Transparency in trade negotiations and internet freedom have taken centre stage internationally which I believe has important implications for NZ.
The New Zealand negotiators for ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, have now said publicly that “New Zealand is calling for greater transparency in negotiations”. In December, MED held two briefings on ACTA, these slides have been made available.
ACTA is currently being negotiated in secrecy. New Zealand is participating in the discussions along with Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States. Red Alert posted on this before Xmas.
The NZ Herald reported in November that while the US government claims ACTA is about counterfeiting rather than major changes to copyright law, and shouldn’t be subject to public scrutiny, leaked versions of ACTA discussion papers seemed to indicate that copyright lobby organisations may have in fact turned treaty negotiations to suit their own agenda.
At the moment it seems like many of the countries are saying they’re calling for more transparency but they have to get the others to agree. The big question is, is this a tactic, to make it look as though they take it seriously, or is it real?
The next round of ACTA negotiations kick off today in Guadalajara, Mexico today. Transparency is on the agenda in Mexico, but it remains to be seen whether it will eventuate. It remains to be seen whether our negotiators from MED and MFAT mean it.
In the meantime, ‘Internet Freedom’ has now become a playing card in US foreign policy, in particular with regards to China and other oppressive regimes.
This has immediate implications for New Zealand, with regards to termination of people’s internet connections for copyright infringement which is included in the revised version of Section 92A of the Copyright Act and is considered by some to be included in ACTA drafts.
In her recent and significant speech on Internet Freedom, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said:
“the freedom to connect – the idea that governments should not prevent people from connecting to the internet, to websites, or to each other. The freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly in cyber space.”
I’ve been writing quite a bit about this and thinking about the wider issue of the right of our citizens to equitably access the internet (which implies that they shouldn’t be cut off from access)
Hillary Clinton also said:
“The private sector has a shared responsibility to help safeguard free expression. And when their business dealings threaten to undermine this freedom, they need to consider what’s right, not simply the prospect of quick profits.”
The full text of Hilary Clinton’s speech is here.
I’ll be watching how the ACTA negotiations play out.
It is interesting that Hillary was talking about how Google is being restricted in China, not how the US is trying to impose its own restrictions on other countries using trade pressure. She would no doubt claim her comments are being taken out of context. However, the point is that whether it is multinational companies restricting freedoms or a central government it is equally morally questionable.
When policy is drafted and forced into being implemented through back room deals by multinationals with no interest at all in the welfare of anyone; much less New Zealand Citizens, one must consider whether any resulting law is moral.
Of course US sourced cyber attacks on Iranian government websites arent mentioned.
Nor is The US Armys cyber warfare school in New Mexico mentioned, who presumably practice on some one. Their IP addresses have turned up on NZ websites as well.
is it just me or does this post give anyone else a headache? I;m sure there’s something scarey here but I couldn’t quite follow why and how? Clare – could you give a summary for us dummies?
I think it is good that you continue to seek details of ACTA. I understand that defence treaties with other nations are necessarily secretive. But try as I might I can’t understand why the citizens of the countries who will most likely be signatories to ACTA are denied the details. Meantime the paid liars and lobbyists of the movie and recording industries seem not only to have full access to the content, but also to have hijacked its original aims and to have written much of it.
@kelly,
ACTA is an international treaty that seeks to change copyright and the internet, and it may include Guilt Upon Accusation-style laws where copyright holders can accuse people of infringement and have their internet connection terminated without due process. This is like earlier versions of New Zealand’s Section 92A law.
Most international copyright treaties have some level of transparency – you can see discussion documents, draft texts, meeting notes, and information on delegates. This is done to help inform the public so that they can participate in the process of democracy. With ACTA however the text is unusually secretive. Infact if you compare ACTA to any other IP treaty such as those in the WTO, WIPO, WHO, UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT, UNCTAD, or OECD then you’ll find that ACTA is uniquely closed to the public it will affect. Although the public don’t have access Hollywood lobbyists do and so they can participate more effectively and with more authority. Some policy analysts who have seen the text say “If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? [ACTA] is pretty close.”
There’s a writeup of what we think this means here: http://creativefreedom.org.nz/story.html?id=460
@kelly I’ve blogged quite a lot on ACTA, so have a look at my blog “On the Gripping Hand” and my wiki of my OIA adventures with MED (http://acta.tracs.net.nz/)
What you don’t know about, can hurt you.
Good post Clare.
What scares me/makes me laugh is that NZ politicians haven’t learned a thing from the debacle of trying to push through a law after being shmoozed by practised music industry execs behind closed doors (Labour and National both) without consulting their own constituents.
Democracy hinges upon communication. Without it we don’t have communication but the logistical reality is that it’s impossible to communicate on a many to many basis especially when that “many” is measured in the millions. What you’re suggesting here, whether you realise it or not, is an inalienable right to connect to the internet.
It is something that I’ve been considering for awhile and, IMO, it seems to me that the internet needs to be extended to all homes ASAP. The subsidy to private profiteers (both the Labour regional plan and the new National balls up) isn’t going to cut it.
It makes me laugh ( and cry) when I hear major corporations being exhorted to be good citzens and do what is right. Arent they obliged to maximise profit for their shareholders? If Hilary Clinton is relying on Corporate “conscience” to safeguard free expression we are really in trouble.
Something to note: Asking ISPs to deep-packet-inspect people’s web traffic is no different from phone-tapping.
All communication media are now contained by the internet.
–
In my most humble of opinions, any politician involved in bypassing the democratic process to attack what is increasingly a cornerstone of our democratic structure…
… should be sacked. No ifs, no buts; right now.
The CEOs of any corporation involved in attempting to bypass the democratic process by lobbying to slip anti-democratic clauses into trade deals, should go to prison.
I’ve really had enough of this.