Obama's transparency commitment makes secret copyright treaty public - UPDATED


13 Responses to “Obama's transparency commitment makes secret copyright treaty public - UPDATED”

  1. Thebes says:

    This just seems to a be a vague and rough summary of the work on the treaty and, to me, hardly constitutes transparency.

    Even this small release of information gives the the gravest sense of foreboding that Russia Today was correct when they suggested that the treaty would give the signatory governments the authority to search computers and data devices for infringing works with no probable cause to believe they contained such contraband.

  2. Stephen says:

    The hypocrisy of blaming Obama for everything coming out of the DOJ, but then not giving him any credit for things coming out of the DOJ is emanating from the EFF.

    Look at EFF.org, notice their main banner at the top left. Now look at CDT.org, notice that the issues they think are important to defending internet freedom are different issues. EFF really hate Obama.

  3. SpittleBug says:

    @#4 Yes, this is where you get to play the “spot the bias” game. Wheeeee!

    Personally, I would like it if people discussed the actual facts of the cases, rather than making each decision a referendum on the entire Obama presidency. It seems like most of these decisions are complicated by legal/bureaucratic issues. I am more interested in understanding the hows and whys of the decisions than either exculpating or condemning Obama.

    While the basic issues of civil liberties are often black and white, the infrastructure for deciding those issues is complex and muddy.

  4. Anonymous says:

    So basically Obama didn’t do this – and was against it for quite some time – and the ‘transparency’ that we now see is not courtesy of his administration but Canada?

    That’s lame.

  5. Anonymous says:

    isn’t it that only the SUMMARY is given? not the DETAILS

    it should not be a summary, it should be the full
    details, the people has the right to know the DETAILS of what is written in ACTA

    by just showing the summary, it’s like equivalent to saying that the people are not that IMPORTANT and dont matter. the public’s opinion don’t matter and people in power can do whatever they want and make into law whatever they want

    Electronic Frontier Foundation have been fighting for the bloggers, coders, webmasters, etc rights since 1990s

    if you’re in america send an e-mail to CONGRESS by going to their website http://www.eff.org/action

    forward this website to everyone you know!!!

    I am not in america, but i know that whatever happens to the “internet rights” there, would happen to us here in our country, that’s why im really advocating http://www.eff.org and spread the word

    we should not lose our freedom of speech and any of our rights on the INTERNET

  6. SamSam says:

    @4,5: I also like how Cory had to post an update saying “wait wait wait! There’s no evidence that this has anything to do with Obama. So Obama probably still sux. kthxbye.”

    Was there any update to the DOJ state’s secrets post, after it was equally pointed out that Obama had little if anything to do with it..?

  7. Awesome Lives forever says:

    The new boss is looking alot like the old boss.

  8. mightymouse1584 says:

    Oh, so THATS why it was classified under “national security” (insert eye roll here)

    also, I’m curious how we know this was published as part of Obama’s commitment to transparency. Did he release a statement saying so or are we just assuming?

  9. BastardNamban says:

    This is a fantastic step forward- this thing has been locked in a basement, as it were. I will RTFA, but did this really come out of the dark because of Obama?

    Excuse me if I’m skeptical, but after that post with the EFF explaining the whole “sovereign immunity” concept the DoJ goons thought up, supposedly under Obama’s view, I have a hard time believing this was anything but leaked by someone.

  10. SamSam says:

    Awesome Lives forever: …because his administration released documents that were secret? Huh?

  11. Awesome Lives forever says:

    oops posted it in the wrong article! I wasn’t looking at the headlines! my bad. I thought i was posting here.http://www.boingboing.net/2009/04/08/eff-attorney-explain.html

  12. zenbeatnik says:

    Help me understand.

    The ISPs could enforce copyright only by massively eavesdropping on our every packet of information, right? Much like phone companies could act on improper phone calls only by massive wiretapping. And the USPS could enforce mail fraud only by opening every piece of mail and reading it.

    But for phone and mail service, it doesn’t work that way. You have to have some evidence of the crime, first, and then postal inspectors get involved.

  13. SamSam says:

    @ #1 and 2:

    Obama adminstration pledges “transparency” on ACTA

    Today, Kirk’s office released a “detailed summary” of the ACTA talks that outlines the treaty’s main areas, saying that the document “reflects the Obama Administration’s commitment to transparency.”

    Sheesh… Some lawyers in the DOJ release a brief related to state secrets, and everyone decides that it may as well have come from Obama himself. Other information gets released after public pledges and memos regarding more transparency through FOIA, and everyone figures that it has nothing to do with Obama.

Leave a Reply