[DEFEATED] End Excessive Data Retention Act

[Auralia]

((OOC: I don't understand all the people claiming that cross-border data privacy and retention aren't international issues. They certainly are in real life.))

[Cute Puppies]

((OOC: I don't understand all the people claiming that cross-border data privacy and retention aren't international issues. They certainly are in real life.))

OOC: It could be, but remember that the WA hosts a very diverse membership of nations with unique cultures, economic systems, social structures, and perspectives on WA legislation, so it's best not to entirely rely on real world examples. It would have been best to have extended the drafting period and recurve constructive criticism and suggestions for changes beforehand to make a more agreeable proposal.

[Auralia]

OOC: It could be, but remember that the WA hosts a very diverse membership of nations with unique cultures, economic systems, social structures, and perspectives on WA legislation, so it's best not to entirely rely on real world examples...

((OOC: I have no problem with GA authors assuming a strict MT baseline, and I generally do so in my own work. Accordingly, contemporary real world examples take primacy in terms of determining what constitutes an international issue and how best to go about dealing with it.))

It would have been best to have extended the drafting period and recurve constructive criticism and suggestions for changes beforehand to make a more agreeable proposal.

((OOC: No disagreements there -- I'm just commenting on the notion that this proposal isn't dealing with a legitimate international issue.))

[Stoskavanya]

OOC: It could be, but remember that the WA hosts a very diverse membership of nations with unique cultures, economic systems, social structures, and perspectives on WA legislation, so it's best not to entirely rely on real world examples. It would have been best to have extended the drafting period and recurve constructive criticism and suggestions for changes beforehand to make a more agreeable proposal.

With last few resolutions it seems to me that the WA is more like European Union 2.0.

[Imperium Anglorum]

((OOC: I have no problem with GA authors assuming a strict MT baseline, and I generally do so in my own work. Accordingly, contemporary real world examples take primacy in terms of determining what constitutes an international issue and how best to go about dealing with it.))

TALKING SPACE CAT: Oh noes, but then (crying, tears roll down face) how will we accede to the demands of hyper-advanced nations with intergalactic travel which have subjugated all other life in their multiple universes? How will we then be able to reject without evidence, or reject with concocted make-believe evidence, the tangible results from the implementation of certain policies?! You mean to destroy the WA!

[Dirty Americans]

I have voted against this act. Like a lot of WA regulation it seems overly universal and restricting. While "Concerned that forced data retention laws are imposing excessive costs on communications providers specifically, and on the technology sector generally." may or may not be a reasonable concern AT THE LOCAL NATIONAL LEVEL, the solution, a 90 day limitation on retention is not. To some it may be too long, to some it involves a trivial amount of storage.

Storage retention is a function of technology level. People in the stone age can't retain a lot of data on their stone tablets (OK that was an extreme example). The data storage abilities of my own nation are orders of magnitude better than they were a mere generation ago. So since there is such a vast level of technology variations, the notion of the one size fits all limit is plain old stupid.

[Kenmoria]

"The mandates contained within this piece of potential legislation are too broad and inflexible for such a delicate and contentious issue as this one. We therefore vote AGAINST this proposal, as with the vast majority of the WA."

[Shaktirajya]

We, the People's Hindu Matriarchy of Shaktirajya, hereby vote AGAINST this resolution for the following reasons: While We certainly approve of any measure to protect the privacy of citizens and curtail state violence, We do not think this legislation is sufficient in limiting the ability of private companies to encroach upon citizen privacy.

Vaktaha Samajavadinaha Matarajasya Shaktirajasya

[NeoOasis]

Why would we vote for this proposal? Seems to be a bit... limp.

[Tacela Islands]

"We would like to thank international colleagues for contributing to the debate on this issue, which have been taken into consideration. The position of the Tacela Islands at this time is that this is a rather hurried piece of legislation, which is not robust enough to cover the concerns about privacy and data collection that have been raised. We will therefore be voting against the proposal at this time, while keeping an open mind towards any redrafts or proposals in the future that deal with data retention."

- Tacela Islands WA delegation

[The New California Republic]

OOC: It is now inevitable that this proposal is going to lose the vote. Most of the major regional delegates have voted against, and it is highly unlikely that enough will change their minds to make a difference.

[Frisbeeteria]

OOC: It is now inevitable that this proposal is going to lose the vote. Most of the major regional delegates have voted against, and it is highly unlikely that enough will change their minds to make a difference.

As they say in the Old Country, "Don't count your chickens until they rip your lips off". It could still change not that I think it will and speculative posts like this are really just spam. Let's not do that anymore.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: It is now inevitable that this proposal is going to lose the vote. Most of the major regional delegates have voted against, and it is highly unlikely that enough will change their minds to make a difference.

As they say in the Old Country, "Don't count your chickens until they rip your lips off". It could still change not that I think it will and speculative posts like this are really just spam. Let's not do that anymore.

Posts like this are made in almost every thread. This has never been considered spam.

[Triangle And Square]

TNP's viewpoint on this:

Before us is a well-intentioned proposal that would ensure that states cannot force companies to keep excessive amounts of data on consumers. However, good intentions do not make a good proposal. The proposal often uses vague terms and language that makes it difficult to read. Additionally, we believe that this is not an issue worthy of being brought before this esteemed Assembly.
For these reasons the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the proposal.

[Scherzinger]

And just why would we care about people's privacy? We as government officials can and will store what we deem necessary to be monitored.

[Kenmoria]

And just why would we care about people's privacy? We as government officials can and will store what we deem necessary to be monitored.

"Maybe because of the Privacy Protection Act, or the Sexual Privacy Act. Privacy does need to be upheld by this august body, just in a delicate way."

[Hessere]

And just why would we care about people's privacy? We as government officials can and will store what we deem necessary to be monitored.

"I smell authoritarianism."

[New Keam]

There is merit to some of the idea, but the presentation is poor. I think this one would do better if it went back to the drawing board.

[Kenmoria]

There is merit to some of the idea, but the presentation is poor. I think this one would do better if it went back to the drawing board.

This exactly, the proposal was drafted for far too short a period of time.

[Imperial Polk County]

And just why would we care about people's privacy? We as government officials can and will store what we deem necessary to be monitored.

"I smell authoritarianism."

"Really?" says Drane. "I smell bacon. Anyway, since the author never answered my question, I still don't see the benefit of this, so I voted against."

[Libre-Terre]

LIBRE-TERRE DEPARTMENT OF THE EXTERIOR

OFFICE OF THE AMBASSADOR AT LARGE FOR THE WORLD ASSEMBLY

MEMO:

Following a through review by this office, with the advice of the Department of Telecommunications and National Security Advisory Committee, Ambassador Piroux has officially placed the Government of Libre-Terre In Opposition to the End Excessive Data Retention Act. The following concerns have been noted:

1.) Legislative language is vague and weak
2.) Legislative language shows favor to private enterprise
3.) Compliance with this legislation contradicts current national security practices and legislation in Libre-Terre

[New-Brussels]

LIBRE-TERRE DEPARTMENT OF THE EXTERIOR

OFFICE OF THE AMBASSADOR AT LARGE FOR THE WORLD ASSEMBLY

MEMO:

Following a through review by this office, with the advice of the Department of Telecommunications and National Security Advisory Committee, Ambassador Piroux has officially placed the Government of Libre-Terre In Opposition to the End Excessive Data Retention Act. The following concerns have been noted:

1.) Legislative language is vague and weak
2.) Legislative language shows favor to private enterprise
3.) Compliance with this legislation contradicts current national security practices and legislation in Libre-Terre

I'm so disappointed that such a beautiful memo format doesn't try to do the slightest argumentative work.

[Wrapper]

”End Excessive Data Retention Act" was defeated 15,212 votes to 3,661.

[The New California Republic]

”End Excessive Data Retention Act" was defeated 15,212 votes to 3,661.

OOC: And it is dead. I hope it stays dead, as I think that the idea is unsalvageable. The entire thing was rushed.

[New Keam]

”End Excessive Data Retention Act" was defeated 15,212 votes to 3,661.

OOC: And it is dead. I hope it stays dead, as I think that the idea is unsalvageable. The entire thing was rushed.

OOC: What is sad is that there may have been a good piece of legislation on the subject, had it been more refined.