NationStates

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:01 am**

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?

Posted: **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?

No. The WA has already guaranteed the right of free speech and assembly, so those would already be covered.

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2016 11:05 am**

"Ah. Another Resolution tailored to create another public sector organization, big surprise. As if it was government policy in Razgriskm to never financially maintain a tax dump that takes money away from our citizens who are perfectly unaffected by this issue. Oh well." :eyebrow:

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:06 pm**

But what about the TOR links....? You guys are making a mistake

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:25 pm**

"The nation of Timsvill sees this resolution as a nice idea, but it also can be abused and used for spying on the people of a nation. Therefore, the Nation of Timsvill (both the citizens and the government) have voted against this resolution."

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2016 2:16 pm**

'The Ambassador to Drenchland wishes to convey a message of support for this resolution. Cyber-security is an issue of growing concern for nations across many planets. As such, we have voted in favour. We hope to see the international community act to further improve our international security.'

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2016 8:59 pm**

first off, i want to say i like the idea and the overall direction of what is at vote. Reading it through as a document intended to protect the public from possible harm I get the feeling that it will have positive outcomes. With every law, rule, and legislation anyone will ever pass you will have 3 types of response. those who abide by what they feel the spirit of the law is; those who try to find crack and loopholes to exploit it; and those who are marginalized into a pigeon hole and suffer a disadvantage because of its existence. It is my humble view that this law achieves (mostly) the goal of setting boundaries, with out cutting the legs out from under all of our nations(in a positive way)

but in contrast

second, According to the definition of cyber warfare and cyber terrorism could I infiltrate a cyber network and still be held innocent if i did not change anything? If i choose only to learn all the information, and use it in a positive way. like not to trade with that nation or organization (for any reason i choose) based on the information i learned AFTER breaking into their secure network? i feel as though your definitions are too end result orientated, and could solve possible problems down the road if the only condemned the very act of trying or attempting to break security.

Posted: **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.

OCC: It's hardly an appropriate term to use in a resolution so.

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.

Posted: **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.

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.

Posted: **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.

Sure it is. That relay can be exploited and used to launch spam attacks, which is definitely an 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.

I look forward to seeing it.

Posted: **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.

"Ambassador, we would very much like to hear how a 'spam' relay, is of any concern to the Imperium. The sheer volume of the attack required to cause any difficulty to Imperial Civilian, Government, or Military Networks would be prohibitively immense, and easily countered by the central systems the Imperium has in place. We see no reason Civilian action is necessary on this front, and it is rather too far an intrusion onto the lives of the Imperial Citizenry to require them to do so."

Posted: **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.
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.
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.

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2016 9:05 pm**

Cyber Security Convention was passed 14,100 votes to 4,749.

NationStates

[PASSED] Cyber Security Convention