Obama Administration Declares Proposed IP Treaty a 'National Security' Secret

[Kernel Sanders]

Source [Wired Threat Level | Obama Administration Declares Proposed IP Treaty a 'National Security' Secret]

President Barack Obama came into office in January promising a new era of openness.

But now, like Bush before him, Obama is playing the national security card to hide details of the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated across the globe.

The White House this week declared (.pdf) the text of the proposed treaty a "properly classified" national security secret, in rejecting a Freedom of Information Act request by Knowledge Ecology International.

"Please be advised the documents you seek are being withheld in full," wrote Carmen Suro-Bredie, chief FOIA officer in the White House's Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

The national security claim is stunning, given that the treaty negotiations have included the 27 member states of the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand, all of whom presumably have access to the "classified" information.

In early January, the Bush administration made the same claim in rejecting (.pdf) a similar FOIA request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

If ratified, leaked documents posted on WikiLeaks and other comments suggest the proposed trade accord would criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing, subject iPods to border searches and allow internet service providers to monitor their customers' communications.

Utterly disgusting. One of the worst aspects of the previous administration was widespread abuse of the concept of 'national security' to avoid transparency. While I am happy with the current administrations changes regarding science and, to a degree, social program, I am severely disappointed in the continuing appeals to national security and the continued reliance on 'state secrets priveledge.'

That's to say nothing of what this means for the administration's views on IP. If a copyright treaty has even vague national security implications I don't think it's possible that it benefits the consumer. I'll be watching closely, but it would appear that Obama has thrown his lot in with big content to the detriment of the public

 

[Travelsonic]

If a copyright treaty has even vague national security implications I don't think it's possible that it benefits the consumer.

Very few of the changes to copyright over the past decade have done more than to power corporations and screw the little people and consumers alike.

 

[rudedog]

What made you think this administration would be any different then the last you silly rabbit.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

:lol: good thread Kernal.....


I await the usual suspects to dismiss this as no biggy.

 

[Orion]

I never even heard of this before, and Canada is a signee? How utterly disgusting that so-called democratic countries can pull this filth over the eyes of their people.

Good luck enforcing this treaty, by the way.

 

[rathi]

Not a surprise really. The unconstitutional abuse of copyright has had bi-partisan support for decades. It is truly an issue where the American voter doesn't have any choice at all.

 

[RightinNYC]

I generally have a deferential take on executive privilege, but how on earth is the text of a proposed treaty a national secret? That just doesn't make any sense.

 

[akyron]

I generally have a deferential take on executive privilege, but how on earth is the text of a proposed treaty a national secret? That just doesn't make any sense.

It makes perfect sense. Check the campaign promises and check off the many 180 degree turns this adminstration has taken. Obama=Bush. They both serve the same masters. Hint: It is not the american voter nor even the american taxpayer. How can one claim to represent the american taxpayer and not know any to appoint? Ones does however know a plethora of tax evaders though.

Servants of bankers one and all.

rudedog is right.

 

[obvious Child]

I generally have a deferential take on executive privilege, but how on earth is the text of a proposed treaty a national secret? That just doesn't make any sense.

Agreed. It doesn't make much sense. It would essentially bind every Congress representative and senator as well as all of their staff into secrecy about how the treaty works. Furthermore, the treaty enforcement mechanism would require everyone who enforces it to be bound by such a law too. And how can someone prosecute on the basis of the treaty when the text of the treaty which becomes law is not public knowledge? Even NASA's crazy law about indefinite internment for anyone who's believed to have contact with an alien is on the books and is public knowledge.

We'll prosecute people on the basis of a law that is secret?

That can't be constitutional.

 

[RightinNYC]

It makes perfect sense. Check the campaign promises and check off the many 180 degree turns this adminstration has taken. Obama=Bush. They both serve the same masters. Hint: It is not the american voter nor even the american taxpayer. How can one claim to represent the american taxpayer and not know any to appoint? Ones does however know a plethora of tax evaders though.

Servants of bankers one and all.

rudedog is right.

I'm saying that it doesn't make any practical sense, not that it's some corporatist attempt to control government or whatever. The language of the treaty is in the possession of approximately 30 different bodies and several US departments. Someone is going to leak it sooner or later, and even if they don't, it will obviously become public when the US ratifies it because Congress has to pass implementing legislation.

This just doesn't seem plausible.

 

[Orion]

The idea is to keep it secret long enough so that when it does get to the ratification stage, there will be little time for the public to mobilize a protest.

It is completely bypassing public participation, yet it's a treaty that everyone should be made aware of. It jades me how democracy is so easily tossed aside these days in the name of "security" or secrecy.