Given the overwhelming amount of cynicism and ennui in most people's minds about any meaningful change to US policies for the Internet or NSA spying, I must applaud organizations like the EFF for continuing to fight the good fight. Even though at times it appears they may only be tilting at windmills.
Can anyone explain to me how this is a secret treaty?<p>My understanding is that the only way the treaty actually comes into effect for its main participant (the USA) is a vote in the Senate, which would make it a public treaty.<p>Or does the domain of 'secret treaty' include all treaties that were at one point secret (such as during the negotiations)? Doesn't this make the majority of significant treaties 'secret treaties'?
Thinking about this scenario: Imagine they succeed with these policies, and implement it. If a given amount of users start using some tool that exchanges only encrypted content, will they be able to apply these policies against these users, this tool and the encrypted content?
Note that the treaties themselves are not secret (as strongly implied by the EFF), but the negotiation process is. The EFF has always been a fundamentalist organization, but shame on them for resorting to such blatant misinformation to make their case.<p>These secret negotiations very much resemble the frank, closed door negotiations between, say, members of Congress and the White House, where deals wouldn't be made if they had to be made in public. Politicians can't be seen giving concessions to the other side, nor do they want sound bites used against them in the next election.<p>It also appears that these negotiations are extremely slow, which is likely why only the executive branch is involved. It's hard to negotiate when there are 100 factious parties involved instead of just the President. I suppose that's the entire reason we have an executive branch.