Separatist Peoples wrote:"Why have you barred courts from assessing damages against businesses that abuse consumers under this proposal?"
"How did I do that Mr Secretary"
Advertisement
by Marxist Germany » Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:44 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Why have you barred courts from assessing damages against businesses that abuse consumers under this proposal?"
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:50 pm
Grants any person the right to press charges against a business/government that doesn't follow the boundaries established in this resolution in an appropriate domestic court and to receive appropriate equitable relief from that tribunal;
by Marxist Germany » Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:52 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Marxist Germany wrote:"How did I do that Mr Secretary"
"I'm not a secretary, I'm an ambassador. Clause 4:Grants any person the right to press charges against a business/government that doesn't follow the boundaries established in this resolution in an appropriate domestic court and to receive appropriate equitable relief from that tribunal;
"Equitable remedies do not include damages. They are extraordinary remedies suited for extraordinary circumstances, and never have ever included damages. By listing one remedy, you preclude ththe other under the interpretive canon of exclusio unius est inclusio alterius. So, why have you done that?"
by Marxist Germany » Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:55 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:58 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"I'm not a secretary, I'm an ambassador. Clause 4:Grants any person the right to press charges against a business/government that doesn't follow the boundaries established in this resolution in an appropriate domestic court and to receive appropriate equitable relief from that tribunal;et
"Equitable remedies do not include damages. They are extraordinary remedies suited for extraordinary circumstances, and never have ever included damages. By listing one remedy, you preclude ththe other under the interpretive canon of exclusio unius est inclusio alterius. So, why have you done that?"
"That was unintended Mr Ambassador"
Marxist Germany wrote:"Is the solution to simply remove equitable relief?"
by Marxist Germany » Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:59 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Marxist Germany wrote:"That was unintended Mr Ambassador"
"Oh, good. For a moment, I thought it was your intention to undermine national remedial theories in nations, ambassador. That it was entirely unintentional brings me great relief."Marxist Germany wrote:"Is the solution to simply remove equitable relief?"
"Ideally, the solution is to consider what relief you wish to empower courts to hand down, and include them. I'd say the particulars are also up to you.
"Also, pressing charges implies a criminal action. Which does not include remedies, merely incarceration or punitive fines. Did you intend to remove such cases from the realm of civil law and empower solely the state to prosecute those cases?"
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:03 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:"Oh, good. For a moment, I thought it was your intention to undermine national remedial theories in nations, ambassador. That it was entirely unintentional brings me great relief."
"Ideally, the solution is to consider what relief you wish to empower courts to hand down, and include them. I'd say the particulars are also up to you.
"Also, pressing charges implies a criminal action. Which does not include remedies, merely incarceration or punitive fines. Did you intend to remove such cases from the realm of civil law and empower solely the state to prosecute those cases?"
"No Mr Ambassador, I'll change it to sue which should hopefully satisfy your needs, or just Holds businesses liable to trial if they violate the boundaries established within this resolution"
by Marxist Germany » Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:06 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Marxist Germany wrote:"No Mr Ambassador, I'll change it to sue which should hopefully satisfy your needs, or just Holds businesses liable to trial if they violate the boundaries established within this resolution"
"I dont think "liable to trial" means...well, anything, ambassador. You want to create a right of private action. That said, you dont need to. The Administrative Compliance Act grants all individuals a right to a remedy for rights created implicitly or explicitly by WA resolution."
by Kurmedistan » Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:11 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:Kurmedistan wrote:We like the draft as is, although we do worry about the potential for loopholes and workarounds. There should be a clear set of guidelines regarding the language used to indicate both data collection and the opt-out process. The opt-out process should also have reasonable rules in place, a certain time line for companies to get into compliance or provide records, for example.
There are a lot of technical aspects that will probably need to be sorted out, both on an individual nation scale and globally.
"We would love to know the exact technical aspects that should be sorted out"
by Marxist Germany » Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:13 pm
Kurmedistan wrote:Marxist Germany wrote:"We would love to know the exact technical aspects that should be sorted out"
OOC: This is a complex issue indeed, and I'm guessing you're basing this on current EU protections. A good article on it is located at https://www.troyhunt.com/these-cookie-w ... t-to-stop/ . Basically, the language should present users clear, valid information in a form that is easy to process, and the opt-out process should be transparent as well. I can see some companies making the process complex, such as needing a signed form of 50 papers mailed to them at a hard to find physical location... for each entry. There should be language in the bill attempting or recommending the streamlining of the process. Clear, effective communication.
Honestly, given the global nature of the internet and the effects per nation, we should probably have a few more resolutions regarding the safekeeping of information, suggestions to keep it accessible to a range of people... at least for matters that concern the global populace.
by Separatist Peoples » Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:25 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:
"I dont think "liable to trial" means...well, anything, ambassador. You want to create a right of private action. That said, you dont need to. The Administrative Compliance Act grants all individuals a right to a remedy for rights created implicitly or explicitly by WA resolution."
"So i could simply remove that clause and leave it to that resolution, Ambassador?"
by Marxist Germany » Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:33 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Marxist Germany wrote:"So i could simply remove that clause and leave it to that resolution, Ambassador?"
"I think you would be better served requiring member states make a private right of action against businesses that illegally collect or use personal data and leave it at that. Since it is ambiguous if the ACA creates a cause of action against private entities. My instinct says no, so on reflection, err on that limited inclusion."
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:28 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Also, pressing charges implies a criminal action. Which does not include remedies, merely incarceration or punitive fines. Did you intend to remove such cases from the realm of civil law and empower solely the state to prosecute those cases?"
by Kenmoria » Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:00 am
Kurmedistan wrote:Marxist Germany wrote:"We would love to know the exact technical aspects that should be sorted out"
OOC: This is a complex issue indeed, and I'm guessing you're basing this on current EU protections. A good article on it is located at https://www.troyhunt.com/these-cookie-w ... t-to-stop/ . Basically, the language should present users clear, valid information in a form that is easy to process, and the opt-out process should be transparent as well. I can see some companies making the process complex, such as needing a signed form of 50 papers mailed to them at a hard to find physical location... for each entry. There should be language in the bill attempting or recommending the streamlining of the process. Clear, effective communication.
Honestly, given the global nature of the internet and the effects per nation, we should probably have a few more resolutions regarding the safekeeping of information, suggestions to keep it accessible to a range of people... at least for matters that concern the global populace.
by Marxist Germany » Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:12 am
by Newciv » Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:11 am
by Marxist Germany » Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:32 am
Newciv wrote:(OOC: It looks as though this won't get nearly enough approvals to go to a vote. Are the regional representatives largely inactive, or is there just not a lot of support for this proposal? It seems like it is a perfectly reasonable proposal to be put to vote.)
by Marxist Germany » Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:50 pm
by Hatzisland » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:30 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: This might not reach quorum, so I'm accepting feedback for a redraft now
by Marxist Germany » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:35 pm
by Hatzisland » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:55 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:Hatzisland wrote:
Well, your proposal was crowded with about 5 blatantly illegal proposals, so that probably contributed. Minor edits may be in order, but keep fighting for this.
OOC: Trying my best to get this to quorum, even did a manual WA campaign to like 20 delegates. Can't afford to spend $1.25 like Joco
by The Canadian Republic Colonies » Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:51 pm
The Canadian Republic Colonies - Canada For All ; All For Canada
by Wallenburg » Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:00 pm
The Canadian Republic Colonies wrote:In full support minus one issue. Under the section about a minor Guardianship does not necessarily include adopted parents. The term "biological parents" can be exclusive of members of society with adopted parents or same sex parents. The ambiguity of this should be replaced with something along the lines of "biological parents or other legally designated parents" or another way of putting it, "biological or adoptive parents" .
This is in relation to a term known as PAL or Positive Adoption Language in law.
by Alyrria » Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:31 pm
by New Zacharianasville » Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:09 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement