NationStates

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:I can't believe I didn't remember to define what a business is, and over a period of a month, no one else noticed that error. I would love to fix this issue, but I'm going to have to delete the current proposal and post it again and do another WA campaign which might annoy people a lot as this will be the 3rd time.

(OOC: It is up to you. There are good arguments for an and against on either side. On the one hand, withdrawing the proposal will make the legislation watertight and less easy to loophole, along with reducing any potential for a repeal. On the other hand, a third campaign would definitely annoy people, and it may get less endorsements, which would mean the legislation would never become law.

You may as well see how this pans out at vote. If it passes, great, and you can prepare a definition of ‘business’ in case of a repeal. If it doesn’t, you can submit it again with a definition and possibly some other improvements, creating a good piece of legislation.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:I can't believe I didn't remember to define what a business is, and over a period of a month, no one else noticed that error. I would love to fix this issue, but I'm going to have to delete the current proposal and post it again and do another WA campaign which might annoy people a lot as this will be the 3rd time.

(OOC: It is up to you. There are good arguments for an and against on either side. On the one hand, withdrawing the proposal will make the legislation watertight and less easy to loophole, along with reducing any potential for a repeal. On the other hand, a third campaign would definitely annoy people, and it may get less endorsements, which would mean the legislation would never become law.

You may as well see how this pans out at vote. If it passes, great, and you can prepare a definition of ‘business’ in case of a repeal. If it doesn’t, you can submit it again with a definition and possibly some other improvements, creating a good piece of legislation.)

Ooc: a failure at vote would likely cripple future chances.

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:I can't believe I didn't remember to define what a business is, and over a period of a month, no one else noticed that error.

I can only apologise for not getting involved earlier. I haven't spent much time in the WA lately.

I spent a lot of time on this issue with my unsuccessful proposal to deal with freedom of speech for companies and other legal persons. However much you want to direct a proposal at the bad guys you can't, because once you define "good" and "bad" the "bad" guys just outsource their activities to an entity that has a "good" structure. You have to aim the proposal at all legal persons, just as the GDPR that I suspect this is modelled on does.

I have to admit that if this passed as it stands I would strongly consider writing a repeal.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: It is up to you. There are good arguments for an and against on either side. On the one hand, withdrawing the proposal will make the legislation watertight and less easy to loophole, along with reducing any potential for a repeal. On the other hand, a third campaign would definitely annoy people, and it may get less endorsements, which would mean the legislation would never become law.

You may as well see how this pans out at vote. If it passes, great, and you can prepare a definition of ‘business’ in case of a repeal. If it doesn’t, you can submit it again with a definition and possibly some other improvements, creating a good piece of legislation.)

Ooc: a failure at vote would likely cripple future chances.

OOC:Agreed, but a third attempt might mean this doesn't even get to vote.

Marxist Germany wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: a failure at vote would likely cripple future chances.

OOC:Agreed, but a third attempt might mean this doesn't even get to vote.

OOC: I'd much rather a solid proposal get to vote than have something risk not reaching vote at all. Three campaigns is not nearly enough to leave such a vital definition out, in my opinion.

Morover wrote:OOC: I'd much rather a solid proposal get to vote than have something risk not reaching vote at all. Three campaigns is not nearly enough to leave such a vital definition out, in my opinion.

OOC: ^This. And if you're worried about delegate response, wait a few weeks, people will have forgotten by then.

Though I'd take up the names of the delegates who approved and send them a "thank you for your approval; this is why I withdrew it" TG.

(OOC: I understand if you want to withdraw it and make it watertight. I endorsed it this time around and, unless somehow the entire proposal changes, I'll be sure to endorse it the next time you submit it.)

I strongly disagree with the passage of this law. The people would have nothing to hide if they haven't broken any laws. If they have, they shouldn't have broken them, or at least left evidence on their devices.

Kazuhiraland wrote:I strongly disagree with the passage of this law. The people would have nothing to hide if they haven't broken any laws. If they have, they shouldn't have broken them, or at least left evidence on their devices.

(OOC: This isn’t just about breaking laws, but also companies stealing data from customers, particularly minors who can’t fully consent to data collection.)

Whats with all these out of character posts

Should change the heading

[OOC] Protecting Personal Data

“Our words are wholly unable to convey the frustration evoked by this proposal. It is hoped an act might suffice,”

As the obnoxious, petulant fry of Amorita's voice trails off, a flurry of nano-constructors manifests two devices in front of her. An ancient model of dot-matrix printer and a shredder. Each recreated in the jaundice yellow of sun-stained plastic.

With shrill clacks, beeps, screeches, and whines the printer makes a great show of ekeing out a copy of the proposal. A copy that Amorita tears free with a flourish before stuffing into the animalistic, chomping shredder.

With a satisfied nod she waves the objects back out of existence and smiles with disquieting warmth.

“We trust that conveyed our intent. In the hope it might ameliorate the brutality of our shade, it is not that we think the goal of the proposal is without merit but rather that we do not find the concurrent circularity and vagueness of its contents pleasing,” a point she emphasises by frowning deeply and flailing a hand around in a loop.

“Ordinarily, we would jubilantly embrace a partial protection in the hope it can act as the foundation for potential expansion, provided there is no overlap or preclusion due to risk of duplication, but to build with bricks so small is simply not aesthetically pleasing to us. We value the beauty of legislative efficiency. And we firmly believe this proposal could be very efficient. We hope it becomes beautiful in future by, for instance, explicitly instituting an ongoing duty of care after a hypothetical third party transfer or by demonstrating a less absolutist treatment of consent. Sadly, we regard the protection of minors over universal matters such as those to be, well, minor.

In our experience, it is best not to underestimate the duplicity abound within societies still suffering with scarcity. A regrettable example is that we have no doubt that clause 3(a) would be rendered irrelevant via technical compliance that is buried under layers of oh so very deniable obstruction. We do not accept that there are sufficient controls within other clauses to prevent this.

In the event our reading is grossly inaccurate or the proposal was unable to encompass matters such as third parties more fully then we offer our most profound regret.

We welcome and praise the attempt to reduce a power disparity. We hope to see that goal maintained by the proposing member and all those advocating for this proposal."

Lynwood wrote:Whats with all these out of character posts

Should change the heading

[OOC] Protecting Personal Data

(OOC: Both IC and OOC posts are allowed in proposal drafting and submission threads, as some relevant points are better suited to different characters of communication. There is no place in the GA where only IC posts are allowed, though some threads such as the illegal proposals thread are only OOC.)

“To the ambassador from Ithania, what technical compliance are you envisaging under clause 3a? It may be of some use to Kenmoria. Also, if anything, I believe this resolution has slightly too much, not too little, legislative power.”

"Clause 3.a. does not require the information to be provided to the user of their services. They could provide the data as a prayer whispered to their ancestral spirits, and still be in compliance."

- Kistiri Tikilikrr, Assistant to the Head of Diplomatic Wing, 10th generation male

Giant Bats wrote:"Clause 3.a. does not require the information to be provided to the user of their services. They could provide the data as a prayer whispered to their ancestral spirits, and still be in compliance."

- Kistiri Tikilikrr, Assistant to the Head of Diplomatic Wing, 10th generation male

“Clause 3a mentions ‘in their terms and conditions’. I hope I am missing something, but it seems as though merely speaking this wouldn’t qualify.”

The Nation of Satuga and its people are in full support of the proposal, as it undermines possible corruption within companies(as far as data breaches are concerned). The Satugan people will also recognize that any and all nations that voted against such a basic right of man is fundamentally denying this right to it's people and therefore the Satugan people will recognize these countries when considering further diplomatic interactions in the future.

Kenmoria wrote:“To the ambassador from Ithania, what technical compliance are you envisaging under clause 3a? It may be of some use to Kenmoria. Also, if anything, I believe this resolution has slightly too much, not too little, legislative power.”

"Ambassador, while we are ordinarily loathe to be seen as assisting materialistic degeneracy, we feel we can hardly make a difference to the already dire governance of other members," Amorita half-mumbles, as if thinking aloud. Pausing to manifest a gold fish bowl, a fish that is surprisingly calm about popping into existence, and accessories.

"As with all prior proposals and resolutions, we are confident that any member absolutely determined to undermine the admirable spirit of this assembly will create the means to do so. We recognise the importance of not expecting or seeking perfect implementation," while stopping to take a breath, Amorita peers close to the bowl. A long, sharp nail giving the glass a cautious tap.

"How strange... That said, our comment on clause 3(a) pertain to the explicit presence of information within the terms of service. In our view it is a significant oversight that the proposal contains little about the practical accessibility of the explicit information. To us, the proposal appears silent about sullying the beautiful efficiency and purpose of the terms by, perhaps, prefacing any explicit emphasis on data in consumer contracts with an entire library of classical literature or a maze of references to interconnected documents that only the most persistent individual will successfully navigate," Amorita presses fish food on to the tip of a finger, sniffing it cautiously.

"Hmmm. Unless this assembly has addressed reasonability and fairness of terms in contracts during our long absence. If so, we offer our profuse apologies."

"While we imagine this may seem absurd and extreme, we believe matters such as the above example serve to critically undermine the elegance and beauty of the proposal. We believe it introduces disharmonious vagueness. We believe similar absences can be noted elsewhere. Similarly, we cannot accept any proposal which does not explicitly create an ongoing duty in the event of third party transfer," Amorita nods firmly, satisfied she's reached a conclusion. A finger flick causing her fish bowl to fade from existence. The fish still calm as it's quickly deconstructed. "Why do so many people like to own bowls decorated like this...what does the fish and these little rocks do to enhance its beauty?"

First, I haven't read ALL of the previous responses, so forgive me for any repetition.

Then my concerns:

1. As mentioned, it doesn't define a business, nor does it distinguish between a business and government.
2. There is no distinction between online data and physical data.
3. Businesses can't get any info on people without "explicit" consent. What about "implicit consent," like with the EU Cookie law? Though technically collecting data without consent isn't prohibited in the resolution, and only mentioned in the believing statement:

Believing that businesses should not be able to collect data from a customer without the explicit consent of that customer as this is clearly a violation of the right to privacy;

I think we need something like privacy protections, but clearly more research needs to be done on this topic before being put to another vote. For more information, you may want to checkout the below link on the US FTC's 5 principles addressing fair information practices on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTC_fair_information_practice#Principles

If necessary, you may need to narrow down and clarify your scope.

“Thank you to the Ithanian ambassador. If this does pass, that loophole shall be made of use to the Kenmorian government.”

(OOC: That should definitely have been clarified in the drafting process, perhaps by adding ‘publicly-available’ before ‘terms and conditions’ in the clause.)

Kenmoria wrote:“Thank you to the Ithanian ambassador. If this does pass, that loophole shall be made of use to the Kenmorian government.”

(OOC: That should definitely have been clarified in the drafting process, perhaps by adding ‘publicly-available’ before ‘terms and conditions’ in the clause.)

OOC:Noted and will be changed if this fails.

“Quite frankly, if this passes as-is, it will need to be repealed and redrafted, in my humble opinion.”

Morover wrote:“Quite frankly, if this passes as-is, it will need to be repealed and redrafted, in my humble opinion.”

"I don't mind that option."

"I see this as quite an important measure, both for the peace of mind of the people, and also for the trust in businesses and governments."

You have my full support in this bill. The autonomy of the individual should never be understated, and should be respected. I'm glad someone called a vote for this.

Morover wrote:“Quite frankly, if this passes as-is, it will need to be repealed and redrafted, in my humble opinion.”

'Agreed, ambassador. Which is why we've voted against this proposal. Much better for it to fail and the author wait a while and submit a much improved version than for it to pass and then the whole effort of a repeal and replace to be gone through. Unfortunately, most World Assembly ambassadors do not debate here. We'll have to wait and see.'

"Those politicians don't know it but they are doing us a massive favor," CEO of HeadBook exclaims to Buuble CEO, "we already have the data filters in place, but competitors are going to be dead in the water!"

"This week on LQNB following the draft of GA resolution, Lang Queskiyian ISP's contemplate blocking all public connections unless no children are allowed on the premises. They say that if this bill passes, millions of Lang Queskiyians will likely go without internet due to risk of legal fees as they will be unable to mitigate any attack on their network without the data described in the resolution. Rumors and fears have began spreading that the government may need to take control of the ISPs to mitigate the problem."