Debunking Reasons For ACTA Secrecy: Just Enforcement Doesn't Tell The Whole Story

from the open-things-up dept

We've had a series of posts debunking all of the bogus claims from supporters of ACTA and the current secrecy involved in the ACTA process -- such as how this secrecy is "normal" (no its not), how this is "just an executive agreement, not a treaty" (the difference is effectively meaningless) and how this can't change US law so there's nothing to worry about (even if it doesn't change US law directly, it can prevent fixing problems in the law, while putting pressure on legislators to change the law anyway). Well, here's another one, courtesy of the folks over at Public Knowledge.

One of the claims that's been made in defense of the "secrecy" around ACTA is that the agreement is really just about "enforcement," rather than any legal changes. While we've already questioned how true that claim really is, John Bergmayer, does a nice job explaining why we should be worried about an agreement on "enforcement" anyway: because the question of enforcement is meaningless compared to the actual procedure of enforcement. Bergmayer quotes Rep. John Dingell to make the point:
"I'll let you write the substance ... you let me write the procedure, and I'll screw you every time."
The fear here is that while ACTA might not technically change US law, it could easily change US procedures and policies on "enforcement" allowing the effective change in the law, without people even realizing it. He quotes Professor Thomas Main, saying:
"procedural reforms can have the effect of denying substantive rights without the transparency, safeguards and accountability that attend public and legislative decision-making."
And, indeed, this is what we've see in the leaked drafts of ACTA. While most (though, certainly not all) of the proposals that have been leaked don't necessarily include a direct change to US law, they often do subtly word things so that existing rights, safeguards and accountability are left out, just as Prof. Main warns. To make sure those subtle changes do not have serious impacts that let certain special interests (in the words of Rep. Dingell) "screw" the public, doesn't it make sense to reveal the contents of what's being negotiated?

Filed Under: acta, enforcement, laws, procedures, restrictions


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    longtimelurker, 18 Feb 2010 @ 1:23pm

    Re: seriously?

    ----what if I cloned this website and sold ads, would that be ok too? or is that somehow different?---

    Just so this isn't the last comment on the thread, I just will leave this as an obvious sign that 'gawdlerd' has never actually READ much here, since this EXACT "gotcha" has been posted on MANY an occasion, with the same response from Mike: "Go ahead...have fun, enjoy driving traffic back to me, and thank you for the exposure."

    Dumbass. If you can't come up with anything better than that, tell your bosses you aren't worth the money. As far as protecting your 'IP'....well, gotta have an intellect to have 'intellectual property'.

    BTW...when are these copyright maximalists going to start paying taxes on their "intellectual" property, like everyone else in the real world? Oh, wait...you mean it's different? Nah, couldn't be.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.