by tomorrow, mostly all of you will be breaking the law.

[QuantumT]

It won't be strong. ISP's like you. The ones that don't rat you out are the ones with the business. This isn't as big of a deal as I previously thought.

If I read the document correctly, ISPs lose their choice in the matter. They're simply forced to rat you out if some rights holder claims you're infringing on your copyright.

This is what they were always supposed to be doing. Besides, even if it DOES matter, give it a month, once the public finds out, it'll be removed.

Let me clarify. ISPs are forced to give you up, not when a warrant is issued, but when some rights holder claims you've violated their copyright.

Besides, unless any of you went out to start a petition, you can't *****.

I have already written both of my senators (who have to vote to pass the treaty), and I recommend everyone else do the same. For anyone who wants to do something but is lazy, I found an easy form letter that you can fill out.

Easy senator letter [https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=383]

It's an easy letter to fill out that will email your senators (who have to vote to ratify any treaty) about your concerns with ACTA. It literally takes less than two minutes to fill out.

 

[oranger]

Those of who here that are freaked out, here's what penn and teller have to say on Big Brother:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaTe8PW9PVw

Hahahaha I just watched that...wow, that's soooo messed up, why do people still live there?
I guess its their home or some silly attachment like that?

 

[oranger]

Anyway, say this goes down the way we all are afraid it will:
wtf do we do? anyone have any ideas? subscribe to TOR?

 

[AstylahAthrys]

Well, good. Hopefully this passes, And the filthy thieves who are going to be penalized buy it will learn their lesson.

*facepalm* Have you not read a post in this thread? It's not just about piracy, it's about privacy and invasion of our personal rights and that the Government could be potentially invading those rights with the ACTA, and that the things that can be illegal to own are things that are impossible to avoid in the way the treaty describes it.

However, I don't think it will pass in America in light of the EU vote. If it does, I am moving to Europe.

Yeah, I know. I'm as butt-diddled as everyone if this passes. Kinda wanted to see what would happen if I posted that.

Then you, my good sir, just trolled me. Well done. *tips hat*

 

[Gyrefalcon]

Um, Bush was demanding to be given access to everyone's private information when he was in office.

He had legal access since late 2001. It's called the Patriot Act, and it makes the ACTA look Peewee's Playhouse in comparison when it comes to violating the Constitution.
All he had to do was send a notice to your local district judge notifying him that the Dept of Homeland Security was going to take you into custody.
After that, they can legally do anything they fucking want to you. They can hold you indefinitely, interrogate you, seize/freeze your financial holdings. Anything. No due process.

Yes that's true, we usually discuss it with the Salem witch trials. All they had to do was say you were a witch and they could seize your lands and properties and torture you. Now they call you a terrorist and you get the same thing. I forgave them for signing the first bill in during a period of duress. But the Patriot Act 2 has NO excuse for existing. It is in direct violation of our privacy laws. Sigh.

 

[MisterShine]

More than that my friend, see since the ACTA is a treaty it isn't given the scrutiny of a law, meaning it doesn't need passed by anyone at all, Obama signs and it's over, no one in our government looks at it, and it gives companies the right to invade your home because you typed "torrent" into a search bar and then seize your computer, look for any evidence of piracy and arrest you for anything else you may have used it for. It's ass, and it must be crushed.

I posted this a damn page ago..

Before you keep spouting off the same crap, read about how treaties work in our government [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause].

Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution.

The blatant privacy and civil rights violations that keep getting cried about here are unconstitutional, as has been decided like 100 times by now. Only by amending the constitution can they get away with something like this. These supposed clauses of the treaty (which we have not seen the actual treaty yet, btw) cannot be made law. Chill out.

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

Personally I see this as an invasion of human rights, privacy, and free speech. At the same time, whenever I think of this, my thoughts wander towards George Orwell's book "1984" yet the "big brother" in my mind isn't the government, but the business's that already rule over our world and invariably make things worse so that they can become richer.

you do realise that 1984 was about how capitilism is a good thing and that the anti-capitilistic government only wanted power right?

No, no it wasn't. It was Orwell's take on the disillusionment he felt after the Spanish Civil War and the way he saw totalitarian societies.
The fascists and the communists.
Orwell was a socialist. But during his experiences in Spain he noticed how the bastard Stalinists betrayed the anarchists and socialists.
He observed how Nazism and Stalnism went and then basically put a more successful version of it in his book.
-Authoritarian leaders
-Rile up fear at others (Goldstein the Jewish guy, as both the Russian and German governments had a huge amount of anti-semitism).
-The anti-capitalist rhetoric was common among Nazis, despite them being on the far right, because fascism was seen as a third way (which basically amounted to corporatism). And Stalinists were communists, so duh they're anti-capitalist.

He supported the anarcho-socialists and the democratic socialists and witnessed the success of the anarcho-syndicalist communities in Spain. But they were betrayed by the Soviet Union's sponsored Communists.
Among statements Orwell made during his life:
"a real Socialist is one who wishes ? not merely conceives it as desirable, but actively wishes ? to see tyranny overthrown"
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."
Orwell proposed a federal socialist Europe (C&P): http://web.archive.org/web/20070302220612/http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/europe/Orwell-Toward+European+Unity.html

In summary, Orwell did show that most anti-capitalist movements just end up being authoritarian governments who want power, however he said nothing of capitalism being good. He just criticized authoritarianism and the hypocrisy of the Stalinists and their "revolution". He despised capital C communists, but he didn't have a raging boner for capitalism either.

 

[QuantumT]

The blatant privacy and civil rights violations that keep getting cried about here are unconstitutional, as has been decided like 100 times by now. Only by amending the constitution can they get away with something like this. These supposed clauses of the treaty (which we have not seen the actual treaty yet, btw) cannot be made law. Chill out.

Why won't they let us see the damn thing? And why doesn't anyone else see it as a problem?

 

[oranger]

Anyway, say this goes down the way we all are afraid it will:
wtf do we do? anyone have any ideas? subscribe to TOR?

I'm in favor of a revolution, we could all get together and buy Mexico (the place sucks, couldn't cost that much) then establish a new government there that doesn't suck ass. Then in only a few years we could make the place awesome. I've already got an idea to tax drug runners that would bring in so much income, fixing the place up would be easy and it would create a shit load of jobs, which would attract contractors from the USA.

Well, I dunno about buying mexico, but there are huge tracts of land available in south america and africa, both of whom might be amenable to the idea of people setting up a semi-independant protectorate with slightly different laws etc...
Or hell, get enough people and we could just do it anyways, and be mobile. The local gov't tells us to leave, we set up camp 100 km's away.

 

[Harn]

The blatant privacy and civil rights violations that keep getting cried about here are unconstitutional, as has been decided like 100 times by now. Only by amending the constitution can they get away with something like this. These supposed clauses of the treaty (which we have not seen the actual treaty yet, btw) cannot be made law. Chill out.

Why won't they let us see the damn thing? And why doesn't anyone else see it as a problem?

They don't want people to know about it because if what they're trying to do became widely known, it would be nigh impossible to pass, as there would be a huge public outcry. By sneaking it through like this, they're trying to get it passed so that by the time the public finds out, it will be too late to do anything about it.

 

[Jodah]

To quote Bender B. Rodriguez : We're "DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO *commercial break* OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED."

This, my friends, is why I hate Government and society in general. If only I could find a truly Libertarian society to join.

 

[QuantumT]

The blatant privacy and civil rights violations that keep getting cried about here are unconstitutional, as has been decided like 100 times by now. Only by amending the constitution can they get away with something like this. These supposed clauses of the treaty (which we have not seen the actual treaty yet, btw) cannot be made law. Chill out.

Why won't they let us see the damn thing? And why doesn't anyone else see it as a problem?

They don't want people to know about it because if what they're trying to do became widely known, it would be nigh impossible to pass, as there would be a huge public outcry. By sneaking it through like this, they're trying to get it passed so that by the time the public finds out, it will be too late to do anything about it.

The first question was mostly rhetorical. What really concerns me is the second one.

 

[MisterShine]

Why won't they let us see the damn thing? And why doesn't anyone else see it as a problem?

Because when delegate A says something like:

A. "Hey, maybe we could try having ISPs check out what people are downloading? I mean, just ask them nicely?", then one of the other delegates would say
B. "Are you nuts? People would take that as we're trying to rip all their rights away and make them live in cubicles and eat peanuts",
A. "Ah yeah, people would take that wrong, wouldn't they? Ah well, next idea.."


once someone read the transcript of that, people from A's country would go absolutely apeshit (see this 11 page thread) and get him sacked. To get big ideas and real changes, they need some anonymity during the process. Now, passing this treaty without putting it before the congress and the American people.. that will be some bullshit, but I think politicians are smarter than that. If this posed a serious violation to civil liberties, A. it would be unconstitutional, B. a swell of people 30 times bigger than the tea party movement would rise up and show them we don't fuck around with our bill of rights. Please everyone remember, we do live in a democracy. We can vote for change, or just do it ourselves. Chill out

edit:

They don't want people to know about it because if what they're trying to do became widely known, it would be nigh impossible to pass, as there would be a huge public outcry. By sneaking it through like this, they're trying to get it passed so that by the time the public finds out, it will be too late to do anything about it.

This is just silly. We live in a democracy. There is no such thing as "too late". Laws can be repealed or unconstitutional at ANY time.

 

[3dfx]

No need to panic until it get's passed. Then it's time to invest in an out of country VPN.

 

[Harn]

edit:

They don't want people to know about it because if what they're trying to do became widely known, it would be nigh impossible to pass, as there would be a huge public outcry. By sneaking it through like this, they're trying to get it passed so that by the time the public finds out, it will be too late to do anything about it.

This is just silly. We live in a democracy. There is no such thing as "too late". Laws can be repealed or unconstitutional at ANY time.

True enough I suppose, though from what I've seen of the general public, they tend to be a bit too apathetic about things like this, hence why some other stupid laws are still in existence, they would much rather sit back and let things be than rally and change things.

As well, It would be much better if the public banded together and simply prevented this form getting passed in the first place, if it gets passed and then repealed, that's just more taxpayer money wasted on something that should never have even been considered in the first place.

 

[QuantumT]

snip

It's not exactly "asking nicely" for ISPs to check what people are downloading. It forces them to do so. And not with a warrant but at the request of a copyright holder.

Also, it's not really a good idea to wait for it to pass and then try and go change it again later. Things like that are ridiculously hard to undo even if a large group of people want it to be (see Patriot Act).

On the lighter side, if this passes, some ISP could make huge money by finding a way to externally mask your IP address (might be enough just to bounce it all over the planet) along with keeping incredibly minimal records (basically who you are and your CC#). There would be no way to track from outside the ISP, and by not keeping any internal records, they would lack the ability to rat people out. They could market themselves as the only private ISP.