[DEFEATED] Protecting Personal Privacy

[Kenmoria]

“Also, the ‘noting’ clause comes off as a little patronising, seeing as it implies that children are unable to make any decisions whatsoever without the help of a guardian. I suggest putting in something about them not being able to comprehend possible risks of significant decisions, rather than just decisions in general.”

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I have some problems with this, namely that I believe that personal data should only be viewable by governments with a search warrant, and in no other circumstances whatsoever, unless the person whose data is being used consents.

Despite the ridiculous 'safety' measures that certain nations insist on burdening their younger members with, I do not object as they are not applicable to the Haven, a nation without an age of majority.

[Marxist Germany]

“Also, the ‘noting’ clause comes off as a little patronising, seeing as it implies that children are unable to make any decisions whatsoever without the help of a guardian. I suggest putting in something about them not being able to comprehend possible risks of significant decisions, rather than just decisions in general.”

"Addressed."

I have some problems with this, namely that I believe that personal data should only be viewable by governments with a search warrant, and in no other circumstances whatsoever, unless the person whose data is being used consents.

Despite the ridiculous 'safety' measures that certain nations insist on burdening their younger members with, I do not object as they are not applicable to the Haven, a nation without an age of majority.

OOC: The original repealed resolution only allowed governments to view data with a search warrant, however, some delegacies found it troubling, I have put up a poll to decide on that issue.

[Araraukar]

“Also, the ‘noting’ clause comes off as a little patronising, seeing as it implies that children are unable to make any decisions whatsoever without the help of a guardian. I suggest putting in something about them not being able to comprehend possible risks of significant decisions, rather than just decisions in general.”

"Addressed."

"I would suggest a further change into "most minors", since there are many minors who do have full comprehension of the risks involved, and also many people above the age of majority who do not..."

[Kenmoria]

“In clause 1c, it should be ‘exists’ not ‘exist’, since you are using ‘none’ in reference to a singular ‘guardian’.”

[Marxist Germany]

“In clause 1c, it should be ‘exists’ not ‘exist’, since you are using ‘none’ in reference to a singular ‘guardian’.”

OOC:Done.

[Kenmoria]

“There is no need for the word ‘aforementioned’ in clause 3b, since you can just leave it out and make the clause more clear.”

[Marxist Germany]

"Minor changes have been made to this proposal, we are planning to submit this on Friday if there are no major issues."

[Uan aa Boa]

There remain many issues with this, a number of which have already been pointed out to you.

You're now treating data regarding minors differently depending on whether or not the minor involved is adolescent without offering any legally workable definition of adolescence. Imagine some of the bizarre situations that could arise in a court charged with ruling without further guidance on whether or not an individual is an adolescent.

The clause preventing a business using personal data to cause harm or distress is a big problem. It basically bans secured mortgage lending since repossessing someone's home is a pretty clear cut case of causing them harm and distress. More generally it makes businesses liable for harm and distress they couldn't reasonably be expected to anticipate. At a minimum this needs something about the harm caused being intentional and malicious.

The proposal also bans CCTV since this is by definition the collection without explicit consent of data that can be used to identify someone - what they look like.

In 3d it's not at all clear how "transactions" constitutes a safety or disciplinary reason to remove data. I think you're probably aiming to exclude the possibility of people instructing their credit card company to delete records of their debts but the language is very vague.

5 is odd - if the whole effect of the proposal is to require governments to prohibit data abuse why is it necessary for there also to be a right of private action? An offence would generally be either civil or criminal but this seems to make it both.

6 is very odd - surely the proposal should enact the strength of measures it wants to instead of declaring its own inadequacy by urging governments to be stricter.

Prohibits... Businesses from receiving or viewing data obtained from secondary sources if the source hasn't met the boundaries established within this resolution;

This doesn't satisfactorily close the subsidiary company loophole because "meeting the boundaries established within this resolution" is vague to the point of being meaningless. I think you mean to prohibit the use of data held by an entity that would not, if it were a business, be compliant with the requirements of the resolution. If that is what you mean then it would certainly be an improvement to clearly say so.

I'm still curious as to why you're sufficiently concerned about data abuse to pursue this resolution but so resistant to extending its provisions to political parties, fund raising scams, religious groups, credit unions, mutual building societies and all the many varieties of organisations that have the potential to abuse personal data without meeting your definition of a business.

[Kenmoria]

“In 3a, who is ‘them’? And what sort of changes require notification? Would altering the staffing of one person in finances, or a change from a semicolon to a full stop in the terms and conditions somewhere, require notification?”

[Marxist Germany]

"Submission has been postponed."

[Kenmoria]

“1c seems extremely vague. Every child is developing into an adult, and may continue to develop until after the age of majority is reached.’

[Marxist Germany]

“1c seems extremely vague. Every child is developing into an adult, and may continue to develop until after the age of majority is reached.’

"What do you suggest, Mr Ambassador?"

[Kenmoria]

“1c seems extremely vague. Every child is developing into an adult, and may continue to develop until after the age of majority is reached.’

"What do you suggest, Mr Ambassador?"

“I would suggest just leaving out the definition of adolescence. The only clause it’s in is 2a, which will be ambiguous either way. How about ‘a minor able to mostly comprehend risks and dangers to an adult’? This isn’t perfect, but it is at least more defined.”

[Marxist Germany]

"What do you suggest, Mr Ambassador?"

“I would suggest just leaving out the definition of adolescence. The only clause it’s in is 2a, which will be ambiguous either way. How about ‘a minor able to mostly comprehend risks and dangers to an adult’? This isn’t perfect, but it is at least more defined.”

"Thank you for the suggestion ambassador, may I ask you if you want to be listed as a Co-author since you have contributed a lot to this proposal and the previous one?"

[Marxist Germany]

5 is odd - if the whole effect of the proposal is to require governments to prohibit data abuse why is it necessary for there also to be a right of private action? An offence would generally be either civil or criminal but this seems to make it both.

OOC:All issues have been addressed to some extent except for this, I was told by a lawyer to add private rights of action to that clause, is there any reason as to why I shouldn't keep it?

[Kenmoria]

5 is odd - if the whole effect of the proposal is to require governments to prohibit data abuse why is it necessary for there also to be a right of private action? An offence would generally be either civil or criminal but this seems to make it both.

OOC:All issues have been addressed to some extent except for this, I was told by a lawyer to add private rights of action to that clause, is there any reason as to why I shouldn't keep it?

(OOC: I recommend keeping it. A private right of action is a circumstance where a court decides that a party may bring a lawsuit against another party for violation of a law, even if there is no explicit mention of this in that law.

Demanding a private right of action means that a nation can’t simply say ‘it’s against, but there is no penalty’, and not allow recompense for victims of data abuse. Having the clause in there will be pointless for a lot of reasonable nations, but there’s nothing wrong with having it. I am, however, not a lawyer, so there’s a chance this could be wrong.)

“I would suggest just leaving out the definition of adolescence. The only clause it’s in is 2a, which will be ambiguous either way. How about ‘a minor able to mostly comprehend risks and dangers to an adult’? This isn’t perfect, but it is at least more defined.”

"Thank you for the suggestion ambassador, may I ask you if you want to be listed as a Co-author since you have contributed a lot to this proposal and the previous one?"

(OOC: If you want to, I have no objections to being listed as a co-author. If I am put as one, I’ll TG you with some more detailed feedback on the proposal later.)

[Marxist Germany]

"Last call for any issues, otherwise submission will be tomorrow."

[Maowi]

OOC:

Appalled by the lack of legislation regarding the ability of businesses to collect data from it's customers without consent;

For this meaning, 'it's' should be 'its', but really, you want 'their' because it is 'businesses' in the plural.

A "Guardian" as any legal guardian of a minor, or if none exists, the biological parent;

I would suggest 'a biological parent' rather than 'the biological parent', as that seems to imply the presence of only one biological parent.

Businesses from storing the personal data of any non adolescent minor without the explicit consent of their guardian except when the guardian cannot be contacted or it will not be in the best interests of the minor to do so;

This clause makes me anxious. Who decides what constitutes being an adolescent minor? Perhaps you could add, to the definition of 'adolescent', something like 'as defined by the member nation's government'? Also, grammatically, change 'it will not be' to 'it is not'.

Businesses from receiving or viewing data obtained from secondary sources that would otherwise, if it were a business, be noncompliant with the requirements of this resolution;

You have a discrepancy again between singular and plural. I'd simply change 'if it were a business' to 'if businesses', and scrap the 'otherwise' as redundant..

Governments of member states from viewing the data of a user without the explicit prior consent from both the business holding the data and the user that the data belongs to, except when the information is needed for a criminal investigation, court case or a search warrant has been issued;

Slightly more elegant English to replace 'that the data belongs to' with 'to which the data belong' (data is a plural noun). Also, your list of three things after 'except when the information is needed for' doesn't make sense grammatically. It reads as 'except when the information is needed for...a search warrant has been issued'. You should probably change it to 'except when the information is needed for a criminal investigation or a court case, or when a search warrant has been issued'.

I'm sorry I don't have the energy to go through it properly except for grammar-wise, IRL has been a bit hectic recently.

[Marxist Germany]

This clause makes me anxious. Who decides what constitutes being an adolescent minor? Perhaps you could add, to the definition of 'adolescent', something like 'as defined by the member nation's government'? Also, grammatically, change 'it will not be' to 'it is not'.

OOC:That is in fact defined.

Otherwise, I've changed everything else, thanks.

[Uan aa Boa]

So a company can keep data on a child, but only if that child "can mostly comprehend dangers and risks to themself." How is a company that's doing its best to comply supposed to assess that? Send a psychologist round? Have a questionnaire on the sign-up page that measures the danger comprehension skills of someone trying to register? Or what?

[Maowi]

So a company can keep data on a child, but only if that child "can mostly comprehend dangers and risks to themself." How is a company that's doing its best to comply supposed to assess that? Send a psychologist round? Have a questionnaire on the sign-up page that measures the danger comprehension skills of someone trying to register? Or what?

OOC: This is what I was getting at. I know you've defined 'adolescent', but it's hardly an objective measure. This is why I was suggesting that a member nation's government should decide what age limit constitutes adolescence as defined in your proposal, not the businesses themselves.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:Fixed

[Maowi]

OOC:Fixed

OOC: Eh, I don't think so. In my opinion you should still specify at least a general guideline as to what constitutes adolescence, like you had before, but state that the precise age boundary is to be set by the government. The way you have it now, you could have an 'adolescent' being defined as a cupcake. Don't know why that would be desirable, but you get my point, I hope.

[Battlion]

So not sure about this, but would an organisation that children facing abuse can reach out to be covered by this? Because, in effect, the way I read it at the moment those kind of organisations wouldn’t be able to keep data from anyone reaching out until there’s criminal proceedings/search warrants.