> CETA contains provisions that would compel countries to implement Internet censorship through site blocking, anti-circumvention laws as seen in the US, and compel border security to seize digital storage devices (i.e. cell phones) at the border for the purpose of looking for copyright infringement.
I believe that trade agreements would include clauses about site blocking. I do not believe that they include clauses compelling border security guards to check for copyright infringement. There's no way that would be practical. This makes me think that the slashdot summary writer is trying to get everyone angry and afraid, rather than reporting the facts. How would that possibly work? Sir, ma'am, please unlock your phones and allow us to spend ten minutes looking through each and every phone as you disembark from the airplane.
So, I looked it up in the article: "As we noted earlier, CETA would, among other things, force anti-cricumvention laws onto other countries, bring in site blocking, allow for statutory damages for non-commercial infringement, and force border security to destroy your cell phone if they find copyright infringing material on it." Interesting that there's nothing about security guards being compelled to seize digital devices and searching them for copyright infringement. It sounds more like - if security detains someone for some other reason, gets them to unlock their phones, and happen to find copyright violations, then, in theory, they're supposed to destroy the phone. Nevermind the part about the fact that guards are in no position to figure out what material is legal versus pirated. How would they determine that anyway? This makes me think it wouldn't work, regardless of what they found. Yeah, that's not good, but it a far cry from "compelling border security to seize digital storage devices (i.e. cell phones) at the border for the purpose of looking for copyright infringement".
What a sucky summary. I think Slashdot wants the community to get out their torches and pitchforks.