Advertisement
by Libiteria » Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:01 am
by John Turner » Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:05 am
Libiteria wrote:My only problem with this resolution is there seems to be a lack of clearance as to what constitutes as terrorism? With the obvious exception to violence towards citizens, does this apply to groups that the WA sees as "Unfavorable", such as Anti-Government policies and beliefs that have no basis in violence, but would threaten ideas held by such government?
John Turner wrote:Oh.... And it wasn't drafted on the forums. That makes it automatically illegal, doesn't it?
by Razgriskm » Fri Mar 18, 2016 11:05 am
by The Goddess Viridi » Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:06 pm
by Timsvill » Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:25 pm
by Drenchland » Fri Mar 18, 2016 2:16 pm
by Brandengrad » Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:59 pm
by Bananaistan » Sat Mar 19, 2016 2:15 am
Ratateague wrote:Bananaistan wrote:OCC: Am I missing a sense of the word harden? Because I'm not seeing how you can make the cyber device or network more difficult, more tough, or less sympathetic.
Hardening has a very specific context when used in regards to electronic devices and networks. In addition to the previously supplied definition, it can be expanded to include physical protection against ECCM (jamming), overloading, etc.
by Louisistan » Sat Mar 19, 2016 9:32 am
Bananaistan wrote:And it's hard to believe that so few people agree with me regarding the unreasonableness of requiring people to set passwords on their devices and networks. I will begin drafting a repeal on this point which will establish if anyone agrees with me.
by John Turner » Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:13 pm
Louisistan wrote:Bananaistan wrote:And it's hard to believe that so few people agree with me regarding the unreasonableness of requiring people to set passwords on their devices and networks. I will begin drafting a repeal on this point which will establish if anyone agrees with me.
I certainly do, Ambassador. I also think it's none of the governments business if Otto Normalverbraucher has an open relay on his private mailserver. That's his problem and hardly a matter of international concern.
Bananaistan wrote:And it's hard to believe that so few people agree with me regarding the unreasonableness of requiring people to set passwords on their devices and networks. I will begin drafting a repeal on this point which will establish if anyone agrees with me.
John Turner wrote:Oh.... And it wasn't drafted on the forums. That makes it automatically illegal, doesn't it?
by Tinfect » Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:31 pm
John Turner wrote:Louisistan wrote:I certainly do, Ambassador. I also think it's none of the governments business if Otto Normalverbraucher has an open relay on his private mailserver. That's his problem and hardly a matter of international concern.
Sure it is. That relay can be exploited and used to launch spam attacks, which is definitely an international concern.
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Wallenburg » Sun Mar 20, 2016 5:49 pm
Wallenburgian Cabinet of War - World Assembly Offices
Message from Chief Representative Mikael Ogenbond
The Wallenburgian delegation fully supports the elimination of all forms and terrorism, and appreciates the World Assembly's commitment to such an objective. However, I find this resolution lacking in several important ways, and cannot support it in its current text. I have previously indicated my approval of efforts to combat terrorism, but the author of this resolution has ignored completely several flaws in his work, even after my delegation and others have pointed them out to him.Overall, this resolution certainly has a solid, commendable objective. The author's intentions are benevolent, and for the most part the resolution suffices as international law. Unfortunately, I must vote against it, due to the several persistent errors I have outlined, and the author's failure to address these issues.
- The resolution fails to pass a basic check for correct spelling and grammar. In particular, the author has ignored an error in which the bill reads "of the of", despite its clear incompatibility with standard grammar conventions, and has misspelled "whilst" as "whist".
- It also uses distractingly informal language, such as contractions, thereby reducing its quality as a formal piece of law.
- Clause 1.(a) is very confusing, and based on its construction could easily be interpreted to mean that all services qualify as "cyber technology".
- The resolution claims that all member nations must take action to defend themselves from "cyber terrorism". This is at best an unintended untruth, and at worst a stubborn lie. As I have expressed during discussion of this resolution, Wallenburg is among those nations that have absolutely no interest in defending against "cyber terrorism" as we do not possess the technology this resolution seeks to regulate.
by Wrapper » Sun Mar 20, 2016 9:05 pm
Cyber Security Convention was passed 14,100 votes to 4,749.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement