[PASSED] Digital Network Defense

[Bedany]

We ought to leave these decisions up to the countries themselves. No group of nations should dictate this. The WA nowadays does not allow anyone freedom to do anything. That is why I am leaving. There have been too many occurrences where the WA has drained my economy + civil rights + political freedoms. I am sick and tired of it.


Bye bye!

[Excidium Planetis]

"I do Ambassador and I concede the point and thank you for allowing me to debate the proposal with you.

Turning to the World Assembly as a whole he continues

"I would like to add that as you may all be aware, although my Nation is an old and experienced one, created not long after the NationStates world came to existence, I am a new Ambassador, new to the World Assembly and to the Government of Oakster and so my inexperience has let me down today. I am honoured to be in these hallowed halls with you all, debating new legislation crafted from the brightest minds the World has to offer, and may I hope to debate with you all for a long time to come. Thank you."

"Thank you, Ambassador. It is good to see more representatives here reading things with a critical eye."

I'm a newcomer.
What's the effect of the act?

It's confusing.

(Out of Character: From a Game viewpoint, or from a Roleplay viewpoint? In the NationStates stats, an International Security: Mild resolution boosts your Law Enforcement and Defense spending very slightly. In Roleplay...)

In Character:

Cornelia Schultz next addresses the confused Ambassador from... Chengin? Is Chenginese the nationality or the actual name of the nation? Who knows.

"Digital Network Defense does a lot of things, so I hope you follow me, here. First of all, it makes any unlawful access to or alteration of data a cyberattack, and makes it so that if done for certain reasons, a cyberattack can be considered terrorism under the definition in GA#25.

"Second, it prohibits nations from using cyberattacks against other nations unless they are at war or have a reasonable suspicion that they pose a real threat.

"Lastly, it requires nations to make a reasonable effort to secure their own networks against cyberattacks, and encourages them to go further and assist in securing individual devices."

We ought to leave these decisions up to the countries themselves.

"We ought to leave it up to the nations themselves to decide whether or not they can cyberattack other nations? Tell me, what would stop warmongering empires from utterly destroying your nation's digital devices? Do you really want to fend for yourself?"

The WA nowadays does not allow anyone freedom to do anything. That is why I am leaving. There have been too many occurrences where the WA has drained my economy + civil rights + political freedoms. I am sick and tired of it.

"The WA has established the Rights to Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Expression, Conscientious Objection and has abolished slavery and trafficking, discrimination in nearly all forms... Tell me, how has the World Assembly drained your civil rights?"

[Cornelia]

The Intergal Assembly Ambassador from Corneya, Tonyen Somersent, addresses whatever audience will address her from this austere body:

The Corneyan foreign office and Central Academy of Diplomacy has ruled that the following clause in the Resolution At Vote (RAV) undermines all attempts in this legislation to meaningfully regulate the "defense of digital networks" between governments:

Prohibits member nations from engaging in cyberattacks themselves, with the exception that member nations may utilize cyberattacks against networks belonging to foreign combatants with which they are in conflict, or against government networks of nations they reasonably suspect pose a real threat to their nation;

With regard to concerns directly related to this passage thus far in Assembly forums, members, including Thomas Tolhurst representative of Gwerncyned, have submitted the following testimony:

This suggests that nations will have a mandate to use cyber attacks on a whim and may not even be at war with the target of the cyber attack. This poses a threat to the sovereignty of many of the smaller nations in the assembly who do not have the resources to defend themselves from such attacks. Perhaps this should be changed so that nations can perform cyber attacks on nations whom they are currently at war with, and those who are officially condemned by the security council, rather than putting the decision of who and who isn't a threat to national security down to the individual member states we fear that this wording would spark a wave of cyber attacks due to the subjective nature of the term "threat to the nation."

The amendment to allow cyber attacks only on foreign powers who one is in conflict with and the nations officially condememed by the security council would perhaps be enough to settle my peoples nerves. As our cyber security is not up to standard to defend against attacks from larger nations who may decide that we are a threat to their security.

In response, Cornelia Schultz of Exedium Planetis, the author of the RAV issued the following statement:

"Not on a whim, sir, but on reasonable suspicion of a real threat. There are three requirements here: One, that a nation suspects the target nation of being a threat. This is fairly easy to meet, I'll admit. Two, that the suspicion is reasonable. This harder to meet... attacking nations just because you have an irrational fear of them is not reasonable. You must be able to logically conclude that the nation is a threat. And finally, Three, that the threat is a real threat to your nation, not simply a possible threat. So, even if you argue convincingly that the target nation shares your least defended border and has a military larger than yours, you must actually suspect that they threaten your nation in a real way, not simply that they are a possible threat."

And later, in the same post:

"First of all, Condemned nation are not the only ones that pose a clear and present danger to other nations. In fact, some of the nations Condemned by the Security Council are not considered threats by my government (OmigodtheykilledKenny is not considered a threat despite being Condemned for exploiting loopholes and hating dolphins). Second, are you aware that the Security Council has Condemned only a handful of nations out of an Assembly of thousands?"

(Out of Character: The Security Council and the GA have almost nothing to do with each other. In fact, I believe mentioning the Security Council in a GA proposal is actually a rule violation.)

That such criterial provisions, are not directly listed in the proposal; disregard the natural relationship between the Security Council and Assembly; reject a larger, interplanetary, intersystem, intergalactic ('intergal' for these purposes) interpretation of the game (a significant portion of the Assembly membership), despite the authors' outward appearances to the intergal community, make for sufficient cause Corneyan officials, representing the interests of the Simuran Federation of the Furinax Hawk galactic cluster, to reject this proposal even in protest.

Ultimately, these laws that undermine their own structure leave themselves open to redaction so quickly from this austere body that the process of passing them is beginning to feel like a waste of time.

We offer these objections to our friends and critics for their benefit and laughter. But if we are going to defend digital networks, let us ban interference between member states outright and without loopholes, meaningfully enforcing cyberpeace in Assembly spacetime once and for all.

Cordially,

Tonyen Somersent
IA Ambassador, The Simuran Federation of Cornelia [Corneya]

[Morteuphoria]

I do agree with almost all of the proposed Resolution, but I really feel like the prohibition against using cyberattacks ourselves, is a dealbreaker, and I don't think I can bring myself to vote for it, for that very reason. Maybe somebody else has some input on that aspect of the Resolution? Look, I'm trying to run an empire here, you know? So the extra military and police budget that would come along with passing the resolution is fantastic; I'm always for more authority, but prohibiting us from engaging in cyberattacks? Like I said, this really feels like a dealbreaker, and I may have to keep my vote as Against.

[Chenginese]

"I do Ambassador and I concede the point and thank you for allowing me to debate the proposal with you.

Turning to the World Assembly as a whole he continues

"I would like to add that as you may all be aware, although my Nation is an old and experienced one, created not long after the NationStates world came to existence, I am a new Ambassador, new to the World Assembly and to the Government of Oakster and so my inexperience has let me down today. I am honoured to be in these hallowed halls with you all, debating new legislation crafted from the brightest minds the World has to offer, and may I hope to debate with you all for a long time to come. Thank you."

"Thank you, Ambassador. It is good to see more representatives here reading things with a critical eye."

I'm a newcomer.
What's the effect of the act?

It's confusing.

(Out of Character: From a Game viewpoint, or from a Roleplay viewpoint? In the NationStates stats, an International Security: Mild resolution boosts your Law Enforcement and Defense spending very slightly. In Roleplay...)

In Character:

Cornelia Schultz next addresses the confused Ambassador from... Chengin? Is Chenginese the nationality or the actual name of the nation? Who knows.

"Digital Network Defense does a lot of things, so I hope you follow me, here. First of all, it makes any unlawful access to or alteration of data a cyberattack, and makes it so that if done for certain reasons, a cyberattack can be considered terrorism under the definition in GA#25.

"Second, it prohibits nations from using cyberattacks against other nations unless they are at war or have a reasonable suspicion that they pose a real threat.

"Lastly, it requires nations to make a reasonable effort to secure their own networks against cyberattacks, and encourages them to go further and assist in securing individual devices."

We ought to leave these decisions up to the countries themselves.

"We ought to leave it up to the nations themselves to decide whether or not they can cyberattack other nations? Tell me, what would stop warmongering empires from utterly destroying your nation's digital devices? Do you really want to fend for yourself?"

The WA nowadays does not allow anyone freedom to do anything. That is why I am leaving. There have been too many occurrences where the WA has drained my economy + civil rights + political freedoms. I am sick and tired of it.

"The WA has established the Rights to Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of Expression, Conscientious Objection and has abolished slavery and trafficking, discrimination in nearly all forms... Tell me, how has the World Assembly drained your civil rights?"

Thank you for your explanation.

As to stand against form cyber attacks, not only in the NationStates, but also the Earth, We, the People's Republic of Chenginese, decided to vote for towards the act.

[Chenginese]

I do agree with almost all of the proposed Resolution, but I really feel like the prohibition against using cyberattacks ourselves, is a dealbreaker, and I don't think I can bring myself to vote for it, for that very reason. Maybe somebody else has some input on that aspect of the Resolution? Look, I'm trying to run an empire here, you know? So the extra military and police budget that would come along with passing the resolution is fantastic; I'm always for more authority, but prohibiting us from engaging in cyberattacks? Like I said, this really feels like a dealbreaker, and I may have to keep my vote as Against.

We aren't fond of states which will engage cyberattacks, and therefore we are listing you in our dossier .

All nations need to keep an eye towards it.

The People's Republic of Chenginese

[The United Universe]

There are a lot of concerns with the WA. What should be realized is that the GA's goal is to develop a stronger world through resolutions and for this to be effective, all nations have to follow all resolutions.

[Oakster]

Maxwell listens on as the Ambassadors continue to debate the proposal. Looking around he notices the vote count going towards the proposal being passed and he gets a pleased feeling that as Oakster's World Assembly Ambassador he has played his part and in a small way, raised the profile of his Nation.

He watches as other National Ambassadors just walk into the chamber, cast their vote and walk out, they look no different to a line of office workers just punching in and punching out on the time clock. He wonders whether those Nations debate things internally or even Regionally and then vote, or whether they just turn up and vote based on which way the wind blows on any particular day!

He looks at his watch and scratches his face. 'Time to see what else is going on' he thinks to himself. Standing up from the table, he puts his phone in his pocket and puts his paperwork and laptop in his briefcase. He walks toward the doors and nods a goodbye at Cornelia Shultz as he leaves the chamber and heads for one of the rooms where some draft proposals are being debated.

[Excidium Planetis]

That such criterial provisions, are not directly listed in the proposal;

"But they are: 'reasonably suspect pose a real threat' is all three criterion. Your nation does understand what words mean, right?"

disregard the natural relationship between the Security Council and Assembly;

"They have the same member nations and the same delegates. The relationship does not extend beyond that."
(Out of Character: Did you not read what I wrote? Even mentioning the Security Council can count as a metagaming violation.)

reject a larger, interplanetary, intersystem, intergalactic ('intergal' for these purposes) interpretation

What now? You're saying this to the person who wrote Rights of Sapient Species (GA#355, link in my signature)?

of the game (a significant portion of the Assembly membership)

Yes, a significant portion of our approximately 24,000 member Assembly. I was entirely justified in saying thousands of nations. Also, why are you referring to "the game" if this was supposed to be an In Character address?

despite the authors' outward appearances to the intergal community,

I don't know where you would get that idea. Excidium Planetis has never ventured outside the Milky Way galaxy, unless you count a brief venture into another universe. We are quite solidly a member of the interstellar community.

[IPCD]

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,

• "digital device" as any artificial equipment that utilizes information in numerical form.
• "cyberattack" as any act of unlawful access to or alteration of numerical information stored on digital devices. For the purposes of cooperation with other WA legislation, such acts are to be considered acts of violence.

Would this definition not count acubuses and of such analogue technologies for counting and the such as digital devices?

[Excidium Planetis]

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,

• "digital device" as any artificial equipment that utilizes information in numerical form.
• "cyberattack" as any act of unlawful access to or alteration of numerical information stored on digital devices. For the purposes of cooperation with other WA legislation, such acts are to be considered acts of violence.

Would this definition not count acubuses and of such analogue technologies for counting and the such as digital devices?

"I assume you mean an abacus. Firstly, an abacus cannot utilize numerical information, so it isn't a digital device. Secondly, even if it was, I don't see why that would be a problem. It wouldn't be a cyberattack unless a nation made it unlawful to alter the beads on an abacus, and you aren't required to secure the abacus against cyberattacks unless it is part of a network... have you ever seen an abacus network?

"As for analogue devices, they don't use numerical information. Analogue devices use information that cannot be expressed in discrete form."

[Taziristan]

The ambassador from Taziristan stands. "Gentlemen, may I ask what the point is of the part that prohibits cyberattacks? The exception of any group that you feel threatens you or are in conflict with seem to take away the entire point of the Clause. Taziristan will vote against this Resolution.

[Caucasaulia]

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,
...
"cyberattack" as any act of unlawful access to or alteration of numerical information stored on digital devices. For the purposes of cooperation with other WA legislation, such acts are to be considered acts of violence.

This definition includes any use of any digital device that the member nation finds unlawful. Is there an agreed upon notion of what constitutes unlawful access or alteration?

Then, the following clause makes the broad definition more troubling.

Mandates that nations establish cyberattacks as criminal offences, and ensure individuals caught committing acts of cyberattack are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law;

Therefore, until cyberattack is properly defined, this resolution's directive to harshly punish cyberattackers cannot be supported.

[Excidium Planetis]

The ambassador from Taziristan stands. "Gentlemen, may I ask what the point is of the part that prohibits cyberattacks? The exception of any group that you feel threatens you or are in conflict with seem to take away the entire point of the Clause. Taziristan will vote against this Resolution.

"A feeling is not a 'reasonable suspicion', Ambassador."

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,
...
"cyberattack" as any act of unlawful access to or alteration of numerical information stored on digital devices. For the purposes of cooperation with other WA legislation, such acts are to be considered acts of violence.

This definition includes any use of any digital device that the member nation finds unlawful.

"Yes. That's kind of the point."

Is there an agreed upon notion of what constitutes unlawful access or alteration?

"Accessing or altering data in a way that violates applicable national laws."

Then, the following clause makes the broad definition more troubling.

Therefore, until cyberattack is properly defined, this resolution's directive to harshly punish cyberattackers cannot be supported.

"It never says to harshly punish them. Only to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law."

[Taziristan]

"Yet is subjective all the same, good sir."

[The Great Southern Land of Australia]

GSL Australia's ambassador accidently hits "reply all" to an email instead of forward to the Supreme Commander:

Re: Cyberattack WA Resolution

Sir,

Our experts have assessed this resolution and are in agreement with your assessment (as if you could have been wrong) - the wording is ambiguous enough for business as usual to occur without consequence.

Affirmative vote submitted.

Yours in servitude,

Magnus Yessman.

[The Imperial Frost Federation]

Akbassador Schulz, The aim of the resolution is commendable as every nation ought to be able to defend themselves against unwarranted cyber attacks. However I must cast a no vote against the resolution as the definition of a cyber attack needlessly restricts our undercover assets in law enforcement as well as harm whistle blowers. This resolution harms our undercover agents as there are scenarios where they must illicitly access data files to monitor them, gather evidence, download the evidence and alter the data to prevent the targets from realizing they've been hacked. The resolution harms whistle blowers by criminalizing their unlawful access of damning files showing criminal wrongdoing or negligence. We would prefer a more narrow definition preventing DDOS attacks, malware and other cyber attacks.

[Drakeford]

Fellow Assembly Members,

The Chief Royal Emissary of the Principality of Drakeford would like to state that, at present, the King of Drakeforde cannot support this resolution; and I cannot see how so many others are supporting what seems to be such a shoddy piece of legislation. I should like to extend supporters of the resolution the chance to show me what I am missing. Our main reservations concerning the resolution are in the last four clauses. I shall treat them in turn; but no one should feel responsible to respond to all of my criticisms (though any one of them on its own is, in my view, sufficient for refusing the resolution).

I. The Requirement clause is unduly vague, on two counts. The first respect has been noted by others: it makes not even an effort to clarify what counts as "reasonable" (the Prohibition clause suffers from the same defect: "... nations they reasonably suspect..."). The second I have not seen brought up, though I could have missed mention of it: the clause does not specify which networks member nations are charged with taking effort to secure (Networks within their own nation? All such? Networks within their region? All such? In any WA Member nation? Throughout the world?) The definition of "network" as "any" group of digital devices to some extent implies that nations are charged with securing all digital devices in the world; but of course that is a patently absurd burden to place on any nation, and so the resolution could not naturally be interpreted this way. As such, the Requirement clause is completely lacking in guidance and therefore toothless; and no member nation could possibly know what to do having read it, and so neither could any be charged with violating it. Why pass leglislation parts of which cannot possibly be enforced?

II. The exception to the Prohibition clause is problematic, again due to lack of clarity and specificity. The exception states that "member nations may utilize cyberattacks against networks belonging to foreign combatants with which they are in conflict." This makes the Prohibition clause, like the Requirement clause, completely toothless: any nation could simply declare war with another nation (which surely counts as being "in conflict"), and the exception kicks in –– they are now free to use cyberattacks (and a nation might conceivably do this without engaging in any other kind of warfare). This seems to be a glaring loophole.

III. The Mandate clause is, again, toothless –– and again, due to lack of clarify and specificity. The clause mandates that nations "establish cyberattacks as criminal offenses," and prosecute them "to the fullest extent of the law." Of course, there is nothing here that actually guarantees that cyberattacks are punished in any real way. It is entirely consistent with this mandate, for example, that a member nation achieve such an establishment by passing a law that says "Citizens of Drakeford shall not engage in cyberattacks;" but then proceed not to legislate any punishment for such engagement. Then, perpetrators of cyberattacks in Drakeford, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, would really not be punished at all, since the law makes no provision for punishing this particular criminal activity. There is nothing in this resolution to prevent such an arrangement (which, candidly, is exactly what the region of Drakeforde intends on arranging if this shoddy resolution is passed). One could say that the Requirement clause rules this out, since this could not count as a "reasonable effort to secure networks against cyberattacks;" but the counter-response is obvious: why could it not count as a reasonable effort, since, after all, nothing has been said about what a reasonable effort is?

IV. The Reservation contains two problems; both are parasitic on concerns mentioned earlier. The first is that, since the scope of which networks are in question has not been specified, this clause appears to reserve the right of any nation to monitor any network in the world (including those in foreign nations and governments). Surely this is not what is intended, and this must be amended. The second problem is that, due to lack of clarification in the Requirement clause concerning "reasonableness," the Reservation clause is potentially at odds with the Requirement clause. There is nothing in the resolution explicitly stating that a nation that chooses not to "monitor" (whatever that means) networks could not be charged with violating the Requirement clause –– that is, with not taking "reasonable efforts to secure networks." As such, it is not clear that this resolution even meets that basic standard of internal consistency.

V. Finally, something of a trifle: the resolution is described as one that would "boost police and military budgets," but there is, ostensibly, nothing in the resolution that would accomplish this. Even if one thinks that it is implied that member nations would increase spending in this area, it is of course entirely possible that a member nation already has the overhead in these budgets to abide by the resolution (in which case there is nothing in the resolution that would force them to increase their spending in these areas). Surely we can write and approve legislation that is at least self-described accurately?

As I said at the outset: in my view, any one of these problems is sufficient for at least rejecting the resolution, and possibly encouraging its authors to go back to the drawing board and fix it up. Surely, members of the World Assembly, we can do better than this? Surely, we owe the world, as its leaders and representatives, better than this?



Best ~
Drake

[Excidium Planetis]

Akbassador Schulz, The aim of the resolution is commendable as every nation ought to be able to defend themselves against unwarranted cyber attacks. However I must cast a no vote against the resolution as the definition of a cyber attack needlessly restricts our undercover assets in law enforcement as well as harm whistle blowers. This resolution harms our undercover agents as there are scenarios where they must illicitly access data files to monitor them, gather evidence, download the evidence and alter the data to prevent the targets from realizing they've been hacked. The resolution harms whistle blowers by criminalizing their unlawful access of damning files showing criminal wrongdoing or negligence. We would prefer a more narrow definition preventing DDOS attacks, malware and other cyber attacks.

Schultz breathes a sigh of relief. At last, someone who brings forth criticisms based on a reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution! These are the real valid criticisms of the resolution!

"I must thank you, Ambassador, for your commendation of my proposal and your criticisms of it. It is indeed true that this resolution criminalizes whistleblower hacks, and it is true that your law enforcement agents cannot unlawfully access and alter data on devices.

"To both of these, I suggest you turn to GA#374 'The Rule of Law'. You were already able to do so before, but you are specifically allowed to by GA#374, grant pardons to individuals convicted of a crime. I suggest you prosecute whistleblowers and then later pardon them if they really were just committing cyberattacks to shed light on criminal wrongdoing or negligence.

"Additionally, GA#374 requires government officials to abide by their nation's laws... that includes laws on hacking. Your law enforcement agents are not above the law. It is true, however, that GA#374 allows government agents to be exempted in cases where illicit actions are necessary to carry out their duties. Such a case could be used here. If things get too problematic with your interpretation of 'ensure individuals caught committing cyberattacks are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law', you can always make it legal for your agents to hack devices."

---

Tired, Schultz decides to respond to the rest of the criticism of "reasonable suspicion" by posting a note:

I just wish all of your interpretations were as reasonable as our GA resolutions have been for years.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Voted against based on category, grats few hours in advance for passing it.

[Excidium Planetis]

Digital Network Defense was passed 10,125 votes to 3,165.

"Victory." Schultz mumbles, asleep in the debate chamber.

[Taziristan]

Digital Network Defense was passed 10,125 votes to 3,165.

"Victory." Schultz mumbles, asleep in the debate chamber.

"Someone get this man to a bed"

[Excidium Planetis]

Digital Network Defense was passed 10,125 votes to 3,165.

"Victory." Schultz mumbles, asleep in the debate chamber.

"Someone get this man to a bed"

"That's clearly a woman." Evander Blackbourne, recently appointed WA Ambassador for Excidium Planetis, replies.

"Guards, help me move Madam Delegate Schultz to her chambers, please."

The two Excidian security guards comply.

[Oakster]

Maxwell decides to pop back into the room to congratulate the Ambassador on a successful resolution only to see her laid on the floor, unconscious, and being man handled by two guards. One had hold of one arm and the other had hold of her legs.

He stops mid-step, the guards stop and look at him. An embarrassed 'this isn't what it looks like' kind of feeling filled the room. Maxwell slowly walked backwards and shut the door on the way out.

'The things you see..' he thinks as he looks for another room to go to.

[Wallenburg]

"Congratulations, Mr...." Ogenbond stops and turns to his aide. She flips through several pages of paper, runs her finger down the words on one page, and whispers something to Ogenbond.

Mikael smiles and says, "Congratulations, Mr. Blackthorne. The Wallenburgian delegation is glad to have supported the success of this resolution."