being made.
"Noting deep ties between the country's top trade negotiator and Wall Street banks, ten groups representing millions of Americans are calling on the White House to make public all communications between U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and the massive financial institutions that stand to benefit from proposed trade deals."
"... 400 pages of email traffic between USTR officials and industry advisors ... the emails reveal a close-knit relationship between negotiators and the industry advisors that is likely unmatched by any other stakeholders ... Many of the industry representatives are themselves former USTR officials ... Jim DeLisi of Fanwood Chemical said he had just seen the text on rules of origin, and remarked, “Someone owes USTR a royalty payment. These are our rules. … This is a very pleasant surprise.”
I completely agree. This is a conspiracy by definition: "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful." The unlawful thing being the laws they are trying to pass (as they are not yet laws, and not determined by lawful structures: judicial system). Its all going from executive to legislative, and we are fucked.
The administration is attempting to weaken our sovereignty and globalize [overthrow] our government. They should be charged for treason.
If you voted Obama last time, please don't vote this time. Your bad judgement isn't necessary.
Blaming the standing president for systematic problems is a fairly reliable sign that someone is a member of the opposite party (or an independent that always votes one way, natch). Even if that somehow happens to not be the case for you, there's the little problem that we have a FPTP voting system which effectively means that elections always boil down to two options (assuming that you're a rational actor who understands vote splitting). Claiming that voting for one option shows "bad judgement" implies that the alternative (remember, FPTP => only one rational alternative) is better, so it really is a partisan statement.
Sanity check: would a statement of the form "Obama is bad because x,y,z" be necessarily partisan by this logic? No.
> Finance reform will solve nothing. You can't stop a billionaire from investing in himself.
Sure you can, but for now that's a largely speculative failure mode. First let's solve the problem that our system effectively imposes a mandatory bribe quota on the candidates and see if that doesn't improve matters. If the problem you propose becomes an issue afterwards then we can fight over the whole "money is speech" argument.
His point (although a little too blunt for me) was that Obama was this "hope and change" guy that was going to be transparent and all of that nonsense. Even though he's ultimately powerless in matters like this, if he were truly a man of character he would at least speak against it. The problem is the systems we have will not allow men of character to get within sniffing distance of that position.
There are the Cheneys of the world who seem to emit darkness and there are the Obamas of the world who offer an alternative but then do the same thing. Which one is worse?
I thought that this whole "secret" thing has been explained ad naueum here and on reddit already. It is t secret before it becomes law, or is going to get snuck in under the radar. It will be open for review before it is voted on.
Also you don't give away your bargaining wants to your competitors before you sign a contract, kind of like how you don't go to a job interview and tell them out of the gate the exact minimum amount you'd be willing to work for. Thus, the wants of each party are kept to themselves before a final draft.
Yes, you don't "give away" your plans to the public because then they may be able to use the democratic process to do something about it, you keep it secret so that you can manipulate the media over a short period and swing through your sweeping changes.
The thing is that is completely anti-democratic. If it hurts democracy to do the best thing for a small capitalist overclass then democratic nations should be choosing to uphold democracy. I wonder if there are any such nations?
Corporations wanting the legislation to be secret until it is a done deal is not a surprise. But, to assume that corporations are the stakeholders who matter and who should have access to the secret deals being made, is fundamentally incompatible with democratic ideals. The "explanation" is exactly what I am arguing against. The explanation assumes that the only people who should get to see this legislation are the corporations that paid for it, and the people on whom this legislation will be imposed have no rights other than to suck it up and deal with it.
Your explanation assumes good faith where there is demonstrably not good faith.
There is continuous nonsense repeating "secrecy" when the reality is you or I have no business nosing around in international treaty negotiation since we are in no way qualified, so having some kind of open vote from everyone in the world during the negotiation phase would in no way be realistic. Nothing has been passed as of yet.
You have a chance to review and tell your rep to vote yes or no before anything has a chance of passing, to say otherwise is really just flat out incorrect.
"There is continuous nonsense repeating "secrecy" when the reality is you or I have no business nosing around in international treaty negotiation since we are in no way qualified"
Who says? Why shouldn't international policy be something we, as a nation, talk about while it is being constructed rather than being given an all or nothing ultimatum at the end of the process (and given effectively no time to inform ourselves enough about what it contains to make effective demands of our representatives)?
Why should economists outside of the government and outside of the corporations the government serves be disallowed from reading the damned thing and commenting on it while there is time to alter its course?
All this notion about it being secret because "reasons" or "that's how it's always been" is, once again, oligarchic bullshit. It is saying: You'll shut up and take what we give you.
"Fast track" legislation is often used to pass legislation that legislators know will be unpopular or be challenging to pass if given time for sufficient discussion at a national level. Just because it's been done many times before doesn't mean that it should continue to be done that way. We live in an age where every person can become as informed as they want to be about legislation like this, as long as they are permitted to see it.
Again, the arguments for maintaining secrecy and then rushing it into law are anti-democratic. There are, of course, reasons many people want it to be secret, but those reasons aren't in the interests of the nation or the world as a whole.
If you read the linked post it already describes that everyone and their brother chiming in with their uneducated opinions would not be helpful and would cause the process to be even more inefficient and drawn out than it already is.
Doesn't make it acceptable. Just because the logic makes sense in one context, we don't actually have to accept the entire premise of that context.
The list of interested parties let in by the gatekeepers is all by itself horribly flawed.
Then there's questions about accountability, secretly planned PR campaigns and whatnot.
It will be open for review, but not for modification. Thanks to "fast-track", Congress will just get an up-or-down vote. So, no, the final provisions won't be secret before they become law, but it doesn't matter at this point. Congress doesn't have the ability to say, "We'll take the good, but not the bad."
A country can't sign part of an international treaty. They must agree to whole thing, not only the parts they like. Leaving it open for modification would essentially mean reopening negotiations, which is a good recipe not never getting any trade agreements signed. Regardless of whether or not you agree with this particular trade agreement, SOME trade agreements are good, and forcing them to happen in the open with each government having the option to modify it would be a terrible idea.
You're making my point for me. Countries can't sign part of a trade agreement, which is why it's doubly important that trade agreements be negotiated in public, so that we, as citizens, have adequate time to consider and propose changes.
That doesn't seem right. The treaty will be signed by heads of state before it goes to legislators. They can't change it, by the time it is released it is fixed and the signing countries are obliged to make it law. Therefore your first paragraph is dead wrong.
The negotiating parties have access to the text so it is not about negotiating receives. It is secret from everyone except those competitors. The wants are circulated as annotations on the leaked drafts. Therefore your second paragraph is dead wrong.
I don't mean to annoy you, just help you realize you should reconsider your opinion on this.
A valid reason might be the negotiations effect share and commodity prices and need to be kept secret to avoid insider trading in these. But more likely it is so e.g. France can trade weaker pollution regulations for retaining farm subsidies, economically important but politically toxic. If voters are not mature enough to see this then is democracy a good idea?
> All treaties are generally negotiated in secret, not just trade treaties, because draft documents do not actually represent what any country is actually seeking but rather a position they are taking to secure the terms they want. Countries will always overreach during negotiations by asking for insane/unrealistic things to be included such that the other countries involved are more willing to settle on a moderate position. Its precisely the same reason business deals, employment contracts and generally any other adversarial situation wont have working documents released publicly; it weakens the negotiation position for all sides to have a perfect understanding of the goals of the other side(s).
And it is these companies that we should punish. I would love to find a way to inspire the consumers of this world to form a deep and powerful union.
A union that stands together and through collective boycotting, is able to effect just one corporate take down. And by that I mean complete, absolute and terrible market action that brings a company to its knees and bankruptcy, Lehman Brothers style (I understand the employees are 'collateral damage here but I think it would be worth it).
If we could just once, take down a stock market level company, through the pure will of the people, I think we could undermine the almost unmatchable power of the corporation as it stands today.
The argument against of course is that boycotts have never really worked. Consumers don't want to work in union. Corporations control the media and as such are able to persuade the people of it ineffectiveness.
But one success would change all that. I'd love to see that happen in my lifetime.
One thing EFF left out re: DMCA-style takedown laws: TPP member nations are required to require takedowns of content whenever a copyright owner _alleges_ there is infringement. But there is no requirement for a counter-notice or dispute process to get content restored. This could be a wholesale censorship process in countries that decide to have more restrictive laws.
Well the studios will obviously pressure content sites to include a dispute process, otherwise trolls from 4chan will issue DMCA takedowns right back at them.
Please, give them ideas. False flag takedowns will probably be an issue for years, as the MPAA and RIAA will realize the consequences of a dispute process (they will loose on occasion). Or maybe "rightsholders" will get special privileges to issue takedowns and all other takedowns will go through an administrative review. Anyway, the point is that getting a dispute process in place will take years, and lots of abuse, by most stakeholders.
But the fact of the matter is that every person is a rights holder. I'm a rights holder of this comment. You are a rights holder of your family pictures. It is a tricky balancing act.
Sure, technically anyone who creates something in tangible form is a "rightsholder". But the process for enforcing those rights is beyond most of us US citizens, rather like disputing a patent lawsuit is beyond most small companies. The costs of specialist attorneys put the enforcement beyond reach for all but the rich and large corporations. You called out the problem yourself with the "tricky balancing act". Balancing will require lawsuits, and almost nobody has the money for a lawsuit. So "rightsholders" becomes another word for "wealthy and large corporations".
They are only stakeholders through imposition of laws such as those proposed.
A more likely future is that most content will be new and not controlled by MPAA or RIAA. These legacy content holders will fade from relevance as their content is duplicated beyond their control and, even more importantly, rarely ever accessed.
I like your optimism, bully for you, and that's a great idea. But I fear that the ISP/"rightsholder" conglomerates, like Comcast/NBC, will only let very select, RIAA and MPAA owned content through.
They already give priority in their cable packages, and they already own Hulu.
Content delivery is controlled by content creating big media IP holders. Obviously they will try to keep competition down, especially new media that understands how the Internet makes information free.
I think it will primarily be determined by who can support (fund) the artists who are making the content people want to watch.
Of course, easy, essentially-free, world-wide distribution will make it harder for RIAA and MPAA to maintain control over the flow of mainstream art.
Viewer-funded (or even mini-investor funded) models could be viable. I'd imagine they could even compete favorably with large production studios if the right structure was found.
They'll make fraudulent take-down notices a serious crime, and make a few high profile examples. That'll stop the vast majority of it (more sophisticated people will continue the trolling).
Studios might also choose to push for an authenticated scheme instead. Their account gets certified (eg on YouTube), and content on that certified account becomes exempted. There are relatively few hollywood houses that would need it, so it would be easy from a scale point of few to certify them.
I agree that there might be a certification process, but on the issue of false takedowns leading to jail time I disagree with you. Think about it from the studio's perspective: If they do a single fraudulent take-down the fees wouldn't be worth the other 999 legitimate ones.
DCMA works because it is fast, but fast needs a safety valve. Without that it will get thrown out in court.
"Under the agreement, it appears that internet service providers could be forced to block websites hosting content that infringes copyright ... if a US court were to, say, find that a popular filesharing website was distributing copyrighted Hollywood movies, ISPs in all TPP countries would be compelled to block access to that site."
IIRC you only need to affirm that you believed it to be in good faith. Companies using automated takedown software regularly issue takedown requests for their own websites, google.com, etc.
I beleive the perjury clause applies to whether you represent who you claim to represent (eg. not saying you are a lawyer for SomeCorp when you are not). As pkinsky said, I think you only have to meet a "good faith standard" that you think the thing you are filing against is actually infringing.
In practice you don't even need to make a "good faith" claim that you actually have a copyright at all -- no company has ever been punished for sending takedown notices for things that are clearly in the public domain.
This is where we are at anyway, no laws needed. A few select YouTube content partners allege infringement, there is no recourse, there is no law that gives you leverage for complaints made in bad faith, and just like that you are now excluded from the monopoly in online video.
The second-to-last paragraph contains this summary: "If you look for provisions in the TPP that actually afford new benefits to users, rather than to large, rights-holding corporations, you will look in vain. The TPP is the archetype of an agreement that exists only for the benefit of the entitled, politically powerfully lobbyists who have pushed it through to completion over the last eight years."
To me, code is much more of a long term threat to the power structure than intellectual property theft is. I'm wondering how long before we have government-sanctioned libraries, languages, and chipsets that we may develop for. I see this TPP as power consolidating ahead of any looming citizen revolt in order to chop it off at the knees. It's very weird and awesome to watch.
I do chuckle about all this though because these moves are so clumsy and obvious. And recently the spokesmouths of the powerful have been SO ineffective. The Jade Helm scare-o-tron rollout was completely botched and scrapped as far as I can tell. Selling a war with Syria was also completely botched. Kerry has been a fool as sec. of state and never met a war he didn't like, talks about going to war all the time to the press with no context. CIA and arms deals in Benghazi and the sloppy coverup around that, we FUBAR'ed Libya for no good reason. Obama openly threatening whistleblowers like a douche. Republican establishment is losing its grip on the reins and losing containment of the growing number of dissenting voices. If I were the archons in power behind the scenes, I'd be concerned.
As a developer, if I wanted to - REALLY wanted to - I feel like I could upend all of their power and diminish their relevance. I wouldn't do it with anarchy or hacktivism or whatnot because that destruction is desperate and ultimately self-defeating. Instead, I'd take the constructive route and build an alternate system to the internet that resists regulation and rewards the decentralization of server computing power and storage.
I have a day job that pays just fine and I live a peaceful life with my family where I get to enjoy a lot of personal freedom. I don't take a lot of action today other than to avoid the social networks like the plague. I think the trigger for me to act will be when my ox gets gored somehow by these new regulations. Or, perhaps if we go to war with some rogue state who dares violate the intellectual property rights of Disney, etc.
> The Jade Helm scare-o-tron rollout was completely botched and scrapped as far as I can tell.
Can you explain what you mean? As far as I can tell Jade Helm was a fairly routine military training exercise, which was latched onto by a group of conspiracy nuts. What’s a “scare-o-tron rollout”?
I personally draw a distinction between the gigantic-sized stuff the US federal government does (military and wars, fiscal and monetary policy, taxes, transfer payment programs) and the medium-sized stuff (HUD, EPA, FCC, etc.)
The medium sized stuff can be steered by the adminstration in power. The people you elect can exert influence in those areas, I mean.
But the huge stuff is out of their control. The military especially is very interesting to me because no war just happens spontaneously. It's all got to be planned years in advance. In that context, where does a Jade Helm fit in?
Anyhow, regardless of what you think of the loudmouths regarding Jade Helm, that campaign was certainly odd in its conception both in terms of size and setting.
What possible valid reason would the US military have for doing large scale trainings in US urban settings? I don't mean that question in a conspiracy sense. I mean, logically speaking, why? The military has the tactics and hardware to engage in urban settings down pat. Just training for training's sake? That's nonsense.
I'll leave the speculation as to the "real" motives for Jade Helm to the more frothy-mouthed. What I know after-the-fact was there was an odd/confusing move by the military, followed by a terrible sales job by the stuffed shirts in power that led inevitably to a failed/cancelled campaign. It reinforces my point that the power structure seems to be creaking here.
With respect, I understand many people viewed that one training event with skepticism. I'm not going to try and change your mind. I would, however, like to address the idea that "training for training's sake" has no value.
Tough, frequent, realistic training is exactly what is required to keep certain parts of the military prepared. I'm not talking about logisticians or acquisitions types. Personnel turnover is a problem. People must learn how to work together. For people like you and I, we have the opportunity to learn to work with our coworkers... every day! In the military, a service member only really learns how to work with their coworkers during these kinds of exercises. When it's cold. When it's dark. When everyone is tired and hungry.
You've also suggested that "the military has the tactics and hardware to engage in urban settings down pat" ... and you're absolutely correct. Senior personnel have lessons learned. Those lessons are captured in various documents. However, much like a start-up, execution is everything. The execution comes from personnel who typically have just a few years experience. There is an enormous amount of knowledge which must be transferred in a short period of time. These training events are how the lessons and doctrine are shared with those junior leaders. Classroom instruction is not sufficient.
Finally, I will disagree that the training event was "odd in it's conception." Certain parts of the military perform these kinds of exercises regularly. The only part of this exercise which was odd was the amount of attention it garnered.
I agree with everything you've said except the last paragraph. Training the troops is important! Too bad the knuckleheads in power did nothing to explain or justify the size/scope/location of the exercise, maybe it would have been worthwhile.
Sounds like you think it would have been okay though. Want to sell me on rolling tanks, helicopters, and troops through town? Can they fire their guns and cannons (with blanks)? What limits would you put on the exercise if you were in charge or is everything the military does reasonable?
Ed, great question. It would be absolutely unreasonable (...and not being a lawyer... I would suspect illegal... but I don't really know) for tanks, helicopters, and troops to "roll... through town." I also agree that you touched on the key failing in that training event: poor explanation to the national audience of the scope of the event.
The military has many places to train. There are places to shoot. There are places to blow things up. There are places to maneuver tanks. There are few places which include a civilian population.
That event was a training event for parts of SOF community; a community which is operating in over 100 countries at any given time. Very few of those countries are in active conflict... by that I'm referring to a shooting-war. These types of units must be prepared to perform their tasks in a peaceful environment without undue notice. Units are typically small; think less than 15 people with maybe 2-3 civilian-style vehicles. They operate dispersed over large areas. They don't have tanks. When such units move around, they are usually in non-military vehicles and attire. For this kind of unit many tasks are related to interacting with people, either local security forces (police and military) or local civilians. There is a legitimate need to train on such tasks.
These types of training events focus on the military tasks which need this kind of a training environment (large area, dispersed operations, civilian population). Training for tasks related to shooting and blowing things up happen in areas the military 'owns.'
I highly doubt any of the training plans included detonations, live-fire, or even dry-fire events anywhere outside the normal military training areas. It's more likely that the interactions with the actual civilian population would have been completely un-noticed. An interaction would more likely look like a strangely fit group of guys were putting fuel in their Toyota and then drove away... maybe making a few jokes with you while you both wait at the pump. Almost certainly the same (or less) level of impact as your average Reserve or National Guard unit driving around on a weekend.
I feel like your last paragraph there is an attempt to subtley troll that went too far. If not, then I'd love for you to cite your sources for such speculation (beyond the original JH 15 powerpoint, which has to be intentionally vague regarding scope and specifics regarding an operation which hasn't yet taken place).
These are all things that actual militaries do for exercises. In fact, under certain conditions they'll fire their weapons a LOT without blanks (live-fire exercises).
I'm a Brit, first time I've heard about Jade Helm. a quick DDG search showed multiple hits for "conspiracy theories".
Ultimately people want to think they are living in the most critical important times of the world ever. But this is a fallacy of how we live, in the present. Everyone has thought that their time then was the most critical. Look to history to get perspective and the pinch of salt we need.
The problem with your take on this is that if you look to history then the US military has a long and very well documented history of massacring innocents. toppling democracies, supporting despots, waging pointless wars badly etc. Hopefully we are living in a special time when they can live up to their PR.
"Does the need to train troops for urban combat provide enough justification for the military to conduct realistic exercises in actual US cities?" is how I wish I had written that.
I hope my other comment sufficiently addressed that "urban combat" was not the task being trained in that exercise. There are places the military trains for "urban combat" ... Main St. USA is not it.
I see the TPP as part of the obsolescence of the nation state in favor of global corporate governance. The incompetence you mention fits in with this-- those boobs are just leftovers from the old system. The fact that Donald Trump is being seriously considered for president should tell you that the nation state is dead.
Not saying this is a good thing. Read any 80s cyberpunk novel to see what's coming. William Gibson was a prophet.
Corporate lawsuits against governments at the World Bank (ISDS) can offer data on the balance of power between states and corporations. See this Aussie explainer video, in the style of the Daily Show: https://youtube.com/watch?v=M4-mlGRPmkU
Water: Azurix v. Argentina
Investor win (awarded $165 million plus interest)
Ban of toxic fuel additive: Ethyl v. Canada
Case settled (investor received $13 million, ban reversed)
Toxic waste: Metalclad v. Mexico
Investor win (awarded $16.2 million)
Too-big-to-fail: Saluka v. Czech Republic
Investor win (awarded $236 million)
I don't know about the rest, but Mexico won the Metalclad case; there's still no toxic waste dump there. Mexico had to pay for the stuff they told Metalclad to build while knowing all along they were going to deny the dump.
Those pre-TPP cases are nothing compared to the future combined scope of TPP (Pacific), TTIP (Europe) and RCEP (China, Korea, India, and other Asian countries).
Never say there is nothing you can do. Tell other people about ISDS. Share the videos [1][2][3][4].
Jon Oliver's video [4] about the Philip Morris tobacco ISDS lawsuit against Australia (for brown paper packaging) caused such an outcry that TPP negotiators were forced to exclude the entire tobacco industry from ISDS. This is the first time such an industry-specific carve-out has appeared in a trade agreement.
Whenever I think about this for more than a passing moment I just become so scared and angry. How the fuck is a company able to take a country to court over a public health measure? Who the fuck voted for the evil bastards who made that possible? How do they fucking live with themselves?
I do not think that a corporation should not be allowed to challenge a government due to decisions impacting its business. Some of its actions can be very harmful to businesses. If an harm is done, the victim should be able to initiate a process of _public_ investigation (which ISDS seems not to be, I wonder why) and if the government is shown to have done wrong, the corporation should have the possibility to get compensated.
The above Saluka v. Czech Republic case got me interested, so I have read a little on this. At the time Japanese Nomura had invested in Czech IPB bank in 1998, there was an international treaty on protection of investments in effect between the Czech republic and the Netherlands. Nomura had transferred the 46% ownership of IPB to their Netherlands-based fund Saluka (I am not sure on legality of this operation). The lawsuit took place after Czech government's actions reacting to IPB bank falling down. Nomura was partially responsible for the downfall as it did not make promised actions to help the bank, but the government also had their feet wet when later they helped other banks in similarly bad shape, but did not help IPB. Nomura was smart and resourceful enough to point out this is in odds with the above treaty and benefit from the situation. The government has tried to sue Nomura as well for its actions/inactions and law breaking for 240 billion crowns, but then dropped it to make an agreement with Nomura.
An international arbitrage took place in 2006-8 which found 5 out of 8 claims made by Saluka to be invalid, but the remaining 3 were found to be valid. The most important finding was that the Czech republic did not give the same kind of financial assistance to the IPB bank it had given to other banks in similar shape and thus failed to honor the international treaty ion investment protection. Saluka demanded 30 billion crowns as a compensation, the arbiters decided only 3.5 billion crowns, equal to initial Nomura's investment, should be payed. In this case at least, it seems to me, legally things worked well - the government screwed up, it got sued, it lost and it paid up.
Sorry for the long write-up. What's the morale of the story? I am not outraged so much by the possibility of corporation suing the government as by government's utter ineptness. We need more efficient, less corrupt government that can follow and enforce meaningful rules and at the same time, keep nasty investors and their schemes in check.
It means people are so tired of listening to self-interested politicians toe the party line that they're willing to elect a candidate solely based on how crazy his ideas are and how much he won't backpedal on them, even in the face of adversity.
In terms of fearless leaders, he definitely is one.
Of course, I also think his ideas are mostly inane and that within fifteen minutes of his inauguration he would have already started World War III. But I can understand why people want to elect him.
Not sure if you have ever paid attention to politics but what politicians say is not what they usually do. Especially the claim: "Tax reform that wants to stop corporate inversion and bring money back to USA (Google, Apple, etc.)" is very unlikely as he himself is part of that system and so are his friends and stakeholders.
It's crazy because you've just given the entire substance of his campaign. He hasn't actually given any more details than that, and the points are ostensibly chosen because they're easily latched onto by people who can't be bothered to pay very much attention. Also the wall thing.
But I don't see anyone on the internet writing articles rebutting any of the points. I.e. I'd expect someone to write an article where they negate each point on that list e.g. "Illegal immigration - I think Trump is crazy to bring this point up because there is nothing wrong with illegal immigration. The reason we should not be against illegal immigration is because ..." and so on and so on, for each point. The wall is an implementation detail. I see people focus on that but then it's almost like they're trying to avoid the topic.
Trump seems like a very pragmatic reasoner. Keeps things simple. His way of reasoning seems to go something like this: "Illegal immigration. Are you for it, or against it? Against it? Ok. Would a wall help? Yes or no. Yes? Ok but you seem apprehensive about it. Why are you apprehensive? It's going to be expensive? We have a trade deficit with Mexico. I bet I could force them to pay for it by using strong arm tactics and adding taxes onto things they like exporting here. I'm good at negotating shit like that. Are you still apprehensive?" And so on.
I just simply can't find any coherently written rebuttals other than articles that go "Trump is crazy. He's an narcissist. He's a racist" basically just ad hominems. No one is being critical about any of his points. So it's very weird when I see all the hostility against him but no actual counter arguments.
See Jon Gnarr, who started an openly satirical joke political party in Iceland called the Best Party, but actually ended up winning the mayoral post of Reykjavik. At which point the Best Party became a serious effort.
Nation state fully intact. Donald Trump is far less dramatic and just another cookie cutter populist.
Yep, I don't know what Trump will lead US into (and I don't think it will necessary be worse than any other president in this day and age). But any mainstream candidate from GOP or Democrat will certainly lead to more TPP.
It doesn't much matter who is in the role, as it is exactly that: a role.
Even without conspiracy theories regarding secret cabals that rule the world from the shadows, there is overwhelming inertia baked into the system itself.
A fairly recent study that I very vaguely recall pointed to this fact: the conclusion being that it is extraordinarily difficult to effect change within systems that are essentially self-perpetuating.
They're both creative individuals that are willing to buck the trend and change things in the way they think is right rather than toeing the party line.
So Sanders gets less attention and is campaigning based on the facts rather than his personality.
But although he tends to vote the same as many other Democrats, he is very dangerous to moneyed interests in politics. No one's bothered to fix that for a long time.
Meanwhile, the DNC is ignoring Larry Lessing in any way it can, despite him meeting fund raising goals and being pretty much the third most serious contender since Biden has not even announced yet.
"I could create the replacement to the internet and destroy the current corporate powers in doing so. And despite this replacement's power, it'd be designed in a way that governments could never infringe on it. I just don't because I have a comfy job"? Oh, please.
You lack imagination! There are so many ways to deliver what the internet delivers today that you have not considered. I wouldn't even have to foresake our current software ecosystem built up around tcp and http. Keep your YouTube and Twitter for as long as you'd like.
I doubt it will go that bad, but I wouldn't be surprised if the end result of the War on General Purpose Computing will be laws limiting access to turing-complete machines to licensed software engineers. For everyone else, playing with a compiler will be illegal.
As I suspect the "unique digital exhaust" tracking problem will only get worse as machine learning improves, sometimes a proper Butlerian Jihad seems like the only solution. So I remind myself often that such an extreme solution can always happen later, so there's no excuse not to fight for a better solution in the meantime.
When faced with a very difficult task, there is a tendency in humans to feel helpless and unable to affect any meaningful change. This quickly spirals into a nasty form of learned helplessness. This feedback loop can lead to a nihilistic attitude. If you can't win, why bother trying. Even Feynman succumbed to this problem[1] after the Manhattan Project.
One thing I do know about the people trying to put the General Purpose Computer back in it's bottle, and the people who are so terrified of their fellow citizens they create a surveillance state to try to preserve their status quo: every person that succumbs to a defeatist or nihilistic attitude is one less person is one less person standing in their way.
Yes. It terrifies me. But that's exactly what we'll have if we actually get "programmer professionalization". This is a part of the War on General Purpose Computing; on one hand, as software runs more and more life-critical systems like cars or energy infrastructure, you see a push from both security professionals and big companies towards turning programming into real engineering discipline; on the other hand, you have media companies fighting to limit public's access to turing-complete computation. Unfortunately in this context, while everyone hates the big media shops, infosec has a lot of good karma currently, and they're also against us in this war.
I mostly agree, in the long term. There's no point in fighting if you'll need to replace what you're fighting with something more resilient, as merely building it and showing it is better can be a far more effective way of winning, by deprecating the entire system.
That's the approach taken by Bitcoin - why attack the banks when we can circumvent them? We can build what we need and ignore the old system. No need to get down to the level of kindergarten kids throwing mud. Do better instead.
Exactly! We can do better, or at least different, instead. Bitcoin has good incentives built into the system that improve its trustworthiness. And, it doesn't need to ever completely replace other currencies to be disruptive and useful. I think the same kind of design principles could be applied to the general problem of communications.
We CAN build what we need, in fact most of what we need exists in software bits and bobs already.
Connectivity to this alternative network I envision would be free, but users would need to pay local trusted individuals/businesses to aggregate and cache subscriptions to wider-area feeds for them. Consider that these feeds would necessarily constitute large amounts of data since you'd need to bring huge swaths of data you're interested in close to your locality.
The volume and freshness of the data users would subscribe to would be proportionate to how much they'd collectively be willing to pay to fetch and store on an ongoing basis (sortof like how we have tiers for internet connection speeds today.)
The software for the network would build on existing tools and libraries on the client with proper sandboxing of sessions. The storage, cache, feed management, payments, chargebacks, and crypto are all solved problems for the most part.
Yes, this would be a huge effort and would probably work best if some new consumer hardware were developed and that would require investment. But, I don't think anything I have in mind is technically infeasible. I'd like to have some reasonable systems and protocols in place that prevent users being identified and tracked on the network for most classes of communications.
I think that we need something like IPFS, which connects via covert channels, and is fully deniable. With ubiquitous HD video, download bandwidth would be trivial, even with ~1% signal/carrier. Upload bandwidth would be harder to hide.
We need fully open high bandwidth radio protocols for creating useful mesh networks (MU-MIMO tech in hardware you don't need licensing for), using protocols like CJDNS, anonymization like I2P, Tahoe-LAFS and IPFS for distribution and management of data, etc...
And we really need better crypto key management. Keybase.io, Namecoin, OpenKeychain, Yubikey NEO, etc, they all contribute to part of the solution, but we need something more comprehensive.
> "One of the scariest parts of the TPP is that not only can you be made liable to fines and criminal penalties, but that any materials and implements used in the creation of infringing copies can also be destroyed (QQ.H.4(12)). The same applies to devices and products used for circumventing DRM or removing rights management information (QQ.H.4(17)). Because multi-use devices such as computers are used for a diverse range of purposes, this is once again a disproportionate penalty. This could lead to a family's home computer becoming seized simply because of its use in sharing files online, or for ripping Blu-Ray movies to a media center."
Is TPM/DRM circumvention allowed for personal, non-commercial use? If so, why would ripping Blu-Ray movies for personal use (e.g. watching on an airplane) lead to computer seizure, e.g. during border inspection?
Ripping Blu-rays for personal use is copyright infringement in many jurisdictions. I'm not sure whether anyone's actually been prosecuted for it though.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in Australia. Not too many years ago, format shifting (eg CD -> mp3) for personal use was declared legal by the courts here.
The solution to that is what they're already doing which is moving everything online. I watch movies all of the time and I still have yet to watch a single thing played off of a BluRay and I know nobody who uses them.
Fortunately there will likely never be a way to stop people from ripping video and audio from a display.
From what I skimmed, no. The only exception is "lawfully
authorized activities carried out for the purpose of law enforcement, essential security interests, or other related governmental purposes, such as performance of statutory functions" (QQ.G.13(b)).
Wonder how this fares with the EU Computer Program Directive.
We need a flowchart which maps behavior to possible penalties: border inspections, pre-trial seizure of devices, criminal case, civil case, post-trial destruction of devices, penalties for third parties who aided circumvention.
Could TPP induce ISPs to block the websites of software vendors and OSS repos whose programs could be used for circumvention, e.g. VLC, Linux DVD viewing, etc.?
"Canada has now agreed to induce providers to “remove or disable” access to content upon becoming aware of a decision of a court of a copyright infringement. The broadly worded provision could force Canadian ISPs to block content on websites after being notified of a foreign court order – without first having to assess whether the site is even legal under Canadian law."
> Is TPM/DRM circumvention allowed for personal, non-commercial use?
Not by default:
> Although the TPP text does allow countries to pass exceptions that allow DRM circumvention for non-infringing uses, such exceptions are not mandatory, as they ought to be.
I still feel strongly that disrupting the flow of free entertainment is the one thing that will actually get people up and protesting. Rights and freedoms stripped away with regularity have minimal impact, but SOPA got the world riled up in fear that torrenting the next season of Game of Thrones was about to get mildly more difficult.
Just imagine for a second what would happen if Facebook did the same for a day...
Yeah, I know, I know, it's a corporation, It would loose lots of money by going down for a whole day, and it's shareholders would be very angry. It's not going to happen.
But if for some strange reason it did happen... that would call the attention of LOTS of people.
Indeed. In Poland, which was the first country in Europe to stand up against SOPA, people only started caring after a popular video streaming site got taken down (it was something related to Megaupload scandal) - and they realized that this is what world with SOPA will look like. You can take away our freedoms, but you can't take away our Game of Thrones.
Except in the US we already have most of those regulations. Seeding torrents is already a criminal copyright violation. It is just not being exploited as a means to supress users as much as it could be, probably because the power base is not centralized enough yet to suppress the revolt it would cause (not a physical revolt, just a cultural one, and it would obviously not be pervasive, but isolated to those of us who actually even give a damn).
Just curious; how does Game of Thrones make money? Do they get paid when their content is shared on torrents? If they don't, then why would they continue to produce the show if they aren't getting paid? I fail to understand how stealing content is a "good" thing. It seems no different that sneaking into the theater without buying a ticket.
It's produced by HBO and has incredibly high viewership, so I imagine it's paid by (1) the increase in HBO subscribers, (2) other networks that want to run it, and (3) advertising run during the show.
Stealing content is good because otherwise, the content isn't available. I'm pretty sure that in countries like Poland or Slovenia, shows like Game of Thrones arrive with a substantial delay, if at all.
Plus, requiring the people to subscribe to the whole of HBO and dozens of shitty shows just to see Game of Thrones is essentially an abuse of the market, like a monopoly (which copyright always is).
HBO doesn't show advertising, but they have incredibly lucrative DVD/BluRay/streaming distribution networks. Also they have HBO Now gaining significant steam, and people will gladly pay just for Game of Thrones.
SOPA had opposition from companies like Google. From what I understand, companies like Google had input into TPP, whereas organizations like the EFF were ignored.
This is very IT focused, (not strange for an HN post) but I am also very curious about the standards that are altered for food safety. This is mainly important for Europe which was about to ban a lot of endrocrine disruptive pesticides but didn't, allegedly due to TTIP.
What are the chances that this will not be passed by congress? Is there enough animosity that might stop this? I'm really hoping for some serious partisan bickering and ridiculous Obama hate here or is this treaty so horrible (yes it is) that our representatives intend to push it through no matter what?
This in particular does not go down at all well with the strongly religious, even the religious right. So far it's mostly escaped their notice, however.
I have a feeling that if enough people call their Congresspeople and asking why they are voting for slavery and the destruction of American sovereignty some of them will get cold feet. Bonus points if the congressperson purports to be religious themselves.
For once, if you're in a flyover state, you can actually do something to help.
From an NZ perspective this isn't great, but it could have been a lot worse. The EFF didn't mention that NZ isn't required to allow software and medical patents which was my greatest feared outcome.
The WHOIS-privacy thing is a little troubling. As a workaround, would it be possible to create a "domain purchasing group" as a front for private ownership?
(Primarily for stopping passive information leaks, not necessarily to prevent active / legal information requests.)
Isn't that what current WHOIS privacy is? The way I understand it is that if you currently have WHOIS privacy enabled, technically the domain doesn't belong to you but to the registrar who is providing the WHOIS privacy.
I thought so too, but the occasional restriction (e.g. Namecheap prevent using WhoisGuard on .ca/.uk domains) makes it seem like the technique isn't generally applicable.
On second glance the submitted article doesn't specifically mention WHOIS - perhaps i just read too far into it and it's only intended to stop junk data, which is a lot more defensible.
The article doesn't mention WHOIS but there's this paragraph that seems like something WHOIS-like would apply to ccTLDs at the least:
>The TPP has just ridden roughshod over that entire debate (at least for country-code top-level domains such as .us, .au and .jp), by cementing in place rules (QQ.C.12) that countries must provide “online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants.”
It seems like all these types of things are written up in secrecy these days. When they can't do that, the other tactic is make it thousands of pages long so nobody finds the nefarious nuggets hidden within. I've completely lost faith that the federal government is for the people, by the people. It seems to be centered around individuals these days.
Weren't there also thousands of tariffs removed? The economic advantages of that might outweigh any loses from tighter copyright, and I suspect was the carrot the US used to get all the copyright concessions. Everyone wants to export to the US but the US is traditionally too protectionist.
Looking on the bright side of copyright. You never have to use somebody else's copyright work. You can always just make your own if you really want. Using somebody else's is just easier but not obligatory. See the popularity of open source software as a recourse against copyright restrictions on the commercial equivalents.
> You never have to use somebody else's copyright work.
You do however have to suffer the consequences of being falsely accused of doing so.
And if you want to use your own copyrighted work it helps if there are platforms to support you in doing so that aren't either locked down by the incumbents or passing on the eye-watering costs of compliance to you.
As for Free Software, forcing it to comply with censorship is trying to square a circle and is going to either criminalize or neuter it. You can always make your own, but you'll be breaking the law if you install it on your router or your tablet.
> Weren't there also thousands of tariffs removed?
In one example, tariff reduction on some types of auto parts will move North American manufacturing jobs to Chinese factories who will be allowed to supply TPP member Japan, for export to North America.
> You never have to use somebody else's copyright work.
Some works are culturally significant, e.g. documentaries and historical fiction.
Without an American-centric worldview, is there anything wrong with that moving of manufacturing jobs? It seems to be better for overall good in the world. It also serves American consumers who may get products cheaper.
If we allow somebody else's property to dictate our culture, then we're already bound to the owner anyway. We already accept this with recently produced movies/music/etc. I wouldn't even call that culture, just paid-for passive entertainment much like paying for a ride at an amusement park. Once you've used it, all you're entitled to is your memories.
That implies the whole concept of developing nations is bad and we should try to prevent it. All of them have worker exploitation to some extent. Don't forget even exploited workers still choose where to work. They're not slaves. Furthermore, tariffs aren't introduced to protect foreign workers. That really isn't the reason for tariffs.
Developing nations are not a "concept". See the history of colonialism. Do not fall prey to the prisoners dilemma fallacy of "competition" between countries with dramatically different labor standards. Humans can engage in a race to the top or a race to the bottom. The choice is ours.
"The United States is upgrading Malaysia from the lowest tier on its list of worst human trafficking centers ... The upgrade follows international scrutiny and outcry over Malaysian efforts to combat human trafficking after the discovery this year of scores of graves in people-smuggling camps near its northern border with Thailand.
Malaysia has an estimated 2 million illegal migrant laborers, many of whom work in conditions of forced labor under employers and recruitment companies in sectors ranging from electronics to palm oil to domestic service."
> Don't forget even exploited workers still choose where to work.
We're not talking about long hours or low pay here - although those alone should be cause for concern, but about working conditions that cause death and permanent injury.
They're not slaves, but they don't have that much choice about where to work. And they don't have any power within their place of work.
Why do you think women "choose" to work in a clothing factory with no fire safety where they're locked in by supervisors?
Are you saying lack of information is the problem? They don't understand the risks so they're making a poor decision to work there? Since we can't educate them, the next best thing is to force their factories to be shut down and drive them back into subsistence farming?
Workers in China absolutely do have choice. Even the least skilled laborer often has the option of going back to his family's farm and doing harder work for lower pay. And that's what he would do if he's forced out of all other kinds of work.
Most workers aren't so desperate though. There isn't a serious surplus of labor in China anymore. Factory workers often earn more than university graduates.
Here's a quick test that could help decide the matter. If you met such a worker personally and got to know him. Then you had the power to choose to fire him and prevent him ever finding similarly hazardous work again in his life, or leave him alone. Which would you choose?
Beware that believing you know the best way to direct somebody else's life is a risky area to step into.
Actually, this whole working conditions argument is a complete red herring. The people who promote it are really the people who are nationalistic protectionists and need an excuse to justify tariffs. But this isn't the reason the government imposes tariffs. There isn't a "foreign workers health and safety" lobby pressuring the government to apply taxes to imported products.
But wait, there's more. Health risks are relative. We all accept them to some extent. Is there an absolute level of acceptable danger? Is it OK for a US construction worker to sometimes die but not OK for a Chinese factory work to die slightly more often? Who's to say another culture won't deem our western safety standards to be inhumane and try to prevent us driving all those cars and building all those buildings because of all he fatalities they cause?
It it not just about content creation, it is about cultural participation. The insanely long and draconic copyright laws the US has cripples the national culture by restricting the common arts (which in modern times includes artful film and interactive media) to pretty much only things from the 19th century and earlier.
It also destroys culture. It is why we have lost a supermajority of 20th century film, art, and music. Nobody can reproduce it to preserve it, so the original creators copies are destroyed or lost and the material is then lost forever, because its over a hundred years after its creation before is freed to us.
These kinds of laws, if put in place and enforced for a century, would systemically ruin the cultures of all the participating nations and any innovation they may produce, because US IP law is so fundamentally broken that any truly creative endeavor will be crippled by false claims while anything successful will be kept behind paywalls and restricted access to control the social culture of the society for over a century, or longer if Disney gets its way.
Take note of the people who kept parroting that line about this needing to be negotiated in secret, because otherwise a meddlesome, uninformed public might misunderstand and damage an otherwise positive thing. There was plenty of this on HN, too, and thanks for nothing.
It appears that NZ and Malaysia negotiated exceptions that will delay the new laws, so there will be no new public domain material for many years, but old material will not be affected. It also appears that Canada failed to negotiate such an exception, so public domain material from the past 20 years would revert.
> Quick clarification: when you say "public domain material from the past 20 years would revert" is that only work that originated in Canada, or for everything?
Ian Fleming has been used as an example, so probably everything. Nothing is certain until the Canadian text is public.
Quick clarification: when you say "public domain material from the past 20 years would revert" is that only work that originated in Canada, or for everything?
That's dismissive and insulting. I don't visit Reddit, it's a huge distraction to me. This is the only tech news site I frequent because it's simple and I enjoy reading the comments for the most part.
Jade Helm was extraordinary and just plain _weird_, I think it's okay to question it!
That might have been the goal rather then the actual military turn around, a PR stunt, given the news coverage as can be inferred from the allusions in other comments.
I think the EFF is being a bit hyperbolic here. This is certainly not all that we feared.
TPP actually seems fairly banal from a U.S. perspective, in part because so much of what is listed here directly mirrors U.S. law. (Laws like the length of copyright and the DMCA.)
From the issues listed, I don't see how life will change online after TPP for U.S. citizens in any major way. This seems positively mild compared to something like SOPA.
While the TPP "IP" provisions might be banal, mirroring current USA law, the problem with the TPP is that its for all intents and purposes, a treaty. The citizens of the USA can't up and decide that allowing DRM circumvention is a good idea and we should now allow it: that would break international law. The citizens of the USA can't decide to shorten copyright length for fast-moving areas (computer science) because that would break international law.
The TPP enshrines poorly chosen implementations, just as the Berne Convention has enshrined poorly chosen implementations.
Do we care? Didn't legalizing marijuana in Washington violate international drug treaties that the US is signed to? It seems to be legal anyway.
Ultimately, laws require money to enforce and after people forget about the laws they find other uses for the money. International law is especially fuzzy in that it's not like there are judges, a court, and a jail for violators. If two countries violate each others' treaties, all they can do is penalize each other somewhere else, or start blowing each other up. Is someone going to bomb one of the three nuclear triad nations over enforcing copyright law? Probably not. So there is no international law that applies to the US, Russia, or China.
I live in Colorado, so you can't fool me with the "marijuana is legalized" thing. The Feds still regard marijuana as something that only Satan himself would touch, so marijuana businesses can't officially use banks, and there's a lot of other fallout. You certainly can't transport it very far. State line crossings are a big, big deal. About the best you can say is, "it's less illegal".
The US only ducks out on treaties that require it to spend less on military/defence stuff, in all reality. Unfortunately, really, really draconian copyright laws align pretty nicely with deep state issues: you have to inspect packets to decide whether a stream of bytes violates some "IP" or other, which gives a damn good excuse to penalize encryption, and allow even less oversight on search and seizure. Also, let's face it, it's really really easy to violate copyright even if none of us really minds. Draconian copyright gives yet another law to selectively apply to someone you don't like, who exhibits contempt of cop, or whatever. If the US accepts the TPP, all of the excuses will be "we can't break International Law" or "We'd loose out in trading negotiations" or "what can we do our hands are tied by treaty" for any modification of copyright law whatsoever.
As a Canadian, this terrifies me. I don't want US style copyright law here. Just because the US has it, doesn't mean the rest of the world wants it (or isn't a big deal if it's implemented)
I feel you, dude. I don't like many of our laws either.
I'm simply pointing out that from a U.S. perspective this seems similar to the status-quo. I agree that internationally these proposals may be much scarier.
The whole idea of economic integration is a slow incremental approach. I support a global government but not one that ignores popular sovereignty, natural rights and is marred in bureaucratic lobbyist-infused asinine laws.
But, what is most disgusting is that we had to learn of how bad it is from leaked documents.
The leadership in many nations (not just in one nation, this is effectively a conspiracy at the highest levels of several nations, most egregiously the US) supported the TPP, lobbied for the TPP on behalf of a select few corporate interests, and all around sold themselves to the highest bidder, while keeping the details of it a secret from the people they allegedly represent. Democracy doesn't run on secrecy. What these leaders are pushing is not democratic, it is oligarchic.
It isn't one party's doing, either. This secret deal is not a Republican deal, or a Democrat deal. It has, at various times, had vocal support (even petulant support in the case of Obama, when fast track powers were on the line) from the likes of Hillary Clinton (she now makes noises acting as though she doesn't like it, despite championing it dozens of times, and after the damage has already been done), most high ranking Republicans in the house and senate, and damned near everybody else who ever cashed a check from ALEC.
All while it was secret. All while the only people allowed to see it were the lawmakers supporting and writing it and the corporations that paid for it (seriously, legal representatives from several multinational corporations saw this deal before the people of the United States were allowed to see it). Even if the deal weren't awful, it would still be awful, because of the way it is being made.