Obama Signs Global Internet Treaty Worse Than SOPA

[ubaru]

Obama Signs Global Internet Treaty Worse Than SOPA (https://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-global-internet-treaty-worse-than-sopa/)



<tbody>
https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/printer_famfamfam.gif (https://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-global-internet-treaty-worse-than-sopa/print/)
https://static.infowars.com/2010/templateimages/youtube.png (https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel)
https://static.infowars.com/2010/templateimages/podcast.png (https://xml.nfowars.net/Alex.rss)
https://static.infowars.com/2010/templateimages/pptv.png (https://prisonplanet.tv/)
https://static.infowars.com/2010/templateimages/twitter.png (https://twitter.com/realalexjones)
https://static.infowars.com/2010/templateimages/facebook.png (https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones)
https://static.infowars.com/2010/templateimages/cart.png (https://www.infowarsshop.com/)

</tbody>

White House bypasses Senate to ink agreement that could allow Chinese companies to demand ISPs remove web content in US with no legal oversight

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, January 26, 2012


Months before the debate about Internet censorship raged as SOPA and PIPA dominated the concerns of web users, President Obama signed an international treaty that would allow companies in China or any other country in the world to demand ISPs remove web content in the US with no legal oversight whatsoever.

https://rt.com/files/news/acta-internet-censor-treaty-591/government-stickers-acta-protest.n.jpg


The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (https://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2012/01/20120125acta.pdf) was signed by Obama on October 1 2011, yet is currently the subject of a White House petition demanding Senators be forced to ratify the treaty. The White House has circumvented the necessity to have the treaty confirmed by lawmakers by presenting it an as “executive agreement,” although legal scholars have highlighted the dubious nature of this characterization.


The hacktivist group Anonymous attacked and took offline the Federal Trade Commission’s website (https://gcn.com/articles/2012/01/25/ftc-anonymous-hack-sopa-megaupload-fallout.aspx) yesterday in protest against the treaty, which was also the subject of demonstrations across major cities in Poland (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10781339), a country set to sign the agreement today.



Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.


A country known for its enforcement of harsh Internet censorship policies like China could demand under the treaty that an ISP in the United States remove content or terminate a website on its server altogether. As we have seen from the enforcement of similar copyright policies in the US (https://www.prisonplanet.com/dhs-shut-down-blog-for-a-year-on-false-pretenses.html), websites are sometimes targeted for no justifiable reason.



The groups pushing the treaty also want to empower copyright holders with the ability to demand that users who violate intellectual property rights (with no legal process) have their Internet connections terminated, a punishment that could only ever be properly enforced by the creation of an individual Internet ID card for every web user, a system that is already in the works (https://www.prisonplanet.com/are-you-ready-for-the-universal-internet-id-that-barack-obama-wants-to-impose-on-all-of-us.html).


“The same industry rightsholder groups that support the creation of ACTA have also called for mandatory network-level filtering by Internet Service Providers and for Internet Service Providers to terminate citizens’ Internet connection on repeat allegation of copyright infringement (the “Three Strikes” /Graduated Response) so there is reason to believe that ACTA will seek to increase intermediary liability and require these things of Internet Service Providers,” reports the Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/issues/acta).

The treaty will also mandate that ISPs disclose personal user information to the copyright holder, while providing authorities across the globe with broader powers to search laptops and Internet-capable devices at border checkpoints.
In presenting ACTA as an “international agreement” rather than a treaty, the Obama administration managed to circumvent the legislative process and avoid having to get Senate approval, a method questioned (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111012/10072216326/senator-wyden-asks-president-obama-isnt-congress-required-to-approve-acta.shtml) by Senator Wyden.



“That said, even if Obama has declared ACTA an executive agreement (while those in Europe insist that it’s a binding treaty (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110209/00065113017/eu-acta-is-binding-treaty-us-acta-is-neither-binding-treaty.shtml)), there is a very real Constitutional question (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100325/1848528722.shtml) here: can it actually be an executive agreement?” asks TechDirt. “The law is clear that the only things that can be covered by executive agreements are things that involve items that are solely under the President’s mandate. That is, you can’t sign an executive agreement that impacts the things Congress has control over. But here’s the thing: intellectual property, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is an issue given to Congress, not the President. Thus, there’s a pretty strong argument that the president legally cannot sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and, instead, must submit them to the Senate.”



26 European Union member states along with the EU itself are set to sign the treaty at a ceremony today in Tokyo (https://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-and-eu-to-sign-controversial-acta-treaty-tomorrow-336764-Jan2012/). Other countries wishing to sign the agreement have until May 2013 to do so.


Critics are urging those concerned about Obama’s decision to sign the document with no legislative oversight to demand the Senate (https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#%21/petition/end-acta-and-protect-our-right-privacy-internet/MwfSVNBK) be forced to ratify the treaty.


*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com (https://prisonplanet.com/). He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

[Barry]

This is also worthy of a broader discussion. I can generally support the notion of giving companies the power to copyright and protect their original content on an item by item basis (not be blocking whole websites). I don't think it is always the best the choice for the companies involved though.

This is not about censorship of someone else's speech. This about the ability to control your own speech. :waccosun:

[pbrinton]

Obama Signs Global Internet Treaty Worse Than SOPA (https://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-global-internet-treaty-worse-than-sopa/)

Did you read the agreement, which is linked to in the article? I read it all the way through, and this article is a complete misrepresentation of what is in the agreement. Nothing in the agreement requires any government to do anything that is not already the law in that country. In all cases the applicant for relief against violations of copyright are required to show prima facie evidence of the validity of their claims, and in all cases the determinations are to be made by courts according to the law in each country. The agreement is full of expressions such as "Parties shall endeavor to..." Almost nothing is actually required of the signing countries, and the existing rights of the accused in each country are explicitly protected.

Please point to the sections on the agreement that support the allegations in your post, particularly the part about there being no legal oversight, or alternatively admit that the information is false and retract your post.

Patrick Brinton

["Mad" Miles]

Consider the source. It's from "infowars.com", a more or less wholly owned subsidiary of Alex Jones, et al.

If you don't know who Alex Jones is, look at his wiki.

Jones first came to my attention in the spring of 2002 when I was organizing the annual Bohemian Grove protest for late July. Mary Moore loaned me a copy of Jones video of when he snuck into the summer encampment, videoed the "Cremation of Care" opening ritual/pageant/frat boy ceremonial/secret satanic ritual (opinions differ) from a distance and with a shaky, grainy result, and reached conclusions completely unsupported by any evidence he presents. He does that a lot.

Tangentially, 2002 was the first year the protest was called "The Fat Cats Festival & Parade". The Monte Rio Chamber of Commerce went into a tizzy, they thought we were going to make money, and because we insisted on our right to assemble, didn't apply for a permit, they weren't going to get a cut!? They couldn't wrap their commercially oriented brains around the fact that Festival & Parade, just sounds more fun than a boring March & Rally. That renaming was my move by the way.

Back to Mr. Jones. Some seven or so years ago, I spent five or six hours reading local Austin chat that had been archived online, about him. From his fans, those just seeking information and his critics. It's an interesting read. Plenty of other resources online, pro, con and descriptive.

I just reviewed the top hits on google for criticism of Alex Jones. It is interesting to me that all of them are from other fringe positions. No mainstream or establishment sources jump out. And his wiki has clearly been scrubbed of most direct criticism.

I suspect the former is testimony of his fringe irrelevancy, an approach of, "ignore him and he'll go away". And the latter is evidence of his many fans and little media empire which has the resources to cover for him and promote him.

The most neutral criticisms I could find were on a gaming site! The Escapist. Sometimes the irony is so strong it just slaps you in the face.

This search (https://www.google.com/search?q=Alex+Jones+is+a+big+fat+lying+wackjob&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a) pulled up more diversity.

[pbrinton]

Here is a well-balanced article from a reputable source debunking the scare tactics about ACTA. They make the point that it is a bad agreement, but not for the reasons being bandied about, and not to anything like the extent alleged.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/internet-awash-in-inaccurate-anti-acta-arguments.ars

Patrick Brinton