[PASSED] Digital Network Defense

[Imperium Anglorum]

Mikael smiles and says, "Congratulations, Mr. Blackthorne. The Wallenburgian delegation is glad to have supported the success of this resolution."

Parsons raises his eyebrow, 'Is it not Blackbourne?'

[Separatist Peoples]

Mikael smiles and says, "Congratulations, Mr. Blackthorne. The Wallenburgian delegation is glad to have supported the success of this resolution."

Parsons raises his eyebrow, 'Is it not Blackbourne?'

"Blackkorne," Bell corrects.

[Araraukar]

Mikael smiles and says, "Congratulations, Mr. Blackthorne. The Wallenburgian delegation is glad to have supported the success of this resolution."

Parsons raises his eyebrow, 'Is it not Blackbourne?'

It could be a translation error. Or clerical error. Ogenberg¹ doesn't strike me as one who would intentionally get people's names wrong. Unlike Wad Ari...

¹OOC: I know it's Ogenbond, Janis tends to get it wrong every now and then. (Actually, more often than not, probably.) She's more comfortable with first names, that's why she tends to refer to Mr. Bell as Ben or Benjamin.

[Wallenburg]

Mikael smiles and says, "Congratulations, Mr. Blackthorne. The Wallenburgian delegation is glad to have supported the success of this resolution."

Parsons raises his eyebrow, 'Is it not Blackbourne?'

"Blackbourne? Now what kind of name is that? Certainly it must be Blackhourne!"

[Separatist Peoples]

Parsons raises his eyebrow, 'Is it not Blackbourne?'

"Blackbourne? Now what kind of name is that? Certainly it must be Blackhourne!"

"BlackKORNE," Bell corrects a bit more emphatically.

[Araraukar]

Parsons raises his eyebrow, 'Is it not Blackbourne?'

"Blackbourne? Now what kind of name is that? Certainly it must be Blackhourne!"

"BlackKORNE," Bell corrects a bit more emphatically.

*sigh* Does he have a first name? Maybe it has fewer ways to be mis-heard.

[Excidium Planetis]

Parsons raises his eyebrow, 'Is it not Blackbourne?'

"Blackbourne? Now what kind of name is that? Certainly it must be Blackhourne!"

"BlackKORNE," Bell corrects a bit more emphatically.

*sigh* Does he have a first name? Maybe it has fewer ways to be mis-heard.

"Gentlemen, and Lady, it doesn't matter how my name is pronounced," Blackbourne replies as he helps carry Schultz out the door, shifting his position to carry Schultz behind the shoulders. "I didn't even write this resolution. It was entirely Madam Schultz here.

"Oh, and my first name is Evander, madam."

[Sandaoguo]

*sigh* With one fell swoop (that's just a series of short definitions and toothless clauses), we've removed yet another broad category of legislation that could've provided an abundance of resolution activity.

The bulk of this debate was nonsense about quantum computing and the definition of 'digital.' The definition of "cyberattack" is literally just a layman definition of "hacking" that has no relation to what a cyberattack actually is. Nevermind that "real threat" isn't a term used in international law and has no meaning here; the author doesn't get to decide when a country finds a threat to be real or, fake I guess?

This is ripe for repeal.

[Excidium Planetis]

*sigh* With one fell swoop (that's just a series of short definitions and toothless clauses), we've removed yet another broad category of legislation that could've provided an abundance of resolution activity.

This isn't the first time someone's passed a reslutipn on this topic.

The bulk of this debate was nonsense about quantum computing and the definition of 'digital.'

Clearly you only read the first two pages. The bulk of the debate was "reasonable suspicion".

The definition of "cyberattack" is literally just a layman definition of "hacking" that has no relation to what a cyberattack actually is.

Well...

cyberattack:
an attempt by hackers to damage or destroy a computer network or system.

Hacking.

Nevermind that "real threat" isn't a term used in international law and has no meaning here; the author doesn't get to decide when a country finds a threat to be real or, fake I guess?

Imagined. Real or Imagined.

This is ripe for repeal.

Oh, you mean that resolution activity you were saying this removed? I'd love for some new player, maybe one of those who ranted about this here, to repeal it. Good on them.

[Sandaoguo]

You've elevated mere unauthorized access to the level of offensive attack, which is just ridiculous and increases the likelihood of conflict instead of reducing it. You don't like espionage-- fine. It's not an offensive attack that warrants interstate conflict, but you've now elevated it to one with your incredibly broad definition of cyber-attack. Whereas before a state would be hard pressed to convince the international community a data dump of diplomatic wires warrants a declaration of war, they now have the full force of a World Assembly resolution signing off on it.

It's now a "cyber-attack" to gain access to someone's social media account and post spam, rather than merely the inconsequential act of a script kiddie. How is that reasonable? It's not. This overly broad resolution is basically the CFAA on steroids, giving governments the blessing of the World Assembly to restrict privacy rights, throw people in prison for decades for nonviolent crimes, and invade personal computers and networks under the guise of "securing such devices against cyberattacks." In fact, that last clause completely blocks the World Assembly from establishing more robust internet privacy rights.

The area of cyber-defense and cyber-warfare -- leaving out cyber-espionage, since that's a completely different zone of policy -- is far too complex to be legislated on in not even 200 words. No consideration of private networks or individual privacy was even considered. There was no real forethought into how elevating all unauthorized access to level of offensive attack would destabilize interstate relations. Resolutions like these are part of why the quality of the GA has declined over the years. This issue deserves far more debate, far more detail, and way higher quality of policy.

There are so many resolutions that could be written on this subject:
- Cooperation in preventing cyber-crime
- Regulating how destructive a cyber-attack can be on civilian infrastructure
- When and how states can engage in countermeasures, rather than just go to war
- Protecting privacy in an era of government surveillance
- When a cyber-attack counts as cyber-warfare
- Whether belligerent states can use neutral states as origins of cyber-attacks during war
- Whether or not states can sponsor non-state actors to commit cyber-attacks
- International cooperation on information sharing & evidence collecting w/r/t cyber-crime
- International cooperation among technologically advanced states and less advanced states in preventing cyber-attacks
- How multinational corporations fit into all of this; what are their responsibilities? what are their protections?

Some of those can still be written, some can't. But the general problem I have with this resolution is just how much of a dearth of detail there actually is. The GA can't be legislating like this and expect to remain active. I'm not expecting anybody to become an expert on cybersecurity. I'm not, yet I was able to come up with all those ideas with just a couple minutes of Googling and reading this PDF. There's a minimum level of effort we as a community should expect.

[Excidium Planetis]

Before I say anything else, I had this drafting for weeks before I submitted. Many people put some input in. Where were you during that time? Couldn't you have put some comments in here if you had an issue with the resolution?

You've elevated mere unauthorized access to the level of offensive attack, which is just ridiculous

It is an attack. Attacks don't have to be physically destructive. I believe that a nation accessing another's government files, including possibly military plans, projects, or nuclear launch codes, constitutes a security risk high enough to be considered an attack.

and increases the likelihood of conflict instead of reducing it.

By prohibiting the use of things which could cause conflict?

Either we assume that nations must comply with GA resolutions, with no non-compliance, and then in that case since no nations are launching cyberattacks there is nothing to start a conflict over, or we assume that non-compliance is possible, in which case because the nations causing conflicts are not following GA resolutions anyways, what does it matter what I wrote?

First, You don't like espionage-- fine. It's not an offensive attack that warrants interstate conflict, but you've now elevated it to one with your incredibly broad definition of cyber-attack.

I have not. I elevated it to a crime, not a justification for interstate conflict.

Whereas before a state would be hard pressed to convince the international community a data dump of diplomatic wires warrants a declaration of war, they now have the full force of a World Assembly resolution signing off on it.

Except they don't, because the only thing that warrants a declaration of war is consent. GA#2 prohibits war unless it is consensual.

giving governments the blessing of the World Assembly to restrict privacy rights

Last time I checked "Right to Privacy" was not a GA resolution.

throw people in prison for decades for nonviolent crimes

That would be in contravention of GA#375 Crime and Punishment Act, which "Forbids member nations from issuing criminal sentences disproportionate to the crime committed". Unless you want to claim that such a sentence is proportionate, in which case I don't see why that would be an issue to assign a proportionate punishment.

and invade personal computers and networks under the guise of "securing such devices against cyberattacks." In fact, that last clause completely blocks the World Assembly from establishing more robust internet privacy rights.

Actually, it only allows them to so if national law allows them to do so. WA resolutions force nations to alter their laws, so any WA resolution essentially overrides that last clause.

In short, at least half of your arguments are simply false, and the rest should have been brought up during the numerous times I bumped this thread calling for more discussion. Silence is agreement.

There are so many resolutions that could be written on this subject:
- Cooperation in preventing cyber-crime
- Regulating how destructive a cyber-attack can be on civilian infrastructure
- When and how states can engage in countermeasures, rather than just go to war
- Protecting privacy in an era of government surveillance
- When a cyber-attack counts as cyber-warfare
- Whether belligerent states can use neutral states as origins of cyber-attacks during war
- Whether or not states can sponsor non-state actors to commit cyber-attacks
- International cooperation on information sharing & evidence collecting w/r/t cyber-crime
- International cooperation among technologically advanced states and less advanced states in preventing cyber-attacks
- How multinational corporations fit into all of this; what are their responsibilities? what are their protections?

Some of those can still be written, some can't.

So repeal it and write those resolutions. Problem solved. That's what makes the GA great: Resolutions can be replaced.

[Sandaoguo]

Before I say anything else, I had this drafting for weeks before I submitted. Many people put some input in. Where were you during that time? Couldn't you have put some comments in here if you had an issue with the resolution?

Absence of critique is not a good reason to submit low quality work. I realize I'm being harsh, but perhaps I'm just used to more effort being put into research.

It is an attack. Attacks don't have to be physically destructive. I believe that a nation accessing another's government files, including possibly military plans, projects, or nuclear launch codes, constitutes a security risk high enough to be considered an attack.

An attack worthy of war? No. That's just ridiculous. Hacks happen all the time. This would be like going to war when you catch a spy. It's a total overreaction.

By prohibiting the use of things which could cause conflict?

By giving the blessing of the World Assembly on disproportionate responses. Elevating a minor hack to the level of an offensive act of war doesn't do anything to promote peace. And, yes, calling it a cyber-attack is elevating it that high.

Except they don't, because the only thing that warrants a declaration of war is consent. GA#2 prohibits war unless it is consensual.

I'll be sure to ask you before I send over my ICBMs, I guess.

Last time I checked "Right to Privacy" was not a GA resolution.

And so privacy isn't something we should be considering?

That would be in contravention of GA#375 Crime and Punishment Act, which "Forbids member nations from issuing criminal sentences disproportionate to the crime committed". Unless you want to claim that such a sentence is proportionate, in which case I don't see why that would be an issue to assign a proportionate punishment.

No, it wouldn't be, because you've elevated such minor incidences to the point where it is justification for such harsh penalties. There's no granularity at all in your wording.

Actually, it only allows them to so if national law allows them to do so. WA resolutions force nations to alter their laws, so any WA resolution essentially overrides that last clause.

Trust me, I have quite a few more years of experience with how the mods handle blocker language. The WA can't legislate on government surveillance, because members states now have the right to conduct it according to their own laws. That's what's written.

So repeal it and write those resolutions. Problem solved. That's what makes the GA great: Resolutions can be replaced.

What would be great is if we held ourselves to higher standards of research before submitting resolutions. There was a time when authors did actual research on the issues they writing about. That's all I want.

[Excidium Planetis]

Before I say anything else, I had this drafting for weeks before I submitted. Many people put some input in. Where were you during that time? Couldn't you have put some comments in here if you had an issue with the resolution?

Absence of critique is not a good reason to submit low quality work. I realize I'm being harsh, but perhaps I'm just used to more effort being put into research.

I did research. Most of it was focused in the digital device definition, but I did look at past WA resolutions on the same topic. I took note of where John Turner's resolution fell short, and then attempted to correct those mistakes.

It is an attack. Attacks don't have to be physically destructive. I believe that a nation accessing another's government files, including possibly military plans, projects, or nuclear launch codes, constitutes a security risk high enough to be considered an attack.

An attack worthy of war?

The resolution does not say that, nor does it imply that.

No. That's just ridiculous. Hacks happen all the time. This would be like going to war when you catch a spy. It's a total overreaction.

It is. An overreaction not supported by this resolution.

By prohibiting the use of things which could cause conflict?

By giving the blessing of the World Assembly on disproportionate responses.

Where? Can you quote the resolution text to support your claims?

Elevating a minor hack to the level of an offensive act of war

It doesn't. If I recall correctly, the word "war" does not even appear in the resolution, and the only mention of interstate conflict is the exception allowing nation to use cyberattacks when they are already at war with the target.

doesn't do anything to promote peace. And, yes, calling it a cyber-attack is elevating it that high.

So I guess political attack ads are now reason for war? Or maybe if one of your citizens comes to my nation and commits assault I am now justified in launching missiles at you?

No. That's not how it works. Things are not justifications for warfare just because they are called an attack.

Except they don't, because the only thing that warrants a declaration of war is consent. GA#2 prohibits war unless it is consensual.

I'll be sure to ask you before I send over my ICBMs, I guess.

And then I decline, you are in contravention of international law, and WA members stop assisting you or recognizing your conquests:

Article 7 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5 or 6. Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5 or 6.

Please stop advocating non-compliance.

Last time I checked "Right to Privacy" was not a GA resolution.

And so privacy isn't something we should be considering?

Not in a resolution which doesn't deal with individual privacy.

That would be in contravention of GA#375 Crime and Punishment Act, which "Forbids member nations from issuing criminal sentences disproportionate to the crime committed". Unless you want to claim that such a sentence is proportionate, in which case I don't see why that would be an issue to assign a proportionate punishment.

No, it wouldn't be, because you've elevated such minor incidences to the point where it is justification for such harsh penalties. There's no granularity at all in your wording.

Can you quote the resolution text to support your argument?

Also, if giving someone a long prison sentence for posting spam is not a violation of GA#375, then it must be considered a proportional punishment. Why are you against giving criminals proportional punishments?

Actually, it only allows them to so if national law allows them to do so. WA resolutions force nations to alter their laws, so any WA resolution essentially overrides that last clause.

Trust me, I have quite a few more years of experience with how the mods handle blocker language. The WA can't legislate on government surveillance, because members states now have the right to conduct it according to their own laws. That's what's written.

I guess the only way to settle this will be for me to write my own resolution. Nations are only allowed to spy on citizens should national law allow them to do so. Change national law, and they would no longer be allowed to do so. The WA has the power to force a change in national laws.

So repeal it and write those resolutions. Problem solved. That's what makes the GA great: Resolutions can be replaced.

What would be great is if we held ourselves to higher standards of research before submitting resolutions. There was a time when authors did actual research on the issues they writing about. That's all I want.

That's what I did. Just because I didn't research the things you wanted me to doesn't mean I didn't do research.

[Sciongrad]

I guess the only way to settle this will be for me to write my own resolution. Nations are only allowed to spy on citizens should national law allow them to do so. Change national law, and they would no longer be allowed to do so. The WA has the power to force a change in national laws.

"Even if that wasn't a poor ad hoc fix to this situation, it would be illegal. That would be removed for contradiction without a question."

[Tinfect]

Absence of critique is not a good reason to submit low quality work. I realize I'm being harsh, but perhaps I'm just used to more effort being put into research.

OOC:
If no-one brings up flaws in a work before the Work is completed, then how the hell was the author supposed to know they were there?

An attack worthy of war? No. That's just ridiculous. Hacks happen all the time. This would be like going to war when you catch a spy. It's a total overreaction.

Well, ICly, that's exactly what the Imperium would do. Foreign Personnel are illegally within the Imperial Territories and engaging in Espionage Activities. That's more than enough grounds to deploy the Fourth Fleet.

[Sciongrad]

Well, ICly, that's exactly what the Imperium would do. Foreign Personnel are illegally within the Imperial Territories and engaging in Espionage Activities. That's more than enough grounds to deploy the Fourth Fleet.

OOC: That demonstrates the problem. Nations like yours do exist and will, reasonably, refer to this resolution as justification for wild overreaction to minor cyberattacks.

[Sandaoguo]

An attack worthy of war? No. That's just ridiculous. Hacks happen all the time. This would be like going to war when you catch a spy. It's a total overreaction.

Well, ICly, that's exactly what the Imperium would do. Foreign Personnel are illegally within the Imperial Territories and engaging in Espionage Activities. That's more than enough grounds to deploy the Fourth Fleet.

Then you're not realistic and everybody should fire up their IGNORE cannons. WA resolutions shouldn't be based on idiosyncratic roleplaying.

[Tinfect]

Then you're not realistic and everybody should fire up their IGNORE cannons. WA resolutions shouldn't be based on idiosyncratic roleplaying.

OOC:
Well, the Imperium is an Isolationist Nation with a history of Genocide, known for the extreme level of control the Military holds on the Government, and would be Orwellian if not for the fact that the Imperium genuinely doesn't give a fuck about the Average citizen does as long as they're not causing problems.

Further even though the Imperium is an FT Interstellar Dictatorship that deploys laser-toting powered armour infantry as it's standard unit, I've long made effort to keep things reasonable here in the GA. I've refrained from Godmodding, I don't use the immense technological superiority of the Imperium to -Wank my way out of Compliance. I don't abuse loopholery to get out of Compliance.

I've spent quite a bit of time on creating a reasonable RP precence here in the GA, and have endeavored not to create Resolutions based on Techwank, but to keep resolutions from excluding Non-standard RP styles that don't conform to MT Free-Market Democracies.

You, are a returning author showing up with a puppet and whining when resolutions you didn't bother to try and work with get passed because you didn't like them. You showed up out of the blue and said that a player who has worked damned hard to keep an uncommon premise reasonable for the GA, despite having exactly fuck-all for an RP history on this new Nation of yours. The Imperium isn't a happy MT democratic paradise, and I'm not going to RP it like one because you don't like it.

[Araraukar]

The Imperium isn't a happy MT democratic paradise, and I'm not going to RP it like one because you don't like it.

OOC: For what it's worth, Tinfect's IC reality is one of the best-made ones around here, and while he RPs it consistently, he does offer realistic advice on drafts - OOCly, if his IC reality doesn't allow for another approach.

I RP Araraukar as fairly MT (some things are more, some things less advanced than 100% RL world), but as my WA puppet, PPU, is at best AltTech, and with definite undertones of FT and MagicTech, I, too, do my best to require alternative techs and non-human people to be included in resolution writing, as far as it's possible.

That said, I agree with Glen that DND covers too much and does so less than well, but last time I tried to have an argument on this thread with EP, it devolved into whether we have quantum computers (which we don't, by the way, in the general purpose way that "computer" is normally understood) in real life, and whether you can present everything (which you can, if your algorithms are sophisticated enough) in numerical form, which he wants to call digital. When the argument devolved into us quoting RL research á la NSG, I excused myself from it, since the argumentation was getting to a point where moderation would've had to be involved soon enough, and I sort of respect EP (still!) too much to have taken his thread down to that level.

His sole concession that I could see was to define digital devices as "artificial", which still ignores the whole AI side of roleplaying, and the government intrusions into the minds of sapient beings, but since nothing was getting through to him, I let it be.

It's hard to debate with someone who metaphorically starts to scream about you being wrong, when you're trying to get them to think of the issue from another point of view. So I totally get it if Glen didn't want to get into that here. And though that's a puppet account of his, it's at least a declared puppet.

[Sandaoguo]

I've spent quite a bit of time on creating a reasonable RP precence here in the GA, and have endeavored not to create Resolutions based on Techwank, but to keep resolutions from excluding Non-standard RP styles that don't conform to MT Free-Market Democracies.

You don't need to be an MT free-market democracy to realize that declaring wars over mere espionage is untenable and unrealistic. Other great powers would balance against you and wipe you off the map if you're that much of a warmonger. States tend to behave more rationally than that, because they want to, well, survive.

I don't really care about roleplaying at all, and I don't do it. Never have in my 8 years of playing NS. The WA is an analogue to the real world for me, and anything that's unreasonable in the real world is unreasonable here. That's my standard for ignoring roleplaying-based arguments. You don't need to conform to what I want, just don't expect me to really care about how you think going to war over a spy is reasonable.

[Tinfect]

You don't need to be an MT free-market democracy to realize that declaring wars over mere espionage is untenable and unrealistic. Other great powers would balance against you and wipe you off the map if you're that much of a warmonger. States tend to behave more rationally than that, because they want to, well, survive.

OOC:
In case you haven't noticed, the Imperium is a highly militaristic, highly Isolationist, State, one with a history of Genocide, and one that maintains a brutal monopoly on advanced technology in its region of space. This is a civilization that responded to the apparent assassination of its leader by its allies, with a genocidal campaign, which was extended to clear out other known civilizations in the general area for good measure. This is a civilization that went so far as to develop a series of devices that more or less cut them off from the rest of the Universe. This is a civilization that is currently more or less controlled by its own espionage and intelligence division, due to a long-form coup that quietly installed one of its own agents to the highest position of power in the Imperium.

There are no longer any other powers, they tried to take out the Imperium, several times even, and in the end, the Imperium won out, and none of the Civilizations or species that tried to destroy them still exist,* regardless of whether the damages were real or imagined. An insurmountable technological advantage, and a genocidal zeal brought on by decades of intermittent warfare and the fanning of both existing and new tensions, ended in the Imperium being the only power of any significance in the region of space.

The Imperium was one of the local superpowers back in the day, now, it's the only one. The Genocides are obviously in the past now, or the Imperium wouldn't be in the World Assembly today, but even now, you're not working with people that take possible threats lightly. 70+ years of Isolation, taught xenophobia, and a highly militarized culture will do that to you, regardless of what efforts certain divisions of the current government are making to reduce it.

*Not entirely true, but that's a discovery the Imperium hasn't made yet.

I don't really care about roleplaying at all, and I don't do it. Never have in my 8 years of playing NS. The WA is an analogue to the real world for me, and anything that's unreasonable in the real world is unreasonable here. That's my standard for ignoring roleplaying-based arguments. You don't need to conform to what I want, just don't expect me to really care about how you think going to war over a spy is reasonable.

If you don't involve yourself in RP, you have exactly fuck-all grounds to disparage mine. I take the WA from the position of the Imperium, I run the Imperium rather carefully to keep the actions of the State and its representatives in-character to what they are supposed to be. What is reasonable for a modern, not racist, not highly isolationist, not highly militaristic, and not superpower-level nation, is not going to be reasonable for the Imperium. Even Markhov here has to battle with the official consensus of the Imperium, and his personal beliefs, notice the careful usage of 'The Imperium', and 'I', in his responses.

I try to draft, vote, and debate In-Character, whenever I can reasonably do so. Because, you know, the GA is an In-Character Roleplaying Forum, at least in part, because, I mean, lets be honest, very few people here give two shits about how GA Resolutions affect their NS stats. If you're not interested in GA RP, there is only so much here for you.

[Araraukar]

OOC: This is a civilization that responded to vague rumours about something attacking ambassadors with a souped-up space marine assassin.

OOC: Edits mine. Mind you, not a complaint, just part of what amuses me about your IC reality.

And Glen, I get it that you don't want to RP, but you gotta understand that things evolve, even this forum, and it's mainly RP now, people are gonna RP and you calling their RP stupid can easily be taken in the "going to ignore you as you don't want to play with us" way. NS =/= RL, and all that.