TPP signed: the ‘biggest global threat to the internet’ agreed

[Turborama]

Source: The Independent

TPP signed: the ‘biggest global threat to the internet’ agreed, as campaigners warn that secret pact could bring huge new restrictions to the internet

An agreement that some campaigners have called the “biggest global threat to the internet” has just been signed, potentially bringing huge new restrictions on what people can do with their computers.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the conclusion of five years of negotiations, and will cover 40 per cent of the world’s economy. Its claimed purpose is to create a unified economic bloc so that companies and businesses can trade more easily — but it also puts many of the central principle of the internet in doubt, according to campaigners.

One particularly controversial part of the provisions make it a crime to reveal corporate wrongdoing "through a computer system". Experts have pointed out that the wording is very vague, and could lead to whistleblowers being penalised for sharing important information, and lead to journalists stopping reporting on them.

Others require that online content providers — such as YouTube and Facebook — must take down content if they receive just one complaint, as they are in the US. That will be harmful for startups looking to build such businesses since they'll be required to have the resources to respond to every complaint, experts have pointed out.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/tpp-signed-the-biggest-global-threat-to-the-internet-agreed-as-campaigners-warn-that-secret-pact-a6680321.html

[yallerdawg]

1. Fear mongering the uninformed.

One particularly controversial part of the provisions make it a crime to reveal corporate wrongdoing "through a computer system".

Seriously? We are to believe this is a thing?



Oh, let the games begin!

[Kelvin Mace]

3. As someone who personally had the DMCA's

"Take down" provision abused repeatedly when working on exposing Diebold's shoddy voting machines 10+ years ago, I am quite wary of vaguely written laws.

We live in a country that has held that the question of actual innocence is not a reason to not execute someone. Over a decade later, it was also decided that acts of torture were no longer torture, and summary execution of American citizens without judicial review was legal.

The law is not what the law says, it is what the people enforcing it say it says.

[turbinetree]

2. If I post this according to this "DEAL" what happens........it has now been signed.................

Honk-----------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[fasttense]

4. So many people are against this, yet the agreement is still being pushed through by

A Democratic president. It makes me ill to see Obama pandering to the oligarchs.

So much for democracy - one man - one vote. 62% of Americans are against passing the TPP and yet it is still being shoved down our throats. If the majority of voters are against the TPP, in a democracy, it would NOT pass. But it will pass in an oligarchy.

Capitalism gone crazy. We need a more democratic economic system so we can have a more democratic political system.

[villager]

28. "Democratic" is only in quotes. Our President is a Rockefeller Republican.

Agreeable on some social issues. But a true corporatist, through and through.

[pampango]

45. The figures I see are that most Democrats are for it, in principle, while most republicans oppose it

All that may change as the specifics come out in the coming months.

Democratic support for both treaties is stronger than that of Republicans: ... 59% of Democrats look favorably on TPP compared with 49% of Republicans.

It would seem that Democratic primary voters would be more likely (45% to 19%) to vote for a candidate who favored "expand trade agreements", while republican oppose the idea.

So much for democracy - one man - one vote. 62% of Americans are against passing the TPP and yet it is still being shoved down our throats.

Where did the 62% figure come from? Was is from this poll on 'fast track'?

While opposition is relatively uniform both geographically and demographically, the survey data reveals a sharp partisan divide on the issue. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose giving fast-track authority to the president (8% in favor, 87% opposed), as do independents (20%-66%), while a narrow majority (52%) of Democrats are in favor (35% opposed).

http://fasttrackpoll.info/

[fasttense]

49. Yes I was looking at the latest polls and unfortunately they are mostly about fast track

Yes, older polls show people cheering for "free" trade agreements. It was merely because Americans have been sold a load of BS ever since the Raygun administration. That's a lot of BS to filter out about bogus "free" trade agreements. Even I thought NAFTA was OK until I saw what has happened to our economy.

If the direct question is asked and details, like the extra special court for corporations ONLY, are revealed most Americans are against the ridiculous free trade give aways. But pollsters have much experience in hiding the truth in their questions. And corporations and their politicians have much experience in slinging BS.

Even Obama has bought into their BS and is pushing their corporate rule.

Here is a more recent Poll:

CNBC All-America Economic Survey conducted by Hart Research Associates (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R). June 19-22, 2015. N=approx. 400 adults nationwide.

"Now I'm going to read you two statements about trade agreements with other countries. Please tell me which one comes closer to your point of view. Trade agreements with other countries have more drawbacks than benefits to the economy, because they mean that workers in the United States are being replaced by workers in other countries. Trade agreements with other countries have more benefits than drawbacks to the economy, because they mean that products can be made and sold at lower costs to consumers and U.S. jobs are being created by American companies that can sell more of their products overseas."

.

More
drawbacks
than benefits 50%

More
benefits than
drawbacks 42%

Unsure 8%
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by Hart Research Associates (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R). June 15-18, 2015. N=745 adults nationwide.

.

"In general, do you think that free trade between the United States and foreign countries has helped the United States, has hurt the United States, or has not made much of a difference either way?"

.

Helped 29%

Hurt 34%

Not much 28%
difference

Unsure 9%

[Xithras]

5. Congress still has to ratify it.

Any politician voting for this or voicing support for it gets added to my permanent "Never vote for again" list. Politicians who support this thing need to be punished.

[djean111]

14. Me too. And, after all, this is a tactic that Obama himself just advocated for -

he said it is okay to be a "single issue" voter - okay, only Obama does not get to pick the issue for me.

No votes or support for anyone who voted for Fast track, votes yes on the trade agreements, or shilled for them. Add to that the membership of the New Democrat Coalition (advised by the Third Way), and I have my set in stone will not support or vote for list.

[ZM90]

6. We need international protests everywhere. That is our one hope of bringing it down.

Remember international protests brought down ACTA. ACTA was pretty much considered a done deal too...

[yallerdawg]

7. Y'all do know TPP is not "signed"?

This is just the beginning of vigorous debate, and TPP is by no means guaranteed to pass in the US.

But let's act like it is some kind of done deal and is being 'shoved down our throats.' Good hyperbolic rhetoric.

Let's not wait for it to be published online so we can read what it actually says. Opinion always trumps fact!

"The end of internet freedom!" Of course.

More like the end of truth...

[Dustlawyer]

10. We still don't have it in front of us, it has been highly secret thus far, corporate Lobbiests

have had input from Day 1, there is trillions of dollars at stake, and we are supposed to trust that it is fair?

Do you need to wait for the sun to come up before saying it will rise tomorrow morning? This is not how an open Democracy is supposed to work and I have zero trust in Representatives that owe their continued positions to these same corporations who donate to keep them in power.

[yallerdawg]

11. We don't 'trust' anything.

Now that the 12 nation negotiations are settled, we will be able to review the entire document and weigh in.

Congress determined the general guidelines and criteria for passage, our Democratic president has negotiated the best deal for our future, and we the people will be able to read every square inch of the document and weigh in with our democratically-elected Congressional representatives where a democratic majority rule will mean passage or failure of the TPP agreement.

We can very easily reject TPP based on a couple or three words in the entire document. I don't know if a majority will hang their hat on a few words. Would the greater good be served in the entirety? We'll see.

Yes - we will see. The entire document as written and submitted for Congressional approval.

Smells like - democracy.

[Dustlawyer]

13. I believe it will pass, too much $$$$ behind it.

Let's see if you will be defending it in 5 years.

[Phlem]

17. yup.

[Vincardog]

21. Are you defending even those provisions that will not be published until five years after it is

Enacted? secret corporation empowering "deals" are BAD on their face.

[yallerdawg]

24. You have a copy of the finalized document already?

Your citing text?

Or are you judging it before we know what is in it? Or should we even care what is in it?

"Trade deal bad."

That is all some of us need to know. Ever need to know.

[Vincardog]

27. So you are defending them because they are secret. OK you are acting like a corporate shill

[yallerdawg]

42. "Acting like a corporate shill."

You are telling me what is in a "secret" document that is about to be published in its entirety on the internet for the entire world to see - do you not see the incongruity here?

I can't be skeptical of conjecture before the release?

You don't want me to read it - fact check all this agenda-driven speculation?

You want consensus without fact.

"Trade deal bad." Doesn't matter what is in it.

Take your word for it.

Or I'm a "corporate shill"?

[cpompilo]

48. So tell me Yallerdawg, irrespective of any other provisions in the agreement, do you favor what this

article states, that it makes it "a crime to reveal corporate wrongdoing "through a computer system"? Yes or no?

[yallerdawg]

50. Like I said at Post #1...

I would bet dollars to donuts you will never find this kind of language and the stated implications in any language of the TPP.

This is the jumped-up rhetoric that goes on, so outlandish it can't possibly be true.

"...through a computer system"? Does this sound like plausible legal language?

"Reveal corporate wrongdoing..." is the way the article is spinning it. What does that even mean?

If you are accepting the premise "It will be a crime to reveal corporate wrongdoing through a computer system" - an insane statement in itself - who would support that? Stalin is dead - maybe Putin, the guy who is protecting Snowden who absolutely revealed corporate wrongdoing?

You can come up with all the scenarios imaginable, but until I see it in the finalized document posted for all of us to review long before any actual voting by Congress takes place, I'm going to reserve judgment until I see it unequivocally in print in the document.

Isn't that fair?

[Hoyt]

52. Unions, universities, professors, state agriculture agencues, environmental groups, etc., had input.

Some people were miffed because no one called them, no one called me either.

[JDPriestly]

8. No, no, no, no, no, no, no ot the TPP. It is very simply a corporate coup.

A bunch of corporate clones got into a big room, a figurative big room, wrote out their Christams wish list and are now presenting it to the world.

The computer provision if true nullifies our First Amendment.

If the summary in the OP is correct, the TPP is incompatible with our fundamental rights and our Constitution.

[randome]

19. A lot of smaller countries are for this, as well. It's not all about massive corporations.

Singapore, for instance, now has to adopt a minimum wage. There are plenty of other living and safety standards that will rise in the other countries that are signing this. America gets little in the short-term from this. But in the long-term, with everyone's living standards rising, that means more customers for our products.

To say it is a 'corporate coup' without any specific examples sounds like something you heard on a panic site.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[JDPriestly]

35. And we give up our right to free speech, to vote on issues of importance to us but that a

corporation doesn't like and can challenge in a kangaroo, arbitration court in which the corporation gets to pick one of the judges?????

No, thanks.

Small countries should do what is right because if they don't we won't trade with them.

When we sign the TPP, we give up our ability to sanction countries that cheat, countries that don't pay their workers and to use our economic power as an influence for good in the world.

The TPP is a corporate coup. It will not help or serve the interests of America or Americans in any way.

[randome]

37. Um, the TPP will raise living and safety standards for all these countries.

Singapore, for instance, now has to institute a minimum wage. On balance, it's of more benefit to these other countries than it is to America, at least in the short term.

Bringing other countries closer together is usually a good thing. The TPP certainly won't be perfect but it's not evil, either.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[jalan48]

9. And just wait until a few years from now when this can be branded as the "Democrat's" agreement.

It won't matter to most people that the TPP was supported by virtually all the Republicans. It was championed by a Democratic President, Obama. It's an albatross, wear it proudly.

[LiberalLovinLug]

15. Just like the Iraq war vote

All those Dem reps like Hillary Clinton, who voted for that obscenity, gave the Republicans and BushCo. a way to deflect and simmer down the criticism.

I predict years later, if Hillary wins, as a huge TPP supporter, and someone that will NOT reverse this, she will be backpeddling once again later with "I made a mistake". But it will be too late. Her donors will be well pleased.

And besides that DU will not exist. Nor any site that risks publishing the truth. Just highlighting a name like "Monsanto" will be outlawed as infringement. Organizations like Wikileaks may still exist, but their releases will be like trees falling in a remote forest, as the Internet gatekeepers and ISPs will be bound by law to censor corporate critique or be charged themselves.

[jalan48]

16. I agree. Censorship under the guise of free markets.

Humans being sued by fictional, non-humans.

[Angry Dragon]

12. No to TPP

[Unknown Beatle]

18. I really believed in hope and change and a new era.

I guess I was gullible to believe in unicorns farting rainbows.

Obama has turned out to be another corporate bought politician, and that's precisely what pisses me off big time.

[randome]

20. Yet you fail to specifically mention what you find so reprehensible about the TPP.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Vincardog]

22. The investor dispute panels that let the corporate lawyers be judges are unconstitutional crap. The

SCOTUS will be the ultimate decider of all matters of law not some silk socked lawyers for Goldman

[randome]

25. The investor dispute panels that have been in use since the 90s?

It's an elegant way to settle disputes without a defendant country being able to always say 'No'. And that applies to the U.S., too.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Vincardog]

29. Right let the corporate parasites recover "expected future profits" denied them by environmental

Laws. Please child get real.

[randome]

31. I don't think you get it.

A country's environmental laws are sacrosanct. If, however, that country enacts an environmental law that favors their own companies at the expense of other signatories to the treaty, then it becomes an issue of protectionism and that is rightly adjudicated with an arbitration panel, not the two countries or the two companies themselves.

It's an attempt to settle these disputes in an objective manner. It may not always work but that doesn't mean we should never make trade treaties.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Vincardog]

33. I wish it were true.

[eridani]

59. It's an elegant way to fuck over representative government in favor of corporations n/t

[JDPriestly]

36. In addition to the investor dispute panels, the fact that when we sign these trade agreements,

we give up our ability to use our trade, our market as leverage to improve conditions for workers in the countries with which we trade.

Further, if we have nay more jobs to lose, this agreement will insure that we lose many more.

If some country violates our copyright and patent laws, we should bar the import of their goods or impose tariffs on trade with them. That is the way to get justice in our commerce with other nations.

We tend to play fair and abide by our agreements. If you look at history, you will find that some other countries do not. We will keep our promises in this agreement, but a number of our proposed trading partners are not reliable in that respect. The agreement will tie our hands down but not theirs.

This agreement is a giveaway to big corporations.

We already have lost enough jobs and industrial plants with the trade agreements we have.

Do you want more arguments against the TPP?

This post is long enough. But there are many more.

[Unknown Beatle]

23. I didn't think I had to be so specific about any provision of the TPP.

The fact that Obama fought harder for trade promotion authority than anything he's fought for while president tells me more about where his loyalties lay.

But okay, if you want specifics, drugs prices will likely rise, corporations can sue other countries for perceived lose of revenue, unlimited fracking, etc. I'm against those and more.

How about you? What do you find so reprehensible about the TPP?

[randome]

26. Suing other countries only applies in cases of protectionism.

A country cannot make laws that benefit their own companies and discourage another's.

No one's forcing any country to sign on. They all want to because they know it will benefit them in the long-term and, in some ways, the short-term.

Unlimited fracking? No. If a country disallows all fracking within its borders, then the case is closed. If they allow fracking and don't apply their laws equally to all companies, that's when problems arise and when arbitration kicks in.

This is nothing different from past trade treaties.

Possible drug prices rising? That's concerning to me, too.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Vincardog]

30. Do you have an advance copy of the TPP? How can you know that?

[randome]

32. No, just my reading and interpretation of what's been said thus far.

Just on the face of it, it's ridiculous to think that corporations will be able to do whatever the hell they want. Do you really think a fracking operation will take place in a public park and that corporation will sue to get its way?

That is a so over-the-top scenario that, to me, it must be false. And what I've seen of the TPP so far -not much- is that it's geared to discourage protectionism. That's usually a good thing for all players.

Just as it was ridiculous, at the start, for some to claim that the TPP would always be secret. That made no sort of objective sense since no one would be able to enforce the treaty in the first place! So obviously that was false, too.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Vincardog]

34. True it is ridiculous that countries will have to make their laws conform with the ruling of an

Investor dispute panel judged by corporate lawyers. But that is the leaked text I saw.

[JDPriestly]

38. I do worry about our parks because I understand from a report alleged to be from Wikileaks

that governments will be under pressure to privatize government-owned businesses. That would include our post office, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power which we love because it protected us from the Enron scam and maybe even our park system.

Please provide the links to the sources you have read on what is in the agreement. Thanks.

I have not read about some of the provisions you mention.

On edit, here in California, I would like to see a moratorium on all fracking. We have a serious drought. Even an El Nino year, even if we have flooding and landslides will only be a temporary fix. We need a complete ban on fracking.

Here we are scrimping on water (I carry buckets of water to keep my plants in my pots going as a part of the effort to save water, and I mean all the water we can save, we save) and the gas producers are injecting water with chemicals they refuse to identify into the ground. As far as we know the water they use is contaminated. We do not want the TPP or fracking.

[randome]

39. I have no idea -none- how the TPP considers states or provinces or whatever.

I would think they will be considered mini-countries themselves. It will be interesting to see how that is dealt with. I would think, however, that if California forbids all fracking within its borders, that's as far as it goes. But if they only allow American companies in, that's when a problem would arise.

This is all conjecture on my part but so is much of the doom-and-gloom and Obama-is-the-corporate-anti-Christ stuff that gets bandied about. (But I'm right. )

The treaty is signed. Now we'll get to see its innards.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[JDPriestly]

44. And we will be examining those innards carefully.

Do you think there are secret agreements attached to the TPP?

That is a rumor. Do you think it is true?

[randome]

46. No, I don't. Obama does not strike me as that underhanded.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[JDPriestly]

47. Me either, but he is the president. He cannot know everything that goes on at every

negotiating table. The corporations are in charge of negotiating the TPP. They need to be overseen very carefully.

Since they are the paymasters of Congress with regard to campaign funding, it falls to us, the people to do the overseeing.

It will be done, and by knowledgeable people. Rest assured.

[Blue_Tires]

40. I'm betting any amount of money

that once this thing is settled not one of the hysterical dystopian nightmare scenarios people have been screaming about will become reality...

Any takers?

[d_legendary1]

41. Can't believe the amount of people belittling this Corporate Pact

is getting. Reminds me of that little old man with the big ears who said that NAFTA would produce a sucking sound for American jobs. I'm taking this crap seriously!

[yallerdawg]

43. Don't Democrats insist on facts?

We used to...

Get the facts on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

https://ustr.gov/tpp/

[Hoyt]

56. Nope, and a good reason to believe we are doomed.

[Hoyt]

51. What a load of junk.

"The agreement has been made in secret and will not be fully published publicly for years." We already know that's not true, although Elizabeth Warren did her best to convince people it's fact.

[Joe Turner]

54. How many times have you cut and pasted that load of propaganda?

Every time your blue light starts blinking in your room notifying you that TPP needs defending on DU? TPP was and continues to be negotiated in secret, has never been made public, and any reading of this agreement by elected officials has been highly restricted. But here come Mr. Hoyt to say no matter what you heard about this agreement it is all bunk....believe him instead. You know Mr. Hoyt, the sad history of prior "free trade" agreements --which we have a lot of experience with-- that were sold to the American Public with similar lies, half-truths and raw political muscle make supporters of TPP like you complete JackA$$es.

[Hoyt]

55. It is scheduled to be released when, and if, Obama signs it. There is no doubt about that.

So anyone saying it will not be released for years is either uninformed, or spreading junk to gullible people.

That quote is from the OP's link from today. I doubt you read it, anymore than you will read the TPP.

[Joe Turner]

57. Thanks for proving my point

TPP will not be made public, discussed, debated at length in Congress until Obama signs it....when, of course, it will be too late to do anything about it. That Mr. Hoyt is one bad Strawman you have there. What a laugh though.

[Hoyt]

58. No it will not be too late. At least you now recognize it will not be years before it is released.

[mhatrw]

53. TPP = Terrifying Plutocratic Profiteering