TechDirt reports that Japan may be dropping its support for TPP. The country, which is known for absurd Internet-related laws, isn’t dropping its support because of any copyright or Internet-related propositions in the treaty. Instead, the treaty is losing support among officials due its potential threat to local agriculture.

Japan isn’t the first Asian country to suggest pulling out of TPP over concerns of what it would do to their economy. Back in August of last year, Malaysia’s Health Minister said the country should pull out of the agreement due to it favoring U.S. pharmaceuticals:

According to the agreement, if a medicine is launched in the US, and then three years later it is launched in Malaysia, the patent would start from when it is launched here and not when it was launched earlier in the US. This is not fair.”

Going back to Japan, the opposition from the agriculture industry doesn’t mean Japan will back out of it completely. Despite strong opposition from its citizens, the country secretly ratified ACTA in the middle of the night last year. Of course, Japan’s new conservative government may not be as willing to approve a treaty that’s being spearheaded by the U.S., but then again, maybe it is.

Despite the vocal minority objecting to TPP, the treaty still has quite a bit of support from participating nations. It also doesn’t face much resistance due to the secretive nature of the negotiations so most citizens don’t even know what those involved are planning. One group is trying to gain access to the treaty’s text by offering a bounty for it, but their efforts have yet to be rewarded.

To that end, it would be advantageous to look back on all the bills, treaties, etc that threatened the Internet in 2012. As they say, those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Internet freedom fighters will have to learn from tactics employed this year to recognize threats to a free Internet before they even emerge.

Were you concerned for the free Internet in 2012? Do you think next year will be worse or better? Let us know in the comments.

The first battle over the free Internet came in January as the much debated SOPA and PIPA came up for vote in Congress. The bills were designed to combat copyright infringement online, but the powers granted to the government to do so were sweeping and overly broad. SOPA in particular gave government the power to censor Web sites on the DNS level thereby removing them from general access to most users. Potential for abuse was high and many feared that the bill would be used to destroy innovation and protect legacy businesses that have yet to adapt to how the Internet does business.

Worryingly enough, it looked like both bills would actually see smooth sailing through both the Senate and the House. Then the Internet banded together and launched a blackout campaign that saw many popular sites like Wikipedia going dark to show people what a world with SOPA could potentially look like. The tactic worked as thousands of concerned citizens called their representatives telling them to vote no on SOPA and PIPA. The bills were finally taken off the table for good in October.

After the threat of SOPA and PIPA subsided, a new threat emerged. It had free Internet proponents even more concerned as it was as international treaty that sought to rewrite international law in favor of large corporate interests. The treaty was called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA for short, and it contained a number of worrying implications. The most concerning part of the treaty was that it would require ISPs around the world to “monitor and censor online communications.” It was not only a threat to free speech on the Internet, but a major threat to online privacy as well.

After many parts of the treaty were leaked, citizens in countries across Europe took to the streets to protest. The protests worked as many countries refused to ratify the treaty and it was finally dealt a death blow in July as the European Parliament voted against it. The treaty was officially shelved, at least in Europe, earlier in December.

All the previous treaties and bills only sought to remove copyright infringing material from the Internet. It’s bad, but it could be worse. Our friends in Washington took on that challenge when lawmakers introduced CISPA and CSA – two bills that aimed to tackle cybersecurity, but threatened to violate any privacy that U.S. citizens may have online. CISPA was definitely more worrisome as it had the support of those who opposed SOPA just a few months prior. The new bill garnered support because it made it easier for companies to share information with government bodies without having to worry about lawsuits from those whose information was shared without consent.

Like the previous bills thus far, both were killed before getting very far. CISPA was able to pass the House, but its Senate counterpart, CSA, was killed time and time again. The latest attempt for passage happened in mid-November with the bill being officially killed for the last time.

The biggest threat by far, however, happened earlier in December when delegates around the world met to discuss an update to a decades old telecommunications treaty. The ITU, or International Telecommunications Union, was met with skepticism as some felt less than scrupulous members of the global community would use the meeting as an opportunity to seize control of the Internet. They did not disappoint as China, Saudia Arabia and others introduced a last minute change to the treaty that would have given them more power over the Internet. The treaty was rejected by the U.S. and much of Europe though, and it was unceremoniously killed.

Do you think these were legitimate threats to the free Internet? Were Internet freedom proponents blowing the potential threat of these bills and treaties out of proportion? Let us know in the comments.

As the above illustrates, 2012 was one hell of a year for Internet censorship and regulations. All of it was defeated, however, and tired Internet freedom fighters can rest easy knowing that the Internet is no longer under attack, right? Wrong. 2013 is shaping up to be an even worse year for proposed Internet regulation as various treaties and bills from 2012 are sticking around into the new year while new treaties and bills will obviously be proposed in due time.

Speaking of relics from 2012, TPP is a prime example of a trade agreement that refuses to die. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is much like ACTA, but it seeks to establish better trade relations between the U.S. and Southeast Asia. It’s similarities to ACTA don’t end there, however, as the treaty is negotiated in complete secrecy without any input from the public or Congress. In fact, many members of Congress are lobbying to have the USTR make negotiations more transparent since they have the constitutional right of approving treaties.

So, where does TPP stand in 2013? It could go either way to be honest. We keep hearing tales of how the treaty is constantly on its last legs as Southeast Asian countries are starting to realize it’s not good for their economy, but the secrecy in which it’s being negotiated makes it hard to tell just how close it is to either death or ratification.

Another worrisome trade agreement to look out for in 2013 is CETA – the Canada-European Union Trade Agreement. It doesn’t directly affect the U.S., but the treaty’s passage could spell trouble for the free Internet around the world as the treaty contains much of the same language that made ACTA so horrible. If ratified, the treaty could be seen as proof that ACTA wasn’t so bad and new attempts to ratify similar treaties could take hold around the world.

The last relic left over from 2012 is Clean IT – an European Commission project that seeks to censor the Internet in the name of protecting citizens from terrorism. The concern is that the project does little to actually stop terrorism and does everything in its power to use the Internet to monitor citizens in everything that they do. What’s worse is that the project turns people into Internet vigilantes where they can submit content that they feel is terroristic or otherwise “bad” to have it removed and those who fail to report any “bad” material would be punished.

As you can see, 2013 is already looking pretty grim and these are just the leftovers from 2012. There’s bound to be more laws, treaties and projects introduced in 2013 that will make SOPA, ACTA and others look like bastions of Internet freedom in comparison.

The free Internet has been a major force of change in the world, and some clearly don’t like that whether they be a legacy business that refuses to adapt or a world power that wants to subjugate its citizens even in the digital world. Either way, the Internet has proven to be resilient to any threats against it thus far and 2013 may prove to be its biggest test yet. It will be fascinating to see how the Internet and those who use it respond.

Do you think the Internet will survive 2013? What are you most concerned about in the coming year? Let us know in the comments.

The Register reports that the European Commission has pulled its request for the European Court of Justice to review ACTA. After pulling it, the commission stated that there was “no realistic chance” of the treaty ever gaining ground in Europe. The statement marks the official end of a fight against a treaty that Europeans fought tooth and nail against.

Although ACTA may be dead in Europe, the treaty lives in other nations around the world. The U.S. has claimed ACTA is a “sole executive agreement” that is binding after President Obama signed the treaty in late 2011 despite only Congress having the power to approve treaties. The treaty has not taken effect, however, and its death in Europe pretty much kills it in the U.S.

The treaty has, however, been ratified in one country. Back in September, Japan’s House of Representatives ratified the treaty in the middle of the night so there would be no blowback from the country’s citizens that are already prone to protests. The new conservative government that was just elected, however, may revisit the ratification.

Despite all of this, the ghost of ACTA still lingers in some parts of the world. Some of the worst parts of ACTA have made their way into CETA, or the Canada-European Trade Agreement. The treaty has faced little resistance, and it looks like it may pass by year’s end.

The newest threat to the Internet is called the Canada-European Union Trade Agreement, or CETA for short. The agreement would create stronger economic ties between the two parties by opening up free trade and increased investment from both sides. The treaty, however, has a darker side that was exposed by EDRI.

According to an email obtained by EDRI, the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union told the European Commission that the criminal sanctions provisions in CETA were lifted directly from ACTA. These provisions include increased damages for copyright infringement with ISPs being converted into a private copyright police, among others.

It seems that the same folks who launched massive protests across Europe for ACTA are now publicly protesting CETA. The EFF reports that citizens from France, Poland, and other EU member states are out on the streets protesting CETA and the secret negotiations that are being used to push the legislation.

Just like with ACTA and TPP, we don’t really know how bad CETA really is. All we know is that the people behind the treaty are pretty happy about the ACTA-like provisions in the treaty. That should be enough cause for concern for those who spent the better part of this year protesting ACTA.

Free trade, especially trade enabled by the Internet, should be protected. Treaties can help with that, but they must be negotiated with the utmost transparency. The EU and Canada are both proving that they don’t care to hear input from their respective citizens during the CETA negotiations. Expect to see more protests pop up as more is revealed about CETA.

EDRI got their hands on a leaked copy of the Clean IT project. It’s a proposed European Commission project that would turn the European Internet into a gigantic surveillance system. There’s more to it, but it would be appropriate to say that somebody’s been reading up on their Orwell recently.

So, what’s the goal of Clean IT? The government wants to stop terrorism, and they think that terrorists are using the Internet to coordinate attacks. The goal, according to the official Web site, is to prevent terrorists from using the Internet. The official draft document also says that “any action taken to reduce the terrorist use of the Internet, will respect fundamental rights and freedoms, including access to the Internet, freedoms of assembly and expression, privacy and data protection.”

That all sounds pretty good, but policy makers are known masters of spin. Now, let’s take a look at the proposed policies that are present in the leaked version of Clean IT. Here’s the major talking points from EDRI:

Removal of any legislation preventing filtering/surveillance of employees’ Internet connections

Law enforcement authorities should be able to have content removed “without following the more labour-intensive and formal procedures for ‘notice and action’”

“Knowingly” providing links to “terrorist content” (the draft does not refer to content which has been ruled to be illegal by a court, but undefined “terrorist content” in general) will be an offence “just like” the terrorist

Legal underpinning of “real name” rules to prevent anonymous use of online services
ISPs to be held liable for not making “reasonable” efforts to use technological surveillance to identify (undefined) “terrorist” use of the Internet

Companies providing end-user filtering systems and their customers should be liable for failing to report “illegal” activity identified by the filter

Customers should also be held liable for “knowingly” sending a report of content which is not illegal

Governments should use the helpfulness of ISPs as a criterion for awarding public contracts

The proposal on blocking lists contradict each other, on the one hand providing comprehensive details for each piece of illegal content and judicial references, but then saying that the owner can appeal (although if there was already a judicial ruling, the legal process would already have been at an end) and that filtering such be based on the “output” of the proposed content regulation body, the “European Advisory Foundation”

Blocking or “warning” systems should be implemented by social media platforms – somehow it will be both illegal to provide (undefined) “Internet services” to “terrorist persons” and legal to knowingly provide access to illegal content, while “warning” the end-user that they are accessing illegal content

The anonymity of individuals reporting (possibly) illegal content must be preserved… yet their IP address must be logged to permit them to be prosecuted if it is suspected that they are reporting legal content deliberately and to permit reliable informants’ reports to be processed more quickly

Companies should implement upload filters to monitor uploaded content to make sure that content that is removed – or content that is similar to what is removed – is not re-uploaded

It proposes that content should not be removed in all cases but “blocked” (i.e. make inaccessible by the hosting provider – not “blocked” in the access provider sense) and, in other cases, left available online but with the domain name removed.

In essence, Clean IT wants to punish you for using the Internet as it was intended. It would require you to use your real name in all online communication. It would punish you for linking to “terrorist content” (whatever that means), and it makes no distinction between linking for educational or malicious purposes.

Clean IT has proven itself to be bad. What does it mean for Europe though? Nothing yet, but that could change. Europe has proven to be more accommodating to sweeping surveillance programs, but the Internet community may surprise us with another continent wide protest. They were able to successfully kill ACTA, and they may just be able to kill Clean IT as well.

Beyond that, the biggest obstacle to Clean IT’s passage is the Internet itself. All these programs require ISPs and social media networks to take on the duties of surveillance. Such programs cost too much and those running ISPs tend to have something resembling moral fiber when it comes to privacy. Facebook and Twitter would obviously reject having their services turn into surveillance systems as well.

Since the original publication of EDRI’s report, the Clean It project has published a conversation between the project’s manager, But Klaasen, and tech writer, Glyn Moody. Klaasen says that the leaked document are just suggestions, but never really clarifies beyond that. He does invite Moody and any other interested parties to attend meetings on the matter. It’s encouraging, but Moody nails it by saying that it’s worrying that the ideas present were even considered.

We’ll continue to watch the progress of Clean IT. If it does prove to be successful, you can bet a similar program will be proposed for the U.S. It’s already rumored that the NSA and other agencies collect civilian communications, but a Clean IT-like project would allow them to work in the open.

Here’s a copy of the draft Clean IT project, courtesy of TechDirt:

cleanIT_sept2012

Understandably, people are angry that TPP is still veiled in secrecy. They want Wikileaks or some other organization to get ahold of the most current negotiating text and share it with the world. To achieve that, Democracy In Action is crowdsourcing a bounty for TPP’s text. That bounty is now up to $25,000.

Here’s what the group hopes to accomplish:

At this very moment, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP)–a trade agreement that could affect the health and welfare of billions of people worldwide–is being negotiated behind closed doors. While 600 corporate lobbyists have access to the text, the press, the public, and even members of the US Congress are being kept in the dark.

But we don’t have to stand meekly by as corporate cronies decide our futures. Concerned citizens from around the world are pooling together their resources as a reward to WikiLeaks if it makes the negotiating text of the TPP public. Our pledge, as individuals, is to donate this money to WikiLeaks should it leak the document we seek.

As WikiLeaks likes to say, information wants to be free. The negotiating text for the TPP wants to be free. Someone just needs to release it.

The project is like a Kickstarter of sorts. People can pledge any amount of money that they want. Wikileaks, or whoever else leaks it, will receive the combined amount of pledged money. The group would prefer Wikileaks leaking the documents because they want the group to reaffirm its commitment to the public, and not just self interest.

It’s an great way to get people involved without expecting much from them. People can donate just $1 to the cause. Unfortunately, it could just backfire horribly in the end. There’s no guarantee that people will pay the amount they pledge. The text could be leaked and the those responsible wouldn’t get the money that was promised.

Even so, that wouldn’t be so bad, right? Important trade agreements like TPP should have been made transparent in the first place. It’s pretty sad that we have to resort to bribery just to find out what the Executive branch of our government is doing behind our, and Congress’, backs.

The Inquirer reports that Japan is the latest country to ratify ACTA. What makes this ratification so rotten is that it was done in the middle of the night. According to Japan’s Internet Watch, the treaty was quickly shoved through the House of Representatives without any kind of debate.

A quick passage seems par for the course when it comes to the current political climate of Japan. The Japanese government seems to have no problem when it comes to bending over backwards to appease content owners. Japan passed a law back in June that would make it a crime to watch YouTube videos of copyrighted content. Not to mention, the law also punishes the creation of back-up copies for personal use.

After the passage of the aforementioned YouTube law, Anonymous took to the streets in protest. They are planning on doing so again with the Pirate Party of Japan to protest the ratification of ACTA. They’re planning the protests to begin on September 9. The Japanese have proven that they’re pretty good at protesting, but the government has also proven that they’re pretty good at ignoring the demands of its citizens.

ACTA is still being debated around the world. TPP is also very much alive and well. We’ll continue to follow these trade agreements and deliver any updates as they come around. Unfortunately, updates don’t come often due to the secrecy that’s afforded to these treaties.

Unfortunately, the war is not won and it’s looking like the war will never end. SOPA and ACTA are both back in new forms that are even harder to kill than before. I can understand SOPA being back as it’s been dead for a while, but are they really trying to push through ACTA right after it was defeated in the European Parliament? The answer is an astounding yes and the tactics that politicians are employing to regulate the Internet are pretty terrifying.

Does the return of SOPA and ACTA surprise you in the least? Will we ever end the war against Internet legislation? Let us know in the comments.

Let’s start with the return of SOPA. It’s important to point out now that SOPA is not returning in full just yet. I don’t think that Rep. Lamar Smith would be foolish enough to propose SOPA again after such a big defeat in January. So what part of the bill is he trying to push through? The IP attaches part that expands the power of the U.S. copyright diplomats. These people, according to techdirt, go around the world forcing other countries to make their IP laws just as ruthless and unforgiving as they are in the West.

Well, that doesn’t sound so bad. I mean, at least it doesn’t affect the Internet in any major way. You forget that IP protection now affects the Internet in a very big way. The U.S. is pushing for some of the strongest regulations against online piracy with a six-strike rule to be implemented this month by major ISPs. By forcing foreign countries to follow these same draconian laws, it prevents us from being able to work together on a compromise that protects artists and the freedom that the Internet provides. The current plan only protects rights holders and the big wigs running the show.

As we reported on yesterday, the worst part about the new Intellectual Property Attache Act is that it expands the role of the IP attaches into their own agency. They are currently housed under the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Being let loose on their own with no oversight could have damaging implications in the fight for fair IP laws.

Another worrying factor is that Rep. Darrell Issa, opponent of SOPA, has signed on as a co-sponsor of the IP Attache Act. His spokesman told TechCrunch that he supports the bill because it protects American interests in foreign countries. He does, however, say that he will work to amend the bill before it goes before the committee to include protections like fair use. Whether he accomplishes that remains to be seen, but don’t get too optimistic.

Does the IP Attaches Act sound like SOPA to you? Are people getting worried for no reason? Let us know in the comments.

SOPA being forced through the legislature is bad, but it’s nowhere near as bad as the secret ACTA alternative that’s currently being pushed through as another treaty. We were recently made aware of CETA (Canada-EU Trade Agreement) through a leak and it contains all the rotten parts of ACTA that we all thought were killed when the European Parliament voted it down.

Before ACTA died, EU Commissioner, Karel De Gucht, promised that the treaty would be passed one way or another. His main goal is to bring the treaty before the European Court of Justice to see if the treaty infringes upon any basic human rights protected by the European Union. De Gucht doesn’t want to wait for a court ruling, so he’s going to use Canada to get what he wants.

The tactic, according to Michael Geist, is that the EU will pass CETA with Canada and then claim that ACTA was perfectly acceptable the whole time. I mean, Canada likes the provisions that are in CETA and so why do you hate it? It’s a clever tactic and one that might work. That’s the scary part as all the worst parts of ACTA are present in CETA. Even if ACTA doesn’t get brought up again, the EU and Canada would be bound by a treaty that contains all that nastiness.

Fortunately, the outcry against CETA has moved the European Commission to remove some of the more inflammatory parts of the bill. The provisions in CETA that would require ISPs to remove content and disclose subscriber’s personal information have been removed according to a Tweet from the European Commission’s John Clancy.

Follow @EUJohnClancy

John Clancy
@EUJohnClancy

@mgeist@laquadrature#ACTA internet articles 27.3 and 27.4 are not part of current #CETA text. The leaked text is from Feb and has changed

 Reply  ·  Retweet  ·  Favorite
1 day ago via web · powered by @socialditto

Unfortunately, those are just two of the numerous provisions from ACTA that are still in CETA. The fact that the EU or Canada will not release the current text of the bill is also a bad sign. It’s been a trend to hide controversial or damaging bills until they’re ready to pass, but leaks like this help the public to become aware of the issues at stake. Geist suggests that the EU reveal the current draft to allow input from the citizenry. I agree, but it would be even better if countries were left to their own devices on how best to approach IP laws instead of trying to create a universal standard that only works for the top of the chain.

Do you think that these new bills present a threat to the Internet? Does CETA herald the return of ACTA? Let us know in the comments.

[Image Credit]

It’s rare for us to get any kind of news in regards to TPP and even rarer for it come straight from the U.S. Trade Representative, but that’s what happened last week. During the always secret TPP talks taking place in San Diego last week, the USTR introduced “New Copyright Exceptions and Limitations Provision” into the TPP text. Here’s the statement from the USTR:

For the first time in any U.S. trade agreement, the United States is proposing a new provision, consistent with the internationally-recognized “3-step test,” that will obligate Parties to seek to achieve an appropriate balance in their copyright systems in providing copyright exceptions and limitations for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. These principles are critical aspects of the U.S. copyright system, and appear in both our law and jurisprudence. The balance sought by the U.S. TPP proposal recognizes and promotes respect for the important interests of individuals, businesses, and institutions who rely on appropriate exceptions and limitations in the TPP region.

So why is this such a big deal? The introduction of the Berne three-step test to TPP makes the copyright section at least appear desirable The three-step test allows people to use copyrighted works in cases of criticism, parody, education, etc all under the banner of fair use.

So is TPP fine after this? Not by a long shot, but it proves that the USTR is at least attentive to recent happenings around the world. The death of ACTA may have had a hand in this recent change as those involved in the treaty do not want massive protests on the level of what we saw in Europe.

While the introduction of the three-step test is a start, many civil liberties organizations feel that it is not enough. A joint statement from EFF, Knowledge Ecology International, Public Knowledge and Public Citizen said that the still secret provision could actually “restrict fair use and other copyright exceptions and limitations crucial for the progress and access of culture, science, education and innovation.”

Their fears are justified as the USTR only said that they would be introducing the three-step test. It’s not in the bill yet and those involved in the negotiations (i.e. Hollywood) might shoot down the provision. They could also pass it in name only, while keeping the draconian copyright statutes that we’ve seen in previous leaks.

We’ll keep you updated on any more changes to TPP over the coming months. The recent interest in TPP from a Congress that’s angry over their being left out of the negotiations could prove interesting as we head into the election season.

As the vote was going down, many in the audience held up signs and banners which read, “Hello democracy, goodbye Acta”. UK’s Pirate Party leader Loz Kaye was elated, as well, stating, “The European Parliament vote is a triumph of democracy over special interests and shady back-room deals.”

Although officials say that the agreement was nothing more than an attempt to get a handle on the internet piracy, many believe that it’s a serious threat to our freedom. Few details about ACTA are known, though the most damning of language suggests that criminal penalties will be brought against both intellectual property pirates and individuals who are found “aiding and abetting” such activity. Despite being negotiated as a trade agreement, many feel that it’s simply legislation in disguise. Pharmaceutical companies, movies studios, and record labels, as you can imagine, were quite anxious to see this thing pass.

Wednesday’s vote is considered to be a huge win for those who feel that large, money-saturated corporations currently have too much power over governments and their citizens. However, there is still a chance that the United States and a handful of small nations could, in theory, get the treaty to pass. All they need are six of ten negotiating countries to ratify the treaty for it to go into effect. However, without the support of the European Parliament, many feel that ACTA is as good as dead.

EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht, meanwhile, has stated that the fight against piracy will continue in spite of the vote. “Today’s rejection does not change the fact that the European Commission has committed itself to seeking answers to the questions raised by the European public,” he explained. “The European Commission will continue to seek the legal opinion of the European Court of Justice on whether this agreement harms any of the fundamental rights of European citizens – including freedom of speech.”