It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

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


blog.wired.com

President Barack Obama came into office in January promising a new era of openness. In his first days in office, Obama claimed "transparency," instructing agencies to divulge information under the Freedom of Information Act. But now, Obama is using 'national security' to hide details of the global Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The White House this week declared the proposed treaty a national security secret, in rejecting Freedom of Information Act requests.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
blog.wired.com




posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
The White House this week declared the text of the proposed treaty a national security secret, in rejecting a Freedom of Information Act request by Knowledge Ecology International.


There's been speculation for months concerning the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. If ratified, many suggest it would criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing, subject iPods to border searches and allow internet service providers to monitor their customers' communications.

Yet all we know for certain is it's a treaty about beefing up intellectual property protections being negotiated in secret by the European Union, the United Sates, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge are two public interest groups leaving no stone unturned when it comes to trying to uncover details about the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

Details of the proposed multicountry accord are sketchy at best. Speculation is running rampant that, if ratified, the agreement might criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing, subject iPods to border searches and allow internet service providers to monitor their customers' communications.

Does any citizen of the involved countries believe for a second that this internet killer bill has anything at all to do with national security?

This is the broadcast media's chance to roll the clock back on the internet before they lose complete control over your sources of information, right when everyone is distracted by the world economy meltdown.


blog.wired.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


+11 more 
posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Are you gullible liberals ready to admit that this is not a Republican/Democrat thing yet? Are you ready to concede that it is an US/THEM issue? Your boy, Mr. Hope and Change, Mr. promise of transparency, has aborted just about every fundamental campaign promise he made. Are you ready to drop the Democrat/Republican charade and join the rest of us true AMERICANS in taking our country back???



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


So you're calling for unity and for people to be above partisan politics by making divisive and insulting statements? Gullible liberals? Not true Americans?

Good job speaking against the Democrat/Republican charade...



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by converge

Partisanship aside, how do you explain calling a "TREATY" a National Security secret?

This could spell the end of, and certainly will restrict, peer to peer sharing and perhaps even more widespread internet applications.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
Partisanship aside



In October 2007 the United States, the European Community, Switzerland and Japan announced that they would negotiate ACTA. ...

The University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic filed an access to information request but received only a document stating the title of the agreement, with everything else blacked out. ...

In November 2008, FFII requested secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) documents from the EU Council, specifically naming 12 documents to be published. The request was denied by the EU council, stating that "disclosure of this information could impede the proper conduct of the negotiations, would weaken the position of the European Union in these negotiations and might affect relations with the third parties concerned" source


Partisanship aside what does this have to do with Obama or liberals in particular?

I agree with kozmo's overall point of his post that this is beyond Democrats and Republicans (or even the United States), but why blame Obama or even bad-mouth liberals? Where's the reason in that?

Not to mention that it is extremely hypocritical to do it while calling out for unity and post-partisanship mentality.




how do you explain calling a "TREATY" a National Security secret?


I don't know the motives and apparently no one does either, but it seems all the parties involved have labeled it a national security secret of some sort and have done so before Obama was even in office.

I'm not against speaking out against this agreement, I was against kozmo's partisan blaming.


The response to this group's FOIA request was, specifically that the "information [that] is properly classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958".

That Executive Order was amended (by EO 13292) in 2003 by President Bush to make it easier to classify information and keep it classified.

Since the ACTA negotiations precede the Obama administration, most likely the documents were classified by the Bush Administration.




deny ignorance


Yes, let's.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge

The response to this group's FOIA request was, specifically that the "information [that] is properly classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958".

That Executive Order was amended (by EO 13292) in 2003 by President Bush to make it easier to classify information and keep it classified.

Since the ACTA negotiations precede the Obama administration, most likely the documents were classified by the Bush Administration.


Since BHO saw fit to de-classify and release several Bush admin. memos, there is no reason he couldn't do the same on this potentially harmful issue.

Where's the "transparency?"

This makes it Obama's issue now and it makes him more of a liar than he's already proven himself to be, party affiliation aside.

DENY IGNORANCE!

jw






















deny ignorance


Yes, let's.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I still don't see why liberals assumed he would be for transparency. I never assumed that he would bring about transparency. I just assumed that he probably won't bring about new wars- at least he won't be as war-mongerish as Bush.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Well there goes the internet. The fun, informative, communication hub will now become the cesspool of government control. No more of passing information freely where we can deny ignorance, it will all be censored, scrubbed and monitored.

The internet as we know it is dieing. It is dieing through government control and legislation. I guess those who feel they know what is best for us are afraid of us thinking for ourselves and are creating this as away to track down those who would be those who remove the veil of ignorance from people and dub them a danger to society as is already being reported on Alex Jones' website(www.prisonplanet.com) Check out the thread here about it.

1984 and our worse nightmares of big brother may be coming true.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
Since BHO saw fit to de-classify and release several Bush admin. memos, there is no reason he couldn't do the same on this potentially harmful issue.


The title of the thread is not not "Obama refuses to declassify ACTA documents" but "Obama Administration Declares Proposed IP Treaty a 'National Security' Secret".

I pointed out that Obama most likely didn't classify these documents considering the initial dates of the ACTA negotiations.

I'm sure Obama can (and should) declassify them, but the thread title's and some subsequent posts are insinuating that it was Obama who classified them.




DENY IGNORANCE!


Trying typing that in bold next time, maybe you'll feel even more self-righteous.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by converge

I pointed out that Obama most likely didn't classify these documents considering the initial dates of the ACTA negotiations.

I'm sure Obama can (and should) declassify them, but the thread title's and some subsequent posts are insinuating that it was Obama who classified them.


ATS members who actually read linked sources and cited documents would know better than to post self-righteous blather.


The subject article, if read, reveals:


The White House this week (specifically, Mar. 10, 2009) declared (www.keionline.org... (pdf link)) the text of the proposed treaty a "properly classified" national security secret, in rejecting a Freedom of Information Act request by Knowledge Ecology International.


(Parenthetical, emphasis, and url link to pdf of "March 10, 2009 DECLARATION" added, but most likely ignored or unable to be followed and read)

Or, if someone read it to them, they would see that:


"Please be advised the documents you seek are being withheld in full (as a properly declared National Security Secret)," wrote Carmen Suro-Bredie, chief FOIA officer in the White House's Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.


(parenthetical added)

Source:blog.wired.com...

Deny Ignorance. Please.


jw



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
Or, if someone read it to them, they would see that:


"Please be advised the documents you seek are being withheld in full (as a properly declared National Security Secret)," wrote Carmen Suro-Bredie, chief FOIA officer in the White House's Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.


Source:blog.wired.com...



It's interesting that you'd stop there. Just two paragraphs down on that very same article:


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


The Bush Administration's response to the FOIA request reads:


January 16, 2009

This is our final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request of June 11, 2008, as amended by your fax of July 24, 2008, in which you sought certain records concerning the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). ...

In addition, 580 pages are being withheld in full pursuant to Exemption 1 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(l), as well as to Exemption 5. Exemption 1 pertains to information that is properly classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12,958, as amended. Exemption 5 pertains to certain inter- and intra-agency communications protected by the deliberative process and attorney-client privileges





Deny Ignorance. Please.


You're welcome.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge

It's interesting that you'd stop there. Just two paragraphs down on that very same article:


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

Stopped there, because the point here is that "Transparency" Obama is a sham.

He can de-classify just as he did with Gitmo memos.

He didn't.

He's not "Change." He's not "Hope."

He's a fraud and a socialist liar.

He had an opportunity for "transparency" and thumbed his nose at it.

Get the point now?

jw



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Details of the proposed multicountry accord are sketchy at best. Speculation is running rampant that, if ratified, the agreement might criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing, subject iPods to border searches and allow internet service providers to monitor their customers' communications.


If the peer-2-peer part is true than nearly every 18-24 year old in the nation will likely be behind bars or paying exorbitant fines. I can't think of a single person I know who hasn't downloaded at least a few songs from a free peer-to-peer site. Government agencies likely already monitor email and other internet activities but getting the ISP to do it for them might be easier.

Either way it seems hypocritical of Obama to go back on his supposed "transparency" policy, I wonder who is pulling his puppet strings to make him do this. Seems kinda wrong for THE PEOPLE who are meant to be the actual rulers in this country to not be allowed the see this but then again when was the last time THE PEOPLE were in power. The people are too divided, too busy with the economic crisis, and too dumbed-down to understand the power they have been robbed of (and need to take back).



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
It is time to face facts. The Internet as we know it is coming to an end. It was fun while it lasted but in the near future it will all change. I can see it now. You will need a password and ID for EVERY web site and you may even have to wait for background checks to get a password and ID. The number of sites will drop to a mere fraction of what they are now. And ALL files you send or receive will have to be cleared before you and send them or receive them. Every the picture of your kid's party will take days to get cleared before it gets to grandmama. It could take a week for your email to get across town. And I am sure I can not dream up just how bad it will become or when it will get that way but it is coming.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
If the peer-2-peer part is true than nearly every 18-24 year old in the nation will likely be behind bars or paying exorbitant fines. I can't think of a single person I know who hasn't downloaded at least a few songs from a free peer-to-peer site. Government agencies likely already monitor email and other internet activities but getting the ISP to do it for them might be easier.


They're already prosecuting. Have been. The guy who downloaded and shared 9 tracks of the last Guns N Roses recording is looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and time in prison determined by the final count of how much the publisher and US atty. can verify in lost sales.


Either way it seems hypocritical of Obama to go back on his supposed "transparency" policy, I wonder who is pulling his puppet strings to make him do this.


The only people who should be duisappointed are the ones who believed him in the first place. Many tried to point out the falsehoods before the gen'l election, but the MSM and "hysteria" determined how far that got.

Too late for all of us now.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by fixer1967
It is time to face facts. The Internet as we know it is coming to an end. It was fun while it lasted but in the near future it will all change. I can see it now. You will need a password and ID for EVERY web site and you may even have to wait for background checks to get a password and ID.

Not sure if it will be as bad as that, but I can see the day when everyone will use a unique "user ID" so they can be more easily tracked.

Might as well have "the mark of the beast," if you know what I mean. You want to participate, you've got to have 'the mark.'

Maybe that's the reason for the secrecy and a 'national security' issue until it's unleashed.

My guess is there'll be 'pirate' 'nets or webs just as there have developed pirate radio stations. That's where I'll be.
deny ignorance

jw



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
They're afraid of what would happen if the public knew any of the details. There would definitely be riots and a large proportion of the people in this country, I'm pretty sure, would boycott all record sales.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


There's been alot of hubub lately about some internet providers already monitoring some domestic and international internet traffic..
AT&T is currently facing a big lawsuit because of their questionable/illegal internet monitoring.

See the story on this here:
www.ufodigest.com...

More on questionable/illegal AT&T internet monitoring here:


I'm not sure how many of you know about this Gem.. But this Alex Jones story is from 2005...
GOVERNMENT AND COMPUTER MANUFACTURERS CAUGHT INSTALLING HARD-WIRED KEYSTROKE LOGGERS INTO ALL NEW LAPTOP COMPUTERS!

Don't know if that is still going on either. I haven't heard anything though since this came out.

Also, I'm not sure if you guys have read the thread about Norton recently including pifts.exe in one of it's liveupdates . The story kind of developed/evolved over time and for a while people were really going nuts trying to figure out why not only they would try to slip in questionable programs in a software update but why they would fend off any questions regarding it just after its big release.

That thread is here:
Tech Fears Arise Over Norton and Pifts.exe

After Norton came out with a story saying that it was all a big misunderstanding most people just chose to ignore the whole thing. But alot of questions still remain and we haven't received explanations for alot of what happened that day..

It is actually still quite a controversial topic.. And we still don't have all the answers.. In short, it seems that this sub-program was designed to send them information regarding your personal internet activity and other personal information. For whatever reason, it seemed to be doing something with temporary internet files, browsing history, and google and we know it was designed to send them information because they later said it was. I am not a computer expert but you can read the first couple pages of posts and see that there really was something going on.

For a while after this story broke/leaked Norton seemed to try its best to delete legitimate posts asking about the mysterious pifts.exe and anyone who called trying to find answers was given the run-around.. You can read all the personal stories and accounts in the thread, but it would really make sense in a way. Slipping in secretive code and programs like this with some of the most widely disseminated software out there (anti-virus and anti-spyware) would seem almost a no-brainer for organisations like the NSA..

-ChriS



[edit on 16-3-2009 by BlasteR]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
If it does pass not only would there be a lot of people in prison.Hardly anyone would be left online because almost everyone would be banned.But how long would you be banned by your isp?Would it be a three strikes kinda thing or banned for a year each time.



new topics




 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join