ACTA - Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

infuzion · 25 Mar 2010

Jay wrote: the list is long and there are many abysmal breaches of ones human rights held within these documents all done in the name of national security? what? how the hell does downloading a movie or some album breach national security? Even if its stealing and even if it was a criminal offense (which it isn't yet in most countries) how does Obama come to that amazing conclusion?

1) D/l any file can place a bot-program to help bring down servers & networks 2) It is very easy to encrypt secret messages inside MP3s, JPGs, movies, etc. They've existed since Amiga. 3) People who have power are reluctant to give up their power. Has been this way since the beginning of time. If you haven't realized this, go study any history. 4) The internet is empowering.

BTW, I've lived in about 5 countries; I've never heard of a nation is not brainwashed & duped by the power-elite at some level. I do admit though that Americans overall are less self-aware of this than Europeans & Russians are though.

MichaelBenjamin · 25 Mar 2010

yes its crap, what else do you expect? but like any copy protection it wont be stable and therefore be cracked sometime, so no need to worry.

on the other side i dont think that it will come that way if they are somewhat intelligent. like infuzion already mentioned the primary function of the movies, music clips, whatever, is tender brainwashing and interfering with peoples life on a relaxational and fun sedative level to prevent riots and violent revolution. so i would guess they tolerate all the piracy because the main interest is in controlling people, not earning money. well earning money also, so that the controlling can be sustained, but the piracy cant be that bad to justify these drastic actions. but its probably also alot more complicated, interesting nonetheless.

trogluddite · 25 Mar 2010

I wish I was surprised. Oddly, I've had to look into intellectual property protectiion at work this week (designing tooling for production in China).

The music business is just the tip of the iceberg here - there are parts of the world where treaties like this are stifling the development of education and healthcare for millions of people.

The whole shebang falls under the umbrella of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and is all largely a form of economic protectionism. It boils down to 'Western' exploitation of developing countries - using property rights as an excuse to make supposedly 'free' markets biased in favour of the exisiting status quo. Note that the WTO, like its predecessor GATT, is not remotely democratically accountable or obliged to make public its debates; unlike for example the UN. It also bypasses whatever democratic processes there are in the signatory countries - countries ratifying these treaties are obliged to enact the legislation to enforce them, so the draconian laws get introduced by the back door without the full knowledge (and hence mandate) of the populations concerned. The media will announce that the government has signed an important treaty that will be good for 'the economy', but few people will ever get to hear what strings are attached.

Developing nations have to agree to this stuff otherwise the WTO will impose trade sanctions - which means that those nations have reduced ability to develop their own knowledge base and must rely on licensed western intellectual property - the upshot being that huge amounts of money that they can scarcely afford makes its way into Western economies in the form of licenses and royalties at the expense of their own populations. If they don't agree to the terms, then they don't get to trade internationally at all - which would cripple their economies even more.

As infuzion said, as long as populations in the 'west' are happy with their 'bread and circuses' this ain't gonna change in a hurry. The introduction of such legislation over here is a convenient to make people who wish to debate this openly look like 'bad people' who can safely be ignored as a bunch of nutters.

Cheers

The Guy the Daily Mail warned you about.

Jay · 26 Mar 2010

Thanks for the replies men!

Its getting really scary out there! these new powers are pure Orwellian

lol, yesterday i got myself so bloody uptight reading all of this stuff that my wife banned me from the net for the rest of the evening.

I can't help wonder what kind of world our children are to inherit

In Scotland we are starting to see the new wave of big brother devices such as "smart meters" that the energy companies are forcing us to take and also "smart bins" that gather information using rfid tags. Nobody has offered any proper explanation for these bins except that it will help them monitor the refuse collection system and make it better for everyone

My younger brother and his family live in a local authority apartment block and they have just had a new and fancy door entry system that records the times tenants enter and leave the building! 😕

Best Regards

trogluddite · 26 Mar 2010

The scariest thing is how easily people accept these things.

As a keen photographer I've been following closely the misuse of section 44 of the anti-terrorism act. This has been used to harass photographers (ad many other people of course) taking pictures in public places, including fully accredited press photographers trying to cover major news items - especially public protests, where journalists and the public are trying to hold the actions of the authorities to account. One common trick is to use the act to try and make photographers delete photographs taken perfectly legally - there is no law against taking pictures in any public place unless covered by a specific by-law in the UK. In fact, requesting deletion is illegal, as it amounts to tampering with evidence should the person in question be prosecuted! When information regarding section 44 was requested under the freedom of information act, it turned out that the act has never led to a successfull prosecution - nor has it ever been a source of valuable evidence in cases where potential terrorist cells have been uncovered. Ironically, some of the most highly valued (and priced) photographs in existence are the street photo's taken by the likes of Cartier-Bresson - often of prostitutes, gang members, his local police etc. Yet, today, many photographers are in fear of getting out their camera in public lest they be labelled a potential terrorist or paedophile. Rather than censoring inconvenient photo's the way that Stalin was famous for, our government would rather scare us into not taking them in the first place - and the general public have willingly colluded in this. Meanwhile, the average person in the UK going about their daily business is filmed by over 100 CCTV cameras every single day - and trials have begun with automated computer software to identify people in CCTV footage who are behaving 'suspiciously' - quite how that algorithm works is anybody's guess, and commercial confidentiality means we will never be told.

Have a doubleplusgood day...

Acrobat · 26 Mar 2010

Why don't we just break the rules, whatever they are? I mean, that's LIFE for me! 😉

MegaHurtz · 26 Mar 2010

What`s next.. eliminate any possible firewall thats dis-affiliated with the grand scheme to walk into the "terrorists" computer. I think not.. 😠 It`s the mechanics thats supposed to scare the consumer, but the logistics make it unlikely. They will not posses the power to turn fluid things into concrete, as they want to soo bad since the dawning of computers.. Edit: time.

infuzion · 26 Mar 2010

Jay wrote: Its getting really scary out there! these new powers are pure Orwellian I can't help wonder what kind of world our children are to inherit

There will always be people who will mis-use whatever is available to them for their own gains & to keep their power. People will like, mis-apply the truth, beat plowshares into swords, salt the earth, etc. == In case you're curious about why so many US Congressmen are now getting bricks though their windows & death threats, here are some tidbits of the new government health care bill: H.R.3590 "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" • Page 30-31: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process) • Page 59: Possible electronic access into people's bank accounts • Government mandated & directed health care (I for one try to avoid the typical "hospital system" & use less-intrusive methods for healing; eating more natural foods, herbal medicines, exercise, taking care of root cause, as opposed to just taking pills for symptoms) • Basically giving the government more direct control over if people can live or die

It has been said that this bill gives "The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer." but I don't see right now.

infuzion · 26 Mar 2010

MegaHurtz wrote: What`s next.. eliminate any possible firewall thats dis-affiliated with the grand scheme to walk into the "terrorists" computer. I think not..

Supposedly all the major anti-virus programs (Norton, McAffe, etc) have a white-list of Trojans designed & distributed by the US Government. Not that hard really.

trogluddite · 26 Mar 2010

Acrobat wrote: Why don't we just break the rules, whatever they are? I mean, that's LIFE for me!

Amen. Nobody was ever handed their 'rights' on a plate - universal suffrage, civil rights for minorities etc.etc. were all won by mass defiance of the artificial restrictions placed on our lives.

infuzion · 27 Mar 2010

trogluddite wrote: Acrobat wrote: Why don't we just break the rules, whatever they are? I mean, that's LIFE for me!

Amen. Nobody was ever handed their 'rights' on a plate - universal suffrage, civil rights for minorities etc.etc. were all won by mass defiance of the artificial restrictions placed on our lives.

You just made a "nonsensical statement" since universal suffrage & civil rights are themselves 99% typically laws set by the government. Rules = laws, & even social morays themselves are rules, so "break the rules" may mean treat women as animals & be racist. Also, such laws are not typically brought about by the majority, but a very vocal minority causes a ruckus & enough non-activists end up going along, or those in power try to gain/keep power by appeasing the vocal minority. Eg Communism to create USSR was brought about by only 5% of the population. But it seemed like the entire country was in revolution.

trogluddite · 27 Mar 2010

@infuzion Well said my friend - it's refeshing to see such thoughtful debate here, rather than some of the flaming we have seen in past threads 🙂 I have, of course , inexcusably fallen into the trap of crass generalisation - there is much to be debated about the degree to which personal freedom may have implications for the freedom of others - or indeed about what freedom even is, and whether we want or need it as much as we seem to think. Even 'treat others as you would wish them to treat you' is problematic - how does it apply in the case of a sado-masochist for example?

There is much talk in 'the West' about the superiority of freedom of choice, yet what I see of TV is full of 'makeover' shows - 'this is the way to dress', 'this is how to decorate your home', 'this is how to make people approve of you' etc.etc.ad nauseum - so it would seem that a large number of people prefer to delegate their choices to others. I should maybe point out that I have mild Asperger's syndrome (so the 'experts' tell me), so the idea of social norms as per the way we dress, decorate our homes etc. do seem somewhat nonsensical and surreal to me - I struggle to see them as forms of social communication.

It's interesting to consider to what extent the non-vocal majority implicitly give their consent by their non-participation in the process - to take the 60s civil rights movement as an example; we do not read of massive gatherings of people on the streets voicing their objection to the granting of civil rights; it is of course possible that there were, but that they were somehow 'swept under the carpet' due to corporate interests who had seen a potential new market for their products among people who had previously not been seen as 'consumers'. (Around the time of large scale protests for gay rights in the UK, a number of economists began writing about the exploitation of the 'pink pound') Of course, if a mandate can be given implicitly, then should we be carping about the government wanting to snoop inside our computers? - the majority of citizens have consented to this being the case by their lack of objection! 😈

BTW - this is just an interesting little aside - At the time of the American War of Independence, the British media was, as you'd expect, full of propaganda and indignation at the behaviour of the 'colonists' who wished to no longer be British subjects (we still are technically subjects rather than citizens in the UK). In all of the British media, only one prominent journalist had the temerity to write articles promoting the idea of America having the right to self-determination. It was of course, none other than Karl Marx!