Defines the following for the purpose of this resolution:
An "organisation" as an entity that collects data from its members or users, and isn't run by a government;
I understand that this is here because you feel a government should be able to collect data from its members, which makes for probably the weirdest way of defining an organisation that I can imagine, but effectively a country where private enterprise is illegal can skip the vast majority of this legislation, as well as any private businesses with a controlling interest from the government. How you define who is subject to this resolution is extremely important because pretty much everything you've written is based on it.
A "minor" as a person under the age of majority not going through a transitional period into adulthood;
...
Organisations from collecting or storing the personal data of any minor without the explicit consent of their guardian except when the guardian cannot be contacted and it is not in the best interests of the minor to do so, as determined by national governments, or the business is unable to verify the age of the user;
Is a thirteen year old adolescent in a position to determine whether or not it's in their best interest to allow companies to collect data on them? Or are they more likely to enter into whatever agreement it takes to let them play
R u n e S c a p e ?A "guardian" as a legal guardian of a minor or non-legally competent person, or if none exists, a biological parent;
I don't know what this very precise backflip is meant to make a loophole for, especially since a "non-legally competent person" isn't even used in this proposal, but surely we can say
individual legally responsible for the protection and care of another person. Or just skip it, really, since you define "guardian" basically in terms of itself: "legal guardian." If it's not necessary to define what a legal guardian is, why not just use that in the proposal? A parent
is ordinarily a legal guardian and, if they lose custody of their child(ren), someone else is the legal guardian instead of them.
Governments of member states from viewing the personal data of a user without explicit prior consent from both the organisation in possession of the personal data and the user to which the data belongs, unless the user has consented to their personal data being shared with authorities as necessary, as a condition to use the services of the organisation,
Another way to word this:
Stipulates that organisations add an additional line to the terms and conditions for their users to check through without paying attention in order to access services commonly used in modern communication.
I understand the idea behind "Well, you agreed to the terms of this thing you don't like! It was right here on page 36, fair is fair!" But, really, a better way of looking at it is allowing organisations to demand whatever they like in the terms and conditions in exchange for being able to participate in modern forms of communication. Technically, there's a choice that you can make there and a way you can live your life without any connections that pass through an organisation you don't run, but it's like getting a job without a phone number. It's possible, but a huge disadvantage. If this resolution just exempts most of it's requirements as long as the rights are given up in the ToS, what's the point of it?
or unless the data is used exclusively for journalistic purposes;
Wow, so it's actually permissible for the news to request my 2014 OKCupid dating profile and 2017 Discord chat logs without my consent to be used for "journalistic purposes?" Neat-o! Some things have the privilege of being in a part of the internet because the user knows it's behind an appropriate level of privacy, but there are such broad and unchecked exemptions in this proposal of when you're not entitled to data protection, it'll be a chilling effect instead.
or the personal data was collected for crime prevention;
This is absolutely the gateway to being able to call anything and everything a data seizure for any suspicion, racial profiling, or someone in government looking for private conversations because it's illegal to criticise the head of state. The line is especially troubling because it's written as a
separate item form a search warrant, which means that a warrant is not required as long as a reasonable case can be made about how it can be used for crime prevention.
Personal data processed or stored for any purpose is not kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose
This section is so ambiguous I have no idea what it was even written to prevent, but it sounds like it can be played like a fiddle.
Since a purpose can be anything, I, Google will be storing data on you for the duration of the time that I may be able to build an advertising profile on you and market ads using this data on the sites you visit. Don't worry, we don't share your data, but you agreed to let us make money off of you in page 21 of the terms and conditions.Organisations allow individuals to edit the personal data stored by that organisation if the users deems it incorrect;
Subject-verb disagreement.