I got an email this evening ... you won't like it...

[GreyGeek]

Secret negotiations to regulate the Internet
(Maira Sutton | EFF International Team, Today 05:05 PM)


This week in Dallas, trade representatives are secretly negotiating new regulations for the Internet – including intellectual property provisions that could choke off online speech. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement may be even worse than ACTA; it could tie the hands of democratically-elected legislators and create new, international standards for intellectual property enforcement. Worst of all, Internet users and free expression advocates like EFF aren’t allowed in the room and are forbidden from seeing the negotiated text.


Join EFF in demanding a Congressional hearing so lawmakers can learn what’s in the TPP and hear from all affected stakeholders, not just deep-pocketed industry representatives.


U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk claims they have made “extraordinary efforts” to include public stakeholders in negotiations, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. Like ACTA, negotiations have actively excluded civil society and the public, while welcoming private industry representatives with open arms.


EFF’s International IP Director Gwen Hinze traveled to Dallas to demand transparency, but she wasn’t allowed to see the draft text or be present for the negotiations. Here's how Gwen described the tactics the USTR is using to shut Internet users out from the negotiations:


Unlike previous negotiation rounds, there will be no official forum for stakeholders to present their views to the assembled TPP country negotiators. Instead, stakeholders are being asked to register their interest in sponsoring a table to provide negotiators who might so happen to stroll past with information on particular topics.


The public should be front and center in these negotiations, not relegated to a table outside.


Join EFF in calling on Congress for more transparency in TPP. Negotiators can't just shut out the public and their elected representatives.






Defending your digital rights,


Maira Sutton
International Team
Electronic Frontier Foundation

[MoonRise]

Doesn't surprise me.

[NickStone]

The internet is already regulated (policed). For example, if someone publishes child porn on a server and the authorities in the country it is hosted discover it they will both close it down and prosecute you. If you are wanting the internet to be unregulated. are you happy for material like that to be published? Because I am not.

Here in the UK there is a movement taking place to force ISP's to automatically block porn and other inappropriate material. Should you want access to that material you have to opt-in. I personally think this is long overdue.

[GreyGeek]

The internet is already regulated (policed).

That's the problem. The question is "by whom"? And for what purposes?

For example, if someone publishes child porn on a server and the authorities in the country it is hosted discover it they will both close it down and prosecute you. If you are wanting the internet to be unregulated. are you happy for material like that to be published? Because I am not.

I do not see the connection between "online speech" and child porn, which is just a convenient boggy man designed to distract from the actual result of the TPP action: "The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement may be even worse than ACTA; it could tie the hands of democratically-elected legislators and create new, international standards for intellectual property enforcement."

Further more, I don't understand the corruption that has to have taken place that the US Trade Representative, Ron Kirk, could negotiate treaties that could bind our elected representatives from nullifying them.

Wikipedia- Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. This was held, for instance, in the Head Money Cases. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S.Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert.^[8] The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so.

It appears obvious that not being able to do an end run around the people by bribing Congress, which is unusual but such was the ferocity of the people's anger against SOPA and the rest, the corporate folks are now trying an end run around Congress using treaty negotiations to get onerous IP restrictions into Law as an International Accord.

Here in the UK there is a movement taking place to force ISP's to automatically block porn and other inappropriate material. Should you want access to that material you have to opt-in. I personally think this is long overdue.

Blocking porn isn't that same as a corporation using the DMCA to to send you a "cease and desist" IP violation letter ordering you to take down your website because you link to a webpage which someone claims is their IP. A recent example is here: http://www.pskl.us/wp/?p=722

It seems that LifeShield is sending out tens of thousands of bogus DMCA takedown request, even after they were informed of and admitted to abusing the DMCA. You see, there is no penalty for abuse of the DMCA, and it is being used by corporations to punish criticism of them and/or their products, and by political bodies to surpress opposing opinions. The Webb-Pomerene Act is being abused as well: http://torrentfreak.com/repo-man’s-a...laints-120424/

"The studios, including Universal, are pretty clearly a criminal enterprise, operating an illegal blacklist and functioning as a price-fixing cartel. They actually have legislation which permits them to operate as a cartel abroad (the law is called Webb-Pomerene) but absolutely no right to operate as a cartel domestically. They do so because they’re powerful and have politicians in their pockets,” Cox notes.
“If the cops ever went after them using the RICO statutes the whole studio cartel would collapse like a pack of cards, and individuals like their ‘litigation counsel’ would have to look for honest work. It’s unlikely that this will happen, but we can dream,” he concludes.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php...t-filters.html

Copyright has become copyfraud: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...b-choice.shtml

But, if you want censorship in the UK then here is your ticket: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/london/que...ring-plan/4663

HM the Queen, in her first speech to the British Parliament in two years, announced albeit briefly the U.K. government’s plan to monitor all Web activity in the country.

It puts the U.K. en par with the United States, Russia, and China in how it monitors its citizens’ Web activity.

The U.K. isn't really on par with the US, it is much farther down the road toward the "Brave New World". We still don't have camera's on every corner, but we are getting drones in the sky, and we still have the 1st and 2nd Amendments, although they have been sorely "infringed", contrary to their wording. But, give us 10 or 15 years and we may be where you are now. By then, however, who can say where your society will be at, considering how much of their freedom the English have given up in exchange for their safety? I certainly don't fancy a police state, especially one run by a corporate cabal.

With "political correctness" controlling what attitudes and behaviors are acceptable, the ground can shift from under you faster than you realize. You may be in the majority in one decade and the "Jew" in the next. All it takes is some charismatic "leader" to convince your fellow citizens that YOU are a threat to their welfare because of nothing more than what you believe. Add to that some myths or distortions of bygone evils and the justification is complete. Suddenly, YOU can't read your sacred literature, nor can you speak or write of it, in a public school setting any more. Because someone in the past blew up an abortion clinic you are evil. Strange how that is a one-way street... Bill Ayers can blow up police, military and public buildings as part of a Marxist guerrilla group, and he can go on to be an unrepentant professor in a state university and a friend of the President. Apparently, that's OK. It seems he is for "social justice". I wonder if that included those parents and grandparents who got in the way of one of his bombs?

[SteveRiley]

Here in the UK there is a movement taking place to force ISP's to automatically block porn and other inappropriate material. Should you want access to that material you have to opt-in. I personally think this is long overdue.

No. One person's porn is another person's art -- or employment. The consumption of porn is a purely voluntary act. If I don't want to look at it (and, really, it's quite disgusting), I don't have to. But under no circumstances should someone else be in a position to deprive me of that.

Blocking porn "to save the children!" is a red herring. Principally, it's my duty to raise my children to respect that porn is mostly an instrument of exploitation, and to encourage a similar digust response in them. If I choose to block it on my home network, because minors live in my house, that should be entirely my decision -- not a mandate from elsewhere. I, and all other parents, should of course not operate under the illusion that teens will, despite all our efforts, experiment at the edges. Probably because we make too big of a deal about all this crap anyway.

[GreyGeek]

I had read that argument that to be against Internet censorship meant that you were "for" online child porn. It was posited during the fight in Canada over Internet censorship: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2336889/


Canada's bill died, thankfully.

[SteveRiley]

I had read that argument that to be against Internet censorship meant that you were "for" online child porn.

Arguments such as "If you aren't with us, you're against us" ultimately end up creating this notion in the minds of many people. Such binary views absolutely shatter the levels of nuance that exist between the extremes. And all of society suffers a loss as a result.

Am I "in favor of" child porn? Absolutely not. Why? Because it requires the participation of people (i.e., the kids) who lack the mental maturity to make their own informed decisions regarding their participation.

Am I "in favor of" adult consenting porn? Yes! To the degree that individuals make conscious decisions to participate and consume. But personally, it rather bores me...

Am I "in favor of" Internet censorship? Not at all. I am also opposed to movie ratings, and to the FCC's desire to keep certain f*ck*ng sh*tt* words off the air. It is my choice, and only my choice, to decide what to expose myself and my family to.

(Strong language hinted purely for effect.)

I write this not to argue with you, Jerry. I write this to raise awareness that there exists a wide spectrum between a statement of being against one thing and an interpretation that the speaker/writer is therefore in favor of the presumed opposite thing.

[dibl]

there exists a wide spectrum between a statement of being against one thing and an interpretation that the speaker/writer is therefore in favor of the presumed opposite thing.

+1


In this world, there exists more than 2 choices.

[MoonRise]

Good conversation. Will keep watch.

[GreyGeek]

....I write this not to argue with you, Jerry. ....

You won't get any argument from me.

My response was to a previous post which favored Internet censorship in order to get rid of "child porn". The URL I cited identified the Canadian politician who used that argument. That contrast: "if you are not for censorship then you are for porn" is a classic example of a logical fallacy, but I couldn't remember which one, so I refrained from citing any. Something to the effect that "if you don't agree to A then you agree to B", even thought there is no logical connection between A and B.

[GreyGeek]

I just got ANOTHER EFF email, filling in details about a government take down last year:

EFF, The Yes Men, and Protesters Fight Secret Negotiations to Regulate the Internet


EFF's International IP Director Gwen Hinze traveled to Dallas this week to demand transparency in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement, a secret international trade negotiation that includes provisions to regulate intellectual property and the Internet. She was joined by hundreds of protesters rallying outside the Dallas hotel as well as culture-jamming activist group The Yes Men, who presented U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk with the fictitious "2012 Corporate Power Tool Award." Over 18,000 Internet users have used the EFF action center to speak out against the TPP; please help us get to 20,000 by contacting Congress today.


DHS Considers Collecting DNA From Kids


Documents just released by US Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) in response to one of EFF’s Freedom of Information Act requests show that DHS is considering collecting DNA from kids ages 14 and up -- and is exploring expanding its regulations to allow collection from kids younger than that. The proposal appears to be working its way through DHS in the wake of regulations that require all federal agencies to collect DNA from individuals arrested for federal crimes as well as "from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States," whether or not they have been involved in criminal activity.


Unsealed Court Records Confirm that RIAA Delays Were Behind Year-Long Seizure of Hip Hop Music Blog


After a year-long seizure and six more months of secrecy, the court records were finally released concerning the mysterious government takedown of Dajaz1.com -- a popular blog dedicated to hip hop music and culture. The records confirm that one of the key reasons the blog remained censored for so long is that the government obtained three secret extensions of time by claiming that it was waiting for "rights holders" and later, the Recording Industry Association of America. In other words, having goaded the government into an outrageous and very public seizure of the blog, the RIAA members refused to follow up and answer the government’s questions.


EFF Updates


NY Twitter Decision Fails to Recognize Content and Location Data Require a Warrant
The New York City District Attorney is facing new obstacles in its attempts to subpoena information from Twitter regarding the account of Malcolm Harris, one of the 700 people arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge in an October 2011 Occupy Wall Street protest. Faced with a written order to comply with the subpoena, Twitter filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that complying would violate the law.


EFF to Testify at Hearings on Expanding DMCA Exemptions for Jailbreaking and Video Remixing
Experts from EFF will testify at public hearings held by the U.S. Copyright Office this month, urging officials to renew and expand the critical exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that the Copyright Office granted in 2009 in response to EFF's requests to protect the rights of American consumers who modify electronic gadgets and make remix videos.


Oracle v. Google and the Dangerous Implications of Treating APIs as Copyrightable
At stake in the case of Oracle v. Google is whether APIs can be considered copyrightable, which would have a profound negative impact on interoperability, and, therefore, innovation. Allowing a party to assert control over APIs means that a party can determine who can make compatible and interoperable software, an idea that is anathema to those who create the software we rely on everyday.


Drones, Secret Surveillance, and Classifying the Wizard of Oz
EFF follows up on the FAA report showing the names of government agencies which have received authorization to fly drones in the US. Meanwhile, the annual Department of Justice report to Congress shows DOJ applications to conduct electronic surveillance increased in 2011.


Hollywood's Trolls
Our movie industry has created some memorable monsters on screen. But Hollywood and the major music labels also helped create a very real kind of monster: copyright trolls who coerce settlements from Internet subscribers using intimidation and our out-of-whack copyright laws.


DOJ Official: Any Privacy Protection is Too Much Privacy Protection for Cell Phone Tracking
Jason Weinstein, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's criminal division, told a panel at the Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee's "State of the Mobile Net" conference that requiring a search warrant to obtain location tracking information from cell phones would "cripple" prosecutors and law enforcement officials. We couldn't disagree more.


Special 301 Report 2012: The USTR's Bogus List of Countries That "Don't Enforce" Copyrights
The Office of the United States Trade Representative released its annual Special 301 report, a review of other countries’ intellectual property laws and enforcement standards. What’s particularly obnoxious about these reports is that countries are judged on whether they adopt very particular implementations of international legal standards and interpretations of controversial parts of U.S. law that only reflect the interests of intellectual property (IP) rightsholder industries -- not everyday Internet users.

[woodsmoke]

It seems to me that I can remember quite a few "lefty" national magazines, and many Democratic congress people, a few movies and quite a few television series which sneered at the bohunks in flyover country who talked about "black helicopters". Now we have the very congress people who so sneered and a President who was going to "change things" that are advocating white drones instead of black helicopters.

And if a bohunk hillbilly shot one of the things down the oh so smart elites would be more than glad to throw him, or her, in jail.

And the same elites who so decry "big business" are letting one of the biggest business enterprises in the world have free rein because they get sooooo much good face time from them ........

The same people who used to decry Yellow Journalism are now using yellow media and yellow news media for all that they can get out of them.

ptagh on all of them!

woodsmoke

[GreyGeek]

I had read that argument that to be against Internet censorship meant that you were "for" online child porn. It was posited during the fight in Canada over Internet censorship: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2336889/


Canada's bill died, thankfully.

Opps! It looks like the claim that Canada's Internet censorship bill isn't dead. The politician with few brains and a LOT of testosterone claims that it is still in play.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews told reporters Wednesday that the government is proceeding with its controversial online surveillance bill.
...
When the bill was introduced in February, Toews said the legislation was necessary to protect Canadians from child pornography and organized crime. But although it mentions protecting children from predators in its title, there's no mention of child pornography in its actual text.

Yup, he's the politician that used the false dichotomy that people

"either stand with us or with the child pornographers."

It looks like the Canadians are not off the hook yet.

[NickStone]

Just watched the news this evening and the main story was of an internet chatroom service aimed at children / teenagers whereby children are being bombarded with sexual explicit content as soon as they login. This particular service is clearly not monitored for this to happen. After reading the investigation report, I wonder if you still believe the internet should still be free and open.

http://www.channel4.com/news/should-...in-habbo-hotel

I would like to know what you think after reading the report.

[GreyGeek]

....I wonder if you still believe the internet should still be free and open.

http://www.channel4.com/news/should-...in-habbo-hotel

I would like to know what you think after reading the report.

You are shocked that people lie about their age when they sign up for Habbo Hotel? And that they (ab)use that environment to access and seduce young people?

Yes, I do believe the Internet should be free and open. And, Habbo Hotel should be a place where a child can visit and be safe.

While I think drunkenness is not a condition someone should willingly enter, the experiment with prohibition proved that you cannot stop some people from getting drunk by making it illegal for ALL people to drink. It was using a shotgun to kill a fly. Good people with good goals (to stop drunkeness which they claimed to be the cause of broken families, shoeless and hungry children, etc...) provoked other people to act out their "moral outrage" without thinking, or even suspecting, what the consequences might be, and outlawed "daemon alcohol". So, because your neighbor could not control his use of alcohol, the do-gooders convinced enough people to believe that only way to prevent him from drinking and getting drunk was to prohibit you from drinking as well. Proponents felt morally satisfied after the law was passed, but ten years later you had a hard time finding someone who'd admit that they voted for it. Prohibition increased general lawlessness because people will not abide by oppressive laws. The "cure" was worse than the disease and led to organized crime which made drunkenness look like jay-walking.

A gun is a gun. It is not evil in and of itself but it can be used for good or evil. So is a butter knife. When England outlawed guns people started using knives to do the same thing, threaten or harm others. In their infinite wisdom Parliament was working on legislation to outlaw knives. In their zeal to stop people from harming one another they set up an environment where a crook can break into a house and threaten the owner with a knife. The owner defended himself with a bat and knocked the thief unconscious, then he called the police. They arrived and promptly arrested the .... owner, charging him with assault, for which he was convicted and sentenced to five years. The thief sued and won in court more than what he was trying to steal, he was given the entire house and property of the former owner!

That example from England goes to show that laws prohibiting can also morph into or encourage laws of requirement if the PC atmosphere gets virulent enough. We now live in an era where emotionally laden terms have been enacted into law without defining exactly what those terms mean. To make matters worse, the accused is at the mercy of the accuser, who is free to place about any definition on "hate" that they or a zealous prosecutor wants to choose. "Hate" is an example. Hate is like porn, we know it when we see it. Or do we? It's politically correct these days to label someone a "hater" or a "denier" if they don't sign on to the cause de-jour. You see it in comments all the time. "Hater's hate!", someone posts. What does that mean? When is a crime a "hate" crime?

With such a vague word who decides what actions are motivated by "hate" and who gives them such authority? "Hate" is not in the constitution, yet the constitutional rights of the accused are being violated to satisfy the "moral outrage" of those who think they know what "hate" is. It's like accusing someone of using an ad hominem attack and then calling them an idiot, certainly a double standard.

Places where one can engage in intelligent discussion on ANY topic, debating both the arguments and facts introduced by both sides without resorting to name calling, personal attacks, PC buzz words, etc..., are few and far between.

Then as now, freedom can exist only when responsibility exists. The owner of Habbo Hotel has a responsibility and obligation to police the site, which he claims he is doing. He states:

"Habbo's moderation and safeguarding procedures includes employing more than 225 moderators, tracking some 70m lines of conversation globally every day on a 24/7 basis. These moderators cover all time-zones and the multiple languages in which Habbo users converse."

This is obviously inadequate. It amounts to each of the moderators looking at about 9 or 10 lines of conversation a second, 24/7, and that is something that is physically impossible for a human moderator to do. Computer software isn't intelligent enough to parse English and pick out attempts at grooming or seduction. It might look for the words "naked", or "webcam" and take some sort of action, but it wouldn't be long before code words would replace those words and the software would fail. An "arms race" would take place, with moderators chasing morphed words all over the site, but the perverts would continue as usual.

To me, the only fair solution is to require the parent or guardian to monitor their own children, not further restrict my rights on the Internet by some law that can and will be used by prosecutors in areas the law didn't intend to cover. Parental monitoring can be easily done with software. Khan Academy has a site where parents set up an account for their child. When the child logs in and goes through the various video tutorials and worksheets the results are posted to the parent's side of the account, where they can see the progress their child is making. On Haboo Hotel the parent should be required to set up an account for each of their children who want to use the site, supplying information that only an adult would have access to for proof of identity, and logs of conversations their children are having on the site could be accessed by the parent. The parent should disable the webcam when the child is on line.

I don't think it is fair to relinquish my online rights because others are too lazy to be good parents.