NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Privacy Protection Act

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

[PASSED] Privacy Protection Act

Postby Christian Democrats » Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:26 pm

Image

ImageImage

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION AT VOTE
Privacy Protection Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Image Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Believing that each and every person has the right to keep certain affairs private,

Recognizing that a void in international law currently exists with regard to this matter,

Seeking to provide basic protection of the right to privacy for the good of all peoples,

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;

2. Prohibits infringement on the right to privacy by member states, their political subdivisions, and all state (governmental) actors thereof within their respective areas of jurisdiction subject to this resolution and past and future resolutions enacted by this Assembly;

3. Affirms that this resolution does not protect privacy with regard to unlawful actions (or matters) and actions that occur within public view;

4. Further affirms the legality of the following under the law of this Assembly as not infringing on the right to privacy:

  1. Conducting or attempting to conduct a legal arrest or pursuing a criminal suspect;
  2. Conducting a search or seizure with a warrant or similar authorization because of a possible legal violation by the person or possibly involving the person who is being searched, whose property is being searched, or whose property is being seized;
  3. 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);
  4. Monitoring or conducting legal surveillance of a criminal suspect or an associate;
  5. Requiring that a person testify about something that is private when violations of the law are suspected or during the course of a lawful trial;
5. Allows persons to waive their privacy rights so long as uncoerced and informed consent is provided;

6. Clarifies that reasonable, or objective, expectations of privacy might vary regarding similar actions, places, or other matters in different jurisdictions because of differences in culture and so forth;

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.
Last edited by Flibbleites on Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:45 pm, edited 22 times in total.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
The Realm of God
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7562
Founded: Jan 26, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Realm of God » Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:27 pm

The Realm of God Diplomatic Mission to the World Assembly (ROGDMWA) would request that Christian Democrats define privacy in the context of this Act before we proceed further.

ROGDMWA will withhold judgement untill this definition is shown to the House.
British, Orthodox Christian, humanist and stoic.

Pro. Disraelian Progressive Conservatism, One Nation Toryism, Distributionism, Civil Liberties, Pro UK, Pro US Constitution. Pro USA.

Progressive Conservative Economic Right: 0.38 Social Libertarian -2.00.

Christian Democrat NSG Senate.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:10 pm

The Realm of God wrote:The Realm of God Diplomatic Mission to the World Assembly (ROGDMWA) would request that Christian Democrats define privacy in the context of this Act before we proceed further.

ROGDMWA will withhold judgement untill this definition is shown to the House.

I intend this to be the main definition of the right to privacy:
Christian Democrats wrote:3. Declares that the right to privacy, as used in this resolution, extends to all places and lawful actions of private persons for which a subjective expectation of privacy and a reasonable, or objective, expectation of privacy exist

I believe that this definition is flexible, thereby allowing a proper implementation of privacy protections across various distinct cultures. An extremely specific definition of privacy might pose difficulties for nations to implement.

This section does provide a specific privacy protection that would be required to exist among all cultures:
Christian Democrats wrote:4. Includes in the right to privacy security of the person in his or her domicile regarding lawful actions that occur out of public view
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
The Realm of God
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7562
Founded: Jan 26, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Realm of God » Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:14 pm

ROGDMWA asserts that Christian Democrats' Act is sound and is suitable for the World Assembly to apply to all member states.

Therefore the Diplomatic Mission will assert it's deligacy and will stand in SUPPORT of this Act.
British, Orthodox Christian, humanist and stoic.

Pro. Disraelian Progressive Conservatism, One Nation Toryism, Distributionism, Civil Liberties, Pro UK, Pro US Constitution. Pro USA.

Progressive Conservative Economic Right: 0.38 Social Libertarian -2.00.

Christian Democrat NSG Senate.

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4949
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:50 am

I feel that the resolution could, in general, be organized and phrased better:

  1. Affirms that all persons have a right to privacy where there exists both a subjective expectation of privacy as well as a reasonable and objective expectation of privacy;
  2. Prohibits infringements on this right to privacy by the governments of member states, or any entity acting on their behalf,
  3. Clarifies that member states and the World Assembly may determine whether there exists a reasonable and objective expectation of privacy in any specific case, so long as any such determination is done in good faith;
  4. Declares that the right to privacy as defined in this resolution must always apply to lawful actions which take place outside public view, and shall not necessarily apply to actions which are unlawful or take place within public view;
  5. Authorizes governments to infringe on the right to privacy as defined in this resolution in the following cases:
    1. to conduct legal arrests,
    2. to conduct a legal search or seizure as part of the investigation of an infringement of the law possibly involving the person who is being searched, whose property is being searched, or whose property is being seized, so long as a warrant or similar writ is obtained or there is a compelling reason, such as an imminent threat to public security, for such a search or seizure to be conducted without a warrant or similar legal authorization, and
    3. to compel persons to testify about actions that took place in private when violations of the law are suspected;
  6. Notes that this resolution provides only minimum protections of the right to privacy and that member states themselves may enact greater protections of the right to privacy than what is provided in this resolution.
Last edited by Auralia on Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Discoveria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 689
Founded: Jan 16, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Discoveria » Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:53 am

Christian Democrats wrote:
The Realm of God wrote:The Realm of God Diplomatic Mission to the World Assembly (ROGDMWA) would request that Christian Democrats define privacy in the context of this Act before we proceed further.

ROGDMWA will withhold judgement untill this definition is shown to the House.

I intend this to be the main definition of the right to privacy:
Christian Democrats wrote:3. Declares that the right to privacy, as used in this resolution, extends to all places and lawful actions of private persons for which a subjective expectation of privacy and a reasonable, or objective, expectation of privacy exist

I believe that this definition is flexible, thereby allowing a proper implementation of privacy protections across various distinct cultures. An extremely specific definition of privacy might pose difficulties for nations to implement.

This section does provide a specific privacy protection that would be required to exist among all cultures:
Christian Democrats wrote:4. Includes in the right to privacy security of the person in his or her domicile regarding lawful actions that occur out of public view


Considering that there is another proposal on Privacy which does have a specific definition, I think the definition of privacy here does need further elaboration.

As it currently stands, privacy in this proposal appears to be
the right to keep certain affairs private,
- a circular definition? I would prefer something like "DEFINING the right to privacy as the right of an individual to go about their personal activities free from state intervention or surveillance, including the right to withhold personal information from others, except when there is a compelling public interest in limiting the exercise of this right".

Christian Democrats wrote:I intend this to be the main definition of the right to privacy:
Christian Democrats wrote:3. Declares that the right to privacy, as used in this resolution, extends to all places and lawful actions of private persons for which a subjective expectation of privacy and a reasonable, or objective, expectation of privacy exist

I believe that this definition is flexible, thereby allowing a proper implementation of privacy protections across various distinct cultures. An extremely specific definition of privacy might pose difficulties for nations to implement.


I'm not satisfied with this explanation. All that clause says is that the 'right to privacy' (whatever it might be, or might contain) extends to certain areas of effect. It does not say what the right to privacy actually is.

With this issue resolved I would consider supporting this.

Other thoughts.

a subjective expectation of privacy and a reasonable, or objective, expectation of privacy


I don't like this. It feels too broad, imprecise. Are you trying to say something like, "privacy should be respected where the individual expects it to be, and where a reasonable objective observer would expect it to be"? Doesn't this defeat the intent of the proposal, which is to put in place a presumption that the right to privacy applies, except where it may reasonably be overridden by more important public interests? There shouldn't be any room for mysterious 'objective' observers to offer opinions on when one can expect privacy.

8. Grants to individual member states exclusive jurisdiction in all cases concerning possible infringements on the right to privacy by state actors with regard to the protections that this resolution provides;


I'd like to ask what the intention behind this clause is. If it means "member states are allowed to decide how their courts will judge and apply this resolution to cases", then it seems to me that this proposal will do nothing to enforce a right to privacy in nations with no interest in doing so.

Finally, I think that the idea of consent is missing from the proposal, i.e. that an individual may waive their right to privacy if they freely consent to do so.
"...to be the most effective form of human government."
Professor Simon Goldacre, former Administrator of the Utopia Foundation
WA Ambassador: Matthew Turing

The Utopian Commonwealth of Discoveria
Founder of LGBT University

A member of | The Stonewall Alliance | UN Old Guard
Nation | OOC description | IC Factbook | Timeline

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:24 pm

Auralia wrote:I feel that the resolution could, in general, be organized and phrased better.

I do plan on making changes later today or tomorrow, and I agree that this proposal can be organized better.

I'll be looking at your suggestions when I am writing a new draft.

Discoveria wrote:
a subjective expectation of privacy and a reasonable, or objective, expectation of privacy

I don't like this. It feels too broad, imprecise. Are you trying to say something like, "privacy should be respected where the individual expects it to be, and where a reasonable objective observer would expect it to be"?

Yes.

Discoveria wrote:Doesn't this defeat the intent of the proposal, which is to put in place a presumption that the right to privacy applies, except where it may reasonably be overridden by more important public interests? There shouldn't be any room for mysterious 'objective' observers to offer opinions on when one can expect privacy.

I feel that a broad definition of privacy is good in consideration of the vast number of cultures in the jurisdiction of this Assembly. Expectations of privacy are different in different member states. This proposal provides flexibility because something that is private in one culture might not be considered private in another culture. Furthermore, I feel that the proposal character limit bars any possibility of being (overly) specific; the number of exceptions to privacy rights that would need to be listed would be endless and would make the proposal too long.

Example of different expectations of privacy in different cultures:

In Culture A, people might frown upon nudity. When someone is undressing and dressing behind a wall, it is considered improper to walk around the wall to talk to that person if you want to tell him something. It would be a violation of that person's privacy to walk around the wall and see that person nude.

In Culture B, nudity is the social norm; and clothes are worn only for formal occasions. For an upcoming formal occasion, someone is getting dressed behind a wall, not because he wants to hide himself but only because his clothes were there. If a person walks around the wall to talk to him because the person wants to tell him something, then no violation of privacy has occurred.

In Culture A, changing clothes is considered someone's own private business. A reasonable observer would conclude that there is an expectation of privacy in Culture A when one is changing clothes behind a wall. In Culture B, nudity isn't a big deal. The same reasonable observer would conclude that there is no expectation of privacy in Culture B when one is merely changing clothing, regardless of where the action is occurring.

I have written this proposal because I believe that the one-size-fits-all approaches that have been made by other ambassadors on this issue are wrong. When it comes to privacy, a one-size-fits-all policy will not work.

Discoveria wrote:Finally, I think that the idea of consent is missing from the proposal, i.e. that an individual may waive their right to privacy if they freely consent to do so.

A subjective expectation of privacy would not exist if the individual had granted consent for his privacy rights to be violated; however, I might add a clause to this effect so that there is more clarity in the proposal.
Last edited by Christian Democrats on Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Libraria and Ausitoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7099
Founded: May 30, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Libraria and Ausitoria » Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:25 pm

Another approach to Privacy Protection! My my, we are having fun, aren't we?

Once again, we would like to state we are in favour of privacy protection within reason, and this proposal seems to do a good job of it. But we have a few questions:
What about censi* and taxation? At present the only way to take a census is to make it illegal for people not to fill it in; but if you allow that (which you have allowed), then a tricksy government can make it legal to invade people's privacy for the sake of invading their privacy.
*Yes, we know the listed plural of census is censuses, but it's based on Latin.

Then, is virtual communication in the public view? Then, is looking at light reflected off doors into public property public? Is looking through windows permissible? At present, some street-image taker (OOC: Think Google Street View) wouldn't have to blur faces in public property.

Also, what about security matters? Surely governments can search?

Other than these matters, the proposal at hand seems fine; but presents a curious dilemma. I'm sure you've seen this, and soon the WA will ask the question: which one should we support? We'd be interested in your views?
Last edited by Libraria and Ausitoria on Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Aestorian Commonwealth - Pax Prosperitas - Gloria in Maere - (Factbook)

Disclaimer: Notwithstanding any mention of their nations, Ausitoria and its canon does not exist nor impact the canon of many IFC & SACTO & closed-region nations; and it is harassment to presume it does. However in accordance with my open-door policy the converse does not apply: they still impact Ausitoria's canon.
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○
(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]

User avatar
Wakinton
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 61
Founded: Mar 18, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Wakinton » Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:42 am

If you could elaborate more on what aspects are protected under this act, I will be able to either support or oppose with a better understanding

User avatar
Discoveria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 689
Founded: Jan 16, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Discoveria » Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:46 am

Christian Democrats wrote:I feel that a broad definition of privacy is good in consideration of the vast number of cultures in the jurisdiction of this Assembly. Expectations of privacy are different in different member states. This proposal provides flexibility because something that is private in one culture might not be considered private in another culture. Furthermore, I feel that the proposal character limit bars any possibility of being (overly) specific; the number of exceptions to privacy rights that would need to be listed would be endless and would make the proposal too long.


I acknowledge that expectations of privacy differ between societies. However I don't think that you should let that translate into a nebulous, ill-defined 'right to privacy' that sets a very low standard for what can be protected under this right.

Having said that, on reviewing previous WA resolutions that define or create rights, such as Habeas Corpus, Defense of Self and Others etc., I shall concede that you don't have to formally define the right to privacy, as the proposal as a whole defines and creates it by what it mandates.

Christian Democrats wrote:Example of different expectations of privacy in different cultures:

*snipped*

In Culture A, changing clothes is considered someone's own private business. A reasonable observer would conclude that there is an expectation of privacy in Culture A when one is changing clothes behind a wall. In Culture B, nudity isn't a big deal. The same reasonable observer would conclude that there is no expectation of privacy in Culture B when one is merely changing clothing, regardless of where the action is occurring.


We concede that the conclusion stands. However the point of this sort of proposal is surely to make adjustments in the relationship between citizen and state regarding issues of privacy; this should be possible without accounting for *all* the ways in which privacy issues might differ between societies. It seems reasonable to say, for example, that governments should not tap all phone communications. Yes, this will annoy some hypothetical open society where, bizarrely, people are allowed to access records of other people's phone communications, but I don't think the problem of diversity in the WA is big enough to justify your 'size-less thing fits all' approach. I think we should have a reasonable definition of privacy, that is suitable for reasonable nations.

Christian Democrats wrote:I have written this proposal because I believe that the one-size-fits-all approaches that have been made by other ambassadors on this issue are wrong. When it comes to privacy, a one-size-fits-all policy will not work.


Then let's agree to disagree, and let the voters decide. It will come down to exactly what the proposal allows and does not allow.

Although I think the proposal by Weed has a better conceptual basis, the quality of writing in this proposal is better, and I may support it depending on what the final draft mandates.
Last edited by Discoveria on Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
"...to be the most effective form of human government."
Professor Simon Goldacre, former Administrator of the Utopia Foundation
WA Ambassador: Matthew Turing

The Utopian Commonwealth of Discoveria
Founder of LGBT University

A member of | The Stonewall Alliance | UN Old Guard
Nation | OOC description | IC Factbook | Timeline

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18627
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Bears Armed » Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:05 am

Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:*Yes, we know the listed plural of census is censuses, but it's based on Latin.

(OOC: Latin actually has several different possible endings for the plural forms of nouns, depending IIRC on the noun's 'class', and in some cases the "_es" form is the correct one...)
Last edited by Bears Armed on Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Libraria and Ausitoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7099
Founded: May 30, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Libraria and Ausitoria » Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:43 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:*Yes, we know the listed plural of census is censuses, but it's based on Latin.

(OOC: Latin actually has several different possible endings for the plural forms of nouns, depending IIRC on the noun's 'class', and in some cases the "_es" form is the correct one...)

OOC: You may do your Capite Censuses of you like, we will do Capite Censi.
Last edited by Libraria and Ausitoria on Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Aestorian Commonwealth - Pax Prosperitas - Gloria in Maere - (Factbook)

Disclaimer: Notwithstanding any mention of their nations, Ausitoria and its canon does not exist nor impact the canon of many IFC & SACTO & closed-region nations; and it is harassment to presume it does. However in accordance with my open-door policy the converse does not apply: they still impact Ausitoria's canon.
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○
(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4949
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:47 am

How's the new draft coming along?
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:57 am

Auralia wrote:How's the new draft coming along?

I need to get to it . . . :unsure:

Right now, I am busy working to prevent the repeal of the Organ and Blood Donations Act. Because I need to try to protect my resolution, this proposal might be on hold for a couple of days. Coming up with a new draft shouldn't take too long, but I plan to use my time on this game during the next few days to campaign against this repeal effort.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Auralia
Senator
 
Posts: 4949
Founded: Dec 15, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Auralia » Fri Aug 03, 2012 11:08 am

Christian Democrats wrote:
Auralia wrote:How's the new draft coming along?

I need to get to it . . . :unsure:

Right now, I am busy working to prevent the repeal of the Organ and Blood Donations Act. Because I need to try to protect my resolution, this proposal might be on hold for a couple of days. Coming up with a new draft shouldn't take too long, but I plan to use my time on this game during the next few days to campaign against this repeal effort.


Point taken.
Catholic Commonwealth of Auralia
Also known as Railana

"Amor sequitur cognitionem."

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:32 pm

I have edited this proposal.

-------------------------------------

In short, it would protect privacy from government intrusion in either of the following circumstances:

(1) A lawful action that occurs out of public view.

(2) Any other lawful action, place, or matter for which subjective and objective expectations of privacy exist.

-------------------------------------

To clarify the meaning of the second circumstance, you can ask yourself these questions:

(1) Does the participant actually expect that what he is doing is private?

(2) Is that expectation reasonable? Would the society in general consider what is being done a private matter?

Basically, this is the test that is used by United States federal courts when considering possible violations of the Fourth Amendment.

I believe that this test would be good for the World Assembly to apply because the second part of the test easily can vary from location to location depending on the culture of the particular member state. This proposal does not take a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, it is flexible and applicable to the unique cultures of the different member states. This proposal attempts to respect cultural diversity.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Thu Aug 09, 2012 2:41 pm

*bump*

Should the other privacy prosposal (which is too rigid) fail, here is plan B.

Comments and suggestions are welcome.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Communal Ecotopia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1730
Founded: Feb 27, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Communal Ecotopia » Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:55 pm

This isn't a bad resolution in it's flexibility, Communal Ecotopia supposes. But we wish for further clarification on 4b and 4c. In 4b, what is the threshold of "possible" in terms of crimes by which privacy is voided? Similarly, in 4c, what is the threshold for compelling state interest, and could this be used to pursue other ideological agendas, as Arizona has done with SB 1070? The clarification in part 6 seems to allow states to make whatever of the law that they wish...thereby rendering it useless, no? If these issues are not addressed, we may have to vote no.
Political Compass -10, -9.28

User avatar
Geilinor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41328
Founded: Feb 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Geilinor » Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:18 pm

"Geilinor supports this resolution. It seems easier to follow than the proposal at vote."

WA Ambassador Gerhard Schauble
Last edited by Geilinor on Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Member of the Free Democratic Party. Not left. Not right. Forward.
Economic Left/Right: -1.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41

User avatar
The Solarian Isles
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 166
Founded: Oct 08, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby The Solarian Isles » Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:35 pm

We find this proposal more acceptable than the one currently at vote. It has our support.

His Radiance Cleric Joran Kell
Solarian Delegate to the WA

User avatar
Linux and the X
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5459
Founded: Apr 29, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Linux and the X » Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:54 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:Basically, this is the test that is used by United States federal courts when considering possible violations of the Fourth Amendment.

And therefore absurdly insufficient. OPPOSED.
If you see I've made a mistake in my wording or a factual detail, telegram me and I'll fix it. I'll even give you credit for pointing it out, if you'd like.
BLUE LIVES MURDER

[violet]: Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Me, responding to a request to vote for a liberation: But... but that would blemish my near-perfect history of spitefully voting against anything the SC does!
Farnhamia: That is not to be taken as license to start calling people "buttmunch."

GPG key ID: A8960638 fingerprint: 2239 2687 0B50 2CEC 28F7 D950 CCD0 26FC A896 0638

they/them pronouns

User avatar
New Tarajan
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 353
Founded: Jun 23, 2012
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby New Tarajan » Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:10 am

By the delegate of New Tarajan, only a little specification: at the point 4c, I think it would be better to write "public" instead of "governmental interest", so it would be less bind with the institution, and more with the generic public interest.

For the rest, also if we want to continue to support the idea of the establishment of a WA Committe for monitoring Privacy Rights (with only the capacity to monitor and provide consultations, of course), we support this proposal.
Federal Aristocratic Kingdom of New Tarajan
Proud Founder and Secretary General of the SECURS
Minister for Foreign Alliances of the Anti-Terror Pact; Report Officer of the Committee of Genocide Reports and Notifications; Member of the International Red Cross & Peace Corps of NationStates; Member of the United Regions; Member of the Organization for Economic Advancement
Count Carl August Van Hoenkel
Baroness Augustine Van Geldern

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8417
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:12 am

I have a few questions I'd like to ask for clarification with regards to the intent and "coverage" of this proposal as I fear that the following may be prohibited or restricted under this act's terms:

(1) Are businesses allowed to ask for and/or require an ID be shown for XYZ service? (i.e. to enter an adult-content film, to purchase products that are regulated by the age of the purchaser, etc.) I know that the resolution presently At Vote protects people's contact information and/or the location of their home. Arguably, under Claus 5, by seeking to purchase Item X, the individual is waiving such privacy rights, but I thought clarification would be useful.

(2) Are health systems (i.e. hospitals, doctors' offices, pharmacies, etc.) allowed to ask for ID or other identifying information (birth date, address, phone number, allergies, health conditions, etc.) for the purposes of doing their job? This could be important to ensure that Mrs. Jones is really Johnny's mother and able to make decisions on behalf of her young child. Of course, it's also important that doctors, etc., are aware of what other health conditions or allergies affect a patient so they are able to provide optimum care. Further, doctors, etc., would likely need contact information (address, phone, etc.) so as to be able to contact the patient in the event of abnormal test results, the need for an appointment, etc.

If you could clarify whether those 2 circumstances are or are not covered under your resolution, I'd appreciate it. My current fear is that the wording is too nebulous to mean much of anything, which means that it can be loopholed to oblivion as various nations see fit. Further, with the likely ability to loophole this resolution, I admit to being confused as to how it merits a Strong strength. Strong may match the intent, as I see it, but not the execution at present. (Please note: that is from looking at the draft in the OP. If that is not the current draft, my apologies.)

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Christian Democrats
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10012
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:04 pm

New Tarajan wrote:I think it would be better to write "public" instead of "governmental interest", so it would be less bind with the institution, and more with the generic public interest.

Governmental changed to public.

Mousebumples wrote:(1) Are businesses allowed to ask for and/or require an ID be shown for XYZ service? (i.e. to enter an adult-content film, to purchase products that are regulated by the age of the purchaser, etc.) I know that the resolution presently At Vote protects people's contact information and/or the location of their home. Arguably, under Claus 5, by seeking to purchase Item X, the individual is waiving such privacy rights, but I thought clarification would be useful.

Yes, businesses can request identification for multiple reasons.

a) This proposal would restrict only governmental actions, not the actions of private persons. (Of course, businesses in some countries might all be owned by the public, i.e., socialized.)

b) The only explicit protection of privacy in this proposal is for lawful actions that occur out of public view. All other protections of privacy are culturally dependent per the expectation of privacy standard. In one country, it might be common to disclose one's age to obtain certain items or services. In another country, age might be considered something that is strictly private; and there might be no age restrictions whatsoever.

c) I agree with your view that waiving privacy rights could be required for certain actions (e.g., purchasing alcohol) to be permitted, especially because this proposal would not protect privacy regarding unlawful actions (such as purchasing alcohol when one is younger than a certain age). See Clause 3.

Mousebumples wrote:(2) Are health systems (i.e. hospitals, doctors' offices, pharmacies, etc.) allowed to ask for ID or other identifying information (birth date, address, phone number, allergies, health conditions, etc.) for the purposes of doing their job? This could be important to ensure that Mrs. Jones is really Johnny's mother and able to make decisions on behalf of her young child. Of course, it's also important that doctors, etc., are aware of what other health conditions or allergies affect a patient so they are able to provide optimum care. Further, doctors, etc., would likely need contact information (address, phone, etc.) so as to be able to contact the patient in the event of abnormal test results, the need for an appointment, etc.

Firstly, identifying information is not an action; therefore, it is not explicitly protected by the proposal.

Secondly, I do not believe that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when one is seeking medical care. A reasonable person expects that he or she will have to disclose information when going to the hospital, the doctor's office, or the pharmacy.

Mousebumples wrote:Further, with the likely ability to loophole this resolution, I admit to being confused as to how it merits a Strong strength. Strong may match the intent, as I see it, but not the execution at present.

You are right. I have changed the strength of the proposal to Significant. The effects of the law would be narrow (mild strength?), but privacy is "a very broad area of policy" (strong strength?); therefore, taking the middle ground seems to be the best option. The wording is mild, and the topic is broad, so Significant is the strength of the proposal.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)
GA#468: Prohibit Private Prisons (57%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8417
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:22 am

Thanks for the response. It matched up with most of what I was already thinking, but the clarification was appreciated.

Christian Democrats wrote:Secondly, I do not believe that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when one is seeking medical care. A reasonable person expects that he or she will have to disclose information when going to the hospital, the doctor's office, or the pharmacy.

Glad to see that we're in agreement there. One suggestion I would like to make: Would it make sense to explicitly invite/permit future legislation on the subject of health care and health information. (i.e. disclosing health information to the nursing staff at the hospital makes sense; having the loudspeakers announce: "Mrs. Smith, please step into the office for treatment of your STD" is inappropriate. This is probably covered under the proposal itself, as it would likely be categorized as an "other matter" under Clause 2, but a specific health care privacy act may be a benefit to this Assembly)

Christian Democrats wrote:
Mousebumples wrote:Further, with the likely ability to loophole this resolution, I admit to being confused as to how it merits a Strong strength. Strong may match the intent, as I see it, but not the execution at present.

You are right. I have changed the strength of the proposal to Significant. The effects of the law would be narrow (mild strength?), but privacy is "a very broad area of policy" (strong strength?); therefore, taking the middle ground seems to be the best option. The wording is mild, and the topic is broad, so Significant is the strength of the proposal.

Glad to see that we're in agreement there. (Significant was more what I was thinking about proposal strength.) Trust me, I know the temptation to go "THIS IS STRONG! I MEAN IT!" ... but I'm of the opinion that the majority of resolutions are not "strong" ... with a few exceptions, of course.

A few more concerns on a re-read. Your text includes the following 2 clauses:
2. Prohibits infringement on the right to privacy by member states, their political subdivisions, and all state (governmental) actors thereof within their respective areas of jurisdiction with such exceptions as outlined in this resolution and other resolutions, past or future, enacted by this Assembly;

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

If more EXCEPTIONS can be ranted in the future and more PROTECTIONS can be granted in the future, don't these clauses sorta contradict each other? And/or aren't you pretty much inviting contradictory proposals to be submitted in the future with Clause 2?

Further, isn't Clause 2 a hand-wavey way to say "If this contradicts anything else that's been passed, it doesn't matter because I didn't mean to" ? I admit to not having the time/energy at the moment to check out other legislation to see if there are any contradictions to be concerned about.

Yours,
NIkolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads