Obama Administration: Shield Law Should Only Protect Journalists If We Don't Care About The Story

Fri, Mar 13th 2009 6:11pm

Filed Under:
acta, copyright, national security, secrecy, state secrets, sunlight, trade agreements

48 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Obama Administration Claims Copyright Treaty Involves State Secrets?!?

from the openness,-transparency dept

Plenty of folks are quite concerned about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations are being negotiated in secret. This is a treaty that (from the documents that have leaked so far) is quite troubling. It likely will effectively require various countries, including the US, to update copyright laws in a draconian manner. Furthermore, the negotiators have met with entertainment industry representatives multiple times, and there are indications that those representatives have contributed language and ideas to the treaty. But, the public? The folks actually impacted by all of this? We've been kept in the dark, despite repeated requests for more information. So far, the response from the government had been "sorry, we always negotiate these things in secret, so we'll keep doing so." At one point, even the ACTA negotiators held a closed-door meeting and then released a press release saying they discussed being more transparent, but haven't actually followed through.

When the Obama administration took over, there was a public stance that this administration was going to be more transparent -- especially with regards to things like Freedom of Information Act requests. The nonprofit group Knowledge Ecology International took that to heart and filed an FOIA request to get more info on ACTA. The US Trade Representative's Office responded denying the request, saying that the information was "classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958." This is a treaty about changing copyright law, not sending missiles somewhere. To claim that it's a national security matter is just downright scary. As KEI points out, the text of the documents requested have been available to tons of people, including more than 30 governments around the world and lobbyists from the entertainment industry, pharma industry and publishing industry.

But when the public asks for them, we're told they're state secrets? This is transparency? This is openness?

As Declan McCullagh points out at News.com, Executive Order 12958 only allows material to be classified if revealing it would do "damage to the national security and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage." Can the US Trade Representative please describe the damage to national security if the public gets to see what's being proposed that would require governments around the country to enact significantly more draconian intellectual property laws?

News You Could Do Without

Wed, Feb 6th 2008 2:18am

Filed Under:
antigua, canada, classified info, eu, japan, national security, online gambling, us

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Online Gambling Deals Between US And Other Countries Are A Matter Of National Security?

from the seriously? dept

Remember back in December, the EU, Canada and Japan suddenly agreed not to side with Antigua in the longstanding dispute over the US's online gambling ban violating free trade agreements? It was pretty clear that the US had cut some sort of deal with these countries (who had previously indicated they would side with Antigua). In order to understand what happened, a freelance writer named Ed Brayton filed a Freedom of Information Act request to get the actual agreement between the countries. And, as The Agitator points out, the US Trade Representative has denied the request, claiming that the agreement is classified, as it's a matter of national security. Yes. The US gov't is actually claiming that an agreement over online gambling between two countries is a matter of national security. Perhaps this really shouldn't be such a huge surprise. Remember, the law that was passed to ban online gambling was hidden as part of a law to protect our ports. Clearly, the EU, Canada and Japan had to side with the US against Antigua to protect our ports.

Say That Again

Thu, Oct 18th 2007 7:30am

Filed Under:
congress, identity theft, national security, p2p

Companies:
congress, riaa

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Congress: P2P Promotes Identity Theft! We Need New Laws!

from the maybe-one-of-these-will-stick dept

It would appear that the entertainment industry's friends in Congress are now trying to blame just about anything evil online on P2P technology. A few months ago, a group of representatives started saying that P2P technology had to be regulated because it was a national security threat. The reasoning behind this? Because some idiot gov't employees ignored policies forbidding the use of unauthorized 3rd party apps (or putting sensitive data on home computers) and misconfigured P2P apps... ending up in secure documents being available for download. In other words, even though the real fault was stupid gov't employees ignoring policies and misusing the technology... it was the technology's fault.

Apparently, that argument didn't generate enough support for a new law against P2P technology. So now the exact same group of Congressional Representatives is claiming that P2P technology is evil and must be stopped... because it promotes identity theft. The politicians (many of whom just so happen to come from places where large entertainment firms are based... though, we're sure that's a coincidence) are clearly trying to come up with an excuse (any excuse) to come up with new laws against P2P systems. Today's action involved asking the FTC to investigate this perceived threat from P2P systems and also asked whether the FTC felt it had enough enforcement powers to address this problem, or if it needed help from Congress. In other words, the well-choreographed dance has begun. We'll soon see legislation introduced to crack down on file sharing systems, officially in the name of stopping identity theft, but really thanks to campaign contributions from the entertainment industry who still hasn't realized that it's harming itself. The more they do this, the more real innovation will move elsewhere.

(Mis)Uses of Technology

Tue, Sep 18th 2007 7:45am

Filed Under:
congress, file sharing, national security, p2p

Companies:
limewire

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

No Wonder The Feds Hate Limewire; Terrorist Threat Assessment Leaked Via Limewire

from the so-that-explains-it dept

A few months back, we were a bit surprised at the misplaced anger directed by some Congressional representatives towards file sharing software provider Limewire. There were some outrageous claims about how Limewire represented a threat to national security and how it was all Limewire's fault that stupid government employees had leaked sensitive information. Of course, this was misplaced because it wasn't Limewire's fault that gov't employees were too stupid to configure the software properly. It wasn't Limewire's fault that gov't employees didn't follow rules that forbid them from installing unapproved apps on their machines -- or on transferring sensitive material to personal computers. Instead, it was all blamed on Limewire. It also wasn't entirely clear what sensitive reports had been leaked... but now we know of at least one. Apparently a national security terrorist threat assessment for the city of Chicago was recently available via Limewire. Though, again, the questions shouldn't be about Limewire, but what gov't employee would (a) have Limewire and classified info on the same computer and (b) configure Limewire to allow that classified info to be shared.

Say That Again

Tue, Aug 14th 2007 10:35am

Filed Under:
congress, file sharing, national security, p2p, wesley clark

Companies:
tiversa

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Mixing Business With Gov't Stupidity: General Clark Tells Congress Why It Should Regulate P2P (And Make Him Richer)

from the all-about-the-money dept

Remember the ridiculous story last month about how some clueless politicians were blaming the fact that some government employees were breaking rules and too stupid to understand how P2P software worked that P2P software needed to be regulated for the good of national security? It turns out that there's even more to this story. Congress called in a "star witness," in former presidential candidate General Wesley Clark, who took the position that P2P must be regulated: "If you saw the scope of the risk, I think you'd agree that it's just totally unacceptable. The American people would be outraged if they were aware of what's inadvertently shared by government agencies on P2P networks. They would demand solutions." And what kind of solutions would those be? Apparently, the kind whereby the gov't regulates P2P providers and requires they build in security. And what kind of security would that be? Why, perhaps the kind of security supplied by a company advised by the very same General Wesley Clark. We won't even bother to name the company here, because it doesn't need any additional free publicity, but its website is full of scary statements about how P2P software is threatening national security.

Legal Issues

Wed, Jul 25th 2007 6:37am

Filed Under:
congress, file sharing, national security, p2p