Malta’s decision to sign the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, along with 21 other member states, has raised controversy – and rightfully so. The treaty may suggest that it only deals with counterfeit goods. Perhaps the naming is deliberate, as one would be hard pressed to find reasonable objections to combating the proliferation of counterfeit goods – which could range from simple knock-offs of fashion items to more dangerous imitations such as medicines.

But ACTA focuses on intellectual property rights in general, with far-reaching implications in a number of sectors. These include the internet: The suggested provisions to address the unauthorised distribution and downloading of copyrighted media are perhaps the most controversial parts of it.

The treaty’s proponents insist that legitimate internet usage will not be affected, as does the treaty itself, but what the treaty includes and leaves out is nevertheless worrying.

One key measure would force internet service providers to provide subscriber information to rights holders on “legally sufficient” suspicion of copyright infringement. That may not sound like much, but as MEP Alexander Alvaro described it, it is akin to “making the post office responsible for what is inside the letters they send,” which is clearly an extreme measure which should only be used in extreme situations, if that.

Adding insult to injury is a failure to distinguish between personal use and the intentional marketing of counterfeiting and pirated goods, a distinction requested by the European Parliament back in 2008.

As a result, the treaty could lead to the implementation of an Orwellian measure to deal with a phenomenon which, while objectionable and arguably costly for people in the industry, is hardly dangerous; and to the use of this measure against people who simply downloaded pirated material for their own personal use.

Such regulations can, and will, be abused, if precedent is any indication. In the US, for instance, a woman was ordered to pay $1.92 million in damages over the download of 24 songs, although the amount was heavily reduced on appeal. ACTA had nothing to do with this decision, of course: But its call for “remedies which constitute an effective deterrent” and provisions for damages may make such cases a possibility in signatory countries.

Another controversial aspect of ACTA is the secretive way in which negotiations were carried out. Discussions have not been overseen by any international body: The US and Japan set the process in motion in 2006 and other countries joined along the way. NGOs including consumer associations and internet freedom advocates were routinely denied although a draft was finally published in 2010: Industry lobbies were not only informed, but also consulted.

The European Parliament had also criticised the lack of transparency on ACTA, and the MEP appointed as rapporteur for the treaty, Kader Arif, resigned from the process and deemed it a masquerade.

Political parties in Malta are currently divided over the issue. Both the Labour Party and Alternattiva Demokratika have expressed their opposition to it. The Nationalist Party has been silent: Although since the government it leads has signed the treaty, one may guess its position.

But their silence over the issue before the news broke out provides the Maltese with another cause for concern. Not because the treaty is objectionable and because their silence implied consent, but because it implied a lack of awareness of what exactly Malta was planning to sign up for, by those whose role is to scrutinise it.

The treaty has been signed, but it will be up to MEPs and MPs to ratify it. First up are MEPs, who should vote on the treaty in June: If they reject it, ACTA will not come into force in the EU. Should they approve of the treaty, it would then be up to member states to ratify it: In Malta, this should occur through a vote in Parliament.

So the fate of the treaty is in their hands: But also in the hands of the public who elected them. And it will be up to the people to make their objections and reservations – if any – heard.