[PASSED] Repeal Preventing Identity Theft

[Simone Republic]

The problem in real life is that a bank that suffers from stolen identity should in theory be able to compensate customers in a massive identity leak (touch wood). In the case of Experian, TransUnion or Equifax leaking (in the US), if anything happens due to their gross negligence, it's not clear who can compensate, short of a massive government bailout. That's a massive systematic risk.

I am not keen on this resolution unless someone passes a resolution to resolve the personal credit rating agency issue. But I don't disagree with the point that if people are stupid enough to fall for random phishing links, they shouldn't get compensation.

[Honeydewistania]

31 minutes ago: Sierra Lyricalia: Illegal — Honest Mistake: nothing in target prevents nations from conducting ordinary debt collection measures from convicted fraudsters (e.g. wage garnishment, asset seizure, etc.), nor from requiring a conviction before beginning compensation processes)

I disagree that what I have presented is an honest mistake. I wrote that nations may have to pay - not will always have to pay (also, anyways, they likely will have to pay most of the times anyway, since catching let alone convicting online fraudsters is not easy)

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

FWIW, I agree with Honeydewistania.

In cases where victims were affected financially by the relevant identity theft, the total sum of losses shall be repaid to the victim.

Dismayed that if member states are unable to recover all of the money stolen by the perpetrators of identity theft, they may have to pay the victims themselves in order to avoid facing fines and sanctions for noncompliance,

Shocked that member states will have to resort to paying exorbitant amounts of money to victims of identity theft due to the multitude of phishing and credit card scams that occur on a daily basis, resulting in less money being available for disaster relief or pillow advertisement campaigns,

These two repeal provisions work together to make a point about the absolutist language in PIT's recovery clause. Member nations are required to ensure that the "total sum of losses shall be repaid." They remain free to accomplish that how they choose, but it is true that if member states were unable to recover "the total sum" from the perpetrators, PIT still obligates member nations to ensure that the total sum somehow gets repaid.

The "dismayed" clause is perfectly accurate. The "shocked" clause follows up on the "dismayed" clause by positing that (1) there are a multitude of cases that would result in under-recovery from the perpetrator and (2) that member nations would be on the hook for making up an "exorbitant" shortfall. At worst, the clause might be said to exaggerate the reasonably foreseeable potential consequences of PIT - because unlike PIT the clause presumes there will often be problems recovering full losses from the perp. That sort of exaggeration should be a permitted tactic to draw attention to the problem of resolutions demanding adherence to absolutist policies. The clause still meaningfully engages with the text of the target and does not misrepresent what the target does (i.e. it demands that member nations come up with the full sum of the losses, regardless of circumstances). It should not be held to violate the HM rule.

[Fachumonn]

I approved it, I guess.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

31 minutes ago: Sierra Lyricalia: Illegal — Honest Mistake: nothing in target prevents nations from conducting ordinary debt collection measures from convicted fraudsters (e.g. wage garnishment, asset seizure, etc.), nor from requiring a conviction before beginning compensation processes)

I disagree that what I have presented is an honest mistake. I wrote that nations may have to pay - not will always have to pay (also, anyways, they likely will have to pay most of the times anyway, since catching let alone convicting online fraudsters is not easy)

I suppose this is a fair point. I'm actually more concerned with the fraudulent claims clause ("Distressed..."), but either way I see this is within the bounds of "colorable interpretation" or "mere exaggeration."

Withdrawn.

[Honeydewistania]

Thanks SL

[Morover]

This phrasing was intentional. I think it creates less of a financial burden than you claim. Also, if nations fail to properly vet those who they are paying out, that’s on them - false cases that nations cannot disprove are far and few between, and steps can be made by nations to help ensure a paper trail in the case of identity thert which would make it even harder to fake.

If I saw this as a genuine flaw I could support, even with it being ny own resolution. I don’t, though, so I’m against.

If that is true, I do wonder why the Morovian delegation authored the target at all - if people fail to properly vet those with access to their info, is that not on them? Anyways, while false cases may be far and few between, they’re still a possibility exacerbated by the proposal. And there’s still the myriad of true cases which the government still has a large financial burden. The government is very unlikely to fully recover all of what Random Scammer #3 stole.

Sorry for not responding to this in a timely manner, I am utterly swamped with some real-world issues.

A very small issue which should give very little burden to member-states, especially when taken in tandem with identity theft prevention. Identity theft is inherently something that is used to take advantage of vulnerable people - that's not on them. "Distressed" clause is a nonstarter, since once again, nations are not a vulnerable population and can effectively vet people. "Dismayed" is only an issue in nations that don't address it - insurance can be implemented, which is what I mean when I say the phrasing is intentional - nations should have a wide array of ways to address the financial concerns. People deserve to get their money back.

Maybe I'd support this if a replacement is lined up, but repealing this gets rid of a very small issue that's been played up (and frankly, can be easily prevented by sensible nations) while simultaneously ridding people of significant protections that help people. I hope the general population of WA states agrees with me.

[Honeydewistania]

The issue with replacement can be resolved as easily as you submitting the original text with your clause 5 reworked. Anyways:

1. I don’t see the qualifier "vulnerable people", or anything similar, In your definitions. Basically, your definition covers a wide range of criminal activity, including a random person stealing your credit card to buy fast food. There are many scams that take place that would count as identity theft under your definition - and there are few real life examples where people receives compensation out of goodwill form the bank/government.

2. I don’t think giving an incentive for people to try and commit fraud against government bureaucrat is a good thing, even if member nations can prevent it, which they can’t do all the time of course.

3. Insurance money still comes from somewhere. Public insurance is still valuable taxpayer money and doesn’t resolve that issue. Private insurance has a whole host of problems on its own. There’s no ideal solution for this, but your one definitely isn’t it in my opinion.

[Condala]

Why shouldn't the leaders of the people be the ones to help them out in times of their own troubles? A leader would help those in need. WHy can't we see past this?

[Thricium]

Identity theft is a major issue, and should not be repealed like this.

[Zerphen]

I have nothing against the target resolution, and I am very against a repeal. I think it is the duty of the government to assist it's citizens as it can, and repaying their financial losses in the case of identity theft should the original money not be found is certainly one of those things I think the government should be doing. In the case of "unscrupulous residents of WA states fraudulently claiming to be victims of identity theft in order to obtain monetary compensation" WA nations should be properly vetting those claims to ensure they are legitimate, to not do so would be dumb.

Even if you disagree with that, the repeal greatly overstates the effects that phishing scams have. While it is a big problem for many people, it has only made 56 billion USD in America in the last year (ofc that is real world stuff, but I imagine that would translate closely to nations here), and even if America had to comply with this WA resolution and they weren't able to get back any of that money that was stolen to pay them back that way, that would hardly put a dent in the total budget of the US government. Certainly not enough to cause any sort of crisis with not being able to pay for disaster relief. If anyone is going to vote to repeal this resolution because the government has to pay money to people sometimes, you should recognize that it's not really that much money for our nationstates governments, or any well developed government, really.

The only problem is that the resolution does little in the way of actually preventing identity theft, and does more for compensating victims of identity theft, to which I don't think the solution is to repeal the resolution, but rather we should make more legislation on ways to actually prevent identity theft. If you think 56 billion USD translated into nationstates money is too much money for our government to be paying to help victims of identity theft, shouldn't we be working to lower how much money that market steals from people rather than leaving our citizens to be financially devastated?

TLDR: The target resolution is completely fine, and this repeal is garbage. What we really need is more legislation to prevent identity theft.

[Life empire]

you know the resolution being repealed has a slightly funny clause ¨Governments of member-states and accredited law enforcement agencies within member-nations shall have unrestricted access to upload stolen identities and stolen information from the victims of identity theft as discovered or reported in their nations, and are obligated to do so. These organizations may access, edit, and remove any information they upload to the database, and are obligated to do so in cases where requested by the victim of the relevant identity theft.¨ so how do you know its not the identity thief requesting it using the stolen identity?

[Fachumonn]

The Libertarian Socialist Confederation [delegate] has voted AGAINST this proposal.

[Honeydewistania]

The Libertarian Socialist Confederation [delegate] has voted FOR this proposal.

No you didn’t

[Fachumonn]

The Libertarian Socialist Confederation [delegate] has voted FOR this proposal.

No you didn’t

You are correct - it has been changed accordingly.

[Toonela]

I have nothing against the target resolution, and I am very against a repeal. I think it is the duty of the government to assist it's citizens as it can, and repaying their financial losses in the case of identity theft should the original money not be found is certainly one of those things I think the government should be doing. In the case of "unscrupulous residents of WA states fraudulently claiming to be victims of identity theft in order to obtain monetary compensation" WA nations should be properly vetting those claims to ensure they are legitimate, to not do so would be dumb.

Even if you disagree with that, the repeal greatly overstates the effects that phishing scams have. While it is a big problem for many people, it has only made 56 billion USD in America in the last year (ofc that is real world stuff, but I imagine that would translate closely to nations here), and even if America had to comply with this WA resolution and they weren't able to get back any of that money that was stolen to pay them back that way, that would hardly put a dent in the total budget of the US government. Certainly not enough to cause any sort of crisis with not being able to pay for disaster relief. If anyone is going to vote to repeal this resolution because the government has to pay money to people sometimes, you should recognize that it's not really that much money for our nationstates governments, or any well developed government, really.

The only problem is that the resolution does little in the way of actually preventing identity theft, and does more for compensating victims of identity theft, to which I don't think the solution is to repeal the resolution, but rather we should make more legislation on ways to actually prevent identity theft. If you think 56 billion USD translated into nationstates money is too much money for our government to be paying to help victims of identity theft, shouldn't we be working to lower how much money that market steals from people rather than leaving our citizens to be financially devastated?

TLDR: The target resolution is completely fine, and this repeal is garbage. What we really need is more legislation to prevent identity theft.

I am in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed here, and as such, am utterly opposed to the repeal on offer. A single, narrowly tailored argument based on the premise of a greatly exaggerated fiscal concern that, even if it were in fact to prove problematic to member state budgets are best served via other legislative means available to those effected both via this body and their own national governments, is absolutely not sufficient for the repeal of the targeted resolution. I'm deeply disappointed to see so many regional and national delegations signing onto reasoning such as this, which, at its core, is an attack on the principle that national polities owe their peoples protections from losses incurred by no fault of their own.

[The Lothlorien Union]

Under the GA Res-576 "Preventing Identity Theft" Resolution, section 3:I; member states are "unrestricted access to upload stolen identities and stolen information from the victims of identity theft as discovered or reported" and are "obligated to do so".

Under the commonsense interpretation of the law, member states have the authority and the obligation to investigate all instances of reported fraudulent activity or activity that otherwise has put an individual's identity and sensitive information thereof at risk.

With such guidance, it is in my opinion that the member state is assuming a risk by choosing not to accredit such agencies necessary to prevent what we should recognize as a blatant abuse of the system and subsequently should be held in court to face a jury of one's peers on the charge of Perjury.

Member states that do not have a law to protect the government from such purgatory behaviors conduct a disservice to themselves, not the WA and its member states.

Such disregard for an obvious failsafe is a disservice to member states as well as a violation of the very first clause in section 3.

With the aforementioned digression, I am inclined to request a filibuster or mutual debate with the sponsors of this Resolution to understand why this burden is not met within the establishment of the IID (International Identity Database).

[Minskiev]

56 billion USD is more than a "dent" in the US budget. In 2020, the discretionary budget was $1.6 trillion. This would make up around 3.5% of that. While not a super large portion, it would be a third of what the US spent on education throughout the entire nation. Instead of paying that, maybe stopping it from the source, not treating the symptoms, is better.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

For posterity, this telegram was sent to all WA members and delegates by Toonela (7/06/2022; 11:36 PM UK time).

Fellow delegations to the World Assembly,

The delegation of Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands has proposed a repeal of “Preventing Identity Theft” (GA#576), which today stands at vote before us. If passed, it shall undermine the very mission which this body claims to advance. We do, after all, claim to “improve the world” with every resolution which we pass, and so I beg you all to vote against this setback to that mission.

This repeal attempt is notable for its marked misunderstanding of the very resolution which it seeks to undo. It relies upon our intuitive belief that its asserted consequences of not repealing GA#576 follow naturally from the text of the resolution targeted for repeal without anything but the broadest appeals to fears of monetary shortfalls and fraud. In fact, this is not at all the case, as this repeal unduly distorts that resolution’s affects with exaggerations that cannot be considered reasonable cause for “Preventing Identity Theft”’s repeal. I shall elaborate at length in the spoiler below. There is a short summary after that.

First, the repeal expresses its “dismay” that, “that if member states are unable to recover all of the money stolen by the perpetrators of identity theft, they may have to pay the victims themselves in order to avoid facing fines and sanctions for noncompliance”. The weakness of this clause is self-evident, as the proposing delegation cannot even confidently state whether or not member states are indeed obligated to compensate victims of identity for their losses. After all, the relevant clause of the targeted resolution (clause 5), does not specify whether the payer of this compensation is the World Assembly itself (though this is a much more natural reading than that of the member state given its place in the structure of the resolution), any governmental, private, or voluntary organizations which might volunteer to pay such costs, or the member nation where the claimant resides.

Even if we are to follow the assumption made by the repeal’s proposing delegation that the member state might at some point be obligated to pay such compensation itself . . . so what? Is it not the duty of legitimate and just polities to serve their people? To put their collective surplus resources at a victims’ disposal so that they may draw from the public fund in times of need?

Next, the repeal states, “that member states will have to resort to paying exorbitant amounts of money to victims of identity theft due to the multitude of phishing and credit card scams that occur on a daily basis, resulting in less money being available for disaster relief or pillow advertisement campaigns,”. This assertion as to the magnitude of the financial burden placed upon member states is not only unfounded, it is here linked with the deprivation of such funds as those needed for disaster relief, as if one can neatly rank the potentially devastating and total loss of one’s identity below that of a homeowner who has been victimized by a tornado. How is it that members of the World Assembly’s delegations are supposed to look into the eyes of a young person, perhaps already indebted and reliant upon borrowed money to keep a roof over their head, now losing everything to the actions of an identity thief, and say, “Yes, you are unworthy of compensation from the World Assembly’s coffers, but a billionaire construction firm manager is entitled to the full benefits they shall reap from the work of the International Transport Safety Committee”?

Is that the "improved world" our delegations seek?

Now, onto the final faulty clause of this repeal’s argument. It states that the previously referenced clause of the targeted resolution (clause 5), ‘may even prompt unscrupulous residents of WA states to fraudulently claim to be victims of identity theft in order to obtain "monetary compensation", further draining member states of funds’, and this claim, perhaps more than all of the others already made by this repeal, truly boggles the mind. Surely, any and all member states of the World Assembly would recognize the prudence of protecting against fraudulent claims, and would act proactively to prevent such claims from being made or debunking the legitimacy of fraudulent claims via their own investigatory powers. After all, the resolution targeted for repeal contains no timetable by which sovereign governments or law enforcement organizations within member states must fulfill their obligation to upload relevant case data to the International Identity Database, leaving ample time to weed out cases of fraudulent claims, especially so when the fourth clause of the very resolution targeted for repeal mandates that member states work to prevent identity theft and apprehend perpetrators, providing additional incentive to member states to avoid wasting resources on a case which has been discovered to be fraudulent.

Even so, let us take every assumption made by the delegation from Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands at face value. For whatever reasons, perhaps lack of desire, temporary expenditure of all investigatory resources, or a shortage of the appropriate judicial bodies, a notable number of member states cannot possibly weed out those residents in their borders seeking to defraud the World Assembly of its money. Surely then, if we concede this point, then the solution is to indeed strike down GA#576 in its entirety?

No! There is no obligation upon this body whatsoever to repeal that resolution due to deficiencies existing within its member states. To abandon the principled notion that both member states and this body are beholden to providing compensation to victims in the face of merely potential, unsubstantiated abuse is to allow an unattainable standard of perfection to stand in the way of global improvement. The inability of any member nation to address a proliferation of scammers or abusers of international law within their borders behooves us to pass additional legislation which will enable those member states to adequately police against such cases, not eschew our collective responsibilities as representatives of our own peoples in the face of overly vague and broad repeal efforts.

In conclusion, the claims made by this repeal are not well-grounded in a sober reading of the resolution it is targeting, are too vague in their premises, and the supposed faults it claims are perpetuated by "Preventing Identity Theft"'s text do not neatly cohere with the expected affects of the resolution. Additionally, the remedy to even the most extreme negative scenarios one could imagine the resolution placing on the World Assembly’s revenue streams or (more doubtfully) member states themselves is to pass additional resolutions which ensure the ability of WA nations to adequately investigate false claims of identity theft, not abandon our duties to provide for those in need after being the victim of a crime. On this principle, it is imperative that the World Assembly lead by example.

I ask one last time, even to those who may seek to repeal the resolution targeted by this repeal for other reasons better expressed in a different repeal attempt, please, vote against Repeal: “Preventing Identity Theft”.

Thank you for your attention and time.

In humble service,
The World Assembly Delegation of Toonela

[Honeydewistania]

If there are concerns about misunderstanding of the text, file a legality challenge.

[Toonela]

As Sierra Lyricalia has already indicated when dropping a previous challenge in this thread, claims considered to be in "mere exaggeration" within the text likely do not rise to the level of filing a legality challenge (even in cases where I would contend it enters the area of "gross exaggeration"), so it is unnecessary.

EDIT: Though it does seem someone disagrees with me! Interested to see how it goes.

[The Forest of Aeneas]

I don't really agree with the argument that it's 'mere exaggeration'. If GenSec rules it legal, that's fair, but really there's no reason that a member state would blindly agree with every single identity theft claim, even if frivolous, especially as informal precedent regarding committees would imply that member states that don't do so wouldn't be punished.

Edit: .

[Honeydewistania]

As Sierra Lyricalia has already indicated when dropping a previous challenge in this thread, claims considered to be in "mere exaggeration" within the text likely do not rise to the level of filing a legality challenge (even in cases where I would contend it enters the area of "gross exaggeration"), so it is unnecessary.

Well then, next time please don’t insinuate that the claims I make are unreasonable exaggerations, because that’s implying illegalities when there aren’t any.

[Toonela]

Well then, next time please don’t insinuate that the claims I make are unreasonable exaggerations, because that’s implying illegalities when there aren’t any.

I'm not of the opinion that an exaggeration need be 'reasonable' to also be within the standard that is 'mere' laid out in the rules. After all, whether I find something reasonable is a bit more subjective than the standards of the rulings (or at least I'd hope so). We will see where the now-filed challenge takes it though.

[Thricium]

Identity Theft is a massive threat, you expect everyone to just ignore it?