Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

wikileaks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 201 posts

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#121

Post by fragsworth »

hackula1 wrote: post #41
retube wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a very naive and idealistic position. Governments often and rightly have genuine reasons for keeping things secret - as do other institutions, businesses and indeed individual people.

Fine, don't shut down the programs, but is it too much for the people paying for these programs to ask about their nature and to be informed of the accountability breaches? Every citizen has a right to know the nature of what we are doing (how else can we decide whether or not we want to live with the trade offs or not?), and to be informed when something goes off the rails on the ethics side of things. This is a pre…

The right to know what we're paying for. Probably the best way of putting it.

How can we call ourselves a democracy when money is taken from us and we don't know where it goes? It seems like we're voting for people, but there's no discourse about the secret stuff.

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#122

Post by scott_karana »

timje1 wrote: post #57
jellicle wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even better, what if the government was closing in a child pornographer with chemical weapons and a nuke, and the leak allowed him to rape more children while nuking a nunnery and poisoning an orphanage?

You forgot ...thus lowering house prices in a wide area . Now the electorate are on your side!

Wouldn't that only make the buyers happy, and the sellers upset? ;)

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#123

Post by [deleted] »

husein10 wrote: post #96

I think it's absurd that these negotiations were shrouded in such secrecy in the first place. These rules, if implemented, will have a massive impact on how the global economy will work. Yet, the public, who will end up living under the yoke of these rules, not only has very little direct input into the process but didn't (until today) even have a clear view of what rules were being considered. I don't see how one ca…

[deleted]

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#124

Post by wonderyak »

mtgx wrote: post #119
wonderyak wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the TPP is not public (yet?), and parties involved are not allowed to discuss it for 4 years. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/11/house-pushing-back-on...

How is that possible, when there were rumors they intend to pass it by the end of the year?

Its been 'fast tracked' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)).

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#125

Post by chc »

cbr wrote: post #26
bzmwillemsen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With respect to government contracts: It would really hurt a company if their detail pricing scheme was released, as a competitor could easily undercut if they had access to that information. With respect to court documents: It could result is someone getting hurt or a mis-trial due to outside influences (ie. Rob Ford video) There are obviously many reasons...

It would really hurt a company if their detail pricing scheme was released, as a competitor could easily undercut if they had access to that information If every company's pricing were public, wouldn't we just have healthy competition?

We would have competition. How healthy it would be is less certain.

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#126

Post by spunky »

rtpg wrote: post #115
nikcub wrote: post #8

The content isn't interesting[1] because bilateral free trade agreements are public[0], and having the USA force partners into accepting patent enforcement, copyright laws like the DMCA etc. are well known What is a little interesting is the negotiations and diplomacy at work. You can see how each country is trying to further its own position and interest. Looking at this version of the document, it is impossible to…

> [NZ/BN/MY/VN/CA/JP propose; US/AU/SG/MX oppose: The term of protection of a work, performance or phonogram shall be determined according to each Party's domestic law and the international agreements to which each Party is a party.] On a sidenote, wouldn't it be great if we could at least get unified copyright law? From the draft it seems like the US is pushing more towards that

The US copyright system is broken.

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#127

Post by aurelius83 »

njs12345 wrote: post #91
tokenadult wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really . . . hope . . . that governments will become incapable of keeping anything a secret. Does that include personal information about you, for example your personal medical information that is part of the treatment records of a government-administered medical insurance plan? Some countries (not many) make personal income tax filings public information. Do you live in such a country?

I always liked the idea of making income tax filings public. Seems like it would make catching people who are dodging tax and the relevant discussions around it a lot easier.

also, makes it easier to figure out who to kidnap and also who to blackmail.

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#128

Post by _mulder_ »

swombat wrote: post #97
_mulder_ wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you mind posting your company salary information here? I've always been interested to see how a real-life startup salary structure looks. Or is it only transparent if you're in the club?

That's an interesting challenge. We've posted revenue numbers on our blog, but not salary information. That said, the first job ad we put out will have pretty clear salary information, so, ok, I'll answer. Here's the payscale in short, then. There are 2 main roles within the company: client management and sales. Salespeople get £20k p.a., plus a 15% commission on sales, plus a share of the bonus pool. The base salary…

Kudos for being so open. (Although to relate the point back to the Original thread about Government openness, Governments (and lots of Big Corps) also tend to be quite transparent about Salary bands, Bonus, etc.)

Now to derail the discussion:

How do you reward excellence? There will surely come a time where an employee has been working considerably harder than his colleagues asks for a pay-increase. How do you envision this would go down with the other employees? Your Client-Manager salary infact seems to be based purely on duration of service, not output.

Also, your company seems very unique to only have two roles, which perhaps explains why you can reveal this information freely. Full transparency would include how much you get paid, how much the office admin gets paid, the lawyers, accountants, coders, etc.

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#129

Post by alwaysdoit »

jellicle wrote: post #45
mcphilip wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not quite so simple as considering all leaks of government information heroic. For instance, would it have been heroic to leak news that U.S. code breakers had cracked enemy codes in WW2?

Even better, what if the government was closing in a child pornographer with chemical weapons and a nuke, and the leak allowed him to rape more children while nuking a nunnery and poisoning an orphanage?

This is possibly a reasonable argument for keeping things confidential temporarily. It's not a justification for keeping information confidential indefinitely.

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#130

Post by wonderyak »

rtpg wrote: post #115
nikcub wrote: post #8

The content isn't interesting[1] because bilateral free trade agreements are public[0], and having the USA force partners into accepting patent enforcement, copyright laws like the DMCA etc. are well known What is a little interesting is the negotiations and diplomacy at work. You can see how each country is trying to further its own position and interest. Looking at this version of the document, it is impossible to…

> [NZ/BN/MY/VN/CA/JP propose; US/AU/SG/MX oppose: The term of protection of a work, performance or phonogram shall be determined according to each Party's domestic law and the international agreements to which each Party is a party.] On a sidenote, wouldn't it be great if we could at least get unified copyright law? From the draft it seems like the US is pushing more towards that

Not when its coupled with things like Corporations being able to sue governments for 'loss of potential future profits' for policy decisions. That is incredibly dangerous.
Post reply on HN