[PASSED] Privacy Protection Act

[Christian Democrats]

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?

Those clauses are meant to allow for more specific privacy proposals in the future (proposals on more specific topics). For example, let us consider the medical privacy act that you suggested for the future. In that proposal, there might be specific protections of X, Y, and Z. That medical privacy proposal also might have a list of specific exceptions to protections X, Y, and Z. I do not want anyone to construe this act to block that. Future proposals on more specific topics would be allowed to create more specific privacy protections and specific exceptions to those protections. This proposal is meant to provide a general protection of privacy and a list of a few major exceptions.

This proposal would remove from member states the power to create exceptions to the right to privacy. If this proposal passes, then only the General Assembly can create additional exceptions to privacy rights. Clause 2 allows the General Assembly, not national governments, to create exceptions to privacy rights. Clause 7 allows both member states and the General Assembly to create greater protections of privacy.

In short, this proposal would create a floor of what should be considered private. Only the General Assembly would be allowed to lower that floor. Either the General Assembly or member states could raise protections.

This proposal basically can be summed up as follows:

We are creating a floor of privacy rights. In the future, the General Assembly can poke holes in that floor; member states cannot do this. Everybody is allowed to enact higher standards of privacy.

[New Tarajan]

In other words, it's the representation of the juridical principle "lex posterior derogat priori", with the only difference that it will make the Assembly the only legislator in this matter....I understood well?

[Christian Democrats]

<snip>

Lex specialis derogat legi generali

This is a better way to put it. This proposal would provide a general protection of privacy.

As things exist right now:

The General Assembly can raise or lower privacy protections.

Member states can raise or lower privacy protections.

If this proposal passes:

The General Assembly can raise or lower privacy protections.

Member states can raise privacy protections. They cannot lower them.

This proposal would remove from member states the ability to diminish privacy rights.

[Mousebumples]

Re: CD's response -

That was my guess as to what you were going for. I just think that it could, perhaps, be done more clearly than it is at present ...

(I'll admit that it's a bit late for my drafting brain to be fully functional, but hopefully this makes sense as an alternative - or at least a jumping off point.)

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;[/color] as detailed in extant and future international law (Same concept as what you were aiming for, I think, as it would allow for future legislation on the subject. However, the "details" referenced would include all privacy rights and exceptions, right?)

I think Clause 7 is probably fine as is then. However, might I suggest a Clause 8 along these lines:

8. Encourages the consideration of future legislation on privacy with regards to more specific arenas in which an individual's rights and obligations may not be otherwise clear or assured.

Like I said above, I don't know that my drafting brain is 100% online right now, but I think the intent with that is clear, at least, for your consideration.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Christian Democrats]

Section 2 has been revised, and a Section 8 has been added per the suggestions of the ambassador from Mousebumples.

[Mousebumples]

Section 2 has been revised, and a Section 8 has been added per the suggestions of the ambassador from Mousebumples.

Excellent. Tentative support, at this time, provided no concerns are highlighted that I may have otherwise overlooked.

Cheers,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

[Christian Democrats]

Proposal submitted. Regional delegates, please approve the proposal here:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_view_proposal/id=christian_democrats_1345176189

On some computers, sections 5 and 6 might appear bunched together. I previewed the proposal beforehand, and this problem did not exist. Furthermore, I checked the source code; and that is correct, showing that there should be a blank line between those two clauses.

[Bergnovinaia]

The WA delegation from Bergnovinaia is highly pleased that this proposal is just three approvals shy of achieving quorum. The delegation wishes to congratulate the delegation of Christian Democrats on this feat as we offer our region's delegate approval of the proposal.

While, as the delegate of the region, Bergnovinaia is obligated to vote with the majority of the region's voters, the delegation from Bergnovinaia will prompt voters of the region Ainur to vote in favor of the proposal so we can cast our vote that way as well.

[Discoveria]

OOC: I shall ask my region's delegate to consider approving this as well.

[Christian Democrats]

Thank you for the support. I thank every delegate who has approved this proposal at this point.

Bergnovinaia, Canadian Davsland, Paynezania, BORDURIAA WA NATION, Purifination, Mikeswill, The North Brazillian Collective Union, Pasig, Zeorus, Nava Siam, Vendettera, United States of Natan, Gitchie Manito, Wamitoria, East Armandia, Maltropia, Xanixi, Reagan Island, Trektopolis, Ventei, The Derrak Quadrant, Cafla, Crystal Spires, King Rankmore, United Democratic Nations, Umbra Ac Silentium, Licentiapacisterra, Enlightened defenders, Thudd, Innovatus, Romanist, Mousebumples, Dikaiosyne, Funkadelia, New Canada-UK, Former Aurelia, Folkand, The Victonian League, Shawb, Arrowland, Tiami, Free Peoples Cheese, Sprits, Cuba Socialista, East Klent, Cosgravia, Airatania, The Gava Strip, Knights with Sharp Axes, Scraps, New Hayesalia, IIIIIDaoistsIIIII, Floreria, Ananke II, Bhavva, Omahacron, Oireland, Hinochi, Wilkshire, Empire Of Supreme System Lord Ra, East Omaha, Etnofaz, Biopoesis, Ruzslava, Briten, PrussianEmpire, The-_Sicarii, FASTERCAT, Keronika, Gatodo

[Linux and the X]

Should this pass, we will strongly consider a repeal. While we agree that it is important to protect privacy, we note that the author has admitted that this fails to adequately do so.

[Christian Democrats]

Should this pass, we will strongly consider a repeal. While we agree that it is important to protect privacy, we note that the author has admitted that this fails to adequately do so.

Where have I "admitted" such a failure?

This proposal would provide an adequate amount of privacy protection from the government.

It would set only minimum standards that member states themselves could raise.

[Linux and the X]

Should this pass, we will strongly consider a repeal. While we agree that it is important to protect privacy, we note that the author has admitted that this fails to adequately do so.

Where have I "admitted" such a failure?

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

[Christian Democrats]

1st vote for this proposal

[New Chesterfield]

New Chesterfield is in agreement with the Privacy Protection Act. It loose definition of privacy allows nations to build on this act, allowing individual nations to greater define privacy, using it as a foundation.

[Aibohphobia]

Christian Democrats

You sound like an epitome of all that's evil

[Zealasia]

Zealasia is of the opinion that this proposal does not belong in the realm of international politics. It is an infringement on the ability of sovereign states to determine their own internal policies in an area that is not defined as an inalienable human right.

Zealasia has therefore voted AGAINST this proposal.

[Tibberiria]

We whole-heartedly support this proposal, as the right to privacy is one our nation holds near and dear.

[Damanucus]

Let's have a look-see here:

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,

And there is not a single person here who can deny this.

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;

Okay, fair so far...

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;

And here's where I actually start having concerns. Clause 4c is the one that concerns me most of all, not because of it being a violation of the right to privacy, but because of its vagueness, which makes it a loophole for any person who chooses to exploit it, and a very dangerous one at that.

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.

Clause 8 seems like a bit of a superfluous clause, to be honest. If there are additional rights to privacy that need to be discussed, then we shall discuss them.

Clause 4c at the moment is the real clincher to me, and I feel that its vague nature makes it too easily exploitable. For now, I have to stand against this, pending a more thorough draft.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

[Panageadom]

Although I don't wade here often, I would like to register the opposition of my government to this bill. While we oppose the broad civil and legal ramifications of a global privacy bill in general terms, we might be willing to accept it, were it not that this bill is flimsy in substance.

In particular, we take issue with the following:
1) The generic and unsubstantiated use of of "in the public view" - if I have my curtains open at night, does that place my bedroom "in the public view"?
2) The use of "reasonable" and "expectation" to define what may or may not be kept private throughout: one person's erotica is another's moral degradation.
3) The 2nd operative clause's ability to render null and void the entire resolution, in time.
4) The 3rd operative clause's inability to distinguish whether privacy may be violated before the establishment of legal guilt.
5) Little definition of what may be considered reasonable legal cause throughout the 4th operative clause, hence given supreme power to a tyrannical government.
6) The sacrifice of admirable private liberty in the name of the public interest in clause 4d: just because it may be in the greater good, does not place it above national law.
7) 4e.'s violation of Panageadom's 5th amendment style clause in the Civil Constitution.

Hence, as this resolution is a violation of national law and sovreignty, and yet does inordinately little to establish the genuine defence of privacy, we must oppose.

Yours,

Cambyses Bohr

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

1) The generic and unsubstantiated use of of "in the public view" - if I have my curtains open at night, does that place my bedroom "in the public view"?

We did mention this sort of point earlier. We take the opinion that it is in the public view; although privacy is usually expected, so you aren't permitted to purposefully look in.

2) The use of "reasonable" and "expectation" to define what may or may not be kept private throughout: one person's erotica is another's moral degradation.

We think that's where culture comes into it.

We are satisfied ourselves that this Privacy Protection Act is (more than) sufficiently ineffectual in protecting privacy, so it will not hinder our government's present operations; and further satisfied that it will at least hinder the more ridiculous nations; and leaves the door open for more thorough legislation later as we consider it.

[Sigoynere]

This again. :/
As many have noted, privacy is never actually defined in this context, so Sigoynere considers this ruling null--and yet overbearing as it was before--and votes against.
Is this reeeally a matter that the WA should involve itself in? Does the WA reeeally have to step into every facet of government?

[Beastbonka]

Beastbonka remains opposed to this proposal until a provision is added that allows nations to organize and collect censuses.

[Flibbleites]

Beastbonka remains opposed to this proposal until a provision is added that allows nations to organize and collect censuses.

How exactly is this prohibiting a census?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Christian Democrats]

Christian Democrats

You sound like an epitome of all that's evil

When my proposals are at vote, I always get a lot of weird messages. I usually do not share them; but, for some reason, I feel like posting the telegrams that I have received since this proposal came to a vote 15 hours ago.

Gothengrad wrote:

Can you stop putting that obnoxious World Assembly Resolution forward. It's an abuse of the system and I have half a mind to write a condemnation of your nation for it.

The Asari Republics of Asendence wrote:

Your religion discusses me for i only believe in logic not some all powerful,all knowing being that may or may not exist.

Trololstan wrote:

God is fake and gay, lololol.

1. The first telegram does not make any sense.

2. The second player is obviously a nonbeliever in proofreading.

3. If God did not exist, then how could He be gay?