Category: Ignorant or unreasonable

Bruce Schneier writes:

[Ex-CIA Director Keith] Alexander offered to provide advice to Sifma for $1 million a month, according to two people briefed on the talks. The asking price later dropped to $600,000, the people said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the negotiation was private.

The only way I can see this deal actually benefiting Sifma is if Keith Alexander is selling information gained while working at the CIA, some of it which may be classified.

 

The key negotiators have long been complaining about “misinformation” being spread about this and other agreements — but it often appears that the misinformation is actually coming directly from the negotiators themselves. Besides, it’s pretty rich to complain about misinformation on a deal that you’re negotiating in secret. Want to end much of that supposed “misinformation”? Here’s a simple suggestion: open up, show some transparency and release the negotiating positions you’re taking, or even draft documents of the agreement to allow the public to comment.

But instead of transparency, it appears that the US State Department has settled on another option: paying for propaganda.

No joke, the US Embassy in Berlin has apparently been tweeting out offers to give out between $5,000 and $20,000 to organizations willing to produce pro-TAFTA/TTIP propaganda. The document doesn’t ask for proposals for unbiased analysis on the impact of any potential agreement, instead it starts out by simply declaring:

T-TIP will be a fair deal for Europeans and Americans that will build on an already existing strong friendship.

Now that’s an interesting claim, given that there is no agreement yet, and what’s been negotiated so far is (and will remain) entirely secret. So, uh, how does anyone know if it will be “a fair deal.” Wouldn’t it be more reasonable and, dare I say, objective, to ask for an analysis of what kinds of things might be useful in an agreement, and what kinds of things might cause harm? Or, better yet, how about a study on the pros and cons of certain proposals, so as to better weigh the benefits and dangers? Instead, the State Department just insists that this secretive, and nowhere near concluded, agreement will definitely be fair… and is offering cold hard cash to anyone who will cook up some argument for why that must be.

Link (Techdirt)

Techdirt published an article on how Wikileaks has leaked a draft copy of the new Trade In Services Agreement (TISA). The draft seems like a wet dream for investment bankers and spies, and a disaster for just about everyone else.

A sample of provisions from this leaked text show that governments signing on to TISA will: be expected to lock in and extend their current levels of financial deregulation and liberalisation; lose the right to require data to be held onshore; face pressure to authorise potentially toxic insurance products; and risk a legal challenge if they adopt measures to prevent or respond to another crisis.

(…)

The crucial provision is Art X.4, which would apply a standstill to a country’s existing financial measures that are inconsistent with the rules. That means governments must bind their existing levels of liberalization for foreign direct investment on financial services, cross-border provision of financial services and transfers of personnel. The current rules will be the most restrictive of financial services that a government would be allowed to use. They would be encouraged to bind in new liberalization beyond their status quo.

 

Techdirt recently published an article about two customers who had been billed for several years without getting anything at all for their money. Comcast’s response? “Meh. Customer’s at fault.”

It now seems like defenders will be unable to actually see the evidence used against them, because terrism.

it seemed pretty clear that the government had withheld the evidence that was used to bring Daoud to trial in the first place (which is, as you know, not really allowed). After asking for the evidence, the district court first said no, but then ordered that some of the documents being filed actually be shared with Daoud’s attorneys (who have the necessary security clearances). The DOJ, of course, flipped out at this idea that the lawyers for someone they’re trying to lock up forever should actually be able to see the evidence used against him and how it was collected.

This resulted in an appeals court hearing, which bizarrely had to happen twice after the FBI so scared court staff that they failed to record the public portion of the oral hearings. The hearings were also odd in that, at one point, everybody but DOJ folks and the judges were kicked out of the courtroom, raising serious questions about basic due process.

Unfortunately, Judge Richard Posner’s ruling (right after coming out with his good ruling on the public domain) has found that the evidence does not need to be shared with Daoud’s lawyers. He slams the district court judge for overreacting and over-valuing the concept of the “adversarial process” in the court room. Seriously.

Link (Kickstarter)