Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - Global Big Brother?

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement is an effort to institute international standards for combating counterfeiting worldwide. This idea was originally developed by the United States and Japan in 2006, but the only official draft was released in April of 2010 after several documents regarding it began appearing in 2008. Switzerland, the European Union and Canada participated in the preliminary (and very secretive) talks in 2006 and 2007, although official negotiations began in June of 2008. At present, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Australia, the Republic of Korea and Singapore have joined the talks which are scheduled to end sometime this year. These discussions have all been held behind closed doors.

It's riddled with [bracketed text] which reflects disagreements among as yet unidentified parties. These disputes are representative of a larger controversy; the agreement would create its own governing body separate from all other existing multinational institutions. Along with regulating infringement upon patents, apparently copyright violations in the context of "internet distribution and information technology" are also within its scope. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), "ACTA will bring together countries that recognize the critical importance of strong IPR [intellectual property rights] enforcement for a prosperous economy. The ACTA is envisioned as a leadership effort among countries that will raise the international standard for IPR enforcement to address today’s challenges of counterfeiting and piracy. ACTA will build upon the Administration’s prior bilateral and regional cooperation successes."

The legal framework of this agreement is very broad, providing direction for Civil Enforcement, Border Measures, Criminal Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement in the Digital Environment. Some readers may already be familiar with the discussion document leaked to WikiLeaks in 2008. Notable clauses from that document include provisions for governments to shut down websites associated with copyright infringement, and establish an international agency capable of forcing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to supply information regarding their customers without a warrant.

Although none of this is finalized, current drafts indicate that airport security and border patrol agents would be able to search travelers' laptops, mp3 players and cell phones for illegal content. If discovered, the offenders would be subject to fines and possibly have their devices confiscated or destroyed. The United States in particular is in favor of these measures.

It has been argued that the agreement in its current form would remove certain legal safeguards that shield ISPs from liability associated with the actions of their customers, and its vague terminology would doom free software providers and peer to peer file sharing programs. It would also allow criminal prosecution and previously unlawful searches and seizures without probable cause that will seriously weaken the presumption of innocence that most of us currently enjoy.

Personally, this writer believes that if the agreement is successful it will lessen our freedoms; how we exchange information and the way we currently use the Internet will be irreparably damaged. Readers are highly encouraged to research this agreement and draw their own conclusions.