[PASSED] Cyber Security Convention

[John Turner]

"Non-combatant" should really be defined so that assholeish member nations don't use the vagueness as a loophole.

I couldn't agree more. Do you have any suggestions Ambassador? Should we incorporate it into this draft or write a resolution specifically dealing with non-combatants? (if the latter, I would welcome your input and co-authorship)

[Flawdom]

"Non-combatant" should really be defined so that assholeish member nations don't use the vagueness as a loophole.

I couldn't agree more. Do you have any suggestions Ambassador? Should we incorporate it into this draft or write a resolution specifically dealing with non-combatants? (if the latter, I would welcome your input and co-authorship)

I believe there is a higher chance of this passing if it's written into this resolution namely because writing an entire resolution based on a volatile topic such as "what is a non-combatant" is really risky. Also, since the term "non-combatant" is used here to permit the use of espionage in cases of national security and wartime it is only natural, in our opinion, for it to be defined here.

OOC: As much as I would like a co-authorship I do believe it's best to just put it in here. Also, I'll give suggestions on the definition tomorrow if it's all the same to you because it's quite late for me atm and I'm struggling to stay awake.

[Urlskate]

Cyber technology as computers, software systems, applications or services, electronic communications systems, networks, or services, and the information contained therein,

Cyber security as measures taken to protect a computer or computer system or a network against unauthorized access or attack,

Cyber WAREFARE as actions by a nation to penetrate the computers or networks of another nation for the purposes of causing damage or disruption to combatant targets and their supporting infrastructure,

Cyber terrorism as a premeditated, politically motivated attack against information, computer systems, or devices of non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents for the purposes of spreading fear and terror;

As a spokesman for the Glorious leader of Urlskate himself we find this lack of consideration for national self defense appalling. The most benevolent leader of Urlskate has prepared cyber terror units to defend its sovereignty against foreign aggressors, destructive revolutionaries and communists.

To deny this would be an act of aggression on all nations that cannot defend themselves in conventional warfare against more powerful aggressor nations. The Magnanimous Leader of Urlskate is wise enough to know that "leveling the field" only strengthens powerful nations and weakens peaceful nations.


OOC: Hey, I started this game fairly recently and decided to start getting active in role-playing, so if you see anything wrong with how I replied or if I broke any taboos, please tell me, feedback on what I may be doing wrong is better than wallowing alone.

[Atomic Utopia]

a. Cyber warfare as actions by a nation to penetrate the computers or networks of another nation for the purposes of causing damage or disruption to combatant targets and their supporting infrastructure.

2. Prohibits member nations from engaging in cyber warfare against non-combatant targets or organizations not directly linked to the military or national security of fellow member nations;

Your definition seems a tad recursive; cyber warfare seems to be defined as any attacks on combatants and their direct supporting infrastructure and bans attacks on combatsnts and their direct supporting infrastructure to groups not part of combatants direct supporting infrastructure.

In other words you outlaw nothing as the stuff you outlaw would not be called cyber warfare under your definition.

[Ossitania]

2. Prohibits member nations from engaging in actions by a nation to penetrate the computers or networks of another nation for the purposes of causing damage or disruption to combatant targets and their supporting infrastructure against non-combatant targets or organizations not directly linked to the military or national security of fellow member nations;

As the delegation from Atomic Utopia say, the definition of "cyber warfare" causes a problem.

We find clause 5 troublingly vague: what organisations and individuals? Are member-states now to require that Joe Soap in Little Bigtopia protect his smartphone from Maxtopian espionage?

Honestly, we're not really sure what this resolution wants itself to be. The clauses seem to reach at a variety of cyber security issues without ever grasping them.

I assume clause 5 was intended to be a mandate for member-states to require systems within their jurisdiction that carry sensitive national security information to have good cyber security, but it's not clear why member-states would not already do that out of self-interest. The other potential read I have of that clause is to prevent industrial espionage, but, again, it's not clear why organisations and individuals in possession of trade secrets that give them a competitive advantage would need to be made to protect their systems, given it's already in their self-interest.

The objective in clauses 2 and 4 seems to be prohibiting member-states from sponsoring cyber terror against other nations (since, presumably, they don't need to be compelled by the WA to outlaw and pursue cyber terror against themselves) but doesn't accomplish this on a number of levels, because the definition only covers non-combatant targets and attacks for the purposes of spreading fear and terror, which effectively leaves states open to sponsor terrorist groups to do basically any kind of cyber crime against rival states, and any kind of cyber crime against non-combatants as long as it's not "for the purposes of spreading fear and terror". Given our suspicion that hacking a smartphone is not exactly the kind of spectacle that terrorists use to terrorise, we're not clear on whether you've prevented cyber terrorists from doing anything.

Finally, on the issue of the committee, (1) we're not clear on how the database is to be developed, and have serious misgivings about all the avenues that immediately occur to us, (2) we're not clear on what kind of assistance it's providing, and are deeply concerned about a WA committee potentially assisting member-states in pursuing agents of other member-states, (3) we're not clear on whether member-states will want a WA committee involved in the creation of their national security apparatuses, especially when said WA committee is also involved in helping their rivals track down agents acting on behalf of those same national security apparatuses.

At the end of it all, we're genuinely unclear if this resolution does anything except maybe create an untrustworthy WA committee that interferes in international conflicts in an unsettling and unaccountable way.

[Islamic Meritocratic Transoxiana]

"Ambassador Turner, Transoxiana supports this resolution and will vote FOR."

[Flawdom]

"Ambassador Turner, Transoxiana supports this resolution and will vote FOR."

Can the esteemed ambassador explain their stance on the problems listed so far?

[Islamic Meritocratic Transoxiana]

"Ambassador Turner, Transoxiana supports this resolution and will vote FOR."

Can the esteemed ambassador explain their stance on the problems listed so far?

"We consider the definitions in the resolution to be suitable."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Can the esteemed ambassador explain their stance on the problems listed so far?

"We consider the definitions in the resolution to be suitable."

Parsons: (deadpan) If the definitions were the only thing which World Assembly resolutions did, that would be fine. What do you think of the active clauses of the resolution?

[Urlskate]

"We consider the definitions in the resolution to be suitable."

Parsons: (deadpan) If the definitions were the only thing which World Assembly resolutions did, that would be fine. What do you think of the active clauses of the resolution?

This is a discussion not an interrogation, ambassador. You should heed the wisdom of the most benevolent leader and leave others be. The ambassador of Transoxianna shares some of the magnanimous leaders intelligence if he, too, can realize this farce of a document for the aggressive declaration of war upon weaker states that it is.

[Flawdom]

I couldn't agree more. Do you have any suggestions Ambassador? Should we incorporate it into this draft or write a resolution specifically dealing with non-combatants? (if the latter, I would welcome your input and co-authorship)

I believe there is a higher chance of this passing if it's written into this resolution namely because writing an entire resolution based on a volatile topic such as "what is a non-combatant" is really risky. Also, since the term "non-combatant" is used here to permit the use of espionage in cases of national security and wartime it is only natural, in our opinion, for it to be defined here.

OOC: As much as I would like a co-authorship I do believe it's best to just put it in here. Also, I'll give suggestions on the definition tomorrow if it's all the same to you because it's quite late for me atm and I'm struggling to stay awake.

We believe we have come up with a suitable preliminary definition. Please provide constructive criticism so that this definition may be improved. We define non-combatants as:

Civilians who do not participate in warfare against member nations as recognized by this legislation or prior legislation in the WA under the direction or protection of any kind by any level of government belonging to member states AND members of the military who do not engage in direct hostilities that are in any way directed or protected by any level of government of member nations towards other member nations.

The ideal behind this definition is that civilians who are innocent of warfare and military members who do not take part in direct conflict (for example, members of the medical corp) should not be attacked via any type of warfare, but cyber in particular since that is the point of this legislation.

OOC: Inspiration was taken from the Geneva Convention and the US Navy Handbook but great pains were taken to not take text from them.

[Palaiologos II]

Perhaps organizations such as charities, religious groups, or corporations should also be included as non-combatants (except when clear evidence exists that they are aiding the target government). Even though these groups aren't "people," they are still the more likely target of a cyber terrorism attack by a group. That is to say, Joe Citizen on the street probably won't have his phone hacked by militant separatists, but a major telecommunications company could make a good target.

[John Turner]

This is on hold pending things. When the timing is right I will revive it and send it to the floor.

[Flawdom]

Perhaps organizations such as charities, religious groups, or corporations should also be included as non-combatants (except when clear evidence exists that they are aiding the target government). Even though these groups aren't "people," they are still the more likely target of a cyber terrorism attack by a group. That is to say, Joe Citizen on the street probably won't have his phone hacked by militant separatists, but a major telecommunications company could make a good target.

We approve of such an edit. However the author has indicated that this is on hold at the moment so we shall wait for him.

[Islamic Meritocratic Transoxiana]

Perhaps organizations such as charities, religious groups, or corporations should also be included as non-combatants (except when clear evidence exists that they are aiding the target government). Even though these groups aren't "people," they are still the more likely target of a cyber terrorism attack by a group. That is to say, Joe Citizen on the street probably won't have his phone hacked by militant separatists, but a major telecommunications company could make a good target.

We approve of such an edit. However the author has indicated that this is on hold at the moment so we shall wait for him.

Same.

[John Turner]

Bumping this up for further comments.

[Araraukar]

Bumping this up for further comments.

OOC: So are all GA regulars on your ignore list now, or just the ones disagreeing with you? Because it's no use posting comments if you're not seeing them.

[John Turner]

Bumping this up for further comments.

OOC: So are all GA regulars on your ignore list now, or just the ones disagreeing with you? Because it's no use posting comments if you're not seeing them.

OOC: Actually only two, but they aren't capable of leaving a helpful comment anyway. There isn't enough drama in this thread for them to poke their heads in.

Leaving this up for feedback until Monday, at which point unless something huge crops up it goes to the floor.

[Araraukar]

Leaving this up for feedback until Monday, at which point unless something huge crops up it goes to the floor.

OOC: I'll try to get to it before Monday. After I've slept something like, say, 14 hours or so... It's been a tough week.

[Povinksi]

Looks great.
For.

[Wallenburg]

I am not sure what you plan to do with this proposal when you aren't even in the WA.

[John Turner]

I am not sure what you plan to do with this proposal when you aren't even in the WA.

Seriously? Was a pedantic comment really necessary? It literally takes about a minute to join the WA.

[Wallenburg]

I am not sure what you plan to do with this proposal when you aren't even in the WA.

Seriously? Was a pedantic comment really necessary? It literally takes about a minute to join the WA.

Seriously? An honest, reasonable question is a pedantic comment? Grow some thicker skin. After all, you're the one who goes around calling people obnoxious smartasses. If you can't handle "pedantry", don't dish it out.

[John Turner]

I honestly thought I could remove you from my foe list and we could have an actual debate. I see I was mistaken. My fault. I will make sure it doesn't happen again.

[Dooom35796821595]

I am not sure what you plan to do with this proposal when you aren't even in the WA.

Seriously? Was a pedantic comment really necessary? It literally takes about a minute to join the WA.

Perhaps because the impression of a nation writing legislation while outside the body that would be regulated by your resolution seems hypocritical to an extreme?

In fact, I think I shall vote against this solely due to the conviction that you will quit the WA after passing your legislation.