Today Sigmund Freud enters the public domain. Communia and the campaign site Public Domain Day is celebrating. I was struck by the expression "Without any need for prior authorization" on the celebration website, and came to think of a similar phrase from a Internet celebration speech by ISOC's Lynn St. Amour: "Those who create applications don't need permission to deploy them on the Internet."
Permission, authorization... I guess Freud had an opinion on which segment of society would have the right, have the authority, to hand out these permissions. Maybe also on how you earn that right.
And speaking of authority, I just learned that Acta negotiations were not bound by any rule to be secret. No binding treaty or law says it had to be secret. No, what happened was that the parties agreed before the formal negotiations started to keep everything confidential.
I wonder who agreed to that on behalf of Sweden. And who would have that authority? Here is an excerpt (see page 6) of what someone from Sweden must have signed:
First, we agree that documents relating to the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) will be held in confidence. This means that the documents may be given only to government officials or persons outside government who participate in the party's domestic consultation process and have a need to review or be advised of the information in these documents. Anyone given access to the documents will be alerted that they cannot share the documents with people not authorized to see them."
In my opinion this person's signature is overriding the right of the parliament to be a legislator. It's a surrender of authority of coup d'etat dimensions.
Let's find out! May Freud be with us :-)
Gräv fram lagrummet
Gräv fram lagrummet "Trolöshet i förhandling med främmande makt" (livstids fängelse).
Dags att crowdsourca
Dags att crowdsourca nyöversättningar!?
medborgar-journalism
Svenska medier kommer inte att våga gräva fram något, skulle de ändock göra det, typ av misstag, så kommer de att gräva ned det lika fort. :-/
Skall ytterligare information komma fram så är det medborgar-journalism som gäller.
need
Those words about a "domestic consultation process" were obviously included as an excuse for letting Hollywood participate in the negotiations, but how does one determine who has "a need to review or be advised of the information in these documents"? Don't you and I have such a need?
If the ministers only wanted, they could declare that a democratic government needs to consult with the entire population before it makes agreements that restrict the parliament's right to institute or abolish laws – and as if by a stroke of magic, all the documents would be public.
Terrific argument by "need"
I think this was a terrific argument. Because according to our laws it is not possible to keep the public out like this. We have a decision process that has to be followed accordingly. New legislation has to be subjected to public debate and commenting. Otherwise it is unlawful.
Skriv ny kommentar