Copyright deal could toughen rules governing info on iPods, computers (Vancouver Sun)

Having customs agents and the border guards of other countries on the lookout for bootleg CDs
and DVDs (in commercial quantities) would be feasible.  (One hopes they are already trained
and empowered to do so).

Having them search cell phones, MP3 players, PDAs and other devices for "infringing materials"
would be outrageously cumbersome, inefficient, ineffective, invasive and futile.

It's too obviously infeasible.  So we have to assume that this worser of the  old "bad cop,
badder cop" political gambit.  (They put out something so bad that no one can condone it, then
offer what they really wanted as a "compromise").

JimD

Well, what I find really disturbing about ACTA is not the border checking 
provision (as long as it isn't the UK you are going to, you can get around 
it using encryption) but a combination of other provision that would 
require all signing parties to make it illegal to host a search engine 
that includes links to copyrighted materials, even if *all* material 
linked to actually was provided by the copyright holder (and thus legal to 
download). That would effectively stop any independent artists from 
getting an online fan base, which is crucial for the survival of most 
independent artists.

Now, how is it proposed how these brownshirts will react when they find local mp3 files of
stuff that isn't known DRM'ed and owned by some Hollywood company?

-A

Don't our border guards have enough to do as it is?

What about software?  Could I get busted for carrying a copy of a Fedora CD across the border?

"The new document is reported to be drafted by the Office of the United States Trade
Representative."

Part of the executive branch of the US government.  I'd like to contrast this with some the
president's remarks in 2004:

"The story of America is the story of expanding liberty: an ever-widening circle, constantly
growing to reach further and include more. Our nation's founding commitment is still our
deepest commitment: In our world, and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom."

By "frontiers of freedom" perhaps he means the government's ability to search and seize
without due cause?

This is certainly illegal and a broad violation of about ANY Constitution and any democratic
juridical process. 

You can't go and give the police or the border guards judical power regarding  civil law
questions. 

The proponents of this "trade agreement" are obviously criminals for even suggesting this and
should be tried for high treason. 

Amazing! Mind police just arrived? Even Gitler and Stalin both failed to establish mind police
due to lack of technologies. Now, "democratic" countries are willing to "fix" this? This world
is surely going MAD! Have you ever read "1984" by Orwell? The WORST sci-fi writers predictions
could became true! :(((

Hey, Canadian guys, you MUST cause this to fail, otherwise whole world will get VERY BAD
example and actually so-called-democracy will end up as an awful totalitarian crap. 

Outrageous.

 In the first, an action of the government to affect its citizens rights 
in such a profound way, and yet be dealt with behind closed doors outside 
the scrutiny and critique of said citizens is appalling to say the least.  
I could hope a chapter from the history of open (libertas) software could 
able the government to understand how apt an open design process is to 
information sharing and development. But, precisely the opposite is their 
reason for the clock and dagger.
 This motion on their part is plain to their efforts to push forward a 
controlling, proprietary interest in how the information of its citizens 
is regarded.  Our freedoms are held subject to business interests which 
concede to a small minority.  I am afraid.  This, if not dealt with 
appropriately, will be a brick in the path towards 'virtual' sedition by 
any citizen, when and if the need arises, as deemed by said business 
interests.
 How can any citizen protect itself except by becoming more paranoid or 
totally unencumbered (everything completely in the open), both of which is 
no solution but a reaction to self preservation - liberty without 
privacy ... not liberty.
	
 If on the other hand, this is subjected to an open forum, or at the least 
formal critique, a consensus to maintain privacy and fair use, as well as 
protecting (within reason!) business interests, may be reached to benefit 
all its citizens and not limit reasonable freedoms and rights.
 The act of counterfeit relies on the ownership of rights on information 
or materials and how those rights of ownership are passed on to users.  
The use by others and  the right to copy by a select user, i.e. copyright, 
of 'owned' materials or information in the digital age is so garbled (Can 
I use it if I can't copy it?) that a myriad of 'use' licences are required 
to just conduct simple business.
 Personal, not for profit use should be a standard agreement and right.  
Furthermore, and this is important, this should apply no matter how the 
information or material is obtained - note, this about the 'use'! (this is 
the tough part, but if you think long and hard, any restriction to this 
will corrupt liberty and privacy).  The method of how it is obtained 
should be the only actionable restraint, thus governable.
 
 But take care and note, this core reasoning will be held far from the 
debate, where the intent is to put a stake in any and all 'use' cases, 
personal or otherwise.  And once this is so buried under phrase after 
phase of legislative BS, to back up and shovel out the stall to retrieve 
the basic concepts will need the dedicated lifetime of those willing to 
get covered in said BS.