May the best candidate win

Originally published here.

In sending its troops into Iraq, the US government engaged in an aggressive foreign policy under which it could go to war with another country because it had decided that country posed a "credible threat" to the American people.

This kind of action used to be called "attacking" or launching a "pre-emptive strike".

Whether you agree with the US being in Iraq or not, its presence there hasn't been challenged in any material way. Countries such as France and Germany have made strong statements against the actions and the United Nations isn't too happy either. But nothing has actually been done to stop the "pre-emptive strike" policy from being carried out.

So, here's the world according to the US: it's now OK to take an active part in the internal politics of another country, and it's also OK to change that country's government if you don't like it.

That's the extreme end of the spectrum, but everyone is aware American politics affect the rest of the world in much more subtle ways as well.

Take The Pirate Bay for example.

Its "Legal Threats" page is filled with take-down notices and other "orders" from US law firms. Also included on the page are The Pirate Bay's responses, which politely remind the lawyers that US laws don't apply in Sweden where the famous BitTorrent tracker is hosted (The response with instructions for where a lawyer should insert a retractable baton is my personal favourite.) The fact that an American legal firm would send a take-down notice to a Swede is quite intriguing. From reading these take-down notices, the cartel lawyers seem actually to expect to be taken seriously!

Nor is The Pirate Bay alone. Cogeco, a Canadian ISP, was also sending warnings under America's DMCA. Needless to say, the Hollywood-inspired act has no weight in Canada, although the entertainment and software cartels are doing everything they can to change that

Unfortunately, however, also now pending are several cases where US law firms are attempting to extradite foreign nationals who have never set foot on American soil but who have (according to the lawyers) committed criminal offences in the US.

This is why the rest of the world takes US politics so seriously - they affect non-Americans too!

Australia, for instance, recently signed a Free Trade Agreement with the United States which will result not only in Australia importing more American media, but American intellectual property laws as well. This is called "harmonization of the laws" and means some politician in another country gets to decide what I'm allowed to do with my CD collection.

I don't even get a chance to vote for or against this politician, and this is troubling to me because there are some real wackos in office over there.

Take Orrin Hatch for example. He made headlines in the tech world a while ago when he said copyright holders should have the ability to destroy the computers of people who violate their intellectual property rights - a couple of warnings via email and then BANG goes your motherboard.

Hatch has also been instrumental in getting copyright extended so far that most people reading this will either have two kids and a mortgage or be dead by the time they're allowed to use WWII era film footage to make a documentary. Hatch recieves a lot of money from the entertainment industry for doing this too.

A quick back-of-the-envelope number crunch shows that a $3,000 PC could be destroyed after three "violations". This puts the value of each potentially infringing file at $1,000, when an "authorized" copy could be bought for $1.00. Therefore, every violation of intellectual property is punishable-by-destruction to the value of one thousand times it's official market value. Even common law (upon which US law is based) says this is excessive. To view this in layman's terms, just ask: "Does the punishment fit the crime?"

It so happens that Swedish law isn't based on common law. But had Hatch's scheme beenallowed, it's highly probably that an IP lawyer in New York would be pushing buttons and nuking servers and PCs all over the world. If the lawyer believes he or she can legally send "take down" notices to foreign countries, the remote destruction of your computer could simply be the next "tool in the fight against piracy".

Among those challenging Orrin Hatch for his seat in the US senate is Pete Ashdown, and from reading his interview with p2pnet Ashdown seems to be a great choice for anyone who values their digital rights (such as free speech online). That includes you, but unfortunately only US citizens can donate money to help his campaign effort. Only people living in Utah can actually vote for him.

I wouldn't want to buy this guy into office anyway. I don't think lots of cash and expensive lawyers are the right way to get things done either, because those are the tactics used by the worst elements of the entertainment industries - the trade organizations who behave like the Mafia or the drug lords, doing favours for their corrupt friends and sabotaging their enemies in back room dealings with sleazy characters.

I believe in fairness, open discussion, the opportunity to achive something on your own.

I still don't want American laws to be exported to the country I live in because they're American laws, and shouldn't apply to me. This is also why a US state election has to remain a US state election.

But that being said, from what I've seen and read of Pete Ashdown, he really does have the interests of Utah's people at heart. People - everywhere - should be aware of that and hope that they are lucky enough to find a similar person to represent them in government, wherever that may be.

I wish Pete Ashdown the best of luck and hope that the best candidate wins.