Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government United States Politics

Leak Shows US Lead Opponent of ACTA Transparency 164

Posted by timothy
from the putting-on-an-acta dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Throughout the debate over ACTA transparency, the secret copyright treaty, many countries have taken public positions that they support release of the actual text, but that other countries do not. Since full transparency requires consensus of all the ACTA partners, the text simply can't be released until everyone is in agreement. A new leak from the Netherlands fingers who the chief opponents of transparency are: the United States, South Korea, Singapore, and Denmark lead the way, with Belgium, Germany, and Portugal not far behind as problem countries."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Leak Shows US Lead Opponent of ACTA Transparency

Comments Filter:
  • apt quote (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 25, 2010 @03:44PM (#31277354)

      "American Idol is on tonight, oh goodie" - Typical American

      • Re:apt quote (Score:5, Interesting)

        by dch24 (904899) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @03:53PM (#31277478) Journal
        "Don't bother to actually read what Michael Geist wrote, just post inflammatory headline" - Typical Slashdot Editor.

        I know, I must be new here... Here's an important block of text. Read this [michaelgeist.ca]:

        Outside of the Europe, the memo identifies three problem countries. While Japan is apparently supportive, both South Korea and Singapore oppose ACTA transparency. Moreover, the U.S. has remained silent on the issue, as it remains unconvinced of the need for full disclosure. In doing so, it would appear that the U.S. is perhaps the biggest problem since a clear position of support might be enough to persuade the remaining outliers.

        The U.S. Representatives may be against transparency, but they aren't stupid enough to say so.

        Now, their South Korean and Singaporean cronies on the other hand, are stupid enough, and they are opposed to transparency -- because they lose so much money to counterfeiting!</sarcasm>

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Elektroschock (659467)

          In the EU Article 15 TFUE applies which gets citizens access to these documents. So the only legal grounds is protection of interests of nations outside of the European Union.

        • Re:apt quote (Score:5, Informative)

          by FriendlyLurker (50431) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @04:40PM (#31278136)

          Here's an important block of text... Moreover, the U.S. has remained silent on the issue.

          This is a more telling block of text [michaelgeist.ca] :

          IDG covers the latest Dutch leak that reveals the transparency position of many ACTA participants. Particularly telling is the view that both France and Italy favour greater transparency, but fear U.S. retaliation.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            If France and Italy haven't actually stated that they fear U.S. retaliation, then that's just speculation.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by FriendlyLurker (50431)

              If France and Italy haven't actually stated that they fear U.S. retaliation, then that's just speculation.

              Yeah, just like everything else we know about ACTA - it is ALL speculation and no "official" information. However we don't have to look very far at the "official" evidence [iipa.com] we are permitted to see to find their priorities and aims [ustr.gov] that paint a pretty damning picture [michaelgeist.ca] that US lobby groups (i.e. the IIPA - International Intellectual Property Alliance [google.com]) and their bought and paid for US politicians are the main instigators behind ACTA. Given the official data we do have, It would be very naive indeed to start give

          • Particularly telling is the view that both France and Italy favour greater transparency, but fear U.S. retaliation.

            France is a nuclear power, for chrissakes. Why would they need to fear U.S. retaliation?

            And as far as Italy is concerned, isn't it quite ironic, that of all countries, it's Italy who is standing up against the MAFIAA?

            • France is a nuclear power, for chrissakes. Why would they need to fear U.S. retaliation?

              Huh? We aren't talking about military retaliation. Why would you bring that up? Christ, nuclear power or not France is an ally! Regardless, what we are talking about is economic and political reprisal, not warheads. In other words, if they go against us on this, we may take sides against them on some other issue. Personally, I hope they do stand up to us, just like Germany did regarding Iraq. "No, this is a bad idea!" That's all they have to do.

              And, no Italy isn't standing up against the media companies,

              • Yes, one would expect a Berulsconi run government be very pro IP laws since he's the biggest media mogul in the country.

        • ...Now, their South Korean and Singaporean cronies on the other hand, are stupid enough, and they are opposed to transparency -- because they lose so much money to counterfeiting!</sarcasm>

          I get the sarcasm, but that is an interesting thought. I wonder how much sales tax, withholding type taxes, health care and retirement contributions, permission to exist as a business permits, etc. the organizations that produce retail targeted, unauthorized products (bootleg DVD's, software, etc.), do contribute to their country. In China I would expect it to be large, as there is that whole "violators will be shot" enforcement system. But normal countries that have these operations running must at least c

        • Lack of transparency here is corruption since a lot of these people make money from entities that stand to profit, and treason since you are acting against the people of the state. Pure and simple. "National security" is a laughable excuse. Finger pointing at corruption in Asian and Middle Eastern countries is just hypocrisy when you're willing to do this kind of thing.

        • by steelfood (895457)

          Singapore's stance doesn't surprise me. Their government is totalitarian and extremely repressive in nature, while still being pretty much a full democracy (it works due to their size and the by-and-large homogeneity of their most populous cultures). They don't value freedom so much as order and hence the rule of the law. If something helps enforce the law, regardless of what the law stipulates, then they'd be for it.

      • by ubrgeek (679399)
        "Hey, AC. up yours." - Typical American.
    • "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

      Home of the (not so) brave (anymore), land of the (less) free (than we used to be.)

  • As the Republicans are saying on health care that the people are against it, but the Democrats were elected by the people with full knowledge they'd try to do this... they seem out of place.

    Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations. If it's just the usual **AA people, then good luck getting this past The Senate.

    • by DrJimbo (594231) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @03:46PM (#31277380)

      Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations. If it's just the usual **AA people, then good luck getting this past The Senate.

      Uh, the **AA people own the Senate. They have also infiltrated the Department of Justice. And now that the Supreme Court has ruled it is unconstitutional to limit corporate campaign funding (via advertisements) expect corporate ownership of all branches of government to increase.

      • And now that the Supreme Court has ruled it is unconstitutional to limit corporate campaign funding (via advertisements) expect corporate ownership of all branches of government to increase.

        Wait, you mean that that ownership ever decreased at some point? You know, I never believed in any deity before, but proof of that might make me reconsider.

        • by DrJimbo (594231)
          If I pig out over the holidays and then say "expect my waistline to increase" I'm not implying that my waistline had ever decreased. I leave converting this to a car analogy as an exercise for the reader.
      • by Warhawke (1312723) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @07:36PM (#31280070)
        For clarification, the Supreme Court ruling did not so much grant any new rights to corporations as it did close a loophole that allowed Big Content, but not other businesses, to publish advertisements by means of owning their own media outlets. While I'm with most to jump on the anti-corporate bandwagon, many a slashdotter will agree that more free speech for all is universally better than less. When we start taking free speech away from those we don't want having it, we're really no better than the corporations who do the exact same thing.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by steelfood (895457)

          While I'm with most to jump on the anti-corporate bandwagon, many a slashdotter will agree that more free speech for all is universally better than less. When we start taking free speech away from those we don't want having it, we're really no better than the corporations who do the exact same thing.

          That's BS. Corporations are non-entities. They are faux-persons. They don't have or deserve inalienable rights because they're not created by a Creator, but by people. I know this levels the playing field by allowing corporations to play on the same level as special interest groups and trade unions, but I think this is leveling the playing field the wrong way. It is a step backwards, not a step forwards. We should be restricting the abilities of the collective while encouraging individualism, not the other

    • by copponex (13876)

      good luck getting this past The Senate.

      Although I was quite young, I remember hearing about NAFTA, and thinking, who are all of these crazy people who are against it? It's going to help give everyone jobs and promote trade!

      The sad truth is that if the business community is behind ACTA, it will be pushed 24/7 as a good thing in the press until it is passed, even with a few conciliatory addenda that will be properly loopholed into oblivion. Just like the DMCA.

      • NAFTA had even pro-trade people against it, because what sort of free trade bill needs to be so long and have so many negotiations? How about this:

        All businesses and individuals in nations that are signatories may sell any good in the nations that are party to this treaty so long as the products obey the standards and regulations in that nation, and they will, for tax and trade purposes, be treated as if they were a local product. All tariffs are to be removed, and all quotas likewise.

        That is all that is n

    • by zach_the_lizard (1317619) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @04:20PM (#31277806)

      Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations. If it's just the usual **AA people, then good luck getting this past The Senate.

      The DMCA made it past the Senate, as did the PATRIOT act, the war on (some) drugs, Prohibition, and I believe the Corwin Amendment. I feel your faith in the Senate is misplaced. You see, to have real influence in the Senate, you must either be someone with enough cash to make a difference in an election, such as a CEO, or you must be someone who represents a collection of people that have that power, such as union bosses.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Intron (870560)
        ACTA is being negotiated by the executive branch, the US Trade Rep, so don't blame Congress. This side-steps the constitutional separation of powers by claiming it is an agreement under existing laws, not creating new laws. At any rate, write to Obama about his promise of greater openness.
        • ACTA is being negotiated by the executive branch, the US Trade Rep, so don't blame Congress. This side-steps the constitutional separation of powers by claiming it is an agreement under existing laws, not creating new laws. At any rate, write to Obama about his promise of greater openness.

          I have a feeling he won't give a shit.
          Best chance is to write to the republicans in congress and try to get them to come up with a way to aim their obstructionist game-plan to include this treaty - like pass a ride on a bill that would make implementing it as a presidential directive harder in some way. Maybe get Glenn Beck riled up about the presidential monarch making treaties with other countries and side-stepping congress.

        • ACTA is being negotiated by the executive branch, the US Trade Rep, so don't blame Congress.

          Yet. Ultimately, Congress will still have to vote on the treaty, but I don't see them putting up too much of a fight. Congressmen/senators have a proven history of passing legislation that they don't even bother to read.
    • by moxley (895517)

      You mean the same senate that has bought and paid for a significant portion of these congresspeople?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations. If it's just the usual **AA people

      Once again, the USTR [wikipedia.org] is, ostensibly, the US representative for negotiating ACTA. Currently this position is held by Ron Kirk [wikipedia.org]. The official positions of this office can be found at their website here. [ustr.gov] Contacting the office via official channels can be done by reading through this contact page. [ustr.gov] The official USTR position and stance regarding ACTA can be found here. [ustr.gov] Finally, if you search for, "US Trade Representative ACTA," on google then you can find a link on the page titled, "US Trade Rep wants your input

  • I must say (Score:5, Funny)

    by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @03:36PM (#31277234) Journal

    I am shocked. Just shocked.

  • by FiloEleven (602040) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @03:38PM (#31277272)

    I'm glad I live in the land of the free,
    where the ones in charge aren't accountable to me.
    They say they do it all for my own good,
    so I ought to keep my head down like they say I should.

    Meh.

  • How are we suppose to follow a law if we do not know what it is?

    Or am I missing something here?

    • by zero_out (1705074)
      It's not a law yet. Eventually, once it is ratified, it will become a law. Until that time, it is just a document. Once it becomes a law, it will be made public. At least, that is my understanding. Of course, the problem with opacity here is that once it's been agreed upon by the participating countries, it's 9/10th of the way to becoming a law here in the US. If it isn't made public, then we can't yell and scream about how evil each provisiou is. Once again, that is my (potentially erroneous) unders
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's still under negotiation. It's less a question of not telling you the law, and more a question about whether they want the general populace to know the terms of the agreement _while_ they're working on it.

      (i.e. whether they tell you before or after it's too late to complain about the laws they'll have to pass to support the treaties).

    • by Conchobair (1648793) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @03:52PM (#31277466)
      It's not a law yet. They are trying to keep things quiet so that there is not enough time to mount large scale opposistion to the proposal. This will allow them to pass it before most people are aware of the implications. Once its a law it will be a lot harder to repeal or change what they decided in these secret meetings.
    • by Nadaka (224565)

      It is a secret law so that it can be passed without opposition. Once it is to late to do anything about it, it will be made public. If the people don't know about it, they can not protest, they can not petition their government. The powers that be can get away with governing without requiring that little flaw of democratic representation. The safest and easiest way to subvert democracy is to keep the people ignorant.

    • by nedlohs (1335013)

      It isn't "the law".

      Once it's all worked out it will be published, has to pass the senate after all, so you'll have no excuse to not obey it.

    • by Spad (470073) <slashdot@noSpam.spad.co.uk> on Thursday February 25, 2010 @05:18PM (#31278734) Homepage

      It's not a law, it's a treaty. Treaties are much better than laws on their own because while laws can easily be opposed by the public before being passed, treaties can be passed in secret and then used as a basis for forcing laws through on the grounds that they are a requirement of the treaty.

  • There's no way you can get the US onto a treaty without getting that through The Senate, and right now the score there is 59-41 giving the Republicans only the power to filibuster and not pass anything without the help of at least nine Democrats. This will be debated. The treaty will be rejected if it's as bad as we're fearing. What are we worried about?

    • by tepples (727027) <<tepples> <at> <gmail.com>> on Thursday February 25, 2010 @03:44PM (#31277348) Homepage Journal

      right now the score there is 59-41 giving the Republicans only the power to filibuster and not pass anything without the help of at least nine Democrats.

      President Clinton, a Democrat, signed the Bono Act and the DMCA in October 1998. He didn't send it back to both houses for a roll-call vote (which requires 67% assent); instead, he let the voice votes in both houses (which require 81% assent) stand.

      • by wurp (51446)

        which require 81% assent

        Did you mean 51%?

        • And that's really a 4:1 ratio of apparent db to the chair position... no accountability in a voice vote unless somebody makes a request that the roll be called.

          • by wurp (51446)

            Holy shit, that shouldn't be legal [senate.gov]!

            We allow bills to pass into law without even recording who voted for them? I could plant some high quality speakers & dictate the law!

        • by tepples (727027) <<tepples> <at> <gmail.com>> on Thursday February 25, 2010 @04:18PM (#31277788) Homepage Journal
          In the U.S. Congress, a voice vote allows a legislator to neither confirm nor deny to his constituents that he voted for a controversial bill. It takes 20 percent of a house to force a roll-call vote. From the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 5 [usconstitution.net]: "the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal."
          • by wurp (51446)

            Thanks for the info; I wasn't aware of that.

            I thought your comparison was pointing out that Clinton didn't do his part to counter the **AA by vetoing the bill, which would require a 2/3 majority to pass it. The initial passing of the bill should only have required a simple majority.

            It seems that you are presuming that a voice vote would be called down (and a roll call required) if 20% disagreed with the vote. I suspect there are "gentlemen's agreements" to not require a roll call on any vote unless it is

            • by tepples (727027)

              I thought your comparison was pointing out that Clinton didn't do his part to counter the **AA by vetoing the bill, which would require a 2/3 majority to pass it.

              It's both of their fault. The Congress was too chicken to go on record, and Clinton was complicit in letting them be chicken.

    • I'll be perfectly honest that I have not followed the ACTA issue closely at all. Are you just assuming that the Democrats will be against and Republicans are for it, or are you going on actual statements? Let's not forget that Senator Disney was himself a democrat, and that the lines of party/ideological purity often seem fairly blurred in cases involving IP, international trade and treaties, etc.

    • by dr2chase (653338) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @03:50PM (#31277442) Homepage
      The D's are not reliable opponents of **AA craziness.
    • by c0d3g33k (102699)
      What are people worried about? That their representatives in the Senate will cast an uninformed vote that does not include input from their constituents (informed or otherwise). That's kind of what a representative democracy is all about.
    • IT IS NOT A TREATY (Score:4, Insightful)

      by langelgjm (860756) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @04:21PM (#31277842) Journal

      This will be debated.

      No, it won't.

      The treaty will be rejected if it's as bad as we're fearing.

      No, it won't.

      What are we worried about?

      We're worried about the fact that ACTA is not a treaty but rather an executive agreement, inter alia. This means that no Senate approval or Congressional oversight of any kind is required. The only limits are that the agreement has to be within the bounds of current U.S. law. Of course, coloring within the lines of judge-made case-law is hard to do, it closes off policy options for the future, and the primary concern many people have is the extent to which ACTA will be forcing US IP policy onto other countries (all the while leaving out the good parts of our law, like fair use).

      • If it's Hollywood dictating rules for the world but not adding to the force of law... how is that different from what they do already?
  • Germany (Score:4, Informative)

    by Estragib (945821) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .bigartse.> on Thursday February 25, 2010 @03:48PM (#31277400)

    As a resident of one of the mentioned problem countries, I think it might be helpful to point towards an organization to rally behind to oppose the secrecy:

    ACTA workgroup [ffii.org] of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure e.V. [ffii.org]

  • Summary is wrong (Score:2, Redundant)

    by Solandri (704621)
    The blog states several countries have come out against public disclosure while others have come out for it. On the U.S. in particular, it says:

    Moreover, the U.S. has remained silent on the issue, as it remains unconvinced of the need for full disclosure. In doing so, it would appear that the U.S. is perhaps the biggest problem since a clear position of support might be enough to persuade the remaining outliers.

    Somehow the submitter has morphed this into the U.S. being the lead opponent to public disclo

  • Governments? Bribed government officials?
    Population? The uninformed mass of the population?

    Because a whole country having a single p.o.v. on anything is something that only happens in the fairy tales of delusional “idealists”. (And it’s not even an ideal at all.)

  • by macraig (621737) <`mark.a.craig' `at' `gmail.com'> on Thursday February 25, 2010 @05:01PM (#31278466)

    ... , to the very people who elected them, require consensus? Shouldn't it be opacity that requires unanimous consensus?

    Seriously, people, how much more clue do you need that "reform" isn't going to cut it? Only another "R" word is going to put an end to this. If you're not firing up the furnace and making ready to beat your plowshares into swords, you're not doing enough.

    • you mean "retard"? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by circletimessquare (444983) <circletimessquar ... m minus language> on Thursday February 25, 2010 @06:28PM (#31279484) Homepage Journal

      because if you don't understand how much worse an actual revolution is compared to the issues here, that's what you are

      when peoples bellies are empty, then you get revolution. if they can't download cartoon network for free, not so much

      and i say this as someone who has said in many comments on this site that intellectual property is morally and philosophically bankrupt. but i still know the entire debate over intellectual property nowhere rises to the level of revolution, not even remotely. if you think it does, you are extremely, extremely out of touch with what is really important in this world

      • by macraig (621737)

        Intellectual property per se is NOT what demands a revolt/revolution. What demands that is the consistently anti-democratic and unethical behavior of nearly all of the people we're electing, as well as those we're promoting to power in corporations. After we're done kicking them all out of the temple, THEN we need to sit down and collectively have a serious conversation about how screwed-up our criteria for choosing leaders has been. We need new criteria to make sure we don't repeat the same litany of mi

        • solving this problem is not a matter of throwing a revolution and then everything is golden forever more

          its more like a policing duty, a constant lowgrade effort at taking out the trash

          in your home, do you declare a revolution on garbage and then forever more there's no more garbage?

          no, no matter what you do, you need to take out the garbage every thursday. likewise in a democracy, there will be a constant crop of assholes who get power and don't deserve it. how do you get rid of them? YOU VOTE THEM OUT

          this is what makes a democracy so much better than other governments: you don't NEED a revolution to get a new regime

          so stop advocating for revolution, which is FAR FAR worse on ANY scale of abuse and damage than ANY problem you can describe facing us today

          if you don't understand that, then you are 11 years old, and your lack of life experience is excused, or you're an adult idiot

          • by macraig (621737)

            You didn't read - or understand - a single damned thing I said; what sort of reply do you expect? Oh, I know: you expect me to resort to using words like retard and idiot to marginalize you and then dismiss your words, huh?

            It's the system that's broken. No "constant low-grade effort" is going to fix that. Maybe if your system at home was more refined, you'd have automated the trash disposal problem; there'd still be trash but you wouldn't have to constantly fight with it. A perfect example of that autom

            • you offer, and agree with all of them

              now i am asking you to understand why a real world REVOLUTION is far, far worse

              in terms of devastation to personal lives on a massive scale, in terms of massive amounts of injustice, and most importantly in terms of the complete unpredictability of a final outcome in terms of who actually winds up on power: usually exactly the kind of asshole you complain about in our current government, times 1000 times worse

              if you take your head out of your fanboy ass and your romantic fiction, you will realize that a real world revolution is just about the worst state a country can ever be in, and people ONLY turn to revolution if they can't feed themselves

              and i am not debating your points, i am telling you what should be, for anyone intelligent, an obviously truthful historical fact about what a revolution really is

              i am openly insulting you with the words "retard" and "idiot" because that is exactly what you are if you romanticize revolution

              revolution is evil, ugly, brutal, murderous and completely undesirable

              that you openly call for it, when your complaints about our government don't even begin to approach by many orders of magnitude a valid call for revolution, means you are, genuinely, a complete moron

              • revolution is evil, ugly, brutal, murderous and completely undesirable

                Its only undesirable if you value weakness over strength, timidity over boldness.

                "What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome." -- Nietzsche

                • did you just warp in from 1930s germany or 1930s italy?

                  • I understand that people, including yourself, would rather live lives of miserable ease than actually *live*.

                    • boldness and strength, are also the qualities of a rabid dog. i don't hold the life of a rabid dog to be that of a life of something truly alive in any better sense. free, yes. but free in the way most short lived destructive forces are: big, fast, dumb, and quickly petered out completely

                      strength without prudence is arrogant and cruel

                      boldness without wisdom is stupid and crude

                      throw in the nietzsche quote and you sound like just another garden variety strutting cocksure protofascist asshole

                      too bad you weren'

              • by macraig (621737)

                "revolution is evil, ugly, brutal, murderous and completely undesirable"

                Ummm... Ghandi had a revolution. While you're looking him up on Wikipedia, check out an online dictionary for definitions of "revolution". Your definition seems to be pedantically narrow.

                For dessert, you might want to Google "literalism", since your mind's expression of it is now clearly the cause of most of the dischord and your vitriol here. Being able to read between the lines and comprehend metaphor, simile, parable, and even hyp

          • this is what makes a democracy so much better than other governments: you don't NEED a revolution to get a new regime

            If you believe that a democratic process can lead to regime change (within that same democratic nation), well thats just totally naive.

            Democracies, as we know them today, are driven by media corporations and the advertising industry. They in NO way represent the people who vote. People vote based on advertising, not on rational considerations.

            Human beings are not rational agents. I know that it may be hard for individuals who consider themselves to be intelligent, rational people to believe this, but its tr

            • we would not have invaded iraq

              meaning the parties genuinely are different and that obama coming after bush represents genuine regime change

              if you say the parties are same, or advertising controls all of our thinking, you are replacing intelligence with empty cynicism

              furthermore, the people actually voted for gore in 2000, and it was a structural fault that led to the weaker candidate taking the white house

              meaning those irrational people made the wiser decision all along, and the system, which we have to fix, can result in a cleaner expression of democracy, never perfect, but better than anything else in this world you can possibly hope for

              • If you think that one president or another could change the way that the USA behaves in its foreign policy then you are doubly naive.

                The president is just the 'fall guy'.

                • from your other thread

                  and now i know you are a paranoid schizoprenic: top secret cabals run the world!

                  who is it? the j00s? the bank3rs? senator palpatine? agent smith?

                  so how big is your weapons stash?

                  go for it timothy mcveigh! do your worst dylan klebold! YOU CAN DO IT RETARD!

                  lol

                  fucking loser

    • If you're not firing up the furnace and making ready to beat your plowshares into swords, you're not doing enough.

      Swords? What good are swords. I'm beating my plowshares into cruise missiles. When they come for me, I'm taking them all out!

  • Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nidi62 (1525137) on Thursday February 25, 2010 @05:11PM (#31278608)
    You know, I seem to recall hearing that word a lot the past 2 years, but now? Eh, not so much.

Chairman of the Bored.

Working...