NationStates

Araraukar wrote:

Kranostav wrote:"ASTRO shall issue a hold on data contributed by private entities until approval is received from the nation in which the data was collected so as to prevent the release of sensitive or confidential data. Should a member nation object to the data being donated, they must provide adequate evidence for that objection, which will be kept confidential and viewed only for the purposes of the objection."

Does this satisfy it adequately Ara?

OOC: A good edit, yes.

Awesome! I appreciate the help.

Clause 4b:

Should the location in which the data was collected not lie under the jurisdiction on any currently existing nation or was recorded while under the jurisdiction of a previously existing nation, the data is exempt from the above requirement unless a currently existing nation can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the data is of a confidential or sensitive nature,

"On" should be changed to "of".
Also, the underlined part does not properly join up with the first part. I'd suggest changing the underlined part to "or should the data have been collected in a location".
Also, technically, "previously existing nations" includes current nations as well. I don't know how to change this to be better though.

Merni wrote:Also, technically, "previously existing nations" includes current nations as well. I don't know how to change this to be better though.

(OOC: ‘No longer existing’ would work,)

Kenmoria wrote:

Merni wrote:Also, technically, "previously existing nations" includes current nations as well. I don't know how to change this to be better though.

(OOC: ‘No longer existing’ would work,)

Merni wrote:Clause 4b:

Should the location in which the data was collected not lie under the jurisdiction on any currently existing nation or was recorded while under the jurisdiction of a previously existing nation, the data is exempt from the above requirement unless a currently existing nation can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the data is of a confidential or sensitive nature,

"On" should be changed to "of".
Also, the underlined part does not properly join up with the first part. I'd suggest changing the underlined part to "or should the data have been collected in a location".
Also, technically, "previously existing nations" includes current nations as well. I don't know how to change this to be better though.

Should both be fixed. I believe the verb agreement is correct tho.

Kranostav wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: ‘No longer existing’ would work,)

Merni wrote:Clause 4b:


"On" should be changed to "of".
Also, the underlined part does not properly join up with the first part. I'd suggest changing the underlined part to "or should the data have been collected in a location".
Also, technically, "previously existing nations" includes current nations as well. I don't know how to change this to be better though.

Should both be fixed. I believe the verb agreement is correct tho.

(OOC: Yes, the verb agreement is absolutely fine.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Kranostav wrote:Should both be fixed. I believe the verb agreement is correct tho.

(OOC: Yes, the verb agreement is absolutely fine.)

Perfect, Well given that, I can probably aim for a submission some time this weekend.

Last call for any other concerns!

Submitted!

Kranostav wrote:Submitted!

OOC: Excellent proposal! Full support!

OOC:This gathered so many approvals in less than a day, may I ask what's your method?

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:This gathered so many approvals in less than a day, may I ask what's your method?

Telegrams, probably.

This is now at Vote.

Wallenburg wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:This gathered so many approvals in less than a day, may I ask what's your method?

Telegrams, probably.

This is now at Vote.

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:This gathered so many approvals in less than a day, may I ask what's your method?

Honestly I was surprised at how quick it went. But yes I sent out a telegram campaign during a big activity time of the day.

“I am pleased to announce that this proposal has the full support of the Kenmorian WA Mission, so I have voted FOR this piece of legislation.”

The Delegate of the Universal Pact would like to wholeheartedly SUPPORT this resolution, and is sad that they were unavailable and as such not able to approve this before it went to vote.

A simple question, if a nation were to acquire data and donate, would that country be given the proper recognition for said discovery?

Is this submitting of data mandatory?
If so, how will this be enforced?

Satuga wrote:A simple question, if a nation were to acquire data and donate, would that country be given the proper recognition for said discovery?

Should they desire recognition, then sure! As per the resolution.

Trolledian wrote:Is this submitting of data mandatory?
If so, how will this be enforced?

It is mandatory, and non-compliance is a punishable offense.

OOC:We've got 2 landslides in the WA currently.

Kranostav wrote:

Trolledian wrote:Is this submitting of data mandatory?
If so, how will this be enforced?

It is mandatory, and non-compliance is a punishable offense.

In that case, how will it be enforced? What measures are there to check if a nation is withholding information?

If outlined Trolledian will consider supporting this resolution.

(OOC: I wish I'd gotten to this sooner, it seems like something I may have discussed about before it went to vote. Ah well, I'll just put it down on my list of things I really should've done but forgot to.

Anyways, I'm not sure about the phrasing of Clause 3 and 3a. It seems to me, if I understand it correctly, that if I have raw astronomical data that is sensitive for security reasons, I still have to submit it to an international body, meaning it leaves my secure archives and rests in the hands of people my government can't hold accountable. And then, only after I have submitted this information, then I can call for a stay on this data. This seems... strange, at best, and potentially catastrophic at worst. What happens after I request a stay? Can I request that the information be deleted? Before the request to stay is approved, must ASTRO release this potentially sensitive data as per Clause 6? What happens if the data is released before a stay request is approved, whether legally or not?

Oh, and also, my understanding of Clause 1, which defines raw astronomical data, is that it basically is meant to apply to celestial objects. Things like satellites, probes, or in the case of space empires, interstellar battleships, space stations, and the like, would not be included. Given the generally accepted right for member nations to choose which good-faith interpretation of the legislation fits them best, this is obviously the approach I will be taking. I can't imagine this could be a bad faith interpretation by any definition of the term, but just to check, do you think this interpretation is absurd?)

Trolledian wrote:

Kranostav wrote:It is mandatory, and non-compliance is a punishable offense.

In that case, how will it be enforced? What measures are there to check if a nation is withholding information?

If outlined Trolledian will consider supporting this resolution.

I'm confused what you are asking. If you are not complying with the resolution then you will be fined per ACA.

Iciaros wrote:(OOC: I wish I'd gotten to this sooner, it seems like something I may have discussed about before it went to vote. Ah well, I'll just put it down on my list of things I really should've done but forgot to.

Anyways, I'm not sure about the phrasing of Clause 3 and 3a. It seems to me, if I understand it correctly, that if I have raw astronomical data that is sensitive for security reasons, I still have to submit it to an international body, meaning it leaves my secure archives and rests in the hands of people my government can't hold accountable. And then, only after I have submitted this information, then I can call for a stay on this data. This seems... strange, at best, and potentially catastrophic at worst. What happens after I request a stay? Can I request that the information be deleted? Before the request to stay is approved, must ASTRO release this potentially sensitive data as per Clause 6? What happens if the data is released before a stay request is approved, whether legally or not?

Oh, and also, my understanding of Clause 1, which defines raw astronomical data, is that it basically is meant to apply to celestial objects. Things like satellites, probes, or in the case of space empires, interstellar battleships, space stations, and the like, would not be included. Given the generally accepted right for member nations to choose which good-faith interpretation of the legislation fits them best, this is obviously the approach I will be taking. I can't imagine this could be a bad faith interpretation by any definition of the term, but just to check, do you think this interpretation is absurd?)

I left the definition in such a way to where you could fairly easily not include man made satellites and other 'artificial' non astronomy related items. However, including them wouldn't be a far fetched interpretation as well. This allows for ease in dealing with things like temporary or moving space craft and satellites (man made) in regards to secrecy and other similar affairs.

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.

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.)

Trolledian wrote:

Kranostav wrote:It is mandatory, and non-compliance is a punishable offense.

In that case, how will it be enforced? What measures are there to check if a nation is withholding information?

If outlined Trolledian will consider supporting this resolution.

(OOC: The Administrative Compliance Act details continuous fines, with the possibility of sanctions, until compliance is reached.)

It's nice to see the WA doing stuff that's actually IC beneficial to it's membership instead of just ego tripping OOC bullshit or partisan asshattery.