Homeland Security Complains To USTR That ACTA Is A Threat To National Security

from the oops dept

Well, this is surprising. In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, KEI happened to get its hands on a Homeland Security "position" letter about ACTA written all the way back in 2008. The policy letter surprisingly warned that DHS felt ACTA was a potential threat to national security, in that it could restrict DHS and ICE specifically from putting in place their own policies to deal with infringement. Now, having seen ICE's idea of fighting infringement being seizing domains without much research, due process or concerns for the First Amendment... perhaps that's a good thing. But it's still interesting to see DHS warn that ACTA represents a threat to national security. The cover letter to the USTR warns:
"I am concerned that some possible outcome of the ACTA negotiations may harm national security and the ability of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to exercise managerial discretion in setting priorities for intellectual property right (IPR) enforcement."
Then it includes the short position paper, which highlights numerous concerns with ACTA, some of which were dealt with in later drafts of ACTA, but not all of them. In particular, it's interesting to see DHS explicitly note that it wants to make sure that ACTA doesn't lead other countries to "devote resources to IPR enforcement at the expense of more important anti-terrorism efforts."

DHS also makes it clear that, contrary to claims from tons of ACTA supporters, the original intent of the proposal was to bind Congress -- something that DHS is quite worried about:
the proposed language on the "Border Measures" section of ACTA could codify in international law, certain provisions that would be unfavorable to CBP and, once adopted as an international agreement, even Congress would be unable to alter the rules to make them more economically justifiable. .
DHS also questions why the government should be the one to enforce intellectual property issues, rather than the rights holder directly (apparently, the new folks in charge at DHS have no such qualms):
. . . The cost of enforcing private rights, such as trademarks, can reasonably be placed on the beneficiary. That is particularly true in a context such as this; rights holders often have a choice whether to bring enforcement actions on their own or through border measures. That choice should not be influenced by the consideration that using governmental enforcement resources will save the rights holder the cost of storing and destroying the infringing goods. For these reasons, if CBP concludes that waiving storage or destruction fees has created an unhealthy incentive to shift enforcement from the private sector to government, it should have authority to recommend that fees for storage and deconstruction be charged to the beneficiary of the enforcement action.

This section of ACTA could be interpreted as taking away that authority and protecting rights holders from measures to recover costs incurred for their benefit. This is imprudent and difficult to justify on fiscal or policy grounds.
The report also worries that ACTA will harm "international goodwill," and that ACTA could come back to haunt the US by letting other countries punish US companies under ACTA rules. That was certainly prescient, though it appears the USTR ignored that part:
ACTA would expend international goodwill by requiring other governments to change organizational and legal structures. . . .

In essence, this language would encourage foreign customs authorities to bar imports and exports if the authorities concluded on their own intiative that the goods might violate copyright or be confusing similar to trademarked goods. These are sweeping powers to act against suspected IP violators, and the powers can easily be misused either intentionally or unintentionally. Misuse could even harm small U.S. exporters competing with foreign companies favored by local governments. Generally speaking, the customs agencies of the other participating countries do not possess the same level of authority as CBP -- many of them are not designated competent authorities to make determinations on IPR infringements. This substantially increases the risk that the sweeping powers wiill be misused. . .
Many of these concerns were dead on, though it appears that the USTR only took a few superficial concerns into account. Also, it appears that DHS's more recent obsession with aggressively acting as Hollywood's private police force means that the current management isn't as aware of the negative impact of these actions.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Chris Rhodes (profile), Apr 26th, 2011 @ 11:13am

    What??

    An argument that increasing governmental power could have unforeseen consequences and lead to corruption and rampant corporatism? Who are and what have you done with the real DHS??

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2011 @ 11:34am

    Why the heck is IP enforcement an issue of national security? I guess they want to secure big corporate profit margins and part of that includes IP enforcement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Eric, Apr 26th, 2011 @ 11:43am

    Now this I wanna see

    This would be the first MMA Cage Match I'd buy on Pay per view...

    Dr E

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2011 @ 11:50am

    Not really relevant now. The administration has since changed...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Vic, Apr 26th, 2011 @ 11:53am

    I wonder if the DHS staff changes happened right after that letter... Obviously, USTR complained to some other, more powerful forces about this inappropriate letter.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      John Thacker, Apr 27th, 2011 @ 9:07pm

      Re:

      Yes, staff changes occurred. The letter was written by Stewart Baker, a GWB political appointee, shortly before the election in 2008. He was replaced by President Obama's own political appointee shortly thereafter. The Obama Administration folks seem more pro-ACTA.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John Doe, Apr 26th, 2011 @ 12:09pm

    The Department of Hollywood Security

    It seems the DHS is not the Department of Homeland Security but rather the Department of Hollywood Security. Someone please explain to me how IP enforcement is even the slightest bit related to homeland security.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Donnicton, Apr 26th, 2011 @ 12:26pm

      Re: The Department of Hollywood Security

      For every bootlegged movie you download or copy, you blow up a World Trade Center.


      Don't you get it?!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        MrWilson, Apr 26th, 2011 @ 12:33pm

        Re: Re: The Department of Hollywood Security

        A World Trade Center filled with puppies and kittens no less! Won't somebody think of the kittens?!?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Apr 26th, 2011 @ 12:30pm

      Re: The Department of Hollywood Security

      Because of Quantum Terrorism.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Squirrel Brains (profile), Apr 26th, 2011 @ 12:31pm

      Re: The Department of Hollywood Security

      I think the argument is that physical counterfeit goods are used to finance terrorist organizations so DHS has an interest in stopping physical counterfeit goods. That rationale does not apply the the digital realm however.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Liquid (profile), Apr 26th, 2011 @ 12:49pm

        Re: Re: The Department of Hollywood Security

        But they would like to make you think that it does even though the intelligent know better. Have to remember who the government plays up to. The over protective uneducated masses that will believe anything they say.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2011 @ 12:47pm

      Re: The Department of Hollywood Security

      Every pirated copy of Avatar results in one lost sale and, therefore, one sale to terrorism! wait..

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2011 @ 1:49pm

    Backfire

    I would find it funny if, when someone such as the MPAA, attempts to ship a cargo of movies or what not to another country and they "confiscate" them due to copyright concerns about how some tidbit of music on the copies was infringed and the entire shipment needs to be destroyed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    That Anonymous Coward, Apr 26th, 2011 @ 3:10pm

    Ok I am confused, what side am I supposed to root for.
    I thought I hated both sides.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    abc gum, Apr 26th, 2011 @ 5:53pm

    DHS - Dept of Habitual Sociopaths

    Possibly, their definition of National Security is dissimilar to yours.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Apr 27th, 2011 @ 3:50am

      Re:

      And you know what? IT still gives them the goddamned high ground when it comes to companies like BP, the MPAA and Sony.

      And that sickens me.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John Thacker, Apr 27th, 2011 @ 9:11pm

    The guy who wrote the memo blogs about it here

    Here's comments by Stewart Baker, the Bush appointee who wrote the memo in question. He says that he stands behind his position that ACTA is a bad treaty for all those reasons, and puts the US government too much in the pocket of the rights holders.

    It's a one part of the government against another issue, as the USTR tends to favor this. Still, it made a difference when Obama was elected and Stewart Baker was replaced by Obama's guy. Obama has appointed a lot of former MPAA and RIAA lawyers to high positions in the FTC and elsewhere, you know.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This