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

141–150 of 201 posts

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#141

Post by saraid216 »

brianpgordon wrote: post #133
wonderyak wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why would Congress pass legislation saying that it's not allowed to amend trade agreements? Why don't they just not amend trade agreements?

We're talking about the several-hundred-member body of people whose very job is to argue with each other? The one whose membership is up for modification every few years? The one whose purpose it is to create rules that persist across changes in membership?

That Congress?

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#142

Post by saraid216 »

kevando wrote: post #20
AlexanderDhoore wrote: post #6

I really, really hope the culture of leaking information becomes so strong that governments will become incapable of keeping anything a secret. That would give me some hope for the future. Anyone that leaks information is a fucking hero. Edit: Stop attacking me personally. I'm talking about the government's privacy here, not mine (nor anyone else's). I actually think my privacy will improve if this becomes a reality.

What if I told you your government knows what you masterbate to?

Oh no! I'm so ashamed of my sexuality that someone else knowing my porn habits is going to make me sing a tragic operatic solo!

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#143

Post by balabaster »

swombat wrote: post #98
balabaster wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The salaries of all your employees? Doesn't that violate their own rights to privacy? Or does this only extend to the board of directors?

Why would it violate any rights to privacy? What rights are you talking about, anyway? The only thing we don't share openly in this manner is personal health problems.

To clarify: It's my right, if I so choose, to keep my salary and any other personal financial information private from the rest of the world (minus of course, my employer and the IRS). So your releasing that information is a violation of my privacy.

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#144

Post by patmcc »

brianpgordon wrote: post #133
wonderyak wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why would Congress pass legislation saying that it's not allowed to amend trade agreements? Why don't they just not amend trade agreements?

Congress now != congress in 2 years, remember.

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#145

Post by patmcc »

eruditely wrote: post #102
hackula1 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are playing to win, you tell them you currently make whatever salary you are seeking. When they ask you what sort of salary you need, say something along the lines of "Obviously, I want to take a step forward, but I am pretty flexible, so if you can at least match my current pay, then I would be open to accepting". While this tactic does fall into the grey area of morality, it is quite effective.

Dont companies pay equifax and such for employee salary data? I'd be careful on this one.

This is where you say "my total compensation is around $x". To me, "total compensation" includes pay, benefits, bonuses, the dollar value I put on how short my commute is, rough cost of free food in the office, how nice my chair is, etc. etc.

I also don't think they'll be able to do an equifax/transunion lookup without your permission. And it's perfectly reasonable to say no to that, as credit checks are bad for your credit.

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#147

Post by kelvin0 »

wonderyak wrote: post #137
brianpgordon wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Congress pass legislation saying that it's not allowed to amend trade agreements? Why don't they just not amend trade agreements?

its hard for me to think of an answer to this question that doesn't somehow devolve into an area of 'conspiracy'-type BS. I really do not know.

Why are alternatives to the current mainstream stories have to be 'devolving' into anything?

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#148

Post by kelvin0 »

twoodfin wrote: post #84
logfromblammo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like, for instance, that the Japanese diplomatic codes had been broken and that the administration had prior knowledge of an imminent attack on Pearl Harbor, yet chose to do nothing, because the public response would finally allow the U.S. to enter the war? Absolutely, it would have been heroic. It might have led to real justice instead of ruinous warmongering.

It seems that we're fated to see every conspiracy theory on hn eventually. Wikipedia covers the SIGINT available prior to Pearl Harbor pretty well[1]. There is no evidence that anyone in the entire U.S. civilian or military hierarchy had advance knowledge of the attack. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on...

Well I guess if Wikipedia doesn't mention it, it didn't happend, right? Awesome argument ...

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#149

Post by trevelyan »

mpyne wrote: post #105
nikcub wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> governments will become incapable of keeping anything a secret. That isn't the goal, not for privacy advocates nor for Wikileaks or Julian Assange, who said: "The goal is justice, the method is transparency. It's important not to confuse the goal and the method." Advocates of individual privacy rely on the government, as a service provider, to keep secrets in order to protect the rights of individuals.

That may have been Assange (and WikiLeaks) goal when it was founded. It's hard to claim that's currently their goal, given that their push for "transparency" is limited to the USA (and occasionally the UK) ever since their site switchover back 5-6 years ago.

Have you been to the Wikileaks site? There are plenty of documents/leaks on other countries. Why are you expecting to hear about them on US/UK media?

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#150

Post by x3ro »

einehexe wrote: post #108
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…

>this is what modern imperialism looks like Well that is a pretty tepid imperialism. If a country isn't willing to put their money where their mouth is then maybe they should be quiet.

What money? [1]

[1] http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/

Post reply on HN