Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Obama Signs a Global Internet Treaty Worse Than S.O.P.A. / P.I.P.A.

Posted 11 years ago on Jan. 26, 2012, 9:10 a.m. EST by OccupyReality66 (16)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

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.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 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 yesterday in protest against the treaty, which was also the subject of demonstrations across major cities in Poland, 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, 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.

“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.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

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 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), there is a very real Constitutional question 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. 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 be forced to ratify the treaty.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 11 years ago

thanks trevor. too bad for the article writer, all executive orders and int'l agreements entered into on behalf of the USA must be published in the federal register as per law, unless classified. i assume this wasn't classified.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 11 years ago

Yes we are in for some rough times.

[-] 2 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 11 years ago

Weird i posted this a few minutes ago and it would not post. You must have beat me to it.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8708) 11 years ago

Don't worry, you'll both still get paid.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 11 years ago

suck an egg. I am sorry you must read reality about your love Obama. Face it he is a criminal.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 11 years ago

When it comes to war he's violated the constitution and has committed about the same amount of war crimes as GWB. It's just the facts. Also the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq had more to do with the end of the war in Iraq than Obama. Is it just me or is big oil still getting their way as much under Obama as they did under GWB? And why is Halliburton still getting massive no-bid contracts under the Obama administration? When it comes to war, Obama is just better at framing his sentences to make it sound good. Only 3 years for a "dumb war" to end. Great fucking job. After the troops left big oil stayed.

Obama has worked harder for the Military Industrial Complex and Wall Street than he ever has for Main Street. If all the democrats were as smart as they like to claim to be they would have voted for Dennis Kucnich in the primaries instead of Barry O. But big media and the lobbyists loved Obama more so like every election that's who won.

[-] 2 points by OccupyReality66 (16) 11 years ago

and some refuse to believe it.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 11 years ago

I agree Bush and Obama are just more NWO puppets.

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 11 years ago

Well, I hate to tell you that Obama will win in November sigh, because the republicans right now look like a bunch of monkeys fuckin' a football. A dog catcher could beat Obama, and the repubs are clueless at how to strike Obama a fatal blow.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago

the republican's on the opposite team ?

the show is the teams fighting

not the government getting anything done that their corporate sponsors might oppose

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 11 years ago

One party system

[-] 1 points by andresbity (1) 11 years ago

They probably had this in place for a long time, knowing full well that there would be a public outcry. So they passed this one under the radar while everyone was focused on SOPA and PIPA.

[-] 1 points by OccupyReality66 (16) 11 years ago

Something like that.

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 11 years ago

RT (Russian Times) is the only network even mentioning this story. It takes a communist country to point out our communist leaders (BOTH SIDES)

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 11 years ago

RT is one of the best news sources IMO. It would be great if some how RT replaced fox or cnn.

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 11 years ago

RT as a news source... meh i'm not sure. I've watched it a lot, and they lean as far to the left as MSNBC sometimes. If Chaz Bono and Rachel Maddow raised a kid, it would be RT.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 11 years ago

Yes but that is why they are good they ignore the left right boundary. Remember people consider them far right sometime as well.

[-] 1 points by mediaauditr (-88) 11 years ago

It scares me how much people are influenced by MSNBC. My older brother gets most of his national news there, and he believes most of it hook line and sinker. I believe it's easier for more American's to pursue a liberal mentality because it 'feels good' to be nice. When really, following that ideal destroys freedoms.

[-] 1 points by BannedForTruth (233) from Christiana, TN 11 years ago

I have had a few people tell me that freedom is dangerous. To that all i can say is not nearly as dangerous as not having freedom.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago

liberal means "of the people"

please specify

[-] 0 points by mediaauditr (-88) 11 years ago

liberal, progressive, believing you should give up rights, or put up with regulations by the government in order for the illusion of additional peace, safety and the welfare of others.

Do you believe that giving a single mom additional welfare for each baby she bears does not enable her to continue her destructive pattern?

I do believe in helping the mentally handicap, those who have physical disabilities, but people who choose laziness and sloth over productivity should not get tax payers money. Our welfare state rewards the lazy, not the needy.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago

I don't know any "progressive" that want people to give up their rights

a military bill just passed congress that allows

detention of people without disclosure to the public but it is not public

that law definitely ask the public to give up their rights