[PASSED] Repeal "Cyber Security Convention"

[Tinfect]

Repeal "Cyber Security Convention"

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#360

---

The World Assembly,

Commending GAR #360's goals of reducing cyber terrorism, and ensuring the security of networks, computers, and other such technologies,

Convinced that despite the good intentions of the target resolution, it fails to meet the standards of quality, and ethics, expected from the World Assembly,

Noting the entirely extraneous definition of 'cyber technology',

Confused by the target resolution's usage of the undefined term 'cyber devices',

Disturbed at the fact that the target resolution forces Member-States to infringe the personal freedoms of their citizenry in regards to the security of networks, computers, and other such technologies,

Further Disturbed by the target Resolution's mandate to "... actively pursue and prosecute individuals or groups actively engaging in or promoting cyber terrorism by any means necessary", effectively forcing Member-States to infringe the rights of their citizenry, while in pursuit of cyber terrorists,

Alarmed by the target Resolution's failure to classify attacks for the purpose of obtaining information as cyber warfare or terrorism,

Extremely Annoyed by the continued and constant usage of the term 'cyber' within the text, and title, of the target resolution,

Hoping that a superior resolution takes its place,

Hereby Repeals General Assembly Resolution # 360, Cyber Security Convention.

OOC:
You can probably guess which clause we can stand to lose. I just absolutely hate that word.
I'm sure the thing needs re-phrasing, a run through for bizarre or obtuse grammatical quirks, and I'm sure there's something we can use that I'm missing.
In any case, feedback would be appreciated.

[Minor Edit Log]
Draft 1-
fiXeD cApItalIzatiON.

Draft 2-
Line 6 is fucking invincible

[Draft Log]

Repeal "Cyber Security Convention"

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#360

---

The World Assembly,

Commending GAR #360's goals of reducing cyber terrorism, and ensuring the security of networks, computers, and other such technologies,

Convinced that despite the good intentions of the target resolution, it fails to meet the standards of quality expected from the World Assembly,

Noting the entirely extraneous definition of 'cyber technology',

Confused by the target resolution's usage of the undefined term 'cyber devices',

Disturbed at the fact that the target resolution forces Member-States to infringe the personal freedoms of their citizenry in regards to the security of networks, computers, and other such technologies,

Extremely Annoyed by the continued and constant usage of the term 'cyber' within the text, and title, of the target resolution,

Hoping that a superior resolution takes its place,

Hereby Repeals General Assembly Resolution # 360, Cyber Security Convention.

[Jewdomia]

Couldn't agree more. I'm a senior penetration tester IRL and already had some trouble with the wording of the original text. I'll take a look at it later and take a crack and not only adding to your repeal but also start working on an alternative draft that is more factual with better definitions.

[Tinfect]

Couldn't agree more. I'm a senior penetration tester IRL and already had some trouble with the wording of the original text. I'll take a look at it later and take a crack and not only adding to your repeal but also start working on an alternative draft that is more factual with better definitions.

Thank, mate. Good to see there is at least some support for this.

[Wallenburg]

"This is very nice and All, but could You Explain the arbitrary capitalization of Words?"

[Tinfect]

"This is very nice and All, but could You Explain the arbitrary capitalization of Words?"

"Ambassador, the Imperium sees absolutely no problems in cap-
...
Er, yes, we will fix that as soon as possible."

OOC:
Sorry about that, odd habit of mine to Capitalize words that I arbitrarily deem important.

[Wallenburg]

"This is very nice and All, but could You Explain the arbitrary capitalization of Words?"

"Ambassador, the Imperium sees absolutely no problems in cap-
...
Er, yes, we will fix that as soon as possible."

OOC:
Sorry about that, odd habit of mine to Capitalize words that I arbitrarily deem important.

OOC: It does give it a nice 18th century feel, but I don't think that is intentional. No harm done, anyway.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

You can probably guess which clause we can stand to lose. I just absolutely hate that word.
In any case, feedback would be appreciated.

Please keep it. It's my favorite part.

OOC: It does give it a nice 18th century feel, but I don't think that is intentional. No harm done, anyway.

OOC: I wonder if there's any room in the Legislative books for Regulations on the issuing of Letters of Marque.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: I wonder if there's any room in the Legislative books for Regulations on the issuing of Letters of Marque.

OOC: Capitalizing "Legislative" rather than "Books" makes me think you're scribbling notes to potential privateer captains on the blank chapter-end pages of hardcover novels - like, well I know there's plenty of room in this book!

IC: "Ambassador Markhov, you might give the specific and rather chilling quote of the phrase 'by any means necessary' in the 'Disturbed' clause - it has a certain ominous weight to it that just blandly describing it's consequences can't quite capture. Beyond that, we are in support of this repeal."

[Lychgate]

There is no hyphen in "member states".

Noting the entirely extraneous definition of 'cyber technology',

Confused by the target resolution's usage of the undefined term 'cyber devices',

These two are, in my eyes, contradictory. Explain what the difference is between "cyber technology" and "cyber devices", por favor.

[Wallenburg]

There is no hyphen in "member states".

Noting the entirely extraneous definition of 'cyber technology',

Confused by the target resolution's usage of the undefined term 'cyber devices',

These two are, in my eyes, contradictory. Explain what the difference is between "cyber technology" and "cyber devices", por favor.

One is defined, the other is not.

[Arcdurus]

Supported wholeheartedly, ambassador.

[John Turner]

Noting the entirely extraneous definition of 'cyber technology',

Cyber technology as computers, software systems, applications or services, electronic communications systems, networks, or services, and the information contained therein,

Confused by the target resolution's usage of the undefined term 'cyber devices',

Should be pretty explanatory.

Disturbed at the fact that the target resolution forces Member-States to infringe the personal freedoms of their citizenry in regards to the security of networks, computers, and other such technologies,

NatSov.

Extremely Annoyed by the continued and constant usage of the term 'cyber' within the text, and title, of the target resolution,

Which word would you have prefered we used Ambassador?

Convinced that despite the good intentions of the target resolution, it fails to meet the standards of quality expected from the World Assembly,

Pot meet kettle.

Opposed.

[WallWorlds]

You could note: indicting the voters for not knowing anything about technology

[Tharbanm]

We support this fully!

[Jewdomia]

I have a huge problem with the way the resolution is worded, and this would undoubtedly lead to abuse of power and/or misinterpretation of original intent. These things matter a lot. It is understandable that few here would object to the current phrasing, but then again.. few people here are probably aware of the both the importance of such a resolution and the way it could be abused.

In addition to addressing specific issues at this moment I believe multiple essential questions will need be answered and addressed in the resolution in order to be effective. I'll just be mentioning a few things that grind my gears, but I'll start working on a document formally addressing each of the issues I have accompanied by proper motivation.

For starters.. I have problems with:

1. The lack of proper definitions, that there is no well-defined scope stating the limits of this resolution, and that either too abstract or too specific language is used. When it's too abstract, it'll lead to misinterpretation and abuse of power, and when it's too specific we could possibly exclude potential circumstances and actors this resolution is meant to protect our nations against..

Cyber technology as computers, software systems, applications or services, electronic communications systems, networks, or services, and the information contained therein,

... networks ...

Networks of what? The obvious answer would probably be computers, but without a proper scope it could just as well mean electricity networks. An idea would be to define a core concept or term that has it's own definition, like 'information carrier' or 'computer system', and then furthermore state 'or networks thereof'.

... software systems, applications or services, ...

Huh? I think this would work better (will hone later):
'programs' or 'hard- and software operating on information contained in, processed by or passing through systems by electronic or digital means (so binary printed on paper as a storage medium would technically count as well). I am aware that the use of words such as hardware and software is equally problematic. This has turned out to be a very difficult problem in IRL politics.

... software systems, applications or service ... services ...

It says services twice.

Cyber terrorism as a premeditated, politically motivated attack against information, computer systems, or devices of non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents for the purposes of spreading fear and terror;

Why try to reinvent the wheel here? The whole reason for defining an umbrella term such as 'cyber technology' is so you won't have to repeat yourself every time. Let's follow the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle.
I'm aware that this wording is almost an exact copy of what the US State Department defines as 'terrorism', but why copy it blindly? It seems they haven't put enough thought into this thing so I suggest we do.

attack

What does attack mean? In the infosec industry we often speak of the preservation or protection of the confidentiality, integrity and availability of both information carrier systems and the information contained therein. If you follow this definition, attack would purely mean directly gaining access to, changing or deleting information (or on the systems that store or operate on it). If a state or non-state actor would engage in spreading propaganda through online platforms such as YouTube aimed against random people, would this also be considered a cyberterror attack?

... sub-national groups or clandestine agents ...

What if the perpetrators are neither sub-national groups nor clandestine? What if it's an individual 'cyberwizard' who can terrorize us with his leet scripts that will hack the planet and does so openly and proudly from a far far away land?

2. (Redundancy alert) Instead of cyber technology I would we should speak of information systems technology (IST), Information Technology (digital) or more specifically about electronic information (processing) carriers/processors.

3. Such a resolution shouldn't just pertain to 'cyberterrorism' but more inclusively to 'cyberwarfare', where either state or non-state actors could engage in activities aimed at destabilising our respective nations' governments or at disrupting our way of life (by spreading fear and lies, by destroying economies, destroying critical infrastructure, etc)

4. The word 'cyber' can and should only be used in the contexts of terrorism, warfare and security.

Most of what I've written here should be seen as an attempt at brainstorming and throwing some ideas around. Feel free to criticize my ideas, add to them, laugh at them or ask questions about anything (related to the matter at hand).

[Jewdomia]

You could note: indicting the voters for not knowing anything about technology

And the legislators who were responsible for drafting the original resolution and approving it to go on the floor for voting of course!

[Wallenburg]

You could note: indicting the voters for not knowing anything about technology

1) being stupid is not a crime
2) I'm pretty sure all of the voters know something about technology, considering they are using it

[Tinfect]

IC: "Ambassador Markhov, you might give the specific and rather chilling quote of the phrase 'by any means necessary' in the 'Disturbed' clause - it has a certain ominous weight to it that just blandly describing it's consequences can't quite capture. Beyond that, we are in support of this repeal."

"This alteration will be carried out in the next draft, Ambassador. And the Imperium thanks you for your support."

You could note: indicting the voters for not knowing anything about technology

OOC:
I uh, don't really think it's fair to be throwing around indictments for not really understanding the Technology. I like to consider myself fairly computer-literate, but I probably don't know jack compared to Jewdomia over there. So, I'm not sure where you'd like the bar to be set.
And it'd probably be illegal in any case, can't legislate in a repeal and all that.

IC:

Should be pretty explanatory.

"Ambassador, while 'cyber technology' is a defined term, 'cyber devices' is not. Regardless of whether you consider the two easily understood, it is a significant issue with comprehension of the target resolution."

NatSov.

"It is not a matter of National Sovereignty, Ambassador. Merely the right of the citizenry to operate without undue government interference."

Which word would you have prefered we used Ambassador?

"Literally anything else, Ambassador. The term is distasteful, inaccurate, and quite honestly, extremely annoying. The equivalent term in Marrov is one of the most abhorrent words ever devised by the Union in their attempts to centralize the Language."

Pot meet kettle.

"I fail to see what kitchen objects have to do with anything, Ambassador."

Opposed.

"The Imperium expects nothing less, Ambassador. We look forward to the re-drafting of the target resolution."

[mass-snip]

OOC:
I've been thinking about how to attack the weakness of the Definitions, thanks for that, I'll work something into the next draft.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Digital.

[Excidium Planetis]

"You can also mention the typos, as mentioned by Wallenburg's Ambassador, specifically 'of the of' and 'whist'.

"Also, defining legitimate government cyber attacks against criminals as 'cyber terrorism', despite following the rule of law and being a government- in our case democratically elected government, sanctioned action against known terror suspects."

[WallWorlds]

How about.. Shocked by the proposal of an outrageous creation of an expensive and useless Bureau.

begin free software rant:

WE MUST UNITE IN THE WORLD OF TECHNOLOGY. WE MUST SHARE, COLLABORATE, IMPROVE. GREEDY COMPANIES, PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS, AND JERKS IN GENERAL ARE RUINING THE WORLD. WE CANNOT ADD TO THE PRIVACY AROUND TECHNOLOGY BY MAKING A BUREAU. WE MUST INCLUDE EVERYONE IN A TASK TO RID THE WORLD OF TECHNOLOGICAL EVILS. THE REASON WE FIND FLAWS AND SECURITY BUGS SO FREQUENTLY IS BECAUSE WE ARE NOT COLLABORATING ENOUGH. CREATING AN ORGANIZATION FOR THE PROTECTION AGAINST CYBER ATTACKS (which, I may add, is badly defined) WILL ONLY INCREASE THE RISK OF A FLAW THAT WILL CRIPPLE THE WORLD. WE MUST INSTEAD HOLD A CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE SECURITY AND PRIVACY FOR ALL, NOT INVADE THE SECURITY AND PRIVACY OF THE PEOPLES FOR FAVOR OF A BUREAU THAT WILL LIKELY GO CORRUPT AND WILL WITHAL (nevertheless) NOT BE AS EFFECTIVE AS THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE PARTICIPATING IN THE EFFORT.

end of rant.

EDIT: okay i'm expecting a lot of people will disagree - but please at least consider what I am saying, instead of immediately dismissing my thoughts. thanks in advance.

[Excidium Planetis]

"That's an illegal repeal, it's clearly a 'Blogposal', please do not rant about things that will not help the repeal effort." Cornelia Schultz replies to the Ambassador who most recently spoke, whatever their name is.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

but please at least consider what I am saying, instead of immediately dismissing my thoughts

(The Wads immediately dismiss the odd rantings.)

ARI: Anyway. Well. Erm. Perhaps Ambassador Turner should have taken our advice and taken a nap prior to submitting his resolution. Nevertheless, a small typo or two is no reason to repeal a resolution.

[Tinfect]

but please at least consider what I am saying, instead of immediately dismissing my thoughts

(The Wads immediately dismiss the odd rantings.)

ARI: Anyway. Well. Erm. Perhaps Ambassador Turner should have taken our advice and taken a nap prior to submitting his resolution. Nevertheless, a small typo or two is no reason to repeal a resolution.

"The Imperium is in agreement, Ambassador. As such, we have not included any criticism of the Resolution's questionable spelling, and that is not going to change in future drafts."

[Wallenburg]

"That's an illegal repeal, it's clearly a 'Blogposal', please do not rant about things that will not help the repeal effort." Cornelia Schultz replies to the Ambassador who most recently spoke, whatever their name is.

"That's a pretty bold claim. Care to actually back it up with facts?"