Yes.
> Following is excerpted from a piece on mises.org; it's pretty alarmist,
> catastrophising even, but does seem to raise some important concerns, ...
It seems quite reasonable to me. Yes, the language is alarmist, but arguably it needs to be.
Wired on ACTA as "policy laundering": http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/policy-laundering/
" The Obama administration has been obsessively secretive about " the draft ACTA treaty — even, at one point, claiming national " security could be jeopardized if the proposed treaty’s working " documents were disclosed to the public. Now, it seems, we " know what the administration is hiding.
" Obama hasn’t asked Congress to implement a three-strike policy, " which could anger consumers and watchdog groups. But if the " administration gets three strikes written into ACTA, and the " United States signs and ratifies the treaty, Congress would be " obliged to change the DMCA to comply with it, while the " administration throws its hands in the air and says, “It wasn’t " our idea! It’s that damn treaty!”
" That practice is common enough to have a name: policy " laundering.
Canadian law prof Michael Geist has quite a bit of good material on ACTA. Here's one link. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4510/99999/