[ON HOLD] Telecommunication Privacy Act

by **Louisistan** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 7:20 am

Draft 5:

Telecommunication Privacy Act
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Louisistan

APPLAUDING existing legislation to protect personal privacy,
APPALLED that this existing legislation may be construed to exclude use of public networks, such as telephone or internet,

ACKNOWLEDGING that in some cases, governments may need to access and intercept telecommunications for law enforcement and national defense purposes,
CONCERNED that this authority may be abused to spy on residents,

the WA General Assembly hereby,

DEFINES within the scope of this resolution:
a) "telecommunication" as any electronic communication including - but not limited to - telephone, telefax as well as any use of the internet,
b) "private telecommunication" as any telecommunication that is not conducted by a government or its government agencies including telecommunication conducted by government officials when they are not acting in any official capacity,
c) "surveillance" of private telecommunications as monitoring or recording that telecommunication,
d) "warrant" as judicial consent, written or otherwise, to perform surveillance of private telecommunication

1. PROHIBITS member nations from monitoring or recording any private telecommunication conducted by residents of WA member states, except in cases where a warrant is obtained to investigate a crime having been committed, being committed or being planned,
2. MANDATES that member nations intending to monitor the private telecommunication of a person or persons residing in another nation obtain a warrant through the host nation's judicial system before beginning surveillance,

CLARIFIES that this Act does not prohibit member nations from monitoring the telecommunication of foreign governments in the interest of national security.

Draft 4:

Draft 3:

OOC: I'm starting with draft 3, because I posted the first two in our regional forums and did not want to get confused with the numbering.

by **Louisistan** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 7:20 am

A clerk of the Louisistanian delegation starts handing out blue binders containing a letter and the draft. Special Ambassador Max Schneider enters the chamber, followed by Deputy Ambassador Roland Schulz and Associate Ambassador Julian Barber. Max approaches the podium and puts down a bottle of gin on top of it.

"Esteemed Ambassadors, lets get down to business. Before you,. you find the latest draft of a project we have been cooking up, which aims to protect private citizens from being spied upon by their, or any other WA government, without just cause. At this point we would like to thank the delegations from 10000 Islands and in particular the delegation from Anime Daisuki. Your help has been invaluable."

by **The Dark Star Republic** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 7:51 am

"Articles 7 and 8 of the Privacy Protection Act:

7. Notes that this resolution provides only minimum protections of the right to privacy and that member states themselves or this Assembly may enact greater protections of the right to privacy than what is provided in this resolution; and

8. Expresses the openness of this Assembly to further debate and consideration of legislation regarding privacy rights in more specific areas, especially for circumstances in which the rights and obligations of the individual are unclear or unassured.

"That, I assume, is the legal basis on which you intend to pursue this as not being mere duplication of existing law. Nonetheless, your preamble really needs to make clearer how the rights within this proposal are 'unclear or unassured', and how your proposal does not contradict Article 4, clause (d) of that Resolution.

"I also find it fairly odd that your preamble mentions industrial espionage. Your proposal, as written, only seems to apply to 'member nations', which we would interpret as meaning the governments and state actors thereof. It doesn't place any obligations on private persons, including corporations. If your intention is actually to stop industrial espionage, then your operative section needs rewriting; if not, mentioning it in the preamble is a misdirect."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern to the Dark Star WA Office

by **Defwa** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 7:58 am

Without going into detail in what constitutes a warrant, this is powerless. A government can easily give its police the ability to draw one in a napkin before doing anything

by **Louisistan** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 8:04 am

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"Articles 7 and 8 of the Privacy Protection Act:
7. Notes that this resolution provides only minimum protections of the right to privacy and that member states themselves or this Assembly may enact greater protections of the right to privacy than what is provided in this resolution; and

8. Expresses the openness of this Assembly to further debate and consideration of legislation regarding privacy rights in more specific areas, especially for circumstances in which the rights and obligations of the individual are unclear or unassured.

"That, I assume, is the legal basis on which you intend to pursue this as not being mere duplication of existing law. Nonetheless, your preamble really needs to make clearer how the rights within this proposal are 'unclear or unassured', and how your proposal does not contradict Article 4, clause (d) of that Resolution.

"I also find it fairly odd that your preamble mentions industrial espionage. Your proposal, as written, only seems to apply to 'member nations', which we would interpret as meaning the governments and state actors thereof. It doesn't place any obligations on private persons, including corporations. If your intention is actually to stop industrial espionage, then your operative section needs rewriting; if not, mentioning it in the preamble is a misdirect."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern to the Dark Star WA Office

Special Ambassador Max Schneider: "Thank you for the prompt response, Miss Chinmusic. After another review of GAR #213 we believe that in some nations, unenecrypted communications using public networks, such as the internet may be misconstrued as not lying outside of public view. While to us - and probably to you and hopefully most member states - that may seem to be unreasonable, I do believe it is a loophole in desperate need of fixing. So yes, we are trying to invoke clause 8 of the PPA.

As for industrial espionage: There are those states, where state actors are trying to gain an advantage for their (possibly state owned) industry by spying on others (OOC: In RL, China has been accused of doing that and there were claims that the NSA has done the same thing to European companies). This practice would also be banned under this proposal. While we do agree something should also be done about "private" industrial espionage, that matter should better be left for another resolution.

We thank you for the input and will consider a rewrite of the preamble as per your suggestion.

As for the comment from the Defwa delegation: I would hope that the WA already has legislation in place to define such a basic procedure of the rule of law. We will do some research on that. But it is worth mentioning that the aforementioned Privacy Protection Act also lacks a definition of a warrant."

by **Defwa** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:30 am

Yes, the privacy protection act which has been established to be quite weak, necessitating/allowing this proposal

by **Shazbotdom** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:06 pm

"What if a Nations Criminal Justice System does not have anything similar to a 'Warrant'? What are they supposed to do?"

Stacy W. Smith
Shazbotdom Under-Ambassador to the WA

by **Old Hope** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:23 pm

Shazbotdom wrote:"What if a Nations Criminal Justice System does not have anything similar to a 'Warrant'? What are they supposed to do?"
Stacy W. Smith
Shazbotdom Under-Ambassador to the WA

Either introduce warrants into your legal system or stop interfering in private telecommunication.

by **Shazbotdom** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 9:39 pm

"That question was for the Draft Writer, not yourself. Now kindly allow them to respond. And for your reference, we do not actively 'interfere' in private telecommunications without approval. There are those nations, though, that do not require warrants to conduct investigations, arrests, and/or searches. They do require plausible reasoning for those three items to take effect, just not have a Warrant Issued."

Stacy W. Smith
Shazbotdom Under-Ambassador to the WA

by **Defwa** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:08 pm

Shazbotdom wrote:"That question was for the Draft Writer, not yourself. Now kindly allow them to respond. And for your reference, we do not actively 'interfere' in private telecommunications without approval. There are those nations, though, that do not require warrants to conduct investigations, arrests, and/or searches. They do require plausible reasoning for those three items to take effect, just not have a Warrant Issued."
Stacy W. Smith
Shazbotdom Under-Ambassador to the WA

The draft writer does not need to be present for an answer when the answer is blatantly apparent.
Consider going into the passed resolutions thread and searching "warrant" for how many resolutions your hypothetical violates.

by **Shazbotdom** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:32 pm

Defwa wrote:The draft writer does not need to be present for an answer when the answer is blatantly apparent.
Consider going into the passed resolutions thread and searching "warrant" for how many resolutions your hypothetical violates.

"Only five resolutions relate to Warrants. Number Two Seventy Nine relates to Emigration and Warrants, and denying someone the ability to Emigrate if they have a warrant out for their arrest. Number Two Thirteen stated, and I quote 'similar authorization', which can be verbal authorization which the Empire uses. Number 102 deals with Warrants but was Repealed. Number 58 deals with Warrants but was Repealed. Number 29 deals with records and lists either 'warrants, subpoena, or similar legal instrument'. Therefore yes, I do know what resolutions deal with Warrants and that the system that the Empire uses does not violate any of them."

Stacy W. Smith
Shazbotdom Under-Ambassador to the WA

by **Defwa** » Mon Sep 22, 2014 10:53 pm

Shazbotdom wrote:
Defwa wrote:The draft writer does not need to be present for an answer when the answer is blatantly apparent.
Consider going into the passed resolutions thread and searching "warrant" for how many resolutions your hypothetical violates.

"Only five resolutions relate to Warrants. Number Two Seventy Nine relates to Emigration and Warrants, and denying someone the ability to Emigrate if they have a warrant out for their arrest. Number Two Thirteen stated, and I quote 'similar authorization', which can be verbal authorization which the Empire uses. Number 102 deals with Warrants but was Repealed. Number 58 deals with Warrants but was Repealed. Number 29 deals with records and lists either 'warrants, subpoena, or similar legal instrument'. Therefore yes, I do know what resolutions deal with Warrants and that the system that the Empire uses does not violate any of them."
Stacy W. Smith
Shazbotdom Under-Ambassador to the WA

I believe your statement was, and I quote, ""What if a Nations Criminal Justice System does not have anything similar to a 'Warrant'?"
So if you already have something similar to a warrant, then what's your problem? Just call it what it is and be done.

by **Louisistan** » Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:52 am

Max Schneider: "Upon further review, it has become clear that the World Assembly has indeed not legislated on warrants. This is indeed worrying and we are currently considering adding a definition, albeit only within the scope of this resolution. This proposal can't create a general definition of warrants without going wildly off topic. This is a topic the General Assembly should have a look at, although I suspect any proposal trying to create a general definition of a warrant to go down in a flaming firework of "my judicial system employs coin tosses into tubs of owl excrement"-wanking.

A new draft will most likely be provided today. In the meantime, we thank Mrs. Landfree for answering in our place. We have nothing to add to her statement."

by **Louisistan** » Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:09 am

Johannes Keller, Director of Legislative Affairs:

Ladies and Gentlemen, the latest draft:

Telecommunication Privacy Act
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Louisistan

APPLAUDING existing legislation to protect personal privacy,
APPALLED that this existing legislation may be construed to exclude use of public networks, such as telephone or internet,

ACKNOWLEDGING that in some cases, governments may need to access and intercept telecommunications for law enforcement and national defense purposes,
CONCERNED that this authority may be abused to spy on residents or used for industrial espionage,
(HORRIFIED clause removed)

the WA General Assembly hereby,

DEFINES within the scope of this resolution:
a) "telecommunication" as any electronic communication including - but not limited to - telephone, telefax as well as any use of the internet,
b) "private telecommunication" as any telecommunication that is not conducted by a government or its government agencies including telecommunication conducted by government officials when they are not acting in any official capacity,
c) "surveillance" of private telecommunications as monitoring or recording that telecommunication,
d) "warrant" as judicial consent, written or otherwise, to perform surveillance of private telecommunication

1. PROHIBITS member nations from monitoring or recording any private telecommunication conducted by residents of WA member states, except in cases where a warrant is obtained to investigate a crime having been committed, being committed or being planned,
2. MANDATES that member nations intending to monitor the private telecommunication of a person or persons residing in another nation seek the permission from the host nation before beginning surveillance,

CLARIFIES that this Act does not prohibit member nations from monitoring the telecommunication of foreign governments in the interest of national security.

As you can see, we have decided to introduce a definition for "warrant" in the scope of the resolutions and have also acknowledged the existence of the Privacy Protection Act and have provided the reason to expand upon it.

by **The Dark Star Republic** » Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:15 am

Louisistan wrote:As for industrial espionage: There are those states, where state actors are trying to gain an advantage for their (possibly state owned) industry by spying on others ... This practice would also be banned under this proposal. While we do agree something should also be done about "private" industrial espionage, that matter should better be left for another resolution.

"But then that seems to create a slight bias against state owned industry. Private industries would remain free to use industrial espionage, against state owned businesses that would have no threat of retaliation. Furthermore, there's quite a large loophole. A private company can still commit industrial espionage, then sell the results to a government agent.

"Fixing it would be complicated, but I can't help but feel the easier solution would simply be to remove the reference in the preamble.

"On the subject of warrants, your definition is a bit pointless. Definitions are needed where there is reasonable ambiguity. Warrant is a commonly understood term, that has even been used previously in WA law. If all you're doing is saying what we all already know a warrant is, the definition serves no purpose, especially given that 'judicial consent' still doesn't protect against abuse given the lack of WA legislation on the role of the judiciary."

~ Ms. Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

by **Defwa** » Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:28 am

The definition of warrant may require additional legislation- sounds like something Sciongrad would be perfect for.
For the time being, if it can be connected to sufficient cause, I would be satisfied. But leaving it completely undefined, we do a disservice to the proposal and the people it seeks to defend due to the vast differences in government judiciaries. We already have people claiming not to have warrants at all.

by **Bananaistan** » Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:33 am

We'd be concerned that this proposal, as currently worded, depends upon a fair and independent judiciary for its provisions to be reasonable implemented. Yet of course we know that many member nations do not necessarily have anything at all like this, except as has been so far provided for under international law (which doesn't appear to be a whole lot). Certainly while this remains the case, at the very least we would question whether the strength listed is appropriate.

We'd also point out that a member nation would need judicial input to monitor its own citizens yet the executive of another member nation could just allow a foreign government monitor its own citizens without any judicial input.

The last point we would make is that the possible illegality regarding clause 4 c of the Privacy Protection Act has not been teased out sufficiently yet, as raised by Miss Chinmusic.

Said clause states that the following is permissible:

Conducting a search or seizure without a warrant or similar authorization because a compelling public interest exists (for example, there is an imminent threat to public safety);

The monitoring or recording of phone calls and emails could easily be construed as being "search or seizure" which WA law states is legal per this clause.

Edit: Ofc we support the concept if the application can be sufficiently cleaned up.

by **Defwa** » Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:46 am

Bananaistan wrote:We'd be concerned that this proposal, as currently worded, depends upon a fair and independent judiciary for its provisions to be reasonable implemented. Yet of course we know that many member nations do not necessarily have anything at all like this, except as has been so far provided for under international law (which doesn't appear to be a whole lot). Certainly while this remains the case, at the very least we would question whether the strength listed is appropriate.

We'd also point out that a member nation would need judicial input to monitor its own citizens yet the executive of another member nation could just allow a foreign government monitor its own citizens without any judicial input.

The last point we would make is that the possible illegality regarding clause 4 c of the Privacy Protection Act has not been teased out sufficiently yet, as raised by Miss Chinmusic.

Said clause states that the following is permissible:
Conducting a search or seizure without a warrant or similar authorization because a compelling public interest exists (for example, there is an imminent threat to public safety);
The monitoring or recording of phone calls and emails could easily be construed as being "search or seizure" which WA law states is legal per this clause.

I doubt many nations would feel comfortable with another government or even a private agency monitoring their citizens but it's enough of a possibility that it could be considered a problem.
But it shouldn't be a problem to also ban the contracting out of monitoring.

The potential harder route would be to retool this completely as information exchange protection preventing private or government spying on private individuals. But those often get wordy and unpopular because of all the hoops to jump through

by **Cornelia** » Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:08 am

The Dark Star Republic wrote:"Articles 7 and 8 of the Privacy Protection Act:
7. Notes that this resolution provides only minimum protections of the right to privacy and that member states themselves or this Assembly may enact greater protections of the right to privacy than what is provided in this resolution; and

8. Expresses the openness of this Assembly to further debate and consideration of legislation regarding privacy rights in more specific areas, especially for circumstances in which the rights and obligations of the individual are unclear or unassured.

"That, I assume, is the legal basis on which you intend to pursue this as not being mere duplication of existing law. Nonetheless, your preamble really needs to make clearer how the rights within this proposal are 'unclear or unassured', and how your proposal does not contradict Article 4, clause (d) of that Resolution.

"I also find it fairly odd that your preamble mentions industrial espionage. Your proposal, as written, only seems to apply to 'member nations', which we would interpret as meaning the governments and state actors thereof. It doesn't place any obligations on private persons, including corporations. If your intention is actually to stop industrial espionage, then your operative section needs rewriting; if not, mentioning it in the preamble is a misdirect."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern to the Dark Star WA Office

The representative from Cornelia is not sure he agrees with Ms. Chinmusic's interpretation of the law, but if it be shared with the rest of this austere body, then the representative highly suggests we should strike any language in regards to industrial espionage and address the issue in separate legislation.

by **Louisistan** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 12:15 pm

Max Schneider takes a sip of his third Gin&Tonic of the day. "Ladies and Gentlethings,

there are problems we simply cannot tackle within the scope of a resolution like this. One of these is the fact that the World Assembly has yet to come to an agreement on what constitutes a warrant. We cannot and we will not get into a more detailed definition of a warrant in this proposal. The lack of WA legislation on the role of the judiciary is another one of those. Please also note that sureillance under this proposal is not permissible under any warrant, but only when the warrant is obtained to investigate a crime having been committed, being committed or being planned! So simply a judge signing a piece of paper without any proof is not sufficient. Would the Ambassador from Defwa stipulate that this constitutes connection to sufficient cause?

Industrial Espionage has to be stopped! But we can see that this is not the resolution to tackle the problem. A resolution dedicated specifically at that will be much more suited for the job. As such, our latest draft will have that reference stricken from the preamble.

I am thankful that the oversight concerning the seemingly lower restrictions for foreign governments has been pointed out. It is easily fixed, by requiring foreign nations to obtain a warrant through the host nation's judicial system.

As for the objection from Bananistan: The exception you quoted from GAR #213 is an exception to what that resolution considers to be the right to privacy:

1. Declares that every person has a right to privacy that extends to all lawful actions that occur out of public view and to all lawful actions, places, and other matters for which a subjective expectation of privacy and a reasonable, or objective, expectation of privacy exist;

As I have already pointed out, the unencrypted use of public networks such as the internet is technically not out of public view. In fact, unencrypted emails flying around the internet are like postcards. They can be read by anyone who handles them. This can (and will some day) be construed as "not outside public view". This proposal aims to rectify that by specifically extending a right to privacy to telecommunication over public networks. Is that not clear enough in the current draft? Then maybe we'll need to make it clearer.

A new draft is being put together in our legislative affairs department. It will probably be posted some time tomorrow.

by **Jarish Inyo** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:25 pm

The government of Jarish Inyo can not support this resolution. We do not recognize privacy in public or over public forms of communications.

by **Lexicor** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 4:46 pm

"The Luscious Lemon Lovers of Lexicor shall abstain should this resolution come to a vote."

by **Defwa** » Mon Sep 29, 2014 5:12 pm

Its not airtight but under reasonable nation theory, it will hold water.
Thank you.

OOC the issue is of course anyone could be planning a crime at any time but it's not within our abilities here to address. Adding reasonable suspicion of something similar may help

by **Louisistan** » Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:51 am

Legislative Director Johannes Keller: "Ladies and Gentlemen, draft number five!"

Telecommunication Privacy Act
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Louisistan

APPLAUDING existing legislation to protect personal privacy,
APPALLED that this existing legislation may be construed to exclude use of public networks, such as telephone or internet,

ACKNOWLEDGING that in some cases, governments may need to access and intercept telecommunications for law enforcement and national defense purposes,
CONCERNED that this authority may be abused to spy on residents ~~or used for industrial espionage~~,

the WA General Assembly hereby,

DEFINES within the scope of this resolution:
a) "telecommunication" as any electronic communication including - but not limited to - telephone, telefax as well as any use of the internet,
b) "private telecommunication" as any telecommunication that is not conducted by a government or its government agencies including telecommunication conducted by government officials when they are not acting in any official capacity,
c) "surveillance" of private telecommunications as monitoring or recording that telecommunication,
d) "warrant" as judicial consent, written or otherwise, to perform surveillance of private telecommunication

1. PROHIBITS member nations from monitoring or recording any private telecommunication conducted by residents of WA member states, except in cases where a warrant is obtained to investigate a crime having been committed, being committed or being planned,
2. MANDATES that member nations intending to monitor the private telecommunication of a person or persons residing in another nation obtain a warrant through the host nation's judicial system before beginning surveillance,

CLARIFIES that this Act does not prohibit member nations from monitoring the telecommunication of foreign governments in the interest of national security.

by **Araraukar** » Sun Oct 05, 2014 2:48 pm

Louisistan wrote:
CLARIFIES that this Act does not prohibit member nations from monitoring the telecommunication of foreign governments in the interest of national security.

But what if that communication happens between two people, instead of something like a group-Skype call? Wouldn't foreign governments be free to get around the allowance by having someone like their Minister of Communications talking to their counterpart in the other nation? They could then claim it was a private chat that the third nation had no business snooping in?

Also, terrorists around the world will certainly be rejoicing, if this passes.

[ON HOLD] Telecommunication Privacy Act

[ON HOLD] Telecommunication Privacy Act

Who is online