Techdirt. Stories filed under "signatures"

White House Petition Against CISPA Gets Over The 100,000 Signature Threshold

Mike Masnick — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 00:20:59 PDT

Yet another White House petition has made it over the 100,000 signature mark, which is necessary to get a response. This one is asking the White House not to support CISPA, arguing that the terms are too broad, and the possibility of abuse is simply too high. To date, the White House has actually been rather cool on CISPA, preferring an approach that actually does include some privacy protections (but, also one that has a few more mandates for companies). Just last week, DHS boss Janet Napolitano gave a speech in which she suggested that CISPA did not do enough to protect privacy -- and made it even more clear during Q&A, in which she said of CISPA:

"There were no privacy protections built within it and it resided almost all of the cyber information monitoring responsibilities within the NSA, which of course is part of the military."

Of course, some of this is a turf battle. CISPA gives more power to the Defense Department (which the NSA is a part of). The approach favored by the White House gives more power to Homeland Security.

Either way, this would make it easy for the White House to quickly come out in support of the petition, but still say that "something needs to be done" on cybersecurity -- but exactly what that is still fairly murky. There have been a number of rumors that CISPA supporters have been "negotiating" with the White House, and that could mean tradeoffs that allow a bad bill to get through. This is something that needs to be watched carefully.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Mexican Legislature Scolds Executive Branch For Signing ACTA

Mike Masnick — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:55:06 PDT

As we noted recently, Mexico's executive branch surprised a lot of people recently by having its ambassador to Japan sign ACTA (just as people were claiming that ACTA was dead in the country). Of course, this came after the Congress had very specifically called for the Mexican President to reject ACTA (long before other countries and the EU Parliament began realizing ACTA was a problem). As we noted, Mexico's IP Office has been telling people that it's sure that it can convince the Mexican Congress to come around to supporting ACTA.

That may be a tougher battle than they originally expected, however. Both houses of the legislature have now passed resolutions condemning the decision to sign ACTA, sometimes with rather pointed language. From the InfoJustice writeup linked here:

The Senate resolution, sponsored by Sens. Francisco Javier Castellon Fonseca, Carlos Sotelo Garcia, Maria Beatriz Zavala Peniche, and Dip. Rodrigo Perez-Alonso Gonzale rejects the signing because it didn’t respect Mexican law on the approval of international economic treaties; it ignored the official Senate recommendation of September 6, 2011; and it violated domestic law and human rights. This resolution asks the President to take the steps necessary to revoke Mexico's signature from the agreement, and it asks the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to prepare a report on the reasoning behind the signing of the agreement.

The Chamber of Deputies resolution, sponsored by Dep. Jaime Aguilar Alvarez rejects ACTA and calls the executive's disregard of the legislature on this matter an “authoritarian and unilateral stance.”

It does not look like the Congress is going to be convinced to support the ratification of ACTA any time soon.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

As Countries Sign ACTA, Many Finally Admit Their Copyright Laws Will Need To Change

Mike Masnick — Mon, 3 Oct 2011 07:21:18 PDT

It will come as little news to most people that, as was expected, the US signed the ACTA treaty (while pretending it was an "executive agreement") this weekend in Japan. While the EU, Mexico and Switzerland at least had the sense to wait until they had more of a chance to review the legality of the document, the US dove right in, despite huge Constitutional questions about its ability to sign the agreement -- especially as more evidence was put forth showing that (contrary to the US's claims) ACTA is inconsistent with US law.

The US, of course, was not the only one to sign -- and not the only one to recognize that ACTA is inconsistent with local laws, despite promises to the contrary. Canada signed as well, and used it to say that Canada now needs to implement more copyright reform to keep Canada in line with the treaty:

Fast’s office said the government still needs to create and pass legislation to implement the anti-counterfeiting agreement in Canada.

Funny, since all along we kept hearing how ACTA wasn't about changing laws in various countries, but just coming to agreements on how enforcement would be carried out. In fact, when criticized about ACTA, the former Canadian Minister of Industry insisted that ACTA would not require changing Canadian law. Amazing that the Canadian government admits that this was false the day they sign it.

Another signatory? Why, New Zealand, of course. Last year, New Zealand (which already recently changed its copyright laws) said that it didn't foresee any changes to copyright law because of ACTA. And yet... now the New Zealand government admits that changes will be needed to local copyright law before the treaty is ratified.

Singapore, Australia, South Korea, Japan (of course) and Morocco also all signed on. Australia's and New Zealand's signings don't mean quite as much, as their legislatures need to ratify the agreement (the part the US is trying to skip).

Not surprisingly, the RIAA put out a ridiculous statement "saluting" the "will" of ACTA negotiators to complete ACTA. Yeah. The will to continue to hide the agreement from public scrutiny until it was "done" and no changes were allowed? The "will" to pretend that it's an "executive agreement" rather than a treaty, as per the Constitution? The "will" to insist that ACTA is consistent with domestic laws when it's not? Sorry. That's not worth saluting. That's worth not being allowed to participate in these kinds of negotiations any more.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

If You Can Read This, You're Breaking The Law!

Michael Costanza — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:15:00 PDT

I get lots of (legitimate) email, intended for other people, sent to my email address. I guess it's easy to screw up your own address and wind up at mine -- or mine is just a popular one to use as a fake, when people don't want to supply their real one. Just today, I received an email from Remax, Northern Illinois, thanking me for registering on their site (and conveniently providing me with the password "I" used to sign up), which I didn't, an order confirmation for tickets to see Blue Man Group at the Pioneer Center (in Reno), which I did not purchase, and an "Acknowledgment Letter" from an attorney (maybe) with attachments and no message body aside from the following:

NOTE: This e-mail message (including attachments) is subject to attorney-client privilege and contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed. This e-mail may be covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521, which provides criminal penalties for your use of this email without permission. This message may contain Protected Health Information covered under HIPAA Rules and HITECH Standards including, but not limited to, all applicable requirements of the HIPAA Security rule in 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.308, 164.310,164.312 and 164.316, including any amendments thereto. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy.

Now, although I have to admit that I was initially impressed by all those fancy numbers and § symbols, a few things struck me as odd. First of all, if the information is "intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed," and it was addressed to me, wouldn't that mean it's intended for me? Second, with absolutely no information in the body of the email, other than this warning, how am I supposed to know for sure that it was not intended for me? And, finally, if you mistakenly send someone else's confidential information directly to me (not because of an email server routing error), how is it that I am the one in danger of "criminal penalties" for opening my own mail?

As I have no interest in reading this person's confidential information, I have not opened the attachments and have no plans to do so. And although I'm not even certain a threat like this is enforceable, I will be canceling my email account, destroying my hard drive, and leaving the country for a while. Wish me luck.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story