NationStates

"I have changed my approach to the definitions substantially to adhere to some advice I received outside of this Chamber. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated."

"We are opposed. This is the internet equivalent of preventing a nation's security services from looking out the window and effectively prevents them from using the internet. Requiring a warrant to use a search engine or to pick up any of the information that people freely leave about themselves all over the internet, EG IP addresses, social media posts, etc. The far more devastating part of this effective ban is how it would prevent monitoring of dark web criminals and paedophiles. Just how can police get a warrant before they have collected any evidence that a crime has been committed?"

Bananaistan wrote:"We are opposed. This is the internet equivalent of preventing a nation's security services from looking out the window and effectively prevents them from using the internet. Requiring a warrant to use a search engine or to pick up any of the information that people freely leave about themselves all over the internet, EG IP addresses, social media posts, etc. The far more devastating part of this effective ban is how it would prevent monitoring of dark web criminals and paedophiles. Just how can police get a warrant before they have collected any evidence that a crime has been committed?"

"I failed to add the word 'private' in my definition of digital surveillance. That has been rectified. Thus, that should alleviate concerns about the search engine conundrum. As for your later point about dark web criminals and pedophiles, it should be noted that a substantial amount of such illicit digital communications occur in the public sphere. That is, much of the content pertaining to the illlcit firearms, drugs, counterfeiting, child abuse, forging industries, etc. can be found through dark web search engines. Law enforcement may then have suspicion that offenses are being committed. Then, a warrant can be issued."

Against. This would hamper Thermodolia’s entire state security apparatus

Thermodolia wrote:Against. This would hamper Thermodolia’s entire state security apparatus

IC: "Alas, this resolution is intended to limit such intrusive security apparatuses."

Thermodolia wrote:Against. This would hamper Thermodolia’s entire state security apparatus

"Agreed, state surveillance is imperative to catching enemies of the state. If this resolution were to pass, Algerstonia will become far more unstable, goddamnit."

~Admiral-Ambassador Alec Ainsworth, while sadly wondering if this will be the last week he gets to fly his custom surveillance drone.

Great Algerstonia wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Against. This would hamper Thermodolia’s entire state security apparatus

"Agreed, state surveillance is imperative to catching enemies of the state. If this resolution were to pass, Algerstonia will become far more unstable, goddamnit."

~Admiral-Ambassador Alec Ainsworth, while sadly wondering if this will be the last week he gets to fly his custom surveillance drone.

McCooley smirks. "Admiral-Ambassador, I've heard about those drones you fly over in Algerstonia. Nifty things. Well, if you want to be able to use them in the event that this draft of mine becomes international legislation, you can always get a warrant and perform necessary surveillance that way."

OOC: If no further issues are raised, I'll submit this tomorrow.

“You should have a comma after ‘categorisation’ and before ‘and’ in clause 3a. Other than that, I have no objections to this. Unless any are raised, this legislation will have my full support.”

Kenmoria wrote:“You should have a comma after ‘categorisation’ and before ‘and’ in clause 3a. Other than that, I have no objections to this. Unless any are raised, this legislation will have my full support.”

"Interestingly enough, I have been advised by the delegation from Imperium Anglorum that such a comma is unnecessary."

OOC: Since those clauses comprise a two-piece list, a comma between them wouldn't be necessary.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“You should have a comma after ‘categorisation’ and before ‘and’ in clause 3a. Other than that, I have no objections to this. Unless any are raised, this legislation will have my full support.”

"Interestingly enough, I have been advised by the delegation from Imperium Anglorum that such a comma is unnecessary."

OOC: Since those clauses comprise a two-piece list, a comma between them wouldn't be necessary.

(OOC: I always like to put commas in long two-items lists for clarity, but you are correct that there is no actual grammatical need. Consider that objection withdrawn.)

Is this outright banning public surveillance too? The use of cameras in public areas often lead to the apprehension and even acquittal for the accused.

I've seen surveillance used in good and bad ways, the good outnumber the bad for me so I can't support something like this. The biggest example of good is their use in catching criminals either in the act or fleeing from it and also if someone says they were, for example; at the bank and could not have committed the crime and the cameras show that they were, in fact, at the bank at the time it happened then that proves their innocence. I understand you said CCTV would be exempt but there are examples in not-so-private areas.

A major disadvantage of surveillance, however, is its use against people in totalitarian regimes where any word against the government is considered treason. For matters like this I can agree that surveillance may need to be limited a bit but not completely banned.

The Provincial Union of the Pacific wrote:Is this outright banning public surveillance too? The use of cameras in public areas often lead to the apprehension and even acquittal for the accused.

I've seen surveillance used in good and bad ways, the good outnumber the bad for me so I can't support something like this. The biggest example of good is their use in catching criminals either in the act or fleeing from it and also if someone says they were, for example; at the bank and could not have committed the crime and the cameras show that they were, in fact, at the bank at the time it happened then that proves their innocence. I understand you said CCTV would be exempt but there are examples in not-so-private areas.

A major disadvantage of surveillance, however, is its use against people in totalitarian regimes where any word against the government is considered treason. For matters like this I can agree that surveillance may need to be limited a bit but not completely banned.

"Cameras at banks would not be operated by member states, I would presume. And the other instances are covered by the publically accessible exemption."

Dame Maria vyn Nysem, WA Representative of Daarwyrth: "Our delegation recognises the growth of this proposal draft as feedback and time moved forward. The current version of the proposal is in a state where our delegation as well as the Royal State would be able to support it. The question of necessity regarding the international scale of the WA does flare up in the back of my mind, as this isn't necessarily an international issue. Nonetheless, our delegation is willing to accept and support this effort, as it has a good intent and in our opinion applies that intent reasonably to a workable proposal. I will advise my Queen to move to a vote 'for' when this reaches the floor."

Daarwyrth wrote:Dame Maria vyn Nysem, WA Representative of Daarwyrth: "Our delegation recognises the growth of this proposal draft as feedback and time moved forward. The current version of the proposal is in a state where our delegation as well as the Royal State would be able to support it. The question of necessity regarding the international scale of the WA does flare up in the back of my mind, as this isn't necessarily an international issue. Nonetheless, our delegation is willing to accept and support this effort, as it has a good intent and in our opinion applies that intent reasonably to a workable proposal. I will advise my Queen to move to a vote 'for' when this reaches the floor."

"Thank you very much, Ambassador vyn Nysem."

OOC: Restricted foreign digital surveillance gathering to foreign government entities and/or entities that actively pose a threat to national security. The same time frame for submission applies.

"Our delegation has formally submitted this resolution."

OOC: A question: would a monitoring program on a state-issued piece of electronics (like laptop) given to someone who works for the state, be allowed, if the monitoring program's presence is known to the person using the device and they have signed an agreement saying they know it's there and are fine to have it there?

In my understanding most "work machines" by state workers who have access to privileged information, contain such programs in RL and even with the fairly tight privacy regs of the EU nations, they are perfectly legal.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: A question: would a monitoring program on a state-issued piece of electronics (like laptop) given to someone who works for the state, be allowed, if the monitoring program's presence is known to the person using the device and they have signed an agreement saying they know it's there and are fine to have it there?

OOC: Yes.

Ehhhhh hang on a minute bub. The way this written it seems that it would prevent us from recording incoming telephone calls. Am I wrong? Phone calls certainly aren’t public.

We find ourselves opposed.

The precise wording of Section 2c is broad enough to exclude incidental data or evidence discovered on secondary sources such as social media, streaming, public broadcasts, and so on from use in legal judgements or national security, on the grounds that it was "not originally gathered for those purposes".

For the Tricameral, D. Makepeace, Regent

What about using digital surveillance for public surveillance? Its safer and easier than having police officers roaming the streets. Its not an invasion of privacy if its in public places. This WA is making the world all happy and gooey and when an actual crisis occurs no one will be able to do anything because its illegal

Beta Cyndriel wrote:We find ourselves opposed.

The precise wording of Section 2c is broad enough to exclude incidental data or evidence discovered on secondary sources such as social media, streaming, public broadcasts, and so on from use in legal judgements or national security, on the grounds that it was "not originally gathered for those purposes".

For the Tricameral, D. Makepeace, Regent

"Such use is possible with a warrant. Furthermore, there is nothing stopping the government from performing warrantless surveillance of such public mediums if it is for spying or prosecutorial purposes."

Obraztsova: Opposed on basis that it would hamper Lakan Internal Intelligence Ministry operations especially in wartime. Furthermore search engine limitation seem a bit too absurd...
*whispering* God, please, don’t let this pass, I don’t want to be disposed off...

Herby wrote:Ehhhhh hang on a minute bub. The way this written it seems that it would prevent us from recording incoming telephone calls. Am I wrong? Phone calls certainly aren’t public.

"Phone calls in what context, exactly? Because if you're insinuating that warrantless wiretapping should somehow be legal broadly, this resolution was crafted specifically with that practice in mind and expanded out further from there."

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:Obraztsova: Opposed on basis that it would hamper Lakan Internal Intelligence Ministry operations especially in wartime. Furthermore search engine limitation seem a bit too absurd...
*whispering* God, please, don’t let this pass, I don’t want to be disposed off...

"How does this limit search engine usage?"