[PASSED] Cyber Security Convention

[Echopolis]

For many years the traditional method of warfare has consumed many lives.

As it stands today enemy nations may engage in a form of non-violent and human safe aggression which is restricted to economic and infrastructural damage. This method of cyber 'terrorism' allows combative nations to pursue military like strategies while effectively disabling and restricting any hostile nations. By restricting a nation's ability to engage in cyber warfare we are instead promoting the traditional methods; massive loss of life, huge quantities of resources spent on weapons, skilled personnel trained for killing.

Isn't it time we moved past an age of barbarism and embrace the digital frontier?
By pursuing this proposal we instead see a decline in the well being of all nations, as military conflicts once again return to their standard methodologies of killing, and mass violence.

Why go back to the age of bombs and rifles, when we live in an era of viruses and targeted denial attacks?

[John Turner]

The disingenuous nature of this statement almost boggles the mind. Hackers would no longer be no not-combatants any longer now would they? If they are hacking, they are now engaging in cyber warfare.

"Bull****. Let's see the resolution draft, shall we?"

For the purposes of this convention defines:

• Cyber warfare as actions by a nation to penetrate the computers or networks of another nation for the purposes of causing damage or disruption to combatant targets and their supporting infrastructure,

"Individual hackers not affiliated with a nation are not engaging in cyber warfare. Hell, even ones who are affiliated with nation are not engaging in cyber warfare if they attack only non-combat targets."

Uh huh.... Shall we take a look at the legally codified definition of a non-combatant as defined by World Assembly law?

2. The World Assembly further defines noncombatants to include both civilians who belong to a protected status or are otherwise taking no direct part in the hostilities, and those belligerents who, having been granted Prisoner of War or hors de combat status, are unable to take a direct part in hostilities.

You see that part about not taking part in hostilities? Also do you see anywhere, where it states a combatant need to be acting on behalf of a nation? A terrorist usually does not act on behalf of a nation', yet they are defined as a combatant.

Requires member nations to outlaw the practice of cyber terrorism, and to actively pursue and prosecute individuals or groups actively engaging in or promoting cyber terrorism by any means necessary;

Pretty much gives nations free reign to use up to and including massive military force to pursue and prosecute cyber terrorists.

"Pretty much bans nations from using 'cyber terrorism' against cyber terrorists, which is how we operate on Reckoner."

Really? You openly violate WA Counter Terrorism Act which requires:

2) BANS WA member states from providing funding, weapons, or any other form of assistance to any party committing terrorist acts against another nation, or from using other WA states or non-member states as a third party to conduct terrorist acts against another nation.

If your nation is incapable of following even the most basic of World Assembly laws, then your opinion should be treated with a similar attitude.

Good day Ambassador.

[Wallenburg]

You didn't remove the typos? You couldn't possibly spend five seconds to remove the typos? Voting AGAINST.

I go out of my way to be nice and cordial to you,

As have I to you.

and you come back with yet another snide ass comment.

Noting your refusal to even use fucking autocorrect isn't "snide ass".

As it now stands diplomatic relations (what there were of them) are hereby terminated between the Wallenburgers and The Federation. (i.e. You are now permanently on the ignore list).

*Wallenburgians. You know that. Your decision to cut off communication in response to criticism does not shine well on this resolution.

[John Turner]

Noting your refusal to even use fucking autocorrect isn't "snide ass".

It's a single "L". Learn to get over small shit.

*Wallenburgians. You know that. Your decision to cut off communication in response to criticism does not shine well on this resolution.

My relations with you mean nothing to this resolution. You contributed nothing to it except for snark. I must have missed the memo where it is stated that your blessing is required for a resolution to pass. (There's another one for you to fire back at me in the future...)

[Wallenburg]

Noting your refusal to even use fucking autocorrect isn't "snide ass".

It's a single "L". Learn to get over small shit.

"Of the of."

*Wallenburgians. You know that. Your decision to cut off communication in response to criticism does not shine well on this resolution.

My relations with you mean nothing to this resolution.

I don't see where I said otherwise.

You contributed nothing to it except for snark.

That's a fucking lie. Try again.

I must have missed the memo where it is stated that your blessing is required for a resolution to pass.

Strawmen carry no weight on this forum.

(There's another one for you to fire back at me in the future...)

In due time.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Bull****. Let's see the resolution draft, shall we?"



"Individual hackers not affiliated with a nation are not engaging in cyber warfare. Hell, even ones who are affiliated with nation are not engaging in cyber warfare if they attack only non-combat targets."

Uh huh.... Shall we take a look at the legally codified definition of a non-combatant as defined by World Assembly law?

2. The World Assembly further defines noncombatants to include both civilians who belong to a protected status or are otherwise taking no direct part in the hostilities, and those belligerents who, having been granted Prisoner of War or hors de combat status, are unable to take a direct part in hostilities.

You see that part about not taking part in hostilities? Also do you see anywhere, where it states a combatant need to be acting on behalf of a nation? A terrorist usually does not act on behalf of a nation', yet they are defined as a combatant.

"Hacking is not regarded as "hostilities" in Excidium Planetis. It is a crime, not an act of combat. It seems rather strange to place accessing government files on the same level as firing at our Naval personnel, does it not?"

"Pretty much bans nations from using 'cyber terrorism' against cyber terrorists, which is how we operate on Reckoner."

Really? You openly violate WA Counter Terrorism Act which requires:

2) BANS WA member states from providing funding, weapons, or any other form of assistance to any party committing terrorist acts against another nation, or from using other WA states or non-member states as a third party to conduct terrorist acts against another nation.

If your nation is incapable of following even the most basic of World Assembly laws, then your opinion should be treated with a similar attitude.

Good day Ambassador.

Cornelia Schultz refuses to leave Turner just yet.

"No, don't you 'Good day' me! The methods employed by Excidium Planetis are not defined as terrorism under current national or international law, but they would be under this proposal. I assure you, Excidium Planetis is compliant with all existing WA legislation, and will oppose this proposal for attempting to outlaw our methods of national security."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"You have my apologies, Mr. Turner, for not being able to look at this in more detail prior to submission. But I do have to ask why you defined this phrase 'cyber technology,' only to never actually use it in any operative clause. I'm also wary of the phrase 'by any means necessary' - we'd support 'by any lawful means necessary,' or 'to the fullest limits of the law,' or some equivalent phrasing. But the current wording of Clause 2 appears to wink at law enforcement 'accidentally-'" Steph puts up her hands and makes air quotes "-letting some vengeful or sadistic group have a shot at a suspect if he can't be legally apprehended. Obviously you're not condoning that, but there's multiple WA nations would love to interpret it that way. As a result we have to vote against."

OOC: Sincere apology: Kept meaning to look this over and never got to it. If for some reason it doesn't pass, I'm likely to support the re-draft.

[Puchalskistad]

Mandates member nations require organizations and individuals to harden and secure cyber devices and networks against unauthorized intrusion or attack;

Creates the Bureau for International Cyber Security (BICS) and hereby tasks it with the following mandate:

To develop and maintain a library of individuals and organizations actively engaged in or promoting cyber terrorism, and to share this information with member nations,

To provide assistance in the location of known and wanted individuals and organizations actively engaged or promoting cyber terrorism,

To assist member nations in establishing effective programs meant to defend against damaging and potentially crippling cyber attacks which threaten the national security and economic base of member nations.

If passed this will give the WA and the members of the proposed BICS control over the protection of our national secrets. This could lead to black mail along with the members and our potential enemies having access to our classified programs and technologies and possibly leaking them. While this is what the proposal is trying to prevent, it is in fact enabling it, only at an international level.

[Arcdurus]

While the Confederacy would prefer to lend support to this proposal, the definitions of Cyber terrorism and Cyber warfare are somewhat concerning. The Confederacy utilizes "Global Computers", massive networked systems that manage nearly all day to day operations on both City and Military levels. A system of this nature handles non combatant systems while simultaneously providing supporting infrastructure to the military. Would such an attack on a system of this nature be considered Cyber terrorism or Cyber warfare?

[Cybraxia]

"As with the others who have voiced concerns with this bill, Cybraxia must vote against. The definition of Cyber-terrorism seems too easy to be abused. Additionally, we agree with the delegation from Wallenburg. Typos within a submitted proposal are frankly unacceptable."

[Daoine pacaiste]

So my worry about this issue is the loose definition of cyber security Policies. I feel loke this may be misunderstood to be an emdorsment of mass data collection and wire tapping and othe such restrictions of on civil liberties.

[Anaximander]

Anaximander will support this, however, it does not appear to do all of what it sets out to do. Because part of the definition of cyber warfare under s.1C is that it must be aimed at combatants and combatant infrastructure, the banning of cyber warfare against non-combatants under s.3 only prevents non-combatant networks from being compromised if the ultimate target is combatant or combatant infrastructure. Cyber harm by a nation against non-combatants as an end in itself would still be permitted as it does not fall under the definition of cyber warfare which must necessarily involve a combatant or combatant infrastructure target. For instance, a hack from a nation which causes civilian hospitals to cease functioning would be permitted as it does not fall under the definition of cyber warfare since there was no combatant related target as required under the 1C definition.

[Railana]

This resolution could have used a bit more work. For example, there are a number of places where we would prefer alternate wording:

• "by any means necessary" in clause 2 should be "by any lawful means necessary", as pointed out earlier;
• "not directly linked to the military or national security of fellow member nations" in clause 3 is awkward and could be rephrased;
• "...other illegal cyber related activities" in clause 4 is a little vague; and
• "require organizations and individuals to harden and secure cyber devices" in clause 5 should really be "require organizations and individuals to take reasonable steps to harden and secure cyber devices".

The above notwithstanding, we believe this resolution adequately addresses a legitimate international issue -- cyber-terrorism -- without unduly restricting the ability of member states to engage in cyber warfare in the context of military or espionage operations. We have therefore cast a vote IN FAVOUR.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Yourolandia]

Have to agree. But the definition of an attack in the "convention" (resolution) should be limited to purposely scaring attacks. I mean, censorship can be considered an attack, but that's not for scaring, it's to stop completely.

[Isaris]

OOC: FFS, how is another God-awful piece of legislation passing AGAIN?!

[Wallenburg]

OOC: FFS, how is another God-awful piece of legislation passing AGAIN?!

The title. It sounds nice and warm. Plus, if the author had bothered to deal with the glaring errors in it, it would actually be a good resolution.

[Cybraxia]

OOC: FFS, how is another God-awful piece of legislation passing AGAIN?!

The title. It sounds nice and warm. Plus, if the author had bothered to deal with the glaring errors in it, it would actually be a good resolution.

Well, on the bright side, It's good practice for writing repeals.

Should I begin writing one? I need to get my WA chops somehow.

[Wallenburg]

The title. It sounds nice and warm. Plus, if the author had bothered to deal with the glaring errors in it, it would actually be a good resolution.

Well, on the bright side, It's good practice for writing repeals.

Should I begin writing one? I need to get my WA chops somehow.

If you think you have a strong enough argument, go ahead.

[RyPolanden]

Frankly, a large organization changing the laws about how a country's budget is spent is disgusting. International law should only apply to standards of living regarding human rights. I am pro-WA, but this will affect economic and political freedom within my own and many other free nations.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This resolution could have used a bit more work. For example, there are a number of places where we would prefer alternate wording:

• "by any means necessary" in clause 2 should be "by any lawful means necessary", as pointed out earlier;
• "not directly linked to the military or national security of fellow member nations" in clause 3 is awkward and could be rephrased;
• "...other illegal cyber related activities" in clause 4 is a little vague; and
• "require organizations and individuals to harden and secure cyber devices" in clause 5 should really be "require organizations and individuals to take reasonable steps to harden and secure cyber devices".

The above notwithstanding, we believe this resolution adequately addresses a legitimate international issue -- cyber-terrorism -- without unduly restricting the ability of member states to engage in cyber warfare in the context of military or espionage operations. We have therefore cast a vote IN FAVOUR.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

Parsons: We entirely agree with the delegation from Railana and have cast our vote in favour as well.

[John Turner]

Frankly, a large organization changing the laws about how a country's budget is spent is disgusting. International law should only apply to standards of living regarding human rights. I am pro-WA, but this will affect economic and political freedom within my own and many other free nations.

Seems pretty clear to me you are Anti-WA. And no this will not affect economic or political freedom in any way.

[Bananaistan]

Mandates member nations require organizations and individuals to harden and secure cyber devices and networks against unauthorized intrusion or attack;

"I don't see that any nation should require its citizens to have a password on their mobile phones. Opposed solely on the grounds of this clause, it's beyond what even the most paternalistic nanny state would require of its citizens.

"In any case just how does someone go about hardening an intangible apparatus such as a network?"

OCC: Am I missing a sense of the word harden? Because I'm not seeing how you can make the cyber device or network more difficult, more tough, or less sympathetic.

[Trackeendy]

Frankly, a large organization changing the laws about how a country's budget is spent is disgusting. International law should only apply to standards of living regarding human rights. I am pro-WA, but this will affect economic and political freedom within my own and many other free nations.

While this is true, the intentions of the resolution are sound, in my opinion anyway.

[Ratateague]

OCC: Am I missing a sense of the word harden? Because I'm not seeing how you can make the cyber device or network more difficult, more tough, or less sympathetic.

Hardening has a very specific context when used in regards to electronic devices and networks. In addition to the previously supplied definition, it can be expanded to include physical protection against ECCM (jamming), overloading, etc.

[Peanut Farmation]

"We have to concur with both Wallenburg and Bananaistan. The resolution contains grammatical errors that make it difficult to interpret its measures.

"Also, we shouldn't have to require our citizens to secure their own devices and networks. If a citizen chooses not to set a password on their phone or wifi connection, that is their decision to make.

"We vote against the convention, and we urge our region's fellow delegates in The Original Weddelian Homelands to do the same."