Monday, 12 November 2012

United Nations wants control of web kill switch


By: Paola Totaro, Claire Connelly. From: News Limited Network, November 12, 2012

AN unfettered internet, free of political control and available to everyone could be relegated to cyber-history under a contentious proposal by a little known United Nations body.
 Experts claim that Australians could see political and religious websites disappear if the Federal Government backs a plan to hand control over the internet to the UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU). A draft of the proposal, formulated in secret and only recently posted on the ITU website for public perusal, reveal that if accepted, the changes would allow government restriction or blocking of information disseminated via the internet and create a global regime of monitoring internet communications - including the demand that those who send and receive information identify themselves. It would also allow governments to shut down the internet if there is the belief that it may interfere in the internal affairs of other states or that information of a sensitive nature might be shared.
Telecommunications ministers from 193 countries will meet behind closed doors in Dubai next month to discuss the proposal, with Australia's Senator Stephen Conroy among them. The move has sparked a ferocious, under-the-radar diplomatic war between a powerful bloc of nations, led by China and Russia, who want to exert greater controls on the net and western democracies determined to preserve the free-wheeling, open architecture of the World Wide Web. The battle for control has also seen a cartel of telco corporations join forces to support amended pricing regulations changes which critics warn will pave the way for significant increases in the cost of day-to-day internet use, including email and social media. While Senator Conroy said this morning he would not be supporting any changes to the current arrangements, the decisions made by other powers could also have a huge impact on Australian web users.

Simon Breheny, Director of independent think-tank, The Legal Rights Project, told News Ltd that Australia would end up with a "lowest-common-denominator situation" whereby what Australians could view on the internet could be controlled by dominant member countries. "If we sign it, it will mean we won't have the freedoms we have no regarding commerce and sharing of ideas," he said. "That's the greatest concern - rather than going beyond commerce, it comes into the field of sharing political and religious ideas."

In a show of unity, civil rights groups, big communications corporations including Google and international labour unions are to meet in London today to launch a global campaign and petition titled Stop the Net Grab. Led by the International Trade Union Confederation, it will appeal to the UN and ITU itself to immediately open the plan for global debate and demanding a delay of any decision until all stakeholders - not just governments are given a voice.

Two influential Australians are at the centre of the move - Dr Paul Twomey and Sharran Burrow. They will be joined to launch the campaign by Vinton Cerf, one of the fathers of the internet and now chief Google evangelist. Ms Burrow, the General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, warned urgent global action is now needed as the "internet as we know it" comes under very real threat. "Unless we act now, our right to freely communicate and share information could change forever. A group of big telecommunications corporations have joined with countries including China, Egypt and Saudi Arabia that already impose heavy restriction on internet freedoms," she said. "So far, the proposal has flown under the radar but its implications are extremely serious. Governments  and big companies the world over  may end up with the right not only to restrict the internet and monitor everything you do online but to charge users for services such as email and Skype."

Dr Twomey is former CEO of the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the US body that governs domain names and addresses, and the Australian Government's National Office for the Information Economy. He warned that as the internet enters its third decade in mass use, the need to defend its founding open model is more urgent than ever. "The ongoing disputes about control have also been compounded by concern in national security and political elites in the wake of recent events such as the Arab Spring and London Riots where social media were key tools," he said. "And there is the accelerating pace of cyber espionage, targeting North American and other developed countries intellectual property as well as the global rise of hacktivism.”The danger is that there is now a growing likelihood of the interests of more traditional forces for Internet control overlapping with, and even seeking further to align with, national security and law enforcement agenda."

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/technology/united-nations-wants-control-of-web-kill-switch/story-e6frfro0-1226515006898#ixzz2By1zScCg

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-12/internet-ownership/4366508

Friday, 9 November 2012

Leveson inquiry: bring in new law to curb press excesses, Tories urge PM'


By Patrick Wintour, political editor, The Guardian, Thursday 8 November 2012

Four former cabinet ministers among Conservatives who say newspaper industry cannot continue to be entirely self-regulated

An influential group of mainstream Tories, including four former cabinet ministers, have opened the door to a limited form of statutory press regulation, warning that proposals being put forward by the newspaper industry "risk being an unstable model destined to fail". 
The letter, published in the Guardian and signed by 42 MP's and two peers, signals a potential shift in the politics of media regulation because it is the first suggestion that the Conservative party is not going to respond to the Leveson inquiry with a monolithic opposition to legal regulation of the industry. Lord Justice Leveson is due to publish the inquiry's findings at the end of this month and ferocious lobbying of No 10 is under way from both sides in the argument. The signatories believe their letter may show Downing Street that a cross party consensus on media reform is possible at Westminster. 

"No one wants our media controlled by the government but, to be credible, any new regulator must be independent of the press as well as from politicians," the letter says. "We are concerned that the current proposal put forward by the newspaper industry would lack independence and risks being an unstable model destined to fail, like previous initiatives over the past 60 years ".

Labour and the Liberal Democrats are likely to support Leveson if he suggests the newspaper industry cannot continue to be entirely self-regulated. The letter suggests that David Cameron has greater room for political manoeuvre at Westminster than thought. Senior cabinet ministers, including the education secretary Michael Gove and the communities secretary Eric Pickles, oppose any form of state-backed regulation of the press. George Osborne, the chancellor, is also reluctant to see any state intervention.
Cameron has been trying to keep his options open, saying the status quo is not an option and any new formula has to be justifiable to the victims of phone hacking. But he is under pressure to support a newspaper industry proposal that would preserve self-regulation and rely on legally enforceable contracts to bind publishers to the system, including the possibility of fines. Similar pressure has been applied to the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, but it is understood he still stands by the evidence he gave to the Leveson inquiry.
Signatories to the Conservative letter include the former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, two former party chairmen Caroline Spelman and Lord Fowler, as well as the former chief whip Lord Ryder. It is also supported by a range of Conservative backbench opinion from right-wingers such as Gerald Howarth, Jesse Norman and Robert Buckland, a joint secretary of the 1922 backbench committee. Supporters also include Cameron's former press secretary George Eustice, Zac Goldsmith, Andrea Leadsom, Nicholas Soames, and Gavin Barwell, the parliamentary aide to Gove.
The aim of the letter, according to one of the instigators, is to break what is described as the siege of Downing Street by the newspaper industry, and forge a safe passage for the prime minister so he can engage with the Leveson inquiry recommendations. It was being emphasised that the letter was not prescriptive, but an attempt to change the tone of the debate, so it is not dominated by the press or by campaigners against Rupert Murdoch. The signatories say they "agree with the prime minister that obsessive argument about the principle of statutory regulation can cloud the debate". However, they add that forms of statutory regulation in broadcasting and sensitive professions such as the law have proved workable.
They write: "We should keep some perspective - the introduction of the Legal Services Board in statute has not compromised the independence of the legal profession. The Jimmy Savile scandal was exposed by ITV and the Winterbourne View care home scandal was exposed by the BBC, both of whom are regulated by the Broadcasting Act.
While no one is suggesting similar laws for newspapers, it is not credible to suggest that broadcasters such as Sky News, ITV or the BBC have their agendas dictated by the government of the day."
They call for greater clarity about a future public interest test for the publication of stories. The "worst excesses of the press have stemmed from the fact that the public interest test has been too elastic and too often has meant what editors wanted it to mean. To protect both robust journalism and the public, it is now essential to establish a single standard for assessing the public interest test which can be applied independently and consistently".
The instigators of the letter stressed they were not acting with the covert agreement of No 10, although officials are now aware of the move. One source said: "As Conservatives, we are reluctant regulators and we firmly believe in a free press, and want to help newspapers survive, but they have to meet us half way. Their refusal to countenance any kind of statutory change to raise standards is no longer acceptable to the Conservative party."
The source said they could incorporate some of the proposals put forward by the industry, led by Lord Hunt and Lord Black, the peers behind proposals for a beefed-up Press Complaints Commission. One source said the mood in the party had hardened in recent months claiming what he described as "the drip, drip of press stories intended to undermine Lord Leveson's inquiry have not gone down well among some MPs".
Apart from the merits of a form of statutory underpinning to independent regulation, it was also being suggested that Cameron might find himself in the uncomfortable position of defending a newspaper industry at a time when difficult revelations emerge in court cases. A legislative slot has been reserved for the next parliament, but it is also possible that Leveson will be asked to give evidence to the culture select committee once his report is published. It also emerged that Fowler is to set up an all-party media parliamentary group probably with former newspaper proprietor Lord Hollick.

Wednesday, 25 April 2012

How the press is distorting the Breivik trial to make video games central to the narrative


By  at 8:00 am Friday, Apr 20

On Rock, Paper, Shotgun, John Walker tears into the mainstream press's treatment of mass-murderer Anders Breivik's video-game habits. Breivik's gaming has been prominently mentioned in press accounts, and the Norwegian prosecutor also called attention to it. Breivik himself described his World of Warcraft sessions as a "martyrdom gift," a "sabbatical year," and stated that he played to unwind after a difficult stretch of work in planning his atrocities and writing his 800,000 word manifesto.
Later, Breivik talks about using Modern Warfare to prepare for his massacre, calling it "a simple war simulator." But as Walker points out, Breivik's description of what he did with the game in order to train for his assault doesn't actually jibe with the way that the game works -- Breivik describes doing things that the game doesn't do. Walker points out that most of Breivik's statements about his motives and inspiration are treated skeptically by the press and prosecutors, but where Breivik describes using games to prepare for slaughter, his statements aren't just taken at face value, they are enthusiastically amplified and elaborated.
Walker shows that this reporting slant is widespread, across different news entities with different audiences, from CNN to The Irish Times to Al Arabia News. It seems like the press has already made up its mind about what role games play in social violence, and will cherry pick and even distort facts to support that narrative.
That’s not what Modern Warfare is, or lets you do. The scripted corridors, nor the multiplayer, offer no useful practice for any such actions, and don’t allow you to simulate practising killing policemen in the manner Breivik describes. There is of course the infamous No Russian airport level, in which you play as an undercover agent with terrorists, and are able to shoot (or not shoot) civilians and policemen, but I think it’s unreasonable to suggest that it offers what Breivik claims. Of course there are many other shooters out that that would let you create your own specific scenarios, attempt to rehearse escaping from armed forces, and so on. But Breivik, in keeping with much else of his rhetoric, doesn’t make much sense here. It is very unfortunate that while a sceptical press has been enjoying picking over his comments about being a member of the Knights Templar, and disproving them, they see no need to question his remarks on using Call Of Duty as a simulator for combating armed police in real life. Instead here it’s assumed he’s being honest and clear-headed. It’s also important to note that Breivik’s memoir makes it clear that he only played MW2 after he had entirely planned the attacks, and it was in no way influential on his decision to kill anyone.
The same Times report then explains how Breivik named all his guns, citing El Cid for having done the same for his favourite sword, but oddly doesn’t then condemn the learning of history. Instead, astonishingly, it just reports the names for all the weapons, and doesn’t even mention the possible concern that he was in possession of them. They also don’t mention the enormous detail written in the manifesto about how these guns were legally and illegally acquired, and the enormous amount of time he spent at shooting ranges, practising firing them. Factors that, you would imagine a journalist reporting on how he had trained for his attacks, would think relevant to bring up. But no, instead, only Modern Warfare and World Of Warcraft are mentioned.
Yet again I feel compelled to repeat the refrain: were gaming genuinely a dangerous factor, something that could cause someone to become a murderer, we would want to know about it, and you can damn well believe we’d be reporting on it. What more serious matter could there be for gamers than to be aware of this? This is not about defending gaming, but about defending truth, and truth in reporting. And it is woefully lacking in the so-called respectable papers over this matter. The headline in the Times bears no relation to what is actually said by Breivik. It obfuscates the year he spent playing WoW to give himself a rest with the couple of months he spent with Modern Warfare, and it ignores the huge amount of time he spent actually practising firing real weapons. While taking massive amounts of steroids.

Saturday, 3 March 2012

Media inquiry calls for single watchdog


By Kylie Simmons

Updated March 02, 2012 21:11:20
An inquiry into Australia's print media has recommended a new council to oversee all news media organisations.
The News Media Council would be government-funded and would regulate print, radio, TV and for the first time, online.
The inquiry was set up in the wake of Britain's phone-hacking scandal.
In September the Federal Government asked former Federal Court justice Ray Finkelstein QC to lead an independent inquiry into the Australian media.
After months of hearings he has released his findings, with his main recommendation to establish the council, setting new journalistic standards for all media.
The council would take away responsibility for news and current affairs from the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), which looks after broadcasting, and it would also take away responsibility from the Australian Press Council.
The report found the Press Council suffers from serious structural constraints and that ACMA's complaints-handling processes were "cumbersome and slow".
The new council would also handle complaints by the public when standards are breached and it would have the power to make media organisations publish an apology, a correction or retraction or give a complainant a right to reply.

Support 'quality journalism'

Greens leader Bob Brown played an integral role pushing for the inquiry after the News Of The World hacking scandal broke in the UK.
"What [Justice Finkelstein is] looking at here is not punitive action on the media in terms of fines or imprisonment, but rather remedy of inaccuracies or falsehoods or slander if that occurs to people and they're hurt by it," Senator Brown said.
"And I think the public will be right behind that. The best way to do that is to require news outlets where they've made a mistake to remedy it.
"I think that we have an inadequate system of serving the public interest and truth, which are the two first things mentioned in the journalist code of ethics in this country at the moment, and I think this is a big step towards fulfilling the journalists' code of ethics and making sure that quality journalism is supported."
Press Council chairman Professor Julian Disney says its future is now in the hands of publishers.
"I think the problem that Mr Finkelstein faced is that he understandably felt that at least some of the publishers were not willing to provide the extra resources and other support that we need to be able to perform effectively," he said.
"I think it's clear from the report that is really the main reason why he then went for another approach and I think that clearly lays down a challenge now for the publishers.
"Do they want to avoid the kind of body he proposes, which is created by government and entirely funded by government and has quite some risks of excessive legalism?
"If they do, then they're going to have to provide more resources and more support and accept that we need some firmer powers. So really the ball is now in their court."
Conroy meeting
Key publishers are planning to meet Communications Minister Stephen Conroy in the coming weeks.
Senator Conroy has released a statement saying the recommendations will be considered but no action is likely to be taken until a wider review of the media is completed later this month.
The convergence inquiry is examining a range of regulatory issues across broadcasting, radio and telecommunications.
Opposition communication spokesman Malcolm Turnbull says a News Media Council does not appeal to the Coalition.
"The segment of the media that is most criticised for lacking in accuracy in balance is commercial talkback radio, but it is regulated by ACMA," he said.
"Metropolitan newspapers, on the other hand, are generally regarded as being doing better in terms of accuracy and balance and yet they are completely unregulated.
"So I think those observations, most people would agree with. Why would your conclusion from that be that the way to get more balance and accuracy is to have more regulation?"
Fairfax media issued a statement saying it is pleased the report acknowledges upfront the importance of a free press in a democratic society and that regulation should not endanger that role.
Like many other media organisations, Fairfax is going through the 474-page report and any further comments will be made in the coming days.
First posted March 02, 2012 15:19:18

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

How to make a movie poster

You think you just randomly ended up in that movie-theater seat watching things explode? No, that was the end result of a meticulously crafted propaganda campaign by the movie studio, utilizing all the persuasive powers of graphic design—as wonderfully elucidated in the infographic below, from Colour Lovers, examining the posters from the top 10 blockbusters of 2011. There are lots of interesting tidbits—note the preponderance of sans serif fonts and all caps, and the various textures and sight lines utilized. Did these factors alone fill theaters? Of course not. It helped that almost all of these movies were sequels—expanding on the equity built up in previous ad campaigns. Via Fast Company.

 click to embiggen

Sunday, 12 February 2012

TV Tropes

I recently found a great resource for teaching/learning about Narrative in Cinema Studies, it's called TV Tropes and it has heaps of links and information. But hey, enough of my yackin' Let's see what they have to say on their homepage.

What is this about? This wiki is a catalog of the tricks of the trade for writing fiction.
Tropes are devices and conventions that a writer can reasonably rely on as being present in the audience members' minds and expectations. On the whole, tropes are not clichĂ©s. The word clichĂ©d means "stereotyped and trite." In other words, dull and uninteresting. We are not looking for dull and uninteresting entries. We are here to recognize tropes and play with them, not to make fun of them.

The wiki is called "TV Tropes" because TV is where we started. Over the course of a few years, our scope has crept out to include other media. Tropes transcend television. They reflect life. Since a lot of art, especially the popular arts, does its best to reflect life, tropes are likely to show up everywhere.


We are not a stuffy encyclopedic wiki. We're a 
buttload more informal. We encourage breezy language and original thought. There Is No Such Thing As Notability, and no citations are needed. If your entry cannot gather any evidence by the Wiki Magic, it will just wither and die. Until then, though, it will be available through the Main Tropes Index.

We are also not a wiki for bashing things. Once again, we're about 
celebrating fiction, not showing off how snide and sarcastic we can be.

Enough about what we are not. Go on, have a look at the 
welcome page, and have fun!

Wednesday, 1 February 2012

Television 'misrepresents' young people and older women

Broadcasters negatively stereotype young people and fail to put enough older women on screen, says BBC-commissioned report


by guardian.co.uk, Miriam O’Reilly

The BBC-commissioned report comes just over a year after former Countryfile presenter Miriam O’Reilly won her landmark ageism case against the BBC. Photograph: Rex Features
Broadcasters have been accused of negatively stereotyping young people and failing to put enough older women on screen, according to a BBC-commissioned report.
The survey of viewers and industry experts found that more than 40% of young people were dissatisfied with the way they were portrayed on screen.
Younger viewers complained that they were stereotyped as being "disrespectful" and living "unproductive and vacuous lives".
Older viewers also thought they tended to be stereotyped on television, but of more concern was the lack of middle-aged and older women on the small screen.
The report comes a year after former Countryfile presenter Miriam O'Reilly won her landmark ageism case against the BBC after she was axed from the BBC1 rural affairs show.
"There was a particular and strong concern voiced about the lack of middle-aged and older female representation on television," said the report.
"This view was expressed by both men and women of all ages but was much more ardently voiced by middle-aged and older women who believed that a person develops a 'face for radio' at a certain point in their middle years."
More than a third of women over 55 said there were too few of them on television.
The negative portrayal of older people revolved around the perceived incapacity of old people and "perceptions about a reluctance to move with the times and tendency to moan", said the report.
Viewers accused the media of being "insulting" and "out of step" with the ageing society.
"There is some concern about the way different ages are sometimes at best presented as slightly humorous but exaggerated caricatures and at worst as negative stereotypes," concluded the report.
It said the audience would "welcome more middle- and older-aged women on television providing positive role models and greater genderequality".
The research was commissioned by the BBC on behalf of the Creative Diversity Network, a forum of UK media organisations set up to improve diversity across the industry and chaired by BBC director general Mark Thompson.
It followed O'Reilly's high-profile tribunal victory in January last year.
The former Countryfile presenter parted company with the corporation earlier this month and will launch a support network for women facing discrimination in the workplace next month.
The report, called Serving All Ages and carried out by independent social research institute NatCen, interviewed 180 participants, aged from 13 to 92, as well as industry experts.
It investigated how people felt they were portrayed in relation to their age in the media as a whole, including TV, radio and the internet.

Sunday, 29 January 2012

Infographic: Hollywood's long war on technology


Infographic by Anne Rhodes via matadornetwork.com

By  at 1:13 pm Saturday, Jan 28

You know, when I was sitting down with entertainment execs on a regular basis to debate applied, practical technology choices in DRM standards bodies, their constant refrain was, "We love technology! We use it all the time!" The implication being that if they instigated a law prohibiting a technology it would not represent ignorance or fear, but well-informed solemn judgement. I'd often cite Jack Valenti's infamous words to Congress: "The VCR is to the American film industry as the Boston Strangler is to a woman home alone," and they'd scoff. "Why do you always bring that up? It's ancient history!" And I'd say, "Oh, do you repudiate Jack Valenti, then? Because the last time I checked, you guys renamed your headquarters (I shit you not) the Jack Valenti Building." And they'd say, "Ha, ha, very funny. But seriously, is one wrong-headed statement from Jack all you've got?" And then I'd go into the long list of all the crap they'd fought as an industry, from the remote control to cable TV, from diversified cinema ownership to yeah, the VCR, and they'd mumble something about how EFF stood for "Everything For Free," and I just didn't understand the arts. Which always made me laugh because generally speaking I was the only working creative artist in the discussion, and I'd often be going to meetings in between working on novels. Clearly, to understand the arts you need to be an entertainment industry lawyer working for a giant multinational conglomerate, not a working artist.
Anyway, if I was still in those stuffy, hateful rooms where they plotted to ban technologies, I'd print out a stack of this Matador Network infographics, which are a handy guide to the pig-ignorant campaigns that Hollywood has waged against new technologies since the industry's founders ripped off Thomas Edison's patents and fled to California.


Saturday, 28 January 2012

We Have Every Right to Be Furious About ACTA


from EFF.org Updates 


If there’s one thing that encapsulates what’s wrong with the way government functions today, ACTA is it. You wouldn’t know it from the name, but the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is a plurilateral agreementdesigned to broaden and extend existing intellectual property (IP) enforcement laws to the Internet. While it was only negotiated between a few countries,1 it has global consequences. First because it will create new rules for the Internet, and second, because its standards will be applied to other countries through the U.S.’s annual Special 301 process. Negotiated in secret, ACTA bypassed checks and balances of existing international IP norm-setting bodies, without any meaningful input from national parliaments, policymakers, or their citizens. Worse still, the agreement creates a new global institution, an "ACTA Committee" to oversee its implementation and interpretation that will be made up of unelected members with no legal obligation to be transparent in their proceedings. Both in substance and in process, ACTA embodies an outdated top-down, arbitrary approach to government that is out of step with modern notions of participatory democracy.

The EU and 22 of its 27 member states signed ACTA yesterday in Tokyo. This news is neither momentous nor surprising. This is but the latest step in more than three years of non-transparent negotiations. In December, the Council of the European Union—one of the European Union’s two legislative bodies, composed of executives from the 27 EU member states—adopted ACTA during a completely unrelated meeting on agriculture and fisheries. Of course, this is not the end of the story in the EU. For ACTA to be adopted as EU law, the European Parliament has to vote on whether to accept or reject it.

In the U.S., there are growing concerns about the constitutionality of negotiating ACTA as a “sole executive agreement”.  This is not just a semantic argument. If ACTA were categorized as a treaty, it would have to be ratified by the Senate. But the USTR and the Administration have consistently maintained that ACTA is a sole executive agreement negotiated under the President’s power. On that theory, it does not need Congressional approval and thus ACTA already became binding on the US government when Ambassador Ron Kirk signed it last October.

But leading US Constitutional Scholars disagree. Professors Jack Goldsmith and Larry Lessig, questioned the Constitutionality of the executive agreement classification in 2010:
The president has no independent constitutional authority over intellectual property or communications policy, and there is no long historical practice of making sole executive agreements in this area. To the contrary, the Constitution gives primary authority over these matters to Congress, which is charged with making laws that regulate foreign commerce and intellectual property.2
(And by the way, we agree [pdf].)

Senator Ron Wyden has been asking these questions for years, first demanding an explanation from USTR ambassador Ron KirkPresident Obama, and now the administration’s top international law expert Harold Koh. The distinction between executive agreement and treaty should not be lost on this administration: as a Senator, Vice President Joe Biden used the same argument to require the Bush administration to seek Senate approval for an arms reduction agreement.

Public interest groups and informed politicians have long lamented these problems with ACTA. But the impact of dubious backroom law-drafting is getting fresh attention in light of the powerful global opposition movement that has emerged out of last week’s Internet blackout protests. Activists and netizens all around the world have woken up to the dangers of overbroad enforcement law proposals drafted by monopoly industry lobbyists, and rushed into law through strategic lobbying by the same corporate interests that backed SOPA and PIPA. Tens of thousands are protesting in the streets in Poland as their ambassador signed the agreement in Tokyo. The EU Parliament’s website and others have come under attack for their involvement in these laws. The Member of the European Parliament who was appointed to be the rapporteur for ACTA in the European Parliament, Kader Arif, quit yesterday in protest. In a statement he said:
I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly…This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade.
We couldn’t have said it better ourselves. ACTA may have been signed by public officials, but it’s crystal clear that they are not representing the public interest.

It is now up to the collective will of the public to decide what to do next, and for individuals to ask themselves what they want their government to look like. Do you believe in democracy? Do you believe that laws should be made to reflect our collective best interests, formulated through an open transparent process? One that allows everyone, from experts to civil society members, to analyze, question and probe an agreement that will lead to laws that will impact potentially billions of lives? If we don’t do anything now, this agreement is going to crawl itself into power. With the future at stake like this, it’s never too late to fight.
~
If you live in Europe, follow these links to learn how you can take immediate action and stay informed on the latest updates:

La Quadrature du Net (@laquadrature): How to Act Against ACTA

European Digital Rights (@EDRi_org): Stop ACTA!

Open Rights Group (@OpenRightsGroup): ACTA: signed, not yet sealed - now it's up to us

Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (@FFII): ACTA Blog

For those in the U.S., you can demonstrate your opposition to the dubious decision to negotiate ACTA as a sole executive agreement to bypass proper congressional review by signing this petition on the whitehouse.gov website, demanding the Administration submit ACTA to the Senate for approval.

EFF will continue to monitor ACTA's global implementation and watch for efforts to use ACTA to broaden US enforcement powers.
  • 1. United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea
  • 2. (See also here [pdf] and here).