OT: Get involved Geeks! Your civil rights are being threatened!
Jamie Kahn Genet
so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to make
their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to wake
up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us while
we were not paying attention.]
<http://www.eff.org/issues/acta>
In brief: the RIAA, MPAA and other lobby groups failed to have their way
with the usual law making apparatus, so now they're trying to go behind
your backs and slip their provisions into law via treaty with no public
consultation.
Namely:
If you're merely _accused_ (no proof needed) by a copyright holder of
being a violator three times you can be banned from using the internet
without investigation, trial or any official government involvement.
Your details will also be circulated among all other ISPs preventing
them from accepting your business.
They want increased penalties for copyright violation totally out of
line with penalties for other non-violent crime.
They want increased search and seizure powers, and not just at borders.
It goes on, so I encourage you to read the above webpage and other
material linked from there. Decide for yourself whether this, IMHO,
undemocratic, unethical, immoral invasion of your civil liberties and
rights is acceptable to you. Is this the kind of world you want to live
in?
If you're in the US write your congressman and senator to demand that
this treaty not be ratified with the above provisions. Also contact the
groups lobbying for the change and ask them why they consider attacking
copyright violators is more important that civil rights and the very
spirit of democracy. Public shame hasn't worked well so far on these
groups, but I'll bet an economic boycott would! Though how much do you
want to bet they'll try and say falling profits indicate piracy rather
than any backlash from a public disgusted by their actions?
If you live outside the US contact your government representatives and
tell them loss of your rights and liberties are not worth the benefits
from signing this trade treaty. Tell them to demand a treaty without
these undemocratic and totally unethical and utterly immoral provisions.
However - regardless of your depth of feeling or even your stance on
this issue, for goodness sake MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! Don't just sit back
and let big business writing your laws. Vote out and publically shame
those who support actions you know to be wrong.
I'm sorry if it's an uncomfortable truth for you, but ultimately you the
voter are responsible for this. You need to make your voice heard and
vote these jokers out. Or even stand for government yourself! Goodness
knows we need more technically literate people in government. Geeks
cannot continue to stand on the sidelines and just hope things work out.
Please make your voice heard and get involved!
Regards,
Jamie Kahn Genet
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Jolly Roger
jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it has me
> so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to make
> their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to wake
> up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us while
> we were not paying attention.]
Thank for passing this along. I've done my part.
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Mark Conrad
Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this,
> but it has me so incensed I feel I've no other choice.
No need to explain your reason for posting, as your
post is much more important than the usual crap
here in the Mac Toy & Music Company NG.
Just out of curiousity, how did you come across this
information, as stuff like this usually slips below
the radar of most people.
Mark-
Jamie Kahn Genet
> In article <1j99g9t.135y007114wermN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
> > [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it has me
> > so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to make
> > their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to wake
> > up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us while
> > we were not paying attention.]
>
> Thank for passing this along. I've done my part.
Thanks JR. I'm sure I'll get some backlash for posting political stuff,
but it's worth it when folk like you care. You're just what we need in
fact - an Alpha geek willing to stand up, heh :-)
Jamie Kahn Genet
> In article <1j99g9t.135y007114wermN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>, Jamie
> Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
>
> > I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this,
> > but it has me so incensed I feel I've no other choice.
>
> No need to explain your reason for posting, as your
> post is much more important than the usual crap
> here in the Mac Toy & Music Company NG.
Thank you Mark.
> Just out of curiousity, how did you come across this
> information, as stuff like this usually slips below
> the radar of most people.
>
> Mark-
It was reported on by a couple tech podcasts (the excellent This Week in
Tech <http://twit.tv/twit> being one) I listen to, as well as some tech
news websites I read (e.g. ars technica).
However I agree it's very easy for this sort of political news to slip
under people's radar. Hell - I'm just as guilty of that at times. If
it's not tech news I can find myself woefully out of touch, even if I do
make an effort to catch the evening news on TV3 (a NZ station) most
nights. Ha - I wouldn't even have known about this latest story if I'd
only watched the TV news :-\ I've seen zero coverage there. Dunno if
it's any better elsewhere.
Jolly Roger
jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1j99g9t.135y007114wermN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> > jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> >
> > > [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it has me
> > > so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to make
> > > their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to wake
> > > up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us while
> > > we were not paying attention.]
> >
> > Thank for passing this along. I've done my part.
>
> Thanks JR. I'm sure I'll get some backlash for posting political stuff,
> but it's worth it when folk like you care. You're just what we need in
> fact - an Alpha geek willing to stand up, heh :-)
Well I hope you don't get too much grief for it, because it has a
potential impact to anyone who reads it here! I hadn't heard about it
until you mentioned it; I appreciate your post.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> In article <1j99qnq.1mzdr3f1q5s35cN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1j99g9t.135y007114wermN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> > > jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> > >
> > > > [I'm not usually one to bring up activist stuff like this, but it has me
> > > > so incensed I feel I've no other choice. Too often Geeks fail to make
> > > > their voices heard and that really has to stop, or we're going to wake
> > > > up one day and realise our freedoms have just slipped away from us while
> > > > we were not paying attention.]
> > >
> > > Thank for passing this along. I've done my part.
> >
> > Thanks JR. I'm sure I'll get some backlash for posting political stuff,
> > but it's worth it when folk like you care. You're just what we need in
> > fact - an Alpha geek willing to stand up, heh :-)
>
> Well I hope you don't get too much grief for it, because it has a
> potential impact to anyone who reads it here! I hadn't heard about it
> until you mentioned it; I appreciate your post.
No flack here yet (but this is a pretty mature group), however I've
taken a bit in two of the other three groups I posted this in. Still
worth getting the message out IMO, as I've seen no coverage of this on
the TV news here in NZ. Other than certain tech podcasts and websites it
seems to be flying under most people's radar.
Those giving flack are the usual sort - either they try to claim I'm
supporting piracy by speaking up against this treaty (laughable but all
too familiar tactic) or are just your standard trolls delierately
misunderstanding or just outright lying to get attention and wind people
up. They're far too pathetic to take notice off.
Anyway - query: has anyone at all seen any coverage of this in
mainstream media? I'm rather curious.
Greg Buchner
jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> Mark Conrad <ae...@mostly.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiousity, how did you come across this
> > information, as stuff like this usually slips below
> > the radar of most people.
> >
> > Mark-
>
> It was reported on by a couple tech podcasts (the excellent This Week in
> Tech <http://twit.tv/twit> being one) I listen to, as well as some tech
> news websites I read (e.g. ars technica).
>
> However I agree it's very easy for this sort of political news to slip
> under people's radar. Hell - I'm just as guilty of that at times. If
> it's not tech news I can find myself woefully out of touch, even if I do
> make an effort to catch the evening news on TV3 (a NZ station) most
> nights. Ha - I wouldn't even have known about this latest story if I'd
> only watched the TV news :-\ I've seen zero coverage there. Dunno if
> it's any better elsewhere.
It's been covered somewhat in the US by conservative blogs. I do find
that you need to read/watch/listen to the whole spectrum of political
commentary to get a true picture of what is going one.
Greg B.
--
Actual e-mail address is gregbuchner and I'm located at gmail.com
Jamie Kahn Genet
Sounds sensible. Any mainstream media coverage, though?
Jolly Roger
jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> has anyone at all seen any coverage of this in
> mainstream media? I'm rather curious.
None at all here, but then I'm not what I consider to be the average
mainstream media consumer. : )
Greg Buchner
jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> Greg Buchner <nu...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <1j9ad3b.1plulqpu3wnlbN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> > jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
> >
> > > Mark Conrad <ae...@mostly.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just out of curiousity, how did you come across this
> > > > information, as stuff like this usually slips below
> > > > the radar of most people.
> > > >
> > > > Mark-
> > >
> > > It was reported on by a couple tech podcasts (the excellent This Week in
> > > Tech <http://twit.tv/twit> being one) I listen to, as well as some tech
> > > news websites I read (e.g. ars technica).
> > >
> > > However I agree it's very easy for this sort of political news to slip
> > > under people's radar. Hell - I'm just as guilty of that at times. If
> > > it's not tech news I can find myself woefully out of touch, even if I do
> > > make an effort to catch the evening news on TV3 (a NZ station) most
> > > nights. Ha - I wouldn't even have known about this latest story if I'd
> > > only watched the TV news :-\ I've seen zero coverage there. Dunno if
> > > it's any better elsewhere.
> >
> > It's been covered somewhat in the US by conservative blogs. I do find
> > that you need to read/watch/listen to the whole spectrum of political
> > commentary to get a true picture of what is going one.
> >
> > Greg B.
>
> Sounds sensible. Any mainstream media coverage, though?
Unfortunately no. The mainstream media seems to be a bit too hung up on
the Obama Administration yet. I hope they'll get over their honeymoon
soon and start doing some actual reporting.
Jamie Kahn Genet
Plus the Obama administration are being intensely secretive about ACTA
<http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/policy-laundering/>. I can't
imagine why they'd try to hide this sort of shit from the public...
*cough* *choke*
Wes Groleau
> If you're in the US write your congressman and senator to demand that
> this treaty not be ratified with the above provisions. Also contact the
> groups lobbying for the change and ask them why they consider attacking
> copyright violators is more important that civil rights and the very
Maybe it would help to demand that we _NEVER_ ratify a treaty that
violates any provision of our own constitution, including Amendments
five and seven.
> voter are responsible for this. You need to make your voice heard and
> vote these jokers out. Or even stand for government yourself! Goodness
In USA, it's the other way 'round: We're not going to stand for this,
we're going to run for office. :-)
--
Wes Groleau
We don?t teach long division; it stifles their creativity ?
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=62
Jolly Roger
Greg Buchner <nu...@none.invalid> wrote:
Yes, I heard today that Obama bowed!! BOWED!! BOWED I tell you!!! What
the fuck was he thinking?!
Greg Buchner
Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > If you're in the US write your congressman and senator to demand that
> > this treaty not be ratified with the above provisions. Also contact the
> > groups lobbying for the change and ask them why they consider attacking
> > copyright violators is more important that civil rights and the very
>
> Maybe it would help to demand that we _NEVER_ ratify a treaty that
> violates any provision of our own constitution, including Amendments
> five and seven.
Unfortunately treaties allow Congress and the President to do an end-run
around the US Constitution. Article VI states that any treaties made
become part of the supreme law of the land.
Only way to fix that would be through an amendment.
Greg Buchner
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <null-87E1A4.1...@free.teranews.com>,
> Greg Buchner <nu...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately no. The mainstream media seems to be a bit too hung up on
> > the Obama Administration yet. I hope they'll get over their honeymoon
> > soon and start doing some actual reporting.
>
> Yes, I heard today that Obama bowed!! BOWED!! BOWED I tell you!!! What
> the fuck was he thinking?!
Yea, but that more funny on the apparent cluelessness about the
etiquette of bowing in Japan than anything else. Someone in the White
House messed up on telling the President what a proper bow would have
been.
Kurt Ullman
Greg Buchner <nu...@none.invalid> wrote:
Treaties have to pass the Senate by 2/3rd vote. "He (the president)
shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to
make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."
--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
George Kerby
On 11/16/09 3:27 PM, in article
null-87E1A4.1...@free.teranews.com, "Greg Buchner"
<nu...@none.invalid> wrote:
Really? The Mainstream Media not reporting the Truth?!?
Imagine that!
See just how many of them are reporting this...
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/ya2zwdw>
"40.3 jobs created"? RIGHT!
Jamie Kahn Genet
> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > If you're in the US write your congressman and senator to demand that
> > this treaty not be ratified with the above provisions. Also contact the
> > groups lobbying for the change and ask them why they consider attacking
> > copyright violators is more important that civil rights and the very
>
> Maybe it would help to demand that we _NEVER_ ratify a treaty that
> violates any provision of our own constitution, including Amendments
> five and seven.
You hope! I certainly do because where the US goes NZ will likely
follow. After all it keeps being portrayed as a trade treaty. You'd be
mad not to fall in line for that right? Trade = good? Right?
> > voter are responsible for this. You need to make your voice heard and
> > vote these jokers out. Or even stand for government yourself! Goodness
>
> In USA, it's the other way 'round: We're not going to stand for this,
> we're going to run for office. :-)
*snort* Well that made me grin, and I can tell you it's just as common
in other parts of the world, sadly.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> In article <null-C11725.0...@free.teranews.com>,
> Greg Buchner <nu...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <hdt82j$jfp$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > > > If you're in the US write your congressman and senator to demand that
> > > > this treaty not be ratified with the above provisions. Also contact the
> > > > groups lobbying for the change and ask them why they consider attacking
> > > > copyright violators is more important that civil rights and the very
> > >
> > > Maybe it would help to demand that we _NEVER_ ratify a treaty that
> > > violates any provision of our own constitution, including Amendments
> > > five and seven.
> >
> > Unfortunately treaties allow Congress and the President to do an end-run
> > around the US Constitution. Article VI states that any treaties made
> > become part of the supreme law of the land.
> >
> > Only way to fix that would be through an amendment.
> >
> Treaties have to pass the Senate by 2/3rd vote. "He (the president)
> shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to
> make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."
I worry I'm starting to sound like one of those comp.sys.mac.advocacy
loons, but how many of those senators are in the pockets of the RIAA,
MPAA and their ilk?
Hell - just look at McCain's bill (the Internet Freedom Act of 2009 -
great name, eh? "Why are you voting against Internet Freedom?" asks the
clueless voter) to block Net Neutrality. Then look at who donated to his
campaign - yup, the same cable companies wanting to screw your use of
BitTorrent and Skype in favour of their own media delivery and VoIP
systems.
Don't get me wrong - I prefer the idea that market competition would
handle this issue. The trouble is if you're unhappy with your ISP in the
US you typically have two choices at the most - cable or phone company.
In other words bugger all competition.
Anyway - getting back to my point: a lot of the politicians on who such
a vote rides are in the pockets of the very people pushing these changes
at the expense of civil liberties and due process, etc, etc.
Jolly Roger
Greg Buchner <nu...@none.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-2F373...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <null-87E1A4.1...@free.teranews.com>,
> > Greg Buchner <nu...@none.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Unfortunately no. The mainstream media seems to be a bit too hung up on
> > > the Obama Administration yet. I hope they'll get over their honeymoon
> > > soon and start doing some actual reporting.
> >
> > Yes, I heard today that Obama bowed!! BOWED!! BOWED I tell you!!! What
> > the fuck was he thinking?!
>
> Yea, but that more funny on the apparent cluelessness about the
> etiquette of bowing in Japan than anything else. Someone in the White
> House messed up on telling the President what a proper bow would have
> been.
While you are correct, my point is that in the grand scheme of things,
it's not nearly as important an issue as it's being made out to be, and
is obscuring coverage of the truly important issues, which is the
general trend of mainstream media today, which is, in turn, at least
partially responsible for the social political landscape our country
being in the fucked-up, sad shape it's in today.
Mr. Uh Clem
I don't believe that ANYTHING can trump the US Constitution. Think
of how hard it is to amend the constitution. Yet many would have
you believe that a 2/3 vote in the Senate and the signature of
the president can effectively amend the constitution by way of
treaty. Seems to me that a treaty is simply a law that nations
agree to put into effect simultaneously. It must still pass
constitutional muster.
<http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2009/10/steam-valve-blog-offers-this-vid-of.html>
<quote> ...
The Founders� thoughts
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison (a principal author of the Constitution)
and Thomas Jefferson were clear that treaties were subordinated to the
Constitution:
�A treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country,
or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution"
(Hamilton).
�I do not conceive that power is given to the President and the Senate
to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not
think the whole legislative authority to have this power� (Madison).
�I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of
the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no
Constitution� (Jefferson).
... The issue of whether treaties overwhelm the Constitution was
specifically considered by the US Supreme Court in the case of Reid v.
Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). The Court ruled:
. . .no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any
other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of
the Constitution. . . .
This court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the
constitution over a treaty.
This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of
Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with
a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is
inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders
the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need
not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by
a statute that must conform to that instrument.
...
</quote>
So I believe that any treaty which deprived US citizens of
due process (as the above seems to) would be DOA at the
US Supreme Court, if not sooner.
--
Clem
"If you push something hard enough, it will fall over."
- Fudd's first law of opposition
Jamie Kahn Genet
> The Founders' thoughts
> Alexander Hamilton, James Madison (a principal author of the Constitution)
> and Thomas Jefferson were clear that treaties were subordinated to the
> Constitution:
>
> "A treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country,
> or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution"
> (Hamilton).
>
> "I do not conceive that power is given to the President and the Senate
> to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not
> think the whole legislative authority to have this power" (Madison).
>
> "I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of
> the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no
> Constitution" (Jefferson).
>
> ... The issue of whether treaties overwhelm the Constitution was
> specifically considered by the US Supreme Court in the case of Reid v.
> Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). The Court ruled:
>
> . . .no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any
> other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of
> the Constitution. . . .
>
> This court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the
> constitution over a treaty.
> This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of
> Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with
> a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is
> inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders
> the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need
> not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by
> a statute that must conform to that instrument.
>
> ...
> </quote>
>
> So I believe that any treaty which deprived US citizens of
> due process (as the above seems to) would be DOA at the
> US Supreme Court, if not sooner.
But would the US constitution protect a citizen from being barred from
accessing the internet after three accusations without proof or due
process, etc? I'm unaware of anything guarantying a right to access the
internet. It seems obvious to many of us that it's a near-essential
service in order to do business, communicate, socialise, and on and on.
But I'm doubtful there's currently anything to protect access. I rather
think there should be, now all this has come up.
Wes Groleau
> But would the US constitution protect a citizen from being barred from
> accessing the internet after three accusations without proof or due
> process, etc? I'm unaware of anything guarantying a right to access the
> internet. It seems obvious to many of us that it's a near-essential
> service in order to do business, communicate, socialise, and on and on.
> But I'm doubtful there's currently anything to protect access. I rather
> think there should be, now all this has come up.
If U.S. politicians were stupid enough to sign this treaty, the EFF,
ACLU, and/or other such group would push it as a test case as far as
they could. It would be up to each court along the way to rule on
whether the constitutional passages cited do apply to internet access.
If they lose, I guarantee it will backfire. Many clever people
will invent all sorts of ways to help victims regain access.
You suppose the next treaty will cut off people
who don't secure their WiFi? :-)
--
Wes Groleau
Always listen to experts. They'll tell you
what can't be done and why. Then do it.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
Davoud
> If U.S. politicians were stupid enough to sign this treaty...
There's a treaty all of a sudden? Sheesh! There is no such treaty.
Talks are underway. At the moment this is a tempest in a tea cup.
If a treaty is finalized and presented to the Senate, the debate will
begin.
How many of those who are running around here proclaiming that the sky
is falling have written (on paper) to the USTR requesting information?
As for the EFF, their frantic little piece talks about this "secret
treaty." The United States has no secret laws or secret treaties that
directly apply to the common people. We may, for example, have a secret
treaty that says that the United States will share certain intelligence
information with Frizlandia. That treaty might require persons employed
by the CIA, DIA, NSA, or other agency to undertake certain actions.
Those persons will have been told about the treaty and what it requires
them to do. Such a treaty does not require the common citizen to take
any action and the common citizen cannot be held responsible for
failure to uphold the treaty because the common citizen does not know
about the treaty. This country does not have a "double secret
probation" � la Faber College. The full text of every treaty that
applies to the American public at large is available to the public at
no charge.
This non-existent treaty is opposed by people who believe that the
theft of intellectual property ought to be legal -- that copyright
should not exist or should have no meaning.
As the owners of copyrighted original works that we both worked hard to
create -- original products of our own intellects -- my wife and I
stand in strong opposition to the "if it's easy to steal then it's OK
to steal it" crowd.
Davoud
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Greg Buchner
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <null-4BB0AB.0...@free.teranews.com>,
> Greg Buchner <nu...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <jollyroger-2F373...@news.individual.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <null-87E1A4.1...@free.teranews.com>,
> > > Greg Buchner <nu...@none.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Unfortunately no. The mainstream media seems to be a bit too hung up on
> > > > the Obama Administration yet. I hope they'll get over their honeymoon
> > > > soon and start doing some actual reporting.
> > >
> > > Yes, I heard today that Obama bowed!! BOWED!! BOWED I tell you!!! What
> > > the fuck was he thinking?!
> >
> > Yea, but that more funny on the apparent cluelessness about the
> > etiquette of bowing in Japan than anything else. Someone in the White
> > House messed up on telling the President what a proper bow would have
> > been.
>
> While you are correct, my point is that in the grand scheme of things,
> it's not nearly as important an issue as it's being made out to be, and
> is obscuring coverage of the truly important issues, which is the
> general trend of mainstream media today, which is, in turn, at least
> partially responsible for the social political landscape our country
> being in the fucked-up, sad shape it's in today.
Well said. Very well said.
The press really needs to get back to being a government watchdog.
Greg Buchner
"Mr. Uh Clem" <uhc...@DutchElmSt.invalid> wrote:
> So I believe that any treaty which deprived US citizens of
> due process (as the above seems to) would be DOA at the
> US Supreme Court, if not sooner.
Hey, thanks for the good quotes on that, and I really hope it would be
DOA.
Jamie Kahn Genet
> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> > But would the US constitution protect a citizen from being barred from
> > accessing the internet after three accusations without proof or due
> > process, etc? I'm unaware of anything guarantying a right to access the
> > internet. It seems obvious to many of us that it's a near-essential
> > service in order to do business, communicate, socialise, and on and on.
> > But I'm doubtful there's currently anything to protect access. I rather
> > think there should be, now all this has come up.
>
> If U.S. politicians were stupid enough to sign this treaty, the EFF,
> ACLU, and/or other such group would push it as a test case as far as
> they could. It would be up to each court along the way to rule on
> whether the constitutional passages cited do apply to internet access.
>
> If they lose, I guarantee it will backfire. Many clever people
> will invent all sorts of ways to help victims regain access.
>
> You suppose the next treaty will cut off people
> who don't secure their WiFi? :-)
Ha :-) Though friends in the US and my GF who's there right now *sigh*
tell me unprotected WiFi is getting scarce. Not impossible to find by
any means, just more difficult. Amazingly it seems people are finally
starting to get clued in and act on basic wireless network security. I'm
sure it also helps that more WiFi access points now prompt the user to
setup encryption and passwords.
Still, I agree I'd be surprised if many geeks could be stopped from
finding a way online. Non-geeks maybe, but everyone has a tech guy
friend or acquaintance nowadays.
Paul Magnussen
> If a treaty is finalized and presented to the Senate, the debate will
> begin.
Either you've never heard of NAFTA, of you've forgotten it.
Paul Magnussen
Davoud
> > If a treaty is finalized and presented to the Senate, the debate will
> > begin.
Paul Magnussen:
> Either you've never heard of NAFTA, of you've forgotten it.
NAFTA was negotiated, presented to the Senate, debated, and ratified.
What's your point?
Matthew Russotto
Jamie Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
>
>It goes on, so I encourage you to read the above webpage and other
>material linked from there. Decide for yourself whether this, IMHO,
>undemocratic, unethical, immoral invasion of your civil liberties and
>rights is acceptable to you. Is this the kind of world you want to live
>in?
It doesn't matter. I don't have any influence over it.
>If you're in the US write your congressman and senator to demand that
>this treaty not be ratified with the above provisions.
They're all for it. And so are their opponents. My guess is it has
something to do with the big bags with the $ on them the RIAA and MPAA
like to hand out, but that's just a guess.
>Also contact the groups lobbying for the change and ask them why they
>consider attacking copyright violators is more important that civil
>rights and the very spirit of democracy.
May as well try to shame the Devil.
>Public shame hasn't worked well so far on these
>groups, but I'll bet an economic boycott would! Though how much do you
>want to bet they'll try and say falling profits indicate piracy rather
>than any backlash from a public disgusted by their actions?
Got it in one.
>I'm sorry if it's an uncomfortable truth for you, but ultimately you the
>voter are responsible for this.
No, I'm not. That's just a platitude designed to make me feel like
I've had some influence on the outcome, and therefore feel morally
bound to either accept it or accept the consequences someone else is
meting out as a result of it. (Example of the first: I violate the
speed limit. Someone tries to make be feel guilty for doing so; I
claim the limit's wrong; they counter with the claim that if it is, I
should change it rather than violate it. Example of the second: I'm
injured by an Islamic suicide bomber. Someone tells me I had it
coming because of United States policies in the Middle East; if I
didn't want to get bombed I should have stopped those policies)
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
Matthew Russotto
Greg Buchner <nu...@none.invalid> wrote:
>In article <1j9b463.ba0s4krwzhvvN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,
> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>>
>> Sounds sensible. Any mainstream media coverage, though?
>
>Unfortunately no. The mainstream media seems to be a bit too hung up on
>the Obama Administration yet. I hope they'll get over their honeymoon
>soon and start doing some actual reporting.
More than that, the mainstream media's owners support this stuff. Not
in the woo-woo conspiracy sense, but in the direct sense of the owners
of the media organizations being actual members of the organizations
like the RIAA pushing this stuff.
Matthew Russotto
>Wes Groleau:
>> If U.S. politicians were stupid enough to sign this treaty...
>
>There's a treaty all of a sudden? Sheesh! There is no such treaty.
>Talks are underway. At the moment this is a tempest in a tea cup.
>
>If a treaty is finalized and presented to the Senate, the debate will
>begin.
You're not so naive as to believe that what happens on the Senate
floor is the actual mechanism of government. By the time the treaty
hits the Senate, the votes will have been gathered and the deal will
have been done.
>How many of those who are running around here proclaiming that the sky
>is falling have written (on paper) to the USTR requesting information?
The EFF has. They've been refused, several times.
>As for the EFF, their frantic little piece talks about this "secret
>treaty." The United States has no secret laws or secret treaties that
>directly apply to the common people.
The treaty will not be secret once it is brought to the Senate floor.
But it is now. And once it's done and made available in general, it
will be a fait accompli; the key Senators will have already been
brought in and signed on.