by Cresenthia » Thu Aug 25, 2016 2:01 pm
by Calladan » Thu Aug 25, 2016 3:32 pm
Cresenthia wrote:Recognizing the good efforts of the World Assembly to secure digital devices,
Further more pleased by the restrictions placed upon governments to keep said devices secure,
But concerned that the term “cyberattack” is to be “any act of unlawful access to or alteration of numerical information stored on digital devices” actions so diverse as editing one’s own digital shopping list, and unauthorized access to a government network.
Further concerned that “cyberattacks” must be considered “acts of violence” and mandates that “individuals committing cyberattacks be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” which may be well out of proportion to the actual offense, and regardless of the actual offense, may vary wildly between member states.
Also faulting the resolution for terms such as “digital security threats” and “unlawful access to or alteration of numerical information” that are not defined, and may be interpreted by member governments in inconsistent and damaging ways.
Perturbed by the proposition that this resolution may hinder or discourage further advances in the field of information technology, for fear for violating the resolution.
Believing that this resolution is misguided, and damaging,
Hereby repeals GA Resolution #378: Digital Network Defense.
by Cresenthia » Thu Aug 25, 2016 3:38 pm
Calladan wrote:Cresenthia wrote:Recognizing the good efforts of the World Assembly to secure digital devices,
Further more pleased by the restrictions placed upon governments to keep said devices secure,
But concerned that the term “cyberattack” is to be “any act of unlawful access to or alteration of numerical information stored on digital devices” actions so diverse as editing one’s own digital shopping list, and unauthorized access to a government network.
Further concerned that “cyberattacks” must be considered “acts of violence” and mandates that “individuals committing cyberattacks be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” which may be well out of proportion to the actual offense, and regardless of the actual offense, may vary wildly between member states.
Also faulting the resolution for terms such as “digital security threats” and “unlawful access to or alteration of numerical information” that are not defined, and may be interpreted by member governments in inconsistent and damaging ways.
Perturbed by the proposition that this resolution may hinder or discourage further advances in the field of information technology, for fear for violating the resolution.
Believing that this resolution is misguided, and damaging,
Hereby repeals GA Resolution #378: Digital Network Defense.
While I accept the general idea, I would point out that - depending what you hack into and change in any given network, you can do a lot of damage, either to one person or to a whole bunch of people.
If you change someone's medical record to remove an allergy to penicillin, for example, then the next time that person gets treated they could EASILY be killed by the doctors through no fault of either the person or the medical staff treating them.
So I don't think that "acts of violence" is too excessive a description in some cases, given that changing even a small bit of information about someone's life can have massive, sometimes fatal consequences.
by Calladan » Fri Aug 26, 2016 12:25 am
Cresenthia wrote:Calladan wrote:
While I accept the general idea, I would point out that - depending what you hack into and change in any given network, you can do a lot of damage, either to one person or to a whole bunch of people.
If you change someone's medical record to remove an allergy to penicillin, for example, then the next time that person gets treated they could EASILY be killed by the doctors through no fault of either the person or the medical staff treating them.
So I don't think that "acts of violence" is too excessive a description in some cases, given that changing even a small bit of information about someone's life can have massive, sometimes fatal consequences.
I agree that it is certainly possible to do damage by gaining unauthorized access to data. However, stealing someone's credit card would probably not be considered an act of violence, albeit it is criminal. My main point is that all cyberattacks must be considered violent under DND, despite what the cyber attack actually is.
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Aug 26, 2016 4:55 am
Cresenthia wrote:But concerned that the term “cyberattack” is to be “any act of unlawful access to or alteration of numerical information stored on digital devices” actions so diverse as editing one’s own digital shopping list, and unauthorized access to a government network.
Further concerned that “cyberattacks” must be considered “acts of violence” and mandates that “individuals committing cyberattacks be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” which may be well out of proportion to the actual offense, and regardless of the actual offense, may vary wildly between member states.
Also faulting the resolution for terms such as “digital security threats” and “unlawful access to or alteration of numerical information” that are not defined, and may be interpreted by member governments in inconsistent and damaging ways.
Perturbed by the proposition that this resolution may hinder or discourage further advances in the field of information technology, for fear for violating the resolution.
by Bears Armed » Fri Aug 26, 2016 5:57 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Prosecuting somebody to the fullest extend means that the state brings all possible, applicable charges against the perpetrator. It does not mean you slap them in jail for as long as you can get away with, as that would be "sentencing to the fullest extent of the law". You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the phrase."
by Cresenthia » Fri Aug 26, 2016 8:42 am
Calladan wrote:Cresenthia wrote:I agree that it is certainly possible to do damage by gaining unauthorized access to data. However, stealing someone's credit card would probably not be considered an act of violence, albeit it is criminal. My main point is that all cyberattacks must be considered violent under DND, despite what the cyber attack actually is.
Well - I could post some philosophical nonsense about violence against the soul and emotional violence against each other, but since I am not my mother, I won't.
But do you have a suggestion as to what could replace this? Something that would do more or less what the current one does, even if it does it in a more balanced and logical manner than the current one? (A stiletto rather than a hammer?)
Separatist Peoples wrote:Cresenthia wrote:But concerned that the term “cyberattack” is to be “any act of unlawful access to or alteration of numerical information stored on digital devices” actions so diverse as editing one’s own digital shopping list, and unauthorized access to a government network.
"If editing one's own digital shopping list is a crime, why shouldn't people be prosecuted for it? It would be a stupid law, but it would, nonetheless, be illegal to engage in. Your example is poor."
Separatist Peoples wrote:Also faulting the resolution for terms such as “digital security threats” and “unlawful access to or alteration of numerical information” that are not defined, and may be interpreted by member governments in inconsistent and damaging ways.
"Digital security threats are threats to the security of digital devices. Unlawful access or alteration of numerical information is the alteration of information, which is numerical, that is illegal. These terms do not require definitions any more than "prosecution to the fullest extent of the law" requires a definition."
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:28 am
Cresenthia wrote:Because why would the WA want to be known for helping prosecute people for such frivolous crimes? Do you have a better example?
Here I'm mostly picking an issue with the phrasing of the resolution, as depending on how you read it, it can be mildly ambiguous. Depending on your reading, it could be interpreted as any alteration of numerical information is forbidden, which, I hope, is not what the author of this resolution intended.
Bears Armed wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"Prosecuting somebody to the fullest extend means that the state brings all possible, applicable charges against the perpetrator. It does not mean you slap them in jail for as long as you can get away with, as that would be "sentencing to the fullest extent of the law". You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the phrase."
"Or, maybeso, a temporary confusion between the terms 'prosecuting' and 'persecuting'?"
Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.
by Cresenthia » Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:35 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Here I'm mostly picking an issue with the phrasing of the resolution, as depending on how you read it, it can be mildly ambiguous. Depending on your reading, it could be interpreted as any alteration of numerical information is forbidden, which, I hope, is not what the author of this resolution intended.
"Such an interpretation would be contrary to any state's goals of being able to actually use a digital system. Unless nations are looking for another excuse to ban the use of computers, an endeavor already totally legal, no state will reasonably rely on that interpretation. You would benefit from changing this argument to suggest that the wording is awkward, but suggesting an absurd interpretation as common among nations is too easy to rebut to justify keeping."
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:36 am
Cresenthia wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:
"Such an interpretation would be contrary to any state's goals of being able to actually use a digital system. Unless nations are looking for another excuse to ban the use of computers, an endeavor already totally legal, no state will reasonably rely on that interpretation. You would benefit from changing this argument to suggest that the wording is awkward, but suggesting an absurd interpretation as common among nations is too easy to rebut to justify keeping."
Out of curiosity, which resolution permits governments to ban the usage of computers, or is there nothing on that subject?
by Cresenthia » Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:59 am
by Calladan » Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:54 am
“any act of unlawful access to or alteration of numerical information stored on digital devices”
"any act of unlawful access to or unlawful alteration of numerical information stored on digital devices"
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:00 am
Calladan wrote:This isn't so much legality as interpretation.“any act of unlawful access to or alteration of numerical information stored on digital devices”
From the text of the repeal, it would appear that you are only applying the word "unlawful" to the "access" part of the clause, whereas I would have thought it applied to all of it :-"any act of unlawful access to or unlawful alteration of numerical information stored on digital devices"
If this is the interpretation that applies, then your example of changing your shopping list doesn't hold water any more - it would only be if someone changed it without your permission by hacking in to your phone/tablet/etc to do it.
Of course, the fact that it can be looked at both ways is probably a sign of REALLY badly written clause - one that should almost certainly be looked at again - but I just thought I would mention it, since it does seem to be the foundation of your repeal (to some degree).
by States of Glory WA Office » Fri Aug 26, 2016 5:42 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Mayhaps that was the case, but, in contravention of Poe's Law, I'm going to ascribe "malice"* before ignorance, seeing as we're all professionals."
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:54 am
States of Glory WA Office wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"Mayhaps that was the case, but, in contravention of Poe's Law, I'm going to ascribe "malice"* before ignorance, seeing as we're all professionals."
OOC: You're mixing up Poe's Law with Hanlon's razor. Poe's Law is about how difficult it can be to tell genuine extremism from parodies of extremism.
by Kryozerkia » Wed Aug 31, 2016 8:11 am
by Excidium Planetis » Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:30 am
Kryozerkia wrote:(b) You may also want to review the resolution your repeal is targeting. You say it mandates that cyberattacks be treated as "acts of violence" but GAR#378 does mandate that they be considered "criminal offenses". Not all crimes are violent.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Europe and Oceania » Wed Aug 31, 2016 11:56 am
by Kryozerkia » Wed Aug 31, 2016 1:06 pm
Excidium Planetis wrote:Kryozerkia wrote:(b) You may also want to review the resolution your repeal is targeting. You say it mandates that cyberattacks be treated as "acts of violence" but GAR#378 does mandate that they be considered "criminal offenses". Not all crimes are violent.
OOC:
Actually, GA#378 does say that for the purposes of cooperation with other WA resolutions, cyber attacks are to be considered acts of violence. That doesn't necessarily mean that they be punished as acts of violence, however.
(The purpose of this was to allow some kinds of cyberattacks to fall under the definition of terrorism in GA#25, which specifies that use of violence is terrorism.)
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: FlyLands
Advertisement