Page 3 of 4
Posted:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:03 amby 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.))
Posted:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:46 amby Cute Puppies
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.
Posted:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:31 amby Auralia
Cute Puppies wrote: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.))
Cute Puppies wrote: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.))
Posted:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:31 amby Stoskavanya
Cute Puppies wrote: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.
Posted:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:45 amby Imperium Anglorum
Auralia wrote:((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!
Posted:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:00 amby 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.
Posted:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:26 amby 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."
Posted:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:44 amby 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
Posted:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:19 pmby NeoOasis
Why would we vote for this proposal? Seems to be a bit... limp.
Posted:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:25 amby 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
Posted:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 6:34 amby 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.
Posted:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:20 amby Frisbeeteria
The New California Republic wrote: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.
Posted:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:30 pmby Wallenburg
Frisbeeteria wrote:The New California Republic wrote: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.
Posted:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:40 amby 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.
Posted:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:40 pmby 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.
Posted:
Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:41 pmby Kenmoria
Scherzinger wrote: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."
Posted:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:28 amby Hessere
Scherzinger wrote: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."
Posted:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:49 amby 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.
Posted:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:48 amby Kenmoria
New Keam wrote: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.
Posted:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:00 amby Imperial Polk County
Hessere wrote:Scherzinger wrote: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 VOTES "NAY"
Posted:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:18 amby 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
Posted:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:15 pmby New-Brussels
Libre-Terre wrote: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.
Posted:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:32 amby Wrapper
”End Excessive Data Retention Act" was defeated 15,212 votes to 3,661.
Posted:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:04 amby The New California Republic
Wrapper wrote:”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.
Posted:
Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:37 amby New Keam
The New California Republic wrote:Wrapper wrote:”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.