Text: Small Text  Normal Text  Large Text  Larger Text
  • Columns
  • Government Should Lift Veil on ACTA Secrecy

Blog Archive

PrevPrevApril 2014NextNext
SMTWTFS
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930

Government Should Lift Veil on ACTA Secrecy

PDF  | Print |  E-mail
Monday June 09, 2008
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) focuses on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which was shrouded in secrecy until a leaked summary of the agreement appeared on the Internet last month, and which has sparked widespread opposition as Canadians worry about the prospect of a trade deal that could lead to invasive searches of personal computers and increased surveillance of online activities. Last week, Canadian negotiators huddled with representatives from countries such as the United States, European Union, and Japan at the U.S. Mission in Geneva to continue the negotiations. 

While documents obtained under the Access to Information Act reveal internal ACTA discussions as early as 2006, the trade negotiations only came to the Canadian public's attention last fall when International Trade Minister David Emerson revealed the government's intention to participate in the negotiations.  Since the announcement, the Canadian government has been among the most secretive of all ACTA negotiating partners.  The Department of Foreign Affairs conducted a public consultation on the treaty in April; however, the government revealed little about either the timing or substance of the agreement.  By comparison, Australia launched a public consultation on the treaty before committing to participate in the ACTA talks.

Fears about the ACTA have spilled into the political arena as NDP MP Charlie Angus last week voiced concerns about its effects during Question Period in the House of Commons and Toronto-area Liberal MP Bob Rae blogged that it "augurs a ridiculously intrusive national and international apparatus to police practices that are as common as eating and breathing." With another round of talks set for next month in Japan, the government should use the opportunity to pressure its trading partners to lift the veil of ACTA secrecy.  Trade negotiators may prefer to remain outside of the spotlight, yet greater transparency is desperately needed.
Public disclosure of the draft documents might put an end to fears about iPod searching border guards by clarifying the full scope of the treaty.  Moreover, it could focus attention on other key concerns including greater Internet service provider filtering of content, heightened liability for websites that link to allegedly infringing content, and diminished privacy for Internet users.

Greater transparency would also lead to a more inclusive process.  To date, the ACTA negotiations have excluded both civil society groups as well as developing countries.  In fact, reports suggest that trade negotiators have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements for fear of word of the treaty's provisions leaking to the public.  Given the need for cooperation from all stakeholders to battle counterfeiting concerns, an effective strategy requires broader participation and regular mechanisms for feedback.

ACTA transparency would further ensure that Canada's domestic and international counterfeiting strategies remain consistent.  With domestic anti-counterfeiting legislation currently in the works, Industry Minister Jim Prentice could use the opportunity to highlight his domestic and international anti-counterfeiting strategies.

Given the concerns associated with counterfeiting, an open ACTA also promises to increase the effectiveness of anti-counterfeiting activities.  For example, there is general consensus that law enforcement and regulators should prioritize health and safety concerns that arise from counterfeit pharmaceutical activities.  Protecting Canadians from pharmaceutical fraud requires a comprehensive approach, including confiscation of counterfeit and expired drugs, regulatory action against unsafe marketing claims, and assurances that consumer health will not be placed at risk due to the withholding of relevant research data.  If the leaked ACTA information is accurate, the current draft adopts a much more limited approach by focusing on confiscating drugs, thereby leaving Canadians vulnerable to pharmaceutical fraud.

With the ACTA speculation at a fever pitch, there is a sense that both the U.S. and European Union are anxious to conclude negotiations by the end of the year.  Canadian officials should express reservations about this aggressive timeline and insist that all parties open ACTA to the public now.
Comments (7)add comment

WHY Bother said:

WHY Bother
Why bother doing any of the above when the CONservatives can ram it up our butts just like free trade has killed the auto sector, anyone like obama wants to revisit it i say ok , you want to sell cars in canada , build em here.
you want oil you pay what we want and here's the part we dont have mexico has:
we can sell you as much as we want ( currently if we lesson production to usa we must do it to our own people????bad very stupid thanks again to a big brother facist neo con.)
June 09, 2008

Spencer said:

...
The content of this one agreement is minor compared to the larger issue of a Minority Government being able to circumvent the democratic process by negotiating and signing sweeping international agreements in secret. International agreements that directly affect our personal privacy and security domestically.

Unfortunately all Parties have been consistently terrible at setting any policy that makes government more accessible, accountable, and transparent.


June 09, 2008

Soothsayer8 said:

WHY Bother
"bad very stupid thanks again to a big brother facist neo con."

Sharp as an orange.
June 09, 2008

Rob said:

Rediculous
This particular quote from the above really pisses me off:

"In fact, reports suggest that trade negotiators have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements for fear of word of the treaty's provisions leaking to the public."

That should be illegal. For someone who is supposedly representing my interests (is that not what these negotiators do? Represent Canadians and negotiate to get them the best possible deal?) how can they possibly argue that I should be restricted from knowing what is good for me? Whoever is representing Canada in these discussions should be fired from public service.
June 10, 2008

Britney said:

Sale By Owner
In my opinion this is an interesting article through which i gathered a lot of information.
================
Britney
Sale By Owner
November 20, 2008

Cestin said:

...
Fight ACTA, join the Internet Freedom Movement. (IFM)

IRC http://n0v4.com/irc.web.php?ch...taplanning

Site http://anti-acta.com/
July 10, 2010

juju said:

retiree
if acta is passed, it will be another path to our not having any knowledge to the so called "treaties" that are supposed to be good for us but are actually designed to take aways our freedoms ... that is how dictators work...
January 30, 2012

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
Tags:
, , , , , , , , , ,
Share: Slashdot, Digg, Del.icio.us, Newsfeeder, Reddit, StumbleUpon, TwitterEmailPrintPDF
Related Items: