Puzzled at Clause 5 of GA#576 "Preventing Identity Theft", which mandates that "[i]n 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,
Distressed that this clause 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
Believing that this critical flaw with GA#576 is sufficient to warrant its repeal so as to prevent more member states from forking out precious taxpayer money to compensate those negligent enough to fall for these identity theft scams,
Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #576, "Preventing Identity Theft".
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 4:13 am
by Fachumonn
Nope, this is almost nitpicking IMO.
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 4:14 am
by Honeydewistania
Fachumonn wrote:Nope, this is almost nitpicking IMO.
How is this nitpicking? It’s a pretty serious flaw. We’ve definitely repealed other resolutions for less.
Fachumonn wrote:Nope, this is almost nitpicking IMO.
How is this nitpicking? It’s a pretty serious flaw. We’ve definitely repealed other resolutions for less.
Like what?
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 4:16 am
by Equai
The Federation of Equai thinks that this is the problem of the predatory capitalism and can be used as a way of neo-colonialism by the capitalist imperial powers.
Honeydewistania wrote:How is this nitpicking? It’s a pretty serious flaw. We’ve definitely repealed other resolutions for less.
Like what?
Institutional Psychiatry Act was repealed because a criminal who also just happens to have a mental illness can share "dangerous" information to the world. International Salvage Laws was repealed for simply being encouragements. My own resolution, Repeal: Landfill Regulation Act, repealed the target for reasons I would consider nitpicky (though of course serious enough). Hell, even the resolution that this one replaced was repealed for reasons such as privatised law enforcement (I shudder at this thought) have to be slightly hindered when accessing the database.
I could go on.
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 5:15 am
by Imperium Anglorum
I feel the flaw is sufficient to justify repeal, if true.
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 5:53 am
by Tinhampton
This is both appropriately skinny and appropriately ROFLtastic for Honeydew - support.
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 6:46 am
by Makko Oko
"Even just the title of this resolution alone is enough to get it on the chopping block, and frankly, we think this resolution sits in international law just fine."
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
"Have you ever heard of education Ambassador? Anti-phishing education, identity theft education, those all exist or can exist. Personally, if this resolution didn't enforce those things, then we say you should just create a new resolution expanding upon this one, but repealing this one we don't think is in our best interests, nor the WA's."
Distressed that this clause 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
"Furthermore, do you have any figures proving that this has even been successful? Not all resolutions are perfect, but c'mon, we don't particularly agree with this portion. If a government wants to protect their money, they'll protect it, but not to mention, that also conflicts with another portion of your resolution."
Dismayed that if member states are unable to recover all of the money stolen by the perpetrators of identity theft, they have to pay the victims themselves in order to avoid facing fines and sanctions for noncompliance
"It conflicts with this portion of your resolution. If governments aren't supposed to pay unless the money can't be recovered then how exactly are 'draining member states of funds' happening?"
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 7:09 am
by 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.
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 7:10 am
by Honeydewistania
I am not sure if the delegation from Makko Oko has read the draft properly. Education, while helpful, is not always fully effective and not really relevant to the clause you’re referencing. Mandating education still does not fully resolve the issue of member states still wasting money. I cannot cite specific figures (probably because the World Census does not have ‘false reporting of identity theft’ as a statistic), and hence I included ‘may even’ in the sentence, as it is very much possible. And yes, governments have to pay if the money isn’t fully recovered. Which will be in most cases. So they are using their own money to remain in compliance. Thus, their funds are drained. It’s as simple as that really.
"Even just the title of this resolution alone is enough to get it on the chopping block, and frankly, we think this resolution sits in international law just fine."
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
"Have you ever heard of education Ambassador? Anti-phishing education, identity theft education, those all exist or can exist. Personally, if this resolution didn't enforce those things, then we say you should just create a new resolution expanding upon this one, but repealing this one we don't think is in our best interests, nor the WA's."
Distressed that this clause 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
"Furthermore, do you have any figures proving that this has even been successful? Not all resolutions are perfect, but c'mon, we don't particularly agree with this portion. If a government wants to protect their money, they'll protect it, but not to mention, that also conflicts with another portion of your resolution."
Dismayed that if member states are unable to recover all of the money stolen by the perpetrators of identity theft, they have to pay the victims themselves in order to avoid facing fines and sanctions for noncompliance
"It conflicts with this portion of your resolution. If governments aren't supposed to pay unless the money can't be recovered then how exactly are 'draining member states of funds' happening?"
C Marcius Blythe. Ambassador, it doesn't seem you understand the points that the proposer is making. Beyond the ridiculousness of judging proposal quality on titles alone, your responses almost entirely fail to engage with the claims made by the repeal itself. The repeal gives an interpretation that member nations have to compensate losses, even if they cannot recover the appropriate funds from the perpetrators. You respond with some nonsense about the existence of education. The repeal says people might use the clause to get money by fraudulent means. You respond with some conclusory assertions of self-contradiction. The repeal says member states might not be able to make recoveries that would pay the damages required in section 5 of the target. Your response seems to imply you read the exact opposite of what the repeal says.
OOC. As to the separate matter of "can you produce evidence of this occurring", that is one of those classic standards that people have asserted in the Assembly which are then promptly laughed out of the room. There are no figures that can be robustly produced of any sort. You may as well ask "Do you have evidence of global warming in NationStates?" or "Exactly how many nations in NS have nuclear weapons?". Alternatively, the proposer might concoct some (to borrow a Gruenberg phrase) "lurid fantasies" about fraudulent claims to be victims of identity theft. Those lurid fantasies prove – from a disinterested stance – nothing and show nothing. All in all, indirect evidence of a problem existing and the efficacy of certain solutions is useful; asking for direct evidence in the GA is missing the point.
Morover wrote: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 theft [recte] which would make it even harder to fake.
If I saw this as a genuine flaw I could support, even with it being my [recte] own resolution. I don’t, though, so I’m against.
By "phrasing", you mean the passive construction of section 5 of the target?
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 1:31 pm
by Fachumonn
You should probably add a link to the resolution in the OP.
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 4:51 pm
by Honeydewistania
Morover wrote: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.
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,
“I understand the importance of disaster relief, but–*begins to have horrible “Comfortable Pillows for All Protocol” flashbacks*–w–why would you even dare to prioritize pillows? It seems very ir–revelant–“ -Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire
Posted: Sat May 28, 2022 11:42 pm
by Saint Tomas and the Northern Ice Islands
Bump.
Posted: Sun May 29, 2022 1:58 am
by Agencourt
"I must make an announcement for this draft. Certain member states simply cannot bear the cost of the bill as is, and while we do believe in such laws, we also believe it should be up to the nation in question how much they can and will front.
Unless some other fact comes to light, if this makes it to the Assembly floor, we shall vote in SUPPORT of it." - Ambassador Adrien White
Posted: Sun May 29, 2022 1:52 pm
by Hulldom
Unless Morover can provide a real justification for why that clause was written that way, I support.
Posted: Sun May 29, 2022 2:55 pm
by Fachumonn
I'm still on edge about this one. Abstaining for now.
Posted: Sun May 29, 2022 4:42 pm
by The Orwell Society
Hulldom wrote:Unless Morover can provide a real justification for why that clause was written that way, I support.
Puzzled at Clause 5 of GA#576 "Preventing Identity Theft", which mandates that "[i]n 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 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,
Distressed that this clause 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
Believing that this critical flaw with GA#576 is sufficient enough to warrant its repeal so as to prevent more member states from forking out precious taxpayer money to compensate those negligent enough to fall for these identity theft scams,
Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #576, "Preventing Identity Theft".
Support. Seems fine, the arguments are good for repeal.
Puzzled at Clause 5 of GA#576 "Preventing Identity Theft", which mandates that "[i]n 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 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,
Distressed that this clause 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
Believing that this critical flaw with GA#576 is sufficient enough to warrant its repeal so as to prevent more member states from forking out precious taxpayer money to compensate those negligent enough to fall for these identity theft scams,
Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #576, "Preventing Identity Theft".
Support. Seems fine, the arguments are good for repeal.
Hulldom wrote:Unless Morover can provide a real justification for why that clause was written that way, I support.
Ditto. It's a good draft.
Agencourt wrote:"I must make an announcement for this draft. Certain member states simply cannot bear the cost of the bill as is, and while we do believe in such laws, we also believe it should be up to the nation in question how much they can and will front.
Unless some other fact comes to light, if this makes it to the Assembly floor, we shall vote in SUPPORT of it." - Ambassador Adrien White
Hulldom wrote:Unless Morover can provide a real justification for why that clause was written that way, I support.
Thanks
Posted: Mon May 30, 2022 8:37 am
by Princess Rainbow Sparkles
Full support. The flaw is a legitimate one. The people of Morover have themselves helped popularize the notion of repealing a law based on the "not-unreasonable" interpretations of its clauses. That Morover then enshrined extreme and ambiguous policies like "total" compensation, spelling it out in wobbly passive voice, is an invitation for exactly the sort of eccentric interpretations they bemoaned elsewhere.
On that vein, I would point out that Clause 5 fails to place proportional limits on recovery, leading to the not-unreasonable interpretation that anyone "affected financially" (such as a bank that must expend labor to make an account correction) may demand payment of "the total sum of losses" even though they were affected in a merely trivial way.
Also, Clause 5 does not inherently allow the immediate families of victims to assert their rights if the victim becomes incapacitated.
I don't believe the current repeal draft needs anything else, mind you. I'm just musing. Carry on!
Posted: Mon May 30, 2022 6:03 pm
by Honeydewistania
Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:Full support. The flaw is a legitimate one. The people of Morover have themselves helped popularize the notion of repealing a law based on the "not-unreasonable" interpretations of its clauses. That Morover then enshrined extreme and ambiguous policies like "total" compensation, spelling it out in wobbly passive voice, is an invitation for exactly the sort of eccentric interpretations they bemoaned elsewhere.
On that vein, I would point out that Clause 5 fails to place proportional limits on recovery, leading to the not-unreasonable interpretation that anyone "affected financially" (such as a bank that must expend labor to make an account correction) may demand payment of "the total sum of losses" even though they were affected in a merely trivial way.
Also, Clause 5 does not inherently allow the immediate families of victims to assert their rights if the victim becomes incapacitated.
I don't believe the current repeal draft needs anything else, mind you. I'm just musing. Carry on!
Thanks for the support! At the moment I won't be including your suggested arguments in here as I think my one is strong enough for repeal - but it's definitely something for others to consider when voting.
Posted: Tue May 17, 2022 4:05 am