Yesterday at 11:55 pm by 
Obama Signs Global Internet Treaty Worse Than SOPA
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/obama-signs-global-internet-treaty.html#more
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
Prison Planet
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.
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.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.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.
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/obama-signs-global-internet-treaty.html#more
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 WatsonPrison Planet
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.
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.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.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.
