[DRAFT] Right to Encyrption Privacy

[Blyskalia]

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZES the tech dependent climate in which the world is situated;

UNDERSTANDS technology, namely smartphones and desktop computers, has become the de facto standard of communication and thus, increasingly relevant in trials, tribunals, etc;

DEEPLY CONCERNED that Governments and Governmental Organizations wish to gain access to encrypted devices and/or files without the consent of the owner nor with regard to the specific method of software development used to create said encryption;

REAFFIRMS World Assembly Resolution #213 “Privacy Protection Act” which states the following:
“Declares that every person has a right to privacy that extends to all lawful actions that occur out of public view and to all lawful actions, places, and other matters for which a subjective expectation of privacy and a reasonable, or objective, expectation of privacy exist”

DECLARES ACCORDINGLY that all Member Nations are hereby prohibited from:
1. Using decrypted data during a trial from a device owned by a citizen who has not yet been found guilty of the crime for which said device has been in some way implicated.
2. Decrypting data from the device of a citizen without their express consent and full understanding of the ramifications of said action.
3. Requesting that a corporation, holding company, or corporate entity of any kind, decrypt a device or provide a decryption key (also known as a ‘backdoor’) for any device manufactured by the respective corporate entity.
4. Decrypting the data of one’s own Governmental Agencies and/or Organizations without following the proper procedural conduct as set forth by the individual Member Nation.
5. Using decrypted information to elicit a confession or to gain information in a trial or during an investigation

ADDS THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS:
1. Member Nations, may, in a time of war, decrypt the data and information of armed forces personnel and agencies without consent or knowledge to guarantee the informational security of the armed forces apparatus.
2. Member Nations may also, in a time of war, decrypt the data of enemy armed forces personnel, civilians, and agencies of an enemy nation without consent or knowledge.

FORMS the Encryption Privacy Oversight Board (EPOB) to monitor compliance, develop policies, and assess threats to encryption privacy as to guarantee both the privacy and safety of the citizen and their information.

[Stoskavanya]

The World Assembly,
DECLARES ACCORDINGLY that all Member Nations are hereby prohibited from:
1. Using decrypted data during a trial from a device owned by a citizen who has not yet been found guilty of the crime for which said device has been in some way implicated.
2. Decrypting data from the device of a citizen without their express consent and full understanding of the ramifications of said action.
3. Requesting that a corporation, holding company, or corporate entity of any kind, decrypt a device or provide a decryption key (also known as a ‘backdoor’) for any device manufactured by the respective corporate entity.
4. Decrypting the data of one’s own Governmental Agencies and/or Organizations without following the proper procedural conduct as set forth by the individual Member Nation.
5. Using decrypted information to elicit a confession or to gain information in a trial or during an investigation

Stoskavanya is very reluctant to have such strong prohibitions on methods to find the truth in judicial proceedings.

Also what about warrants?

[Auralia]

1. Using decrypted data during a trial from a device owned by a citizen who has not yet been found guilty of the crime for which said device has been in some way implicated.
2. Decrypting data from the device of a citizen without their express consent and full understanding of the ramifications of said action.

[..]

5. Using decrypted information to elicit a confession or to gain information in a trial or during an investigation

These provisions essentially bar member states from engaging in any criminal investigation involving the use of encrypted data or using encrypted data as evidence in a judicial proceeding, even with procedural safeguards in place such as requiring judicial authorizations for searches on the basis of probable cause. Is that really what you want to do?

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Imperium Anglorum]

We will not support this proposal. In the same way that things can be searched by the constabulary after a warrant has been issued, non-inclusion of a warranted search exception is a red line. The delegation has not read all that much into the proposal's effects beyond the initial concern, more may arise later.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

We concur with the prior delegations. Some allowance must be made for conducting legitimate criminal investigations. We cannot, in good conscience, accept a resolution that does not allow our magistrates to pursue relevant information within a legal investigation.

[Kenmoria]

"Whilst we like to think that we are a country with strong cybersecurity and the right to privacy is guaranteed in normal life. An exception must be made within the EXCEPTIONS section for valid use if a sapient being is suspected to have committed a crime. I also would add that clause 5 lacks finishing punctuation and I don't like the idea of normal civilians from an enemy nation having their data stolen."

[The New California Republic]

OOC: This has already been submitted, so why on earth does the thread title say "draft"???

[Kenmoria]

OOC: This has already been submitted, so why on earth does the thread title say "draft"???

(OOC: No draft, no support.)

[The New California Republic]

OOC: This has already been submitted, so why on earth does the thread title say "draft"???

(OOC: No draft, no support.)

OOC: Yup. The pet hate rears its ugly head again: submitting a draft on the forums while submitting said draft to the proposals queue at the same time.

[Rafterland]

"I think everyone agrees here that this proposal is way too closed-minded. The lack of foresight when it comes to nations entering the digital age, trying to adapt to the new methods of criminality opposed to them, is entirely unacceptable and should be acted upon in a potential next draft, improving on the necessary judiciary provisions."

[Imperium Anglorum]

It should be old news that this has been submitted. But you should be informed that this has also been campaigned for.

[Grays Harbor]

Simplistic one size fits nobody garbage with bad consequences far exceeding any minor benefit that could be gleaned from it.

[Minoa]

Given the number of active resolutions, successfully submitting a proposal without peer review is an extremely difficult task, and many GA regulars have high expectations.

Although you submitted it as the Right to Digital Privacy, the title of the thread might raise suspicions from some GA regulars: it is Right to Encryption Privacy, and not Right to Encyrption Privacy.

-- Ms S. Harper.

[Grays Harbor]

DECLARES ACCORDINGLY that all Member Nations are hereby prohibited from:

1. Using decrypted data during a trial from a device owned by a citizen who has not yet been found guilty of the crime for which said device has been in some way implicated.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Evidence? Ever hear of it? "But you can't look for evidence until the person is convicted". WTF?

2. Decrypting data from the device of a citizen without their express consent and full understanding of the ramifications of said action.

Warrant? Ever hear of it?

3. Requesting that a corporation, holding company, or corporate entity of any kind, decrypt a device or provide a decryption key (also known as a ‘backdoor’) for any device manufactured by the respective corporate entity.

Warrant? Ever hear of it?

Bah.

This whole thing is one of the most poorly thought out and researched travesties I have seen here.

[Rafterland]

ATTN : RP Department of Legislation Communiqué :

It has come to the attention of the Rafterian Partenariat that GA Proposal ID blyskalia_1522812869 is going to reach quorum soon.

We have already expressed our disapproval of this proposal publicly and would like to reiterate on our previous statements.

Should the concerned proposal be passed by the World Assembly, the Rafterian Partenariat will not hesitate to attempt to repeal it and replace it immediately with a much broader and open-minded law, which will with no doubt address the issues of national stability, espionage and privacy protection way more properly.

We will wait for the conclusion of the proposal process to present the current replacement draft to the Assembly.

In the meantime, we welcome any contact at the Rafterian Office of Foreign Affairs if you would like to voice your concerns about the incoming replacement.

For the Rafterian Partenariat,
Director of the Department of Legislation Helmut GOLDENCOCK (no relation.)

[Arotania]

On what level is this proposal even supposed to work from a technical perspective?
Proper encryption cannot be decrypted by a third party period. It is (easily) provable to be impossible to decrypt a simple XOR with a one-time pad. On the other end of the spectrum - how laughably bad could an encryption be before this proposal didn't apply anymore? Would ROT13 count?
This proposal is severely lacking in display of any understanding of the technological questions at hand. The objections raised by our esteemed collegues as well as the impolite refusal of the submittee to engage in constructive discussion further reinforce our stance to oppose this proposal. We will work to show our regional neighbours the deficits of this proposal.

[The New California Republic]

On what level is this proposal even supposed to work from a technical perspective?
Proper encryption cannot be decrypted by a third party period. It is (easily) provable to be impossible to decrypt a simple XOR with a one-time pad. On the other end of the spectrum - how laughably bad could an encryption be before this proposal didn't apply anymore? Would ROT13 count?
This proposal is severely lacking in display of any understanding of the technological questions at hand. The objections raised by our esteemed collegues as well as the impolite refusal of the submittee to engage in constructive discussion further reinforce our stance to oppose this proposal. We will work to show our regional neighbours the deficits of this proposal.

OOC: This was my objection to it as well. It throws around the word "decryption" as something that the authorities are allowed to do under certain circumstances, it assumes that it is something that is easy to do and can be done on a whim, like just opening an unlocked door. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the encryption standards in the universe of NationStates are roughly equivalent to our own in the modern world. Trying to decrypt an encrypted file that is properly encrypted using up-to-date techniques is more akin to trying to break into Fort Knox, it is a technical and logistical challenge that requires serious manpower, technology, and resources in order to even attempt it. And even then there is no guarantee that it will be successful, as brute force techniques are ineffective, and the few exploits using weaknesses in the encryption are confined to a very limited set of circumstances. The assumptions that this proposal makes are completely unrealistic. It is akin to the World Assembly giving governments the right to reverse time itself, i.e. something that is completely ridiculous and unobtainable.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Change the tag from [DRAFT] to [SUBMITTED] if it has been submitted.)

[Wrapper]

Looks like, since the OP was posted, this was edited, submitted, and deemed illegal by GenSec for contradicting GAR#213.

[The New California Republic]

Looks like, since the OP was posted, this was edited, submitted, and deemed illegal by GenSec for contradicting GAR#213.

OOC: Tbh I think that this has been abandoned. There has been no word from the author since the first post. I don't think that they are coming back. Just another "submit without drafting and then leave forever" player.