SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Ars Technica writes about WikiLeaks' release of 17 secret documents from the negotiations of the global Trade in Services Agreement (TISA). If their interpretation is correct,
the EU would be forbidden from requiring that US companies like Google or Facebook keep the personal data of European citizens within the EU
and
Article 6 of the leaked text seems to ban any country from using free software mandates: "No Party may require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party, as a condition of providing services related to such software in its territory."
What more nasty surprises will these negotiations bring?
[Editor's Comment: Original Submission]
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday June 06 2015, @07:05AM
Pretty worrying indeed.
I think the declaring a corporations to have rights as humans was a short sighted affair.
You can see why it was thought necessary. Building anything large, railroads, would always require the finances and services of more than one person, or even a group of people. Something or some structure has to function as the employer, something to be the target of lawsuits (rather than an aggrieved party trying to figure out who has the money).
But creeping rights assigned to corporations, the right to free speech, the right to spend money on things that were never part of their corporate charter, has lead to an uncontrollable situation. It was a tactical mistake.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2015, @03:47PM
No, I can't see why it was thought necessary. If your explanation why is your next 2 sentences, it still fails to explain why it was thought necessary for corporations to have rights as humans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2015, @04:20PM
But creeping rights assigned to corporations, the right to free speech
If corporations didn't have the right to free speech, their websites (for instance) could be shut down at will, and we'd be in a new era of censorship. I really don't think that you should lose free speech rights just by working in a group.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 06 2015, @04:47PM
I think the declaring a corporations to have rights as humans was a short sighted affair.
And the obvious rebuttal is that corporate personhood is merely a legal tool to give corporations and other such groups the rights they should have in the first place. Even if you get rid of this particular system, it remains that corporations and other such groups are allowed and should be allowed a great deal of freedom by the democracies that they are part of.
But creeping rights assigned to corporations, the right to free speech, the right to spend money on things that were never part of their corporate charter, has lead to an uncontrollable situation. It was a tactical mistake.
Nonsense. Who are you do decide what freedoms should be protected and not? Further, it would be folly to allow any institution the power to decide what groups of people can and can't do. Do you want a world where the NSA gets to decide if your non profit protesting US spying gets to keep its charter or prohibit them from speaking out against NSA crimes?
(Score: 1) by dingus on Saturday June 06 2015, @10:29PM
The thing is, the rights of individuals have been expanded far outside of their normal definitions -- for instance, the right to free speech has been interpreted as the right to give money to politicians freely. So, if you give those same rights to corporations, they get powers far beyond what an individual could do(more money, more people) but are held to the same rules. Obviously it's unbalanced and harmful to democracy. I agree that corporations should have some rights, but the rights of groups of people should not be the same as the rights of individuals.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 07 2015, @03:12AM
The thing is, the rights of individuals have been expanded far outside of their normal definitions -- for instance, the right to free speech has been interpreted as the right to give money to politicians freely.
Then you don't understand the point of the Citizens United ruling which wasn't to give money to politicians, but rather equality of opportunity to advertise before an election. A billionaire could buy speech right before an election, but a group of people incorporated for the purpose of political speech, such as NGOs or labor unions, could not. The ruling gave corporations the same rights as individuals. And you could try to block paid for speech right before an election by everyone, but that will run afoul of the First Amendment.
So, if you give those same rights to corporations, they get powers far beyond what an individual could do(more money, more people) but are held to the same rules. Obviously it's unbalanced and harmful to democracy.
No, such things are not obvious at all because they are not true! The whole point of a corporation is to do things that an individual can't do on their own.
I agree that corporations should have some rights, but the rights of groups of people should not be the same as the rights of individuals.
And in the real world, those rights aren't the same even in the US which has the strongest manifestation of the corporate personhood thing. Your concerns have already been long addressed.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday June 07 2015, @12:31AM
Here's a company that has bought itself a Sherrif's department:
http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/06/06/when-police-harass-cove-point-protesters-is-dominion-getting-what-it-paid-for/ [nationofchange.org]