Comments on: We need greater transparency and freedom

By: Nick Taylor

Nick Taylor — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 05:19:38 +0000

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.

By: jen

jen — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:15:45 +0000

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.

By: Draco T Bastard

Draco T Bastard — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:08:19 +0000

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)

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.

By: SteveO

SteveO — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 05:40:20 +0000

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.

By: mark Harris

mark Harris — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:49:13 +0000

@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.

By: Matthew Holloway

Matthew Holloway — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 02:19:05 +0000

@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

By: John Spavin

John Spavin — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 02:18:00 +0000

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.

By: kelly

kelly — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 02:07:14 +0000

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?

By: ghostwhowalksnz

ghostwhowalksnz — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:48:46 +0000

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.

By: Peter Harrison

Peter Harrison — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:28:45 +0000

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.