Iciaros wrote:Kranostav wrote:As for submission... Of the data that you interpret to fall under the definition per clause 1, you must submit. Of course, if you believe that something in there shouldn't be released then that could almost certainly be noted at submission so as to ensure the prevention of the release.
(OOC: That sounds like kind of a dangerous situations for really top-secret projects or military secrets or whatnot. You know, the kind of thing you'd want to keep secret from anyone except literally the top of the top in high command, and now also the people at an international astronomy body.
Aside from that, though, I understand that I can note things at submission which the body can take into account. I'm more concerned about what they have to do. If lodging a notice that something falls under clause 3a is enough to delay compliance with clause 6, then, okay. But my understanding is that ASTRO's hands are not tied in this matter. Are you saying that, as a matter of fact, ASTRO by this resolution absolutely cannot do any of the things I said, like release sensitive data before the request is granted?
An additional concern - what if some astronomical data can only be properly understood as prejudicial to integrity or security in the context of other undisclosed facts (eg this particular planet is the secret hiding world of the leadership, so releasing the data on this planet exposes the leadership to attack)? Must member nations submit all this confidential information to ASTRO to explain why certain astronomical data is sensitive, or can/will ASTRO just take the nations' word for it?
Apologies, but one final note - since there is no clause for deletion of submitted data, I'm going to assume that that is not a possibility under this resolution.)
(EDIT: On a backward search of previous posts, I found Kenmoria's statement that a WA body is infallible by nature; as much as I wonder about that, I'll accept it for now. I'll assume that to mean that even if ASTRO could do things like release sensitive data while a request is pending, they won't, because they're infallible. If that is correct, that resolves the first problem. But not the second and third. One might reasonably be concerned about the submission of even more confidential information on top of already allegedly confidential astronomical data, even to a purportedly infallible organisation. And wanting a deletion of data would not be absurd either, I feel.)
Cosmic cartography is an ever evolving science; a nation that is 'hiding' by simply existing on a planet alone isn't reasonable.
Furthermore, if your data is submitted, it would not necessarily have any identifiers attached to it, so it would be near useless for actual targeting or harm. Finally, human made structures can be reasonably ignored under the definition so you wouldn't need to submit it.
As for the request for evidence, that is necessary to prevent nations from locking private or foreign entities from donation. All evidence is totally confidential and will never be revealed, being viewed only for the objection. (Thus the infallible thing)