[SUBMITTED] Repeal "Digital Network Defense"

[Friday Freshman]

Original Resolution: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=373779

RECOGNIZING that cyber attacks can be a major threat to civilians and governments,

AGREEING that to some degree, international action must be taken to deal with problems like cyberterrorism and international cybercrime,

REALIZING that GA Resolution #378 Digital Network Defense puts member nations at risk by not allowing them to collect cyber intelligence on any nation that they are not already in a hostile relationship with regardless of their status as member nations,

WORRYING that this lack of intelligence will put the member nations in a vulnerable position as they are potentially unable to properly assess the threat that another nation could pose to them,

NOTING that GA Resolution #378 Digital Network Defense with its broad reach closes the door on further legislation on personal privacy, both online and in general, and network security,

INDICATING that GA Resolution #378 Digital Network Defense can be overlooked by nations both with high tech levels who have computational devices beyond the digital spectrum,

DECLARING that GA Resolution #378 Digital Network Defense not only inadequately legislates on the matter of cyber attacks but also puts member nations at risk by barring them from collecting valuable intelligence on the nations around them, both member nations and non-member nations,

Hereby,

REPEALS GA Resolution #378 Digital Network Defense.

This is a try at a repeal and replace legislation. Comingled with the following: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=384466

[Separatist Peoples]

"Hacktivism and spamming, even for good cause, is still an invasion of privacy that the state has an interest in preventing."

[Tinfect]

- Whistleblowers and Corporation Watchdog Groups who acquired data via technology

"If the information was acquired illegally, then the State is obliged to enforce it's laws, Ambassador."

[Friday Freshman]

"Hacktivism and spamming, even for good cause, is still an invasion of privacy that the state has an interest in preventing."

Agreed but should they be lumped in to the over arching roof of cyber attacks? This resolution takes both hacktivism and spamming and hacking to steal millions of dollars on the same level.

[Friday Freshman]

- Whistleblowers and Corporation Watchdog Groups who acquired data via technology

"If the information was acquired illegally, then the State is obliged to enforce it's laws, Ambassador."

But shouldn't the legality of this matter be declared by a member state instead of the world assembly?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Hacktivism and spamming, even for good cause, is still an invasion of privacy that the state has an interest in preventing."

Agreed but should they be lumped in to the over arching roof of cyber attacks? This resolution takes both hacktivism and spamming and hacking to steal millions of dollars on the same level.

"The intrusion into privacy is the same. Moreover, one can be charged with additional and aggravating charges. Both are digital intrusions into a secure network without permission. One is, additionally, theft in excess of a million dollars, and the intrusion was with the intention to steal. Both can be punished differently while still being made illegal by the same law. Moreover, the law requires the act be illegal. It doesn't mean that there cant be multiple charges covering the scope of the international law's requirements."

[Separatist Peoples]

"If the information was acquired illegally, then the State is obliged to enforce it's laws, Ambassador."

But shouldn't the legality of this matter be declared by a member state instead of the world assembly?

"Not for those violations that have a specific, transnational aspect to the crime, especially when it seeks to prevent attacks on civilians."

[Friday Freshman]

But shouldn't the legality of this matter be declared by a member state instead of the world assembly?

"Not for those violations that have a specific, transnational aspect to the crime, especially when it seeks to prevent attacks on civilians."

Then legislation should be on that instead of micromanagment into national affairs.

"The problem is that such actions have different levels of importance in different cultures, systems, and government types. That would be why this proposal should be tossed and the issue left to national governments,"

Wait, who said this.... oh wait it was you...

[Separatist Peoples]

"Not for those violations that have a specific, transnational aspect to the crime, especially when it seeks to prevent attacks on civilians."

Then legislation should be on that instead of micromanagment into national affairs.

"The problem is that such actions have different levels of importance in different cultures, systems, and government types. That would be why this proposal should be tossed and the issue left to national governments,"

Wait, who said this.... oh wait it was you...

"Except that your proposal dealt with purely national concerns regarding domestic criminal procedure. International cyberattacks are not purely national, but are intrinsically international. They cross international borders and can only be addressed by a supranational authority if we expect any meaningful progress, especially since one doesn't need to physically cross borders to electronically attack another nation. The same cannot be said about criminal procedure. Honestly, ambassador, its like you don't have any idea how international law works."

[Normlpeople]

"The original says the act must be made illegal, it does not specify how. This *is* at the discretion of member nations" Clover spoke up "If you wish to make corporate hacking a far more serious charge than hacking a social media account, you are free to do so"

"A point though, we do prosecute 'whistle-blowers' and 'corporate watchdog groups' should they engage in illegal activity, such as hacking. A supposed 'righteous cause' is no excuse to ignore the law."

[Friday Freshman]

Then legislation should be on that instead of micromanagment into national affairs.

"The problem is that such actions have different levels of importance in different cultures, systems, and government types. That would be why this proposal should be tossed and the issue left to national governments,"

Wait, who said this.... oh wait it was you...

"Except that your proposal dealt with purely national concerns regarding domestic criminal procedure. International cyberattacks are not purely national, but are intrinsically international. They cross international borders and can only be addressed by a supranational authority if we expect any meaningful progress, especially since one doesn't need to physically cross borders to electronically attack another nation. The same cannot be said about criminal procedure. Honestly, ambassador, its like you don't have any idea how international law works."

Actually that wording was from your comments on my international cyber terrorism proposal awhile back.

[Friday Freshman]

Alright the original wording also requires governments to secure civilian networks as well. This would be an issue with forcing civilians to allow the government to enter and "secure" their network which could widely be abused.

[Sciongrad]

"I would touch on two points: the resolution in question increases the likelihood of interstate conflict by expanding the range of internationally recognized casus belli, as states may use minor cyberattacks as a pretext for war and cite the paucity of details in international legislation as justification, and the resolution in question forecloses the possibility of future international legislation on privacy rights. Those are, as far as Sciongrad is concerned, the most pressing issues the original resolution presents."

[Separatist Peoples]

Alright the original wording also requires governments to secure civilian networks as well. This would be an issue with forcing civilians to allow the government to enter and "secure" their network which could widely be abused.

"Networks, not individual computers. There is a huge difference between the two, especially when civilian networks are connected to critical infrastructure for a state's functioning."

[Friday Freshman]

"I would touch on two points: the resolution in question increases the likelihood of interstate conflict by expanding the range of internationally recognized casus belli, as states may use minor cyberattacks as a pretext for war and cite the paucity of details in international legislation as justification, and the resolution in question forecloses the possibility of future international legislation on privacy rights. Those are, as far as Sciongrad is concerned, the most pressing issues the original resolution presents."

Thank you for the good idea. I'll incorporate those ideas into the draft.

[Separatist Peoples]

Actually that wording was from your comments on my international cyber terrorism proposal awhile back.

"Looking back, that was a comment regarding domestic protest methods. Not international digital infiltration. What a nation does domestically is that nation's problem, but when it crosses jurisdictions into other states, there is a reasonable international interest. Nice try, though. You almost managed to make it look like I was contradicting myself. It's a shame context is so important, and that I remember the context, now isn't it?"

[Friday Freshman]

Draft revised with better reasoning for repeal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

GR was right in that many resolutions could be passed on this topic. One probably ought look at this post for things to do on the topic rather than simply just pass something that blocks off the entire subject altogether again.

[Friday Freshman]

GR was right in that many resolutions could be passed on this topic. One probably ought look at this post for things to do on the topic rather than simply just pass something that blocks off the entire subject altogether again.

Are you talking about my replacement?

[Wallenburg]

REALIZING that GA Resolution #378 Digital Network Defense actually unintentionally raises the chances of conflict between member nations by declaring even the most minor cyber attacks including minor espionage to be acts of war,

"This is untrue, Ambassador."

NOTING that GA Resolution #378 Digital Network Defense with its broad reach closes the door on further legislation on personal privacy, both online and in general, and network security,

"Also untrue. Please, show us which clauses do this."

[Sciongrad]

REALIZING that GA Resolution #378 Digital Network Defense actually unintentionally raises the chances of conflict between member nations by declaring even the most minor cyber attacks including minor espionage to be acts of war,

"This is untrue, Ambassador."

NOTING that GA Resolution #378 Digital Network Defense with its broad reach closes the door on further legislation on personal privacy, both online and in general, and network security,

"Also untrue. Please, show us which clauses do this."

OOC: Both of those claims have already been substantiated in two separate threads - the original resolution thread and another repeal thread. Explaining them at length every time we broach the subject is unnecessary.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"This is untrue, Ambassador."

"Also untrue. Please, show us which clauses do this."

OOC: Both of those claims have already been substantiated in two separate threads - the original resolution thread and another repeal thread. Explaining them at length every time we broach the subject is unnecessary.

OOC: As a general note, this is why quoting the original piece is fantastic when it comes to writing repeals.

OP: link us to the original thread

[Wallenburg]

"This is untrue, Ambassador."

"Also untrue. Please, show us which clauses do this."

OOC: Both of those claims have already been substantiated in two separate threads - the original resolution thread and another repeal thread. Explaining them at length every time we broach the subject is unnecessary.

OOC: I'd like to see how, considering the resolution makes no mention of espionage, war, or privacy whatsoever.

[Friday Freshman]

OOC: Both of those claims have already been substantiated in two separate threads - the original resolution thread and another repeal thread. Explaining them at length every time we broach the subject is unnecessary.

OOC: As a general note, this is why quoting the original piece is fantastic when it comes to writing repeals.

OP: link us to the original thread

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=373779

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Please remove the highlight command at the end. Otherwise, thanks!