There is a new international trade agreement being proposed. So far it has been developed in secret, until the documents were leaked. Read the full story. It's called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).
Basically, major countries around the world like the U.S., Canada, and the countries in the E.U. are developing a law to try to cut down on piracy. They want to be able to search people at border crossings for illegally downloaded media, such as music. They will not only be looking though laptops, but mp3 players as well.
It’s hard to even begin to describe just how wrong this is on so many levels. Let’s start with delays. Someone goes through customs with a 10,000 song library on an iPod. How long do you think that will take to look through? The article indicates that the people in charge of deciding what is copyrighted material or not are the security guards. Great. So how do we prove that the songs we have are actually legal copies? Mp3s are not illegal, just ones that were not paid for. So do we have to carry around receipts for every music purchase we have ever made?
Plus, the security personnel have the power to confiscate or destroy the devises with the copyright material. Wait. They can just throw it away?!?!? How is this being seriously considered in these negotiations? Well, trade agreements are a responsibility of the executive branch in the United States, and they do not require parliamentary approval in Canada. Basically, if this becomes a law, expect ridiculous delay, innocent people accused of stealing and just about anyone with an iPod fined for pirated music.
This leads me to ask the question, are the customs officials bored? Are they just tired of looking for bombs, identifying terrorists, or searching for drugs? Honestly, in the last few years our government has stepped up enforcement efforts to try to keep our borders safe. Now what happens when terrorists sneak chemical weapons in the country because the security officers where too busy listening to Timmy’s music library? Is giving out fines to the people with digital media really a high priority for our border patrol?
That’s not even mentioning the fact that the border patrol can detain and question without allowing a lawyer present. I look at this law, and it sounds like the Patriot Act for illegal music. All they need is some suspicion no matter how unfounded, and they can confiscate your laptop, iPod, etc. without any due process of law. It’s guilty until proven innocent.
I would like to think that the Supreme Court would have objections to this, but based on the voting record, their consistently upholding tighter border control measures, and their support for the DMCA and its anti-circumvention clause, I am not too hopeful. The only way this gets prevented is through the responsible oversight of the American people (and the peoples of the other countries involved in this treaty). Hopefully, if the public is sufficiently outraged, this travesty of justice will never become law.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
FISA vs. 4th Amdendment. Round 2
Congress is locked in a battle with the white house. At stake, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment rights of U.S. Citizens. Unfortunately, there is a trade off between safety and freedom, and a price must be paid either way.
A little background: FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Ace) was originally passed in 1978 to provide oversight for legal wiretapping. There were additions made to the bill through the Patriot Act of 2001, and the Protect America Act of 2007. Specifically, the Protect America Act authorized the president to issue wiretaps on foreigners without a warrant or judicial oversight, so long as the Attorney General (also a member of the executive branch) approved. So why is this issue back in the hot seat? The Protect America Act expired February 2008.
Still, the same congress passed the law last year, why the hold up? Because there is a new provision in this bill, giving retroactive immunity from lawsuits to telecommunication companies who cooperated with the government. See, the government wanted to look at phone records, but they did not have probable cause to get a warrant. So they just asked nicely. And some companies, for example AT&T, turned over that information. So if you have a phone through AT&T, the government knows what calls you’ve made, what time you made them, and who you made them to.
Understandably, some people were a little upset, so they filed a lawsuit, claiming these companies violated their privacy rights. Now, if the FISA provisions Bush would like are passed into law, these companies would get immunity. It’s turned into a very controversial issue. Some people applaud the telecoms for cooperating with our government to catch terrorists; others are appalled that their information was so callously given away, when there was no legal reason nor just cause to do so.
Why didn’t AT&T demand a subpoena for this private information? That’s why we have a court system and judicial oversight, requiring law enforcement to provide just cause before demanding personal/privileged documents. In fact, that would be the responsible action for a business concerned with its customer’s wellbeing (thank you Google); happy to cooperate as long as you have some kind of reasonable suspicion. But now, after acting irresponsibly, the government is trying to protect them from the consequences of their own actions. If consumers can’t hold companies accountable, we lose our voice in the market.
So the question is, did the U.S. Government violate the 4th amendment rights to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures? I hear the argument over and over, ‘what does it matter if I have nothing to hide?’ That’s always an easy argument to make if you are not being accused of a crime. But we have these rights for a reason. The framers of the constitution came from a time when a corrupt government could storm through your house on a whim, searching everything, leaving you with absolutely no privacy whether you had committed a crime or not.
Our freedoms that we sometimes take for granted erode away just a little at a time. If we have no protections from our government when it comes to the phone calls we make, what websites we view online, or even what we are searching through search engines like AOL (all of which the U.S. government has requested to see information on), then how long is it until we have no protections in our own homes. Our rights erode away a little at a time, so you may not have something to hide, but you do have something to lose.
A little background: FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Ace) was originally passed in 1978 to provide oversight for legal wiretapping. There were additions made to the bill through the Patriot Act of 2001, and the Protect America Act of 2007. Specifically, the Protect America Act authorized the president to issue wiretaps on foreigners without a warrant or judicial oversight, so long as the Attorney General (also a member of the executive branch) approved. So why is this issue back in the hot seat? The Protect America Act expired February 2008.
Still, the same congress passed the law last year, why the hold up? Because there is a new provision in this bill, giving retroactive immunity from lawsuits to telecommunication companies who cooperated with the government. See, the government wanted to look at phone records, but they did not have probable cause to get a warrant. So they just asked nicely. And some companies, for example AT&T, turned over that information. So if you have a phone through AT&T, the government knows what calls you’ve made, what time you made them, and who you made them to.
Understandably, some people were a little upset, so they filed a lawsuit, claiming these companies violated their privacy rights. Now, if the FISA provisions Bush would like are passed into law, these companies would get immunity. It’s turned into a very controversial issue. Some people applaud the telecoms for cooperating with our government to catch terrorists; others are appalled that their information was so callously given away, when there was no legal reason nor just cause to do so.
Why didn’t AT&T demand a subpoena for this private information? That’s why we have a court system and judicial oversight, requiring law enforcement to provide just cause before demanding personal/privileged documents. In fact, that would be the responsible action for a business concerned with its customer’s wellbeing (thank you Google); happy to cooperate as long as you have some kind of reasonable suspicion. But now, after acting irresponsibly, the government is trying to protect them from the consequences of their own actions. If consumers can’t hold companies accountable, we lose our voice in the market.
So the question is, did the U.S. Government violate the 4th amendment rights to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures? I hear the argument over and over, ‘what does it matter if I have nothing to hide?’ That’s always an easy argument to make if you are not being accused of a crime. But we have these rights for a reason. The framers of the constitution came from a time when a corrupt government could storm through your house on a whim, searching everything, leaving you with absolutely no privacy whether you had committed a crime or not.
Our freedoms that we sometimes take for granted erode away just a little at a time. If we have no protections from our government when it comes to the phone calls we make, what websites we view online, or even what we are searching through search engines like AOL (all of which the U.S. government has requested to see information on), then how long is it until we have no protections in our own homes. Our rights erode away a little at a time, so you may not have something to hide, but you do have something to lose.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Clinton vs. Obama ... and McCain
The last few Democratic primaries are approaching. The convention is only a few months away. Yet the Dems have not chosen who they will nominate. Obama may have a majority of delegates, but Clinton has said that she will remain in the race as long as it takes, which means the convention in August. What does this mean for the Democratic Party?
There are 2 scenarios. One, the 2 potential Democratic candidates will continue the campaign of mud throwing accusations. There will be a winner… that looks really bad, dirty, with a reputation for negative campaigning. Meanwhile, McCain gets to run his campaign the way he likes, virtually unopposed by any united front. From now until August is McCain’s chance to accrue a lead so vast, that the eventual nominee cannot possibly catch up.
The other possibility plays out a little different. With Obama and Clinton still in contest for the nomination, they dominate the media (because lets face it, big nasty TV fights are good for ratings). All this free media attention drowns out McCain’s message and allows the Democrats to control the news stories up until the convention. There is some evidence that this could occur. According to open secrets, in April Obama raised $30,694,196 and Clinton raised $25,787,239 compared to McCain’s $18,310,686.
Those numbers amaze me. Together, the Democratic presidential candidates raked in $56,481,435, an amount more than 3 times what the Republican candidate raised. To me, this shows that the Barack vs. Hillary onslaught is drawing much more attention to the Democratic side, and leaving McCain far behind.
But Democrats should not go out celebrating just yet. With all the bitter feelings on both sides, the primary winner might very well alienate some of Democrats who supported their rival candidate. These people might not show up on Election Day, or worst case (for the Dems), they show up and vote McCain. McCain is exactly the right Republican for this to happen. His experience commands a great deal of respect. Enough to attract some of the Democratic supporters? We’ll see.
There are 2 scenarios. One, the 2 potential Democratic candidates will continue the campaign of mud throwing accusations. There will be a winner… that looks really bad, dirty, with a reputation for negative campaigning. Meanwhile, McCain gets to run his campaign the way he likes, virtually unopposed by any united front. From now until August is McCain’s chance to accrue a lead so vast, that the eventual nominee cannot possibly catch up.
The other possibility plays out a little different. With Obama and Clinton still in contest for the nomination, they dominate the media (because lets face it, big nasty TV fights are good for ratings). All this free media attention drowns out McCain’s message and allows the Democrats to control the news stories up until the convention. There is some evidence that this could occur. According to open secrets, in April Obama raised $30,694,196 and Clinton raised $25,787,239 compared to McCain’s $18,310,686.
Those numbers amaze me. Together, the Democratic presidential candidates raked in $56,481,435, an amount more than 3 times what the Republican candidate raised. To me, this shows that the Barack vs. Hillary onslaught is drawing much more attention to the Democratic side, and leaving McCain far behind.
But Democrats should not go out celebrating just yet. With all the bitter feelings on both sides, the primary winner might very well alienate some of Democrats who supported their rival candidate. These people might not show up on Election Day, or worst case (for the Dems), they show up and vote McCain. McCain is exactly the right Republican for this to happen. His experience commands a great deal of respect. Enough to attract some of the Democratic supporters? We’ll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)