Australian Gov't: Not In The Public Interest For The Public To Be Interested In Secret Anti-Piracy Negotiations

from the transparency?-what's-that? dept

Last month Techdirt wrote about yet more secret meetings between the copyright and internet industries, this time in Australia, where the federal government there was "encouraging" them to come up with ways of tackling online copyright infringement.

The public, as usual, was not invited to offer their views on plans that would obviously affect them more than anyone. And so people filed a freedom of information (FOI) request to find out belatedly what was going on. But the answers they received were unsatisfactory, to say the least:

the Attorney-General’s Department responded to that Freedom of Information request, providing a series of five documents. However, using a variety of justifications, the department has redacted almost all of the information previously contained in the documents -- including 14 pages of notes taken by a departmental staffer at the event and other four pages of notes taken by a senior staffer from Communications Minister Stephen Conroy’s department.
Some of the excuses for not providing the requested information are pretty far-fetched:
the Attorney-General’s Department stated in its response to Delimiter’s FoI request that it "does not hold" a list of the attendees who actually attended the meeting.
So the Australian government organized a secret meeting, but doesn't know who attended? If that's true, it suggests a stunning level of incompetence that ought to require heads to roll; and if it's not true, then heads should still roll, for being economical with the truth.

But perhaps the most outrageous aspect of the response to the FOI request is the underlying justification for providing a content-free non-reply:

"Disclosure of the documents while the negotiations are still in process, would, in my view, prejudice, hamper and impede those negotiations to an unacceptable degree," wrote [Attorney-General’s Department senior legal officer] Purcell. That would, in my view, be contrary to the interests of good government -- which would, in turn, be contrary to the public interest."
What this really means is: "All hell will break loose when the public finds out what is being discussed behind closed doors. So what we're going to do is to come up with an agreement in secret, and then present it as a fait accompli, without offering citizens any options to change anything substantive. By contrast, to release the documents, and allow the public to have a say in how they should be allowed to use a critical 21st-century technology, would be contrary to the interests of this very good government, which by definition is identical with the public interest."

It's really extraordinary that, in 2012, governments can still trot out this nonsense that what is good for the government is by definition good for the public interest. How about letting the public have a say on the matter, by inviting them to join the debate using the means devised by the open government movements around the world during the last few years?

Instead, once the back-room deal finally emerges into the light of day, and is predictably met by a barrage of anger, the Australian government will profess itself stunned by the ingratitude of the public that is rejecting all that hard work done by its faithful public servants. And then perhaps, following in the footsteps of their German colleagues, Australian politicians will use that anger over lack of transparency as an excuse to justify further lack of transparency.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    A down under Techdirter, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 4:21am

    Aww crap

     

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

  •  
    icon
    techflaws.org (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 4:29am

    that what is good for the government is by definition good for the public interest.

    The question is, how can it be good for the government? The public that is voting for/against the government is far bigger than the number of voters supporting these special interest groups.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    explicit coward (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 4:43am

    What form of democracy is Australia? If it's representative, why should "the public" have a say in any negotiations? They elected people to do exactly that for them...

    That's why I will always prefer the other model, the direct democracy: It doesn't covertly imply that "ordinary" people are just not intelligent enough (aka to dumb) to make good governmental decisions.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 5:42am

      Re:

      You already had Wikipedia open...

      And the public has every right to boss around their government. Please keep in mind the meaning of the words "civil servant".

       

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

      •  
        icon
        explicit coward (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 6:10am

        Re: Re:

        And the public has every right to boss around their government.


        What does that mean, practically speaking? That you can "fire" them (aka not elect them again) AFTER they have done a bad job? Or, to put it in other words: Can you stop them BEFORE they do a bad job?

        Please keep in mind the meaning of the words "civil servant".


        I do. The problem is that it's merely a label an elected politician gets, it's not a spell laid on the elected person to behave as such.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 7:58am

          Re: Re: Re:

          If there were more transparency for the actions of civil servants then that might be like a spell laid on the elected person to behave as such.

           

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

          •  
            icon
            TaCktiX (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 9:44am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Which sadly is exactly why transparency will have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of them. Politicians don't want to be held accountable for absolutely everything, only the things that make them look good.

             

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

          •  
            icon
            explicit coward (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 9:50am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            True, transparency would help - converting to a more direct form of democracy would help also. You could/should have both.

             

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

            •  
              icon
              Watchit (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 10:18am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Mob rule is also bad, we do not want mob rule. Plus pure democracy is impossible on scales as large as the US.

               

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

              •  
                icon
                explicit coward (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 12:22pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                As far as I know it has not been tried in the US, so claiming it's impossible is pure speculation. And you can still have safety measures agains mob rule in a direct democracy.

                 

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

    •  
      identicon
      Toff, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 6:45am

      Re:

      Well, it's a minority government, hanging on by a thread thanks to three independents who will never be allowed to sit in parliament again after their discraceful betrayal of the Australian people for supporting the Labor party who clearly has no mandate, or majority. Most Aussies want a new election to resolve the current stalemate government, which is borderline corrupt, but with the three independents that sold out for their support of the party in power, they are all clinging on as long as they can, and denying a say to the electorate.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Melbourne Toff, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 6:58am

        Re: Re:

        Whinge, whinge, whinge.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        John Osmond, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 8:36pm

        Re: Re:

        Of course the three independents could have swung their support in the other direction and your first sentence would probably only need to have one word changed.

        Apologies for the off topic political comment ... it wont happen again :)

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Nick Coghlan (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 9:57pm

        Re: Re:

        You say that like there's a lick of difference between Labour and the Coalition when it comes to this aspect of government policy.

        Why are the Greens the only ones kicking and screaming about this in Parliament? *Because the Opposition agree with the way the government is handling this*

        You seriously think a party that can't even admit the NBN is a valuable nation-building activity on par with the main roads network will see a problem with doing backroom deals with legacy content players?

        Technologist votes are lying there for the taking, but the Federal Opposition refuse to pick them up because of what they would have to do to retain them.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 7:14am

      Re:

      For a representative government to work properly, questioning the actions of the officials placed there is not only a right of the citizens but also a RESPONSIBILITY of those citizens.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 8:26am

      Re: representative democracy

      You're right in that the public don have a say in the negotiations if it's representative democracy.
      But representative democracy is based on the idea that the people know what their elected think and do. If you take that away it's no longer a democracy, even if you have fair elections.

      This transparancy is also put preasure on the representatives to not do anything too stupid since they wont be reelected.

      For the direct democracy... people are dumb and ignorant.
      Having us decide every little detail is in my opinion a bad idea. I rather vote on a representative to take their time studying the issue and make the decission.

      The important thing is that i know what he/she is doing and so i can choose someone else next time if needed. Very few misstakes can't be corrected in one way or another.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        explicit coward (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 12:33pm

        Re: Re: representative democracy

        And you think that dumb and ignorant people can do less damage if they "only" choose their representatives... as happened in Germany during the Weimarer Republic (a representative democracy) when people elected the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei...

        I never said that you need to have a form of direct democracy where EVERY decision has to be voted by the people - just a more direct form where countermeasures to bad legislation can be implemented by the people more easily.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 9:03am

      Re:

      What form of democracy is Australia? If it's representative, why should "the public" have a say in any negotiations? They elected people to do exactly that for them...


      In order for representative government to work, the public must be properly represented. This requires the public to know what their representatives are doing and to pressure their representatives according to the public's preferences.

      A representative government does not work if the public simply elects them and lets them act solely at their own discretion. That's simply a softer form of tyranny.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      NotNeeded, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 12:31pm

      Re:

      > "Too" dumb.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Old Mate, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 7:35pm

      Representatives are there to represent the wants and needs of the people from their representing state/city. Therefore, if the people from their representing state/city do not want something like this to pass, the representative of that state/city should be seen to be against it as well, as they are representing the interests of the people in their state/city.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      nick, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 7:57pm

      Re:

      They should have a say through their representative at least

       

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

    •  
      icon
      techflaws.org (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 11:02pm

      Re:

      They elected people to do exactly that for them...

      And they know this how if all is done in secret?

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 5:04am

    The FOI response was surely marked as "funny" by the Australian readers followed by a: "Okay, that was funny now let's be more serious, where are the real answers for our FOI?" that's immediately met with the sound of crickets from the Aus Govt.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Josef Anvil (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 5:25am

    Getting a little tired of this argument

    Can we just dispense with the "representative" government argument already. Yes we know that representative government was the best option, given the limitations of previous communication mediums, but we are in a new era of communications.

    There are platforms whereby the voices of the masses can be heard and even addressed if needs be. That is not to say that we should devolve into anarchy or even mob rule, but when it comes to new tech changing the way we live, it's really past the time for that to be taken into account.

    If nothing else there is no longer a reason for a complete lack of transparency in government. Oh wait, I forgot.... The TERRORISTS are watching.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      explicit coward (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 5:59am

      Re: Getting a little tired of this argument


      Can we just dispense with the "representative" government argument already. Yes we know that representative government was the best option, given the limitations of previous communication mediums, but we are in a new era of communications.


      The limitations of previous communication mediums wasn't the main reason (if a reason at all) why most democracies deemed it the best option. To cite wikipedia:

      James Madison: A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

      John Witherspoon: Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.

      Alexander Hamilton: That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        ltlw0lf (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 7:38am

        Re: Re: Getting a little tired of this argument

        The limitations of previous communication mediums wasn't the main reason (if a reason at all) why most democracies deemed it the best option. To cite wikipedia:

        I suspect in the not so distant future some very smart people will likely say the same thing about Representative Democracies too, since they appear to suffer from the same afflictions when not done properly.

        The problem I see with the current system is clear in this post -- the government is subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage -- terrorism (and in this case, money from a small interest) sets them off into a rage and they pass all sorts of do nothing laws which will likely be rejected by the courts eventually. They don't need to act to every perceived threat and money alone should not be a motivator for them passing laws. The fact that very few of them read the laws they pass should say something to them about their failures.

        What this government needs is less money from small interests and more transparency. What they want is free-reign and opacity, so they can collect their millions and move on without getting into trouble, and quite frankly, that sort of government is just as unsustainable as a true democracy.

        I still agree with Douglas Adams -- there has to be a better way of electing politicians. Term Limits is a good idea, removing money from politics is a better one, but I am still a fan of political positions being like Jury Duty -- nobody wants it, but when someone gets it they try to do the best job they can while they have it -- nope, that won't work well either. I don't know what the answer is.

         

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 8:12am

        Re: Re: Getting a little tired of this argument

        This from the guys that thought the electoral college was a good idea.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        Watchit (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 10:22am

        Re: Re: Getting a little tired of this argument

        wait wasn't explicit coward arguing for direct democracy earlier?

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Joe, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 7:58pm

      Re: Getting a little tired of this argument

      The 'terrorists' are so slow to respond to changes in society, that the majority could run circles around them. Most of the so-called 'terrorists' (really, 'political murderer' is more correct) are either stuck in the 5th century or believe that the world owes them something and would be shocked to see what it's like to have everyone essentially make them obsolete.

      Of course, the real terrorists (read: people who profit from scaring you) wouldn't like to not have scapegoats for their own failures.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 5:39am

    i hate to say it but, it doesn't matter what is done or what should be done, the public and/or their representatives that are trying to preserve rights and freedoms fought for for decades are going to be kept in the dark. any and every law that the entertainment industries want brought in, will be brought in and it makes no difference at all what action(s) the public etc take, that will be ignored as well. the very real possibility/probability that politicians will lose their jobs for supporting these laws is no deterrent either, as they will receive higher paid 'jobs' within the industries they are backing as their reward for turning on the people they should be standing up for!

     

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

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 9:09am

      Re:

      I completely understand the pessimism of your comment. I have frequent bouts where I share it.

      But I turn to history for solace. There are a lot of examples where the good fight seemed pointless and hopeless, where the injustice was so entrenched and well-funded that it seemed unassailable, and where in the end the good fight was won. In almost all of these examples, what won was perseverance and continued action despite the appearance of hopelessness.

      We do make progress. An agonizingly slow, lurching, two-steps-forward-one-step-back kind of progress, but progress nonetheless.

      Do not let despair take away future victory.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    awbMaven (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 5:48am

    I got the same type of response from the UK

    Here's what the UK said to me when I put in a FOI request regarding ACTA:

    "I regret that the other draft negotiating and further texts that you have requested are withheld as they are exempt under the following sections of the Freedom of Information Act: s.35(1)a (formulation of Government policy) and s.27(2) (international relations).

    These are qualified exemptions and are therefore subject to a public interest test. After careful consideration of all the circumstances of the case, the conclusion reached is that the public interest in maintaining these exemptions outweighs the public interest in disclosing this information.
    "
    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/104330/response/259997/attach/html/3/Andrew%20P rice%20response.docx.html

    I put my request in for ACTA documents after negotiations had finished. There were previous FOI request while negotiations were ongoing but they were refused for the same reason Australia has given, because negotiations were ongoing.

    Seems citizens are buggered either way - no docs while negotiations were ongoing, no docs afterwards for other reasons.

    I have put in a Review request, that can be read here: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/anti_counterfeiting_trade_agreem_4#incoming-259997

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    abc gum, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 5:57am

    Does a slaughter house inform the cattle of their impending doom? No, but then cows don't vote either.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 6:29am

    "The avalanche has already started.
    It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
    Ambassador Kosh--Babylon 5

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 6:37am

    I heard they were thinking about changing the laws about drug possession as well. They are going to invite a dozen street dealers in to tell them how to write the laws.

    < / sarc>

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 7:10am

      Re:

      Fail sarc.

      We are talking about measures that impact the general public. Taking your own failed analogy it would be like not inviting the population and building a bill, secretly, that allows the police to raid any house any time to check for drugs.

      You, sir troll, fail.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 7:47am

      Re:

      You seem to think the general public are the equivalent to drug dealers.

      I fail to see how these are similar myself.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 8:47am

      Re:

      It's a sure sign that your society has completely broken down when you liken the entire population of your country to drug dealers.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    Grover (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 6:44am

    Term limits

    This kind of crap from 'civil servants', aka politicians, is what happens when they are allowed to hold onto a position for more than two years, especially those that have their hand in making laws. Don't they realize that they, themselves, will be subject to the very laws they're making - at the behest of special-interest groups, and corporations, who's only interest is in their bottom line?

    Greed. . .it all boils down to greed and money. Evil is alive and well in the world.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 6:52am

    Update: Senator asks for release

    Just thought I'd add an update from the Tuesday article above (or was that Monday for you lot.. we in Australia are always living in your future . HA)

    Again from Delimiter (Renai LeMay - the editor - is making good headway with this enquiry) http://delimiter.com.au/2012/03/21/senate-order-greens-demand-secret-piracy-docs/
    The Australian Greens have filed a motion in the Senate requesting that the Government release documents regarding its closed door meetings on Internet piracy which the Attorney-General’s Department has blocked from being released under Freedom of Information laws[.]

    [This] morning, Greens Communications Spokesperson Scott Ludlam filed an order in the Senate that the Government disclose details of the most recent meeting. “The Government refuses to reveal almost any information about the attendees, the substance or the outcomes of the meeting,” he said in a separate statement. “A Freedom of Information request from a journalist looks like it’s been met with maximum resistance."
    You have to love the reply Delimiter got from Steven Dalby (iiNet chief legal beagle) when delimiter took a dig at iiNet in a previous article and wonder just what the hell the government and organisations like AFACT are playing at.

    Especially when the GDP of the whole Entertainment Industry (all levels) in Australia is around 0.5% (yes less than 1%)
    The sole organisation to publicly reveal any information about the talks is iiNet, which has attended the talks. Yesterday, the ISP’s regulatory chief Steve Dalby posted comments on Delimiter stating that there was a “massive” gap in the talks between what the ISP and content industries wanted. “Most, if not all of the discussions over the years have been conducted between the rights holders and the ISPs,” he said. “These have been fruitless. The rights holders want all the benefits of remedial action, but want the ISPs to foot the bill. ISPs don’t want to pay to protect the rights of third parties. The gap between the parties is considerable and unlikely to close.[emphasis added]”

    “Government probably wishes the whole thing would go away, but given that it hasn’t, they have reluctantly joined in the conversation, to see if a commercial solution could be encouraged.”

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 7:12am

    Does anyone else feel like we're entering into a strange kind of de facto "taxation without representation"?

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 8:50am

      Re:

      I think we're passed that point, actually. Supposed democracies/republics have gone from governments of the people and for the people to governments that see themselves as the saviors of an ignorant and corrupt people who cannot be trusted or respected.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 8:08am

    the ability for governments to dismiss the thoughts and objections of citizens or completely ignore those thoughts and objections from the outset is spreading like a disease. how can any government have the right to favour the opinions of certain corporations and totally bypass the concerns of their electorate, then tell the electorate it would be wrong for them to know what was being discussed/implemented anyway? governments are elected according to the promises the leader of a political party makes. if those promises fall by the wayside or dont come quickly to fruition, the people should have the right to hold elections sooner than the usual time scale of the country concerned. as it is now, governments seem to think they are in power for as long as THEY want

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Nerd, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 8:32am

    For those who need more TPP Info

    http://www.facebook.com/groups/120071234727403/ A Facebook Action Group can keep you folks informed, in fact recent news says that foreign countries and yes even the australian Gov. are getting pissed at this deal, if you don't believe it okay, just saying we shouldn't be TOO pessimistic, we must remain calm and look at both sides, if we panic, then they already won

     

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

    •  
      icon
      TtfnJohn (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 1:25pm

      Re: For those who need more TPP Info

      If the comments I'm reading on the Facebook group you have the link to are correct there appears to be a major stall over the United States trying to "export", or "colonize" as one comment read, American IP laws across the Pacific. I can't see if that's partially a reading by Pacific Rim countries of the reaction to ACTA in Europe or simply their reluctance to get caught up what they might perceive as being forced to do what they are told by Europeans or Americans any more. If the word colonization is being used that's a very loaded word around the Pacific Rim given their history. (Not just with Europe and America but with China and Japan as well.)

      It's also mildly amusing to see that these negotiations are almost as leaky as ACTA was and some of the issues seem to be exactly the same around IP issues, and that's a reluctance to follow the American route. Though I'm hard pressed to say what's worse the American route or the "three strikes" and you're off the Internet route that seems so popular in Europe right now.

      All that said various governments do need to be shot for conducting these negotiations in so much secrecy. There's really no need unless, of course, they're hiding something.

      And they wouldn't do that, would they?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Nerd, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 3:21pm

        Re: Re: For those who need more TPP Info

        Remember, ACTA was so CLOSE to becoming real in a few days, but what happened? CRAP WENT DOWN. Not alone with Operation BLACK MARCH (Boycott of all copyright entertainment products and buying of independent ones) will get the message clear, if not, well we can always protest outside the MPAA and RIAA buildings and lets them see their opposers, Customers, Artists, Actors, Directors, and Writers

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    ScytheNoire, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 11:06am

    Pay no attention to what is going on behind the curtain.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Violated (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 11:17am

    Shady Dealings

    The public, except for very rare exceptions, should always be kept informed about the laws being proposed. TPP is even more critical when an international trade agreement is not complete without knowledge of its creation to clarify ambiguous points.

    Well if they want to lock the public out again, and the technology experts, then we will only shoot it down again just like we did we SOPA, PIPA and soon ACTA.

    It is clear to see here that this is only a power grab where they even bypass the WTO. So we fairly ask "can these people be trusted?" only to have all access denied. So the only conclusion is they would not be hiding things form us unless they did have anti-public and anti-Internet shady dealings to hide.

    Then anyone who supports this anti-democratic status should have their names noted down and removed from their jobs.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 11:20am

    If these FOIA replies are such a joke, and they never result in actually uncovering the truth, why did the Governments pass them in the first place? Just to maintain the "illusion" that they are a honest and transparent Government?

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 12:36pm

    ...and then they'll say that if the public didn't like the laws the government came up with, they should have said something sooner.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anon, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 2:47pm

    They even ignore email that are simply asking about the effect they have on existing law.
    all in all, they have previously claimed that there would be no change to existing laws to comply with the ACTA provisions, however common law maybe affected as it seems to suggest a sense that a law in American can apply to Australia

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    The Inspective Nudibranch, Mar 22nd, 2012 @ 6:59pm

    "What is good for the government is good for the public interest?" Isn't that the basis of fascism? Just saying.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 23rd, 2012 @ 1:40am

    If they don't have a list

    Keeping something secret necessitates it being only available to a select few.

    If they don't have a list of who attended, then there is no select few and thus they do not have a reason for keeping it secret.

    It therefore must be made public.

     

    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