‘NAFTA on Steroids’: secret agreements to censor the Internet
September 8, 2012
Chief U.S. Negotiator Barbara Weisel speaks with a stakeholder at the TPP Stakeholder Engagment Event in San Diego, California (credit: Office of the United States Trade Representative)
Negotiators from the U.S. and eight other Pacific Rim countries are meeting at a seclude resort in Leesburg, Viriginia, working out deals in the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement that could hamper free speech on the Internet, Common Dreams reports.
The negotiations began in 2007 and have been carried through by the Obama administration and several Pacific nations under conditions of “extreme secrecy” without press, public, or policymaker oversight.
Leaked information suggests that the agreement could attempt to achieve some of the same objectives as the controversial and broadly protested Anti-Counterfeiting Agreement (ACTA) and includes rules that could hamper free speech on the Internet.
“No one has the right to trade away our hard-fought legal protections for free speech and the right to health, and much less to do it behind closed doors,” said Suzanne Nossel, executive director for Amnesty International USA.
Earlier this year, Public Citizen posted a leaked document from a past TPP meeting on their website revealing that the pact will give multinational corporations radical new political powers in global trade, including the allotment of vast legal powers to multinational corporations over governments.
Participating countries include Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Canada and Mexico are expected to join the negotiations.
UPDATE 9/8/2012:
According to the Electronic Frontiers Foundation:
The draft chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement on Intellectual Property—as of its current leaked version [PDF], article 16—insists that signatories provide legal incentives for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to privately enforce copyright protection rules. The TPP wants service providers to undertake the financial and administrative burdens of becoming copyright cops, serving a copyright maximalist agenda while disregarding the consequences for Internet freedom and innovation.
TPP article 16.3 mandates a system of ISP liability that goes beyond the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) standards and US case law. In sum, the TPP pushes a framework beyond ACTA[1] and possibly the spirit of the DMCA, since it opens the doors for:
- Three-strikes policies and laws that require Internet intermediaries to terminate their users’ Internet access on repeat allegations of copyright infringement
- Requirements for Internet intermediaries to filter all Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material
- ISP obligations to block access to websites that allegedly infringe or facilitate copyright infringement
- Efforts to force intermediaries to disclose the identities of their customers to IP rightsholders on an allegation of copyright infringement.
The TPP Puts Your Rights at Risk
Service providers are the conduits of free expression. By enabling free or low-cost platforms that enable anyone to reach an audience of millions, ISPs have democratized media and enabled innovative ideas to spread quickly—without the gatekeepers of traditional media.
Private ISP enforcement of copyright poses a serious threat to free speech on the Internet, because it makes offering open platforms for user-generated content economically untenable. For example, on an ad-supported site, the costs of reviewing each post will generally exceed the pennies of revenue one might get from ads. Even obvious fair uses could become too risky to host, leading to an Internet with only cautious and conservative content.
Moreover, the TPP insists upon notice and takedown regimes at the price of a free and open Internet. Expression is often time-sensitive: reacting to recent news or promoting a candidate for election. Online takedown requirements open the door to abuse, allowing the claim of copyright to trump the judicial system, and get immediate removal, before the merits are assessed. Put back procedures can mitigate the harm, but even a few days of downtime can strike a serious blow to freedom of expression.
Comments (31)
by Fred
They won’t touch the porn though. I’ll still have the job of censoring that locally.
by Frank
You want a piece of me? Hah??? You COME and MEET MY LEEETLE FRIEND!!!
by BPMGuy
Have they got their heads up their culo?
by Marcos Marin
Laughable. Humanity is truly lucky that its “evil-doers” are so fundamentally self-defeating.
by SpottedMarley
patience, everyone. this will all be over soon
by Rob Larson
How interesting. Looks like this is going to give a push to people who advocate various “darknet” schemes. There’s been some interesting work done on ad hoc networking that bypasses ISP’s so this sort of thing should just move the sort of connectivity into the mainstream.
by Boristabby
Copyright conflict? Not practical. The Supremes are too backed up right now protecting their own omnipotence. If it takes Microsoft and The Androids months to resolve a conflict, how can ISPs do it overnight? All a PAC group need do is buy an ISP and they can control the internet. By the way, I claim a copyright on this comment.
by Boristabby
Did I say Microsoft? How embarrasing, I meant Apple.
by Foye Lowe
Fortunately, you claimed copyright on the libel, so perhaps a copy can’t be provided to Microsoft. Unless somehow that would be a form of “fair use” . . . ; )
by GAUSS
Wir müssen alles kontrollieren.
by Mr.X
Maybe you stop your insulting remarks.The USA is the only fascist state left (besides Russia maybe):
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power.”Benito Mussolini, Fascist dictator of Italy
“Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism’. I’m afraid, based on my own long experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.”Sen. Huey Long
- Fourteen Characteristics of Fascism -
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
Feminism anyone.
6. Controlled Mass Media Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Dr. Lawrence Britt
Combined with slavery and imperialism you should find English to be a most fitting tonque for the expression of such thoughts.
Source: fascismusa.com
by Rob Larson
10 and 11 are incorrect. Labor, especially in the US form of fascism, is given a place at the table. This helps keep violent labor revolutionaries from talking to the streets and disrupting the social order. Arts too are not disdained but used as a way of controlling the outward thoughts of the population. What Dr. Britt gets wrong is the anti-Jewish propaganda. Germany’s Fascists weren’t against art, they were against Jewish art; who were limited by law to working in the arts so that’s how they came to “dominate” the field. Dr. Britt also doesn’t take into account the power of radio and film in expounding and reinforcing socialist propaganda, not only in fascist states like Germany and Italy but communist states like the USSR.
by Mr.X
I did not say that everything is right, but most points are good. And your art comment is wrong, they forbade certain branches of arts and science, even some of German origin.They only liked realistic art (like pictures taken by cameras, as ideal).
Dr.Britt was talking about fascism as encountered in several countries, not only Germany.The first fascists were Italians.
Furthermore, that does not undermine my point.You guys should protect your own freedoms, not taking happenings 70 years ago and pointing fingers (long story short, before the accusations start: I agree that the holocaust etc were horrible).The way US-laws changed is very similiar to the was fascist came into power in other countries.
Concerning film and radio: Don’t you think hollywood produces lots of propaganda?
Therefore, in light of this post, I think my warnings/observations are on-topic.
by blah
And you do not even remember, that in germany, there was a nationalist-socialist momevement, and in Italy fascist movement. So no fascist in Germany, the blatant lay about fascist in germany comes from communist movement, who do not want to talk about the communist war against the german socialist movement under Reichskanzler Hitler. They do not want too remaind the public, that the war was betveen different socialist movements aka. russian bolsheviks (a split from the great world socialist movement after the second world congress, and bolshevik (bolshe – more in russian) and menshevik (menshe – less in russian) split – up. It would be idealogically devastating to all the remaining global socialist movements, to point out, that the “great war” was not against the “fasicm” but against nationalistically thinking socialist, and against nation states.
by Mr.X
Google “night of the long knives.” The left wing, the socialist part of the nazis and their leader Ernst Röhm have been assasinated to make corperism possible.
It was a strategical choice, since only corperations could give the means to win potential wars against the allies or communist.Think about it, the “rage of the many” is not a good way to win a war if you are outnumbered heavily.Especially in the long run, to much causalities would lead to relative retardation in comparison to the defeated enemy even if you win (if such an unlikely victory would have been achieved), especially since leftist politics would strangle technology & industries.
That would have meant that the next war would be fought with even less manpower relative to the enemy and worse technology/equipment relative to WW2.
Ps: Don’t tell me that a German does not know that his country was lead by nazis.
Pps: Tell me how giving slaves to Krupp, forcing people to work while allowing the owners of large corporations to keep most of their
profit is socialist? Socialist countries would have taken all this stuff and fed it into their centralized state.
by fgbouman
Were the fourteen points actually the characteristics that have to be met then the U.S. would fail the test utterly. However it is point 9 expanded to make clear the reciprocal bindings that actually define fascism. The other traits may or may not exist in a fascist state. Fascism is a symbiotic fusing of state and corporate power to benefit the power elite. Most countries meet this definition to some degree these days and it is the 99% who suffer as a result.
by road_runner321
“Requirements for Internet intermediaries to filter all Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material.”
“Intermediaries” – whomever and whatever those are – are enjoined to monitor ALL internet traffic?! Are they prepared to say what is “*potentially* copyright-infringing material”? With such vague language, it could be argued that ANYTHING is “potentially copyright-infringing”. You could be charged based on anything.
This cannot be allowed to happen!
by Aaron
It’s no wonder they did this in secret, the public would certainly protest even the contemplation of censorship of the Internet. And the negotiations were carried through by the Obama Administration? That almost feels like betrayal. I am not politically conservative at all really so my vote was definitely going to go to the Democrats, but now it sort of feels like I’m only picking between the lesser of two evils…
by Gabriel
I really really don’t want to sound cynical….but it ALWAYS seems like you’re voting for the “lesser of two evils”….for the person who you feel is less likely to make a mess then is actually going to carry through.
Ugh, that really did sound cynical.
by GAUSS
It wouldn’t matter which party had the White House, this kind of action has been a good while coming. Governments are obsessed with control. The Internet has been out of reach, like an itch they can’t scratch – and it drives them mad. This was inevitable.
by de Broglie
2016 by Dinesh D’souza might explain this behavior.
by Ian Clarke
I’m a bit confused (it doesn’t take much). Having read the snippets from the leaked documents, I can’t see anything that warrants the headline of this article. What am I missing? (apart from a brain, obviously) :)
by Editor
I just added a statement by the Electronic Frontiers Foundation that provides more information (see “UPDATE 9/8/2012″ at the bottom).
by grettir76
yickes, this can not get through.
by Ian Clarke
Ah thanks. Here’s what they’re proposing in the UK to tackle copyright infringement:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jun/26/ofcom-outlines-anti-piracy-rules?cat=technology&type=article
This proposes that the copyright holders police it and pay 75% of the costs. Would a similar system be more acceptable in the US?
by Chrispium
Corporate dictatorship moving ever closer.
by Bri
All it will do is foster things like pirate bay. If people want something they’ll find away around any restriction. Prison wardens can’t stop tattooing in such a highly restrictive place, why should we expect any less.
by Mr.X
Do you really believe this?
by grettir76
Best to protest now, while there is an election going on. It seems that goverments trying more persistantly these days to control the internet.
by Gabriel
It’s a shame news like this has become so commonplace this past year…this past year, it’s ridiculous just how much I felt the need to join a group or sign a petition in order combat things like these….the truth is, I wish I didn’t have too — that things like this wouldn’t try to be hampered and freedom on the internet wouldn’t be questioned, and I could be as care-free as I’d like to be.
Apparently not.
by Frank
It doesn’t matter what you do. You’ve already lost.