Obama administration: releasing details of secret copyright treaty endangers "nationa

[Winehole23]

Obama administration: releasing details of secret copyright treaty endangers "national security"

Posted by Cory Doctorow (http://dynamic.boingboing.net/profile/Cory%20Doctorow), March 13, 2009 3:06 AM | permalink (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/13/obama-administraion.html)



The White House is refusing to release documents about the secretive Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a super-maximal copyright treaty that a bunch of rich countries are negotiating behind closed doors to escape the activists who've started to report on their shenanigans at the UN's World Intellectual Property Organisation.

Incredibly, the Obama administration claims that disclosing the details of this secret copyright law would endanger "national security."

But now, like Bush before him, Obama is playing the national security card to hide details of the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated across the globe. The White House this week declared (.pdf) the text of the proposed treaty a "properly classified" national security secret, in rejecting a Freedom of Information Act request by Knowledge Ecology International.
"Please be advised the documents you seek are being withheld in full," wrote Carmen Suro-Bredie, chief FOIA officer in the White House's Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
The national security claim is stunning, given that the treaty negotiations have included the 27 member states of the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand, all of whom presumably have access to the "classified" information.
Obama Administration Declares Proposed IP Treaty a 'National Security' Secret (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/obama-declares.html) (Thanks, Javier!)

[Winehole23]

Partial list of corporate lickspittles who are allowed to know what's in the secret copyright treaty the Obama administration claims is a matter of "national security"

Posted by Cory Doctorow (http://dynamic.boingboing.net/profile/Cory%20Doctorow), March 14, 2009 2:44 AM | permalink (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/14/partial-list-of-corp.html)



Remember yesterday's post about how the Obama administration had refused to release the details of a secret copyright treaty because doing so would compromise "national security?" Well, it turns out that there are plenty of people who are cleared to be privy to this "sensitive" document -- strangely, they all seem to work for giant copyright companies!

Of course, they're allowed to know what's in the treaty -- but the public, activist groups, consumer rights groups, and the artists whom this treaty is supposed to protect are all forbidden from knowing what it says.



What an embarrassment for an administration that holds itself out as an end to the corrupt, business-as-usual beltway fandango.

Chairman , Mr. Eric H. Smith
President
International Intellectual Property Alliance

Vice-Chairman
Mr. Jacques J. Gorlin
President
The Gorlin Group



Sandra M. Aistars, Esq.
Senior Counsel, Intellectual Property
Time Warner Inc.



Kira M. Alvarez, Esq.
Director, International Government Affairs
Eli Lilly and Company



Mark Chandler, Esq.
Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary
Cisco Systems, Inc.



Ms. Erin L. Ennis
Vice President
The U.S.-China Business Council



Francis (Frank) Z. Hellwig, Esq.
Senior Associate, General Counsel
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.



J. Anthony Imler, Ph.D.
Director, Public Policy, Latin America
Merck & Co., Inc.



Ms. Mary A. Irace
Vice President, Trade and Export Finance
National Foreign Trade Council, Inc.



Jeffrey P. Kushan, Esq.
Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood LLP
Representing Biotechnology Industry Organization



Stevan D. Mitchell, Esq.
Vice President, Intellectual Property Policy
Entertainment Software Association



Douglas T. Nelson, Esq.
Executive Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary
CropLife America



Timothy P. Trainer, Esq.
President
Global Intellectual Property Strategy Center, P.C.
Representing the Thomas G. Faria Corporation



Neil I. Turkewitz, Esq.
Executive Vice President
Recording Industry Association of America



Ms. Susan C. Tuttle
Governement Programs Executive
IBM Corporation



Mr. Herbert C. Wamsley
Executive Director
Intellectual Property Owners Association



Ms. Anissa S. Whitten
Trade Director
Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.



Ms. Deborah E. Wiley
Senior Vice President
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Association of American Publishers, Inc.



Shirley Zebroski, Ph.D
Director, Legislative Affairs
General Motors Corporation
Who are the cleared advisors that have access to secret ACTA documents? (http://www.keionline.org/blogs/2009/03/13/who-are-cleared-advisors/) Previously:

Secret super-copyright treaty MEMO leaked - Boing Boing (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/06/secret-supercopyrigh.html#previouspost)
Obama administration: releasing details of secret copyright treaty ... (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/13/obama-administraion.html#previouspost)
Anti-counterfeiting treaty turns into maximum copyright free-for ... (http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/23/anticounterfeiting-t.html#previouspost)
Anti-counterfeiting treaty turns into maximum copyright free-for ... (http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/23/anticounterfeiting-t.html#previouspost)
Wikileaks publishes anti-counterfeiting treaty doc that tries to ... (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/23/wikileaks-publishes.html#previouspost)
Canadian border guards to check iPods for infringment - Boing Boing (http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/28/canadian-border-guar.html#previouspost)

[Winehole23]

Bump. It should make an impression on someone besides WH23.

[clambake]

it must have some relevance.

if not, why do it?

[Winehole23]

the treaty negotiations have included the 27 member states of the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand, all of whom presumably have access to the "classified" information.

[clambake]

i see where you're going.

[Winehole23]

Why don't we?

[clambake]

no shit.

mexico? really?

[Winehole23]

Does the supposed harm to national security even have to be described? I'd think it would, but confess to being totally ignorant of classification protocol.

Don't they have to give color to the claim, or can the USG just say whatever it wants?

[clambake]

cheney would call it "executive privilege".

boy, did they fuck up.

[Winehole23]

I mean, come on. Secret treaties?

[Winehole23]

Who all thinks this is a good idea? Will anybody speak for it?

[clambake]

the general motors one is funny.

who'd want to steal that? yak yak yak

[clambake]

IBM and Cisco are there. hmmmm

[Winehole23]

Ok. The companies on the list think it's a good idea. Check that one off on your chickenshit bingo cards...

[clambake]

why? these companies are global.

[spurster]

It would endanger national security because of what the hackers would do if they found out what was in the documents.

OGJ, gung jnf fnepnfz.

[Winehole23]

It would endanger national security because of what the hackers would do if they found out what was in the documents.Plausible. Do you think it's true?

Also, the classification clearly favors the listed companies. They get familiar with the content of copyright law before the rest of the market.

I'll try to find out if the treaty is classified elsewhere.

[Winehole23]

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/07/riaa-ups-acta-ante.html

[Winehole23]

http://www.petergallagher.com.au/index.php/site/article/a-secret-copyright-treaty/

[Winehole23]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/06/secret-acta-treaty-may-include-filtering-provisions.ars

[Oh, Gee!!]

must they release details during the negotiation phase of the treaty?

[Winehole23]

must they release details during the negotiation phase of the treaty?It apparently shows poor judgment, but info had already been leaked, forcing Obama to get in behind the story and push it.

My PFA take: what's commonly considered "fair use" may take it on the chin. It won't be popular. First-worlders and multinationals will have the jump on everybody else.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It apparently shows poor judgment.

how so? what's the protocol during the negotiation phase of a treaty?

[Winehole23]

how so? what's the protocol during the negotiation phase of a treaty?Broken this time, hence the announcement about classification.

Pesky citizens. They never leave things alone.

[DarkReign]

First off, I am having a hard time discerning what this treaty is in scope.

Is it something that intends to limit "fair use" as you have mentioned? Open-source? Yada, yada, yada...

Or is it something that is trying to protect against the China's of the world who dont observe copyrights at all (and make a killing doing so)?

[Winehole23]

First off, I am having a hard time discerning what this treaty is in scope.Me too.


Is it something that intends to limit "fair use" as you have mentioned? Open-source? Yada, yada, yada...Nobody knows.


Or is it something that is trying to protect against the China's of the world who dont observe copyrights at all (and make a killing doing so)?That sounds like a good guess to me, but it would be impolitic for us to say so in just that way. I don't doubt the treaty aims at at some worthy end, but the devil is in the details, and these are all classified.

Perhaps there will be a period for public input after the draft is submitted to Congress, but if the draft itself is secret what meaningful input can there be?

[DarkReign]

Perhaps there will be a period for public input after the draft is submitted to Congress, but if the draft itself is secret what meaningful input can there be?

Little to none, indeed. One way or the other, its certainly an imperfect fit for copyright law finding itself sighted for national security relevance.

Having the requisite "Big Dogs" present and accounted for doesnt surprise or offend me, particularly. What does, however, is this seeming side-step by the Administration...and what that means about the importance and scope of this new treaty.

Totally Wild Thought:

You know, the Federal government has gotten awfully involved in private industry lately. One of the sure-fire methods of recovering an investment is their newfound shared interest in lucrative patents.

Just saying...


(sidenote; i had to cringe to read my "China's" mistake)

[Winehole23]

Little to none, indeed. One way or the other, its certainly an imperfect fit for copyright law finding itself sighted for national security relevance.Nice. Understatement is underappreciated.


Totally Wild Thought:

You know, the Federal government has gotten awfully involved in private industry lately. One of the sure-fire methods of recovering an investment is their newfound shared interest in lucrative patents.Astute. It may turn out to be related to a rosy forecast on government receipts.

[Winehole23]

EFF (http://www.eff.org/issues/acta) on ACTA. There is a form letter there for the civically inclined.

[Winehole23]

While little information has been made available by the governments negotiating ACTA, a document recently leaked to the public entitled "Discussion Paper on a Possible Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement" from an unknown source gives an indication of what content industry rightsholder groups appear to be asking for – including new legal regimes to "encourage ISPs to cooperate with right holders in the removal of infringing material", criminal measures, and increased border search powers. The Discussion Paper leaves open how Internet Service Providers should be encouraged to identify and remove allegedly infringing material from the Internet. However the same industry rightsholder groups that support the creation of ACTA have also called for mandatory network-level filtering by Internet Service Providers and for Internet Service Providers to terminate citizens' Internet connection on repeat allegation of copyright infringement (the "Three Strikes" /Graduated Response), so there is reason to believe that ACTA will seek to increase intermediary liability and require these things of Internet Service Providers. While mandating copyright filtering by ISPs will not be technologically effective because it can be defeated by use of encryption, efforts to introduce network level filtering will likely involve deep packet inspection of citizens' Internet communications. This raises considerable concerns for citizens' civil liberties and privacy rights, and the future of Internet innovation.

[clambake]

maybe he's just trying to save this town (country).

prevent the pirates from stealing revenue that ultimately cost jobs.

[Winehole23]

maybe he's just trying to save this town (country).

prevent the pirates from stealing revenue that ultimately cost jobs.He?

[Winehole23]

If clambake is not bothered by *deep packet inspection* and having his electronics taken away for inspection at the border, but presumes instead the bona fides of a deal devised in cahoots with multinational companies, that is his option. WH23 does not so presume.

[Winehole23]

wikileaks (http://wikileaks.org/wiki/G-8_plurilateral_intellectual_property_trade_agreeme nt_discussion_paper)


The document reveals a proposal for a multi-lateral trade agreement of strict enforcement of intellectual property rights related to Internet activity and trade in information-based goods hiding behind the issue of false trademarks. If adopted, a treaty of this form would impose a strong, top-down enforcement regime, with new cooperation requirements upon internet service providers, including perfunctionary disclosure of customer information. The proposal also bans "anti-circumvention" measures which may affect online anonymity systems and would likely outlaw multi-region CD/DVD players.

[spurster]

My previous comment was sarcasm. I guess no one here understands rot13.

Some details about ACTA can be found here:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tags/acta

[DarkReign]

Absolute complete and utter bullshit. I tried my hardest to think around the obvious Big Brother scenario, but alas, I should have known better. This administration is no better than any other before it.

It is actually looking like this administration sees government involvment everywhere in everyday citizen's lives. Why? Why task ISPs with enforcement of law? Since when are private companies in the law enforcement business?

By the sounds of it, they had better be or the governments who signed this treaty will prosecute them to the fullest extent. This sounds quite similar to the requirements placed on telecom companies and the subsequent immunity granted to them when the public found out theyre spying on us for the government.

Now its the same with the internet? WTF, I hate this fucking world.

dib2-HBsF08

[RandomGuy]

Who all thinks this is a good idea? Will anybody speak for it?

Don't look at me. I like Obama, but this is a bit puzzling.

There is probably some reasoning for this at some level.

I would guess that the details are probably unpalatable for a lot of people, and might not even be those in the US.

If some deal say, does something that we might like, but that would anger some other countries' population/industry/companies because those other companies are essentially stealing our copyrighted material.

We could assume that if details of the treaty were to get out in OUR press, it would probably reach the people in the other country who have the power/influence to pull their country out of the negotiations to protect those intellectual property theives who happen to be lining the coffers/pockets of that government.

Just a thought. It would then be fully within our interests to try and keep that secret, because it would end up benefitting us, if their government could side-step some of the corruption that leads to the theft of intellectual property.

I have no real direct knowledge of this however. Personally, I think the negotiations should, on principle, be open.

In any event, the treaty WILL be public knowledge when it comes before a vote in the Senate. I can live with the negotiations being secret as long as the final treaty is brought out into the open for public debate.

[LnGrrrR]

Honestly, besides GTMO, it seems that Obama's going to grab power as much as Bush did.

Deep packet inspection can be damn useful, but it has some horrible implications if it's used for 'evil'.

[spurster]

I think there are many reasons for treaty negotiations to be confidential for the diplomats, but it's clear in this case that big business has had a major say, while opposing interests don't get to look. Both the secrecy and the one-sided influence of special interests are counter to what Obama campaigned on.

[Winehole23]

My previous comment was sarcasm. I guess no one here understands rot13.

Some details about ACTA can be found here:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tags/actaThanks for the link. Even though I missed the sarcasm, it worked well enough as a straight answer, and it sent the thread in the right direction.