NationStates

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:00 pm**

Who determines what constitutes a crime?

Posted: **Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:57 pm**

Hey, does this mean we can treat members of organizations that use hacking as prisoners of war?

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:19 pm**

The Domain of Persia finds the definition of cyberweapon to be too strong, and wishes those in favor of the resolution to acknowledge that cyber weapons can be of much lower capacity and caliber than those mentioned in the resolution. This resolution does not regulate them, therefore we vote against.

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2018 8:45 pm**

Oh, great. Now it's an international crime to attack literal concentration camps just because the enemy calls them "hospitals."

Strong Against.

Posted: **Fri Oct 26, 2018 8:47 pm**

Poopsancagizal wrote:Oh, great. Now it's an international crime to attack literal concentration camps just because the enemy calls them "hospitals."

Strong Against.

Hospitals have long been protected

Posted: **Sat Oct 27, 2018 1:23 am**

Freepublican wrote:Hey, does this mean we can treat members of organizations that use hacking as prisoners of war?

(OOC: No, it means you can treat people who are part of hacking organisations as criminals, not prisoners of war.

Wabberjocky wrote:Who determines what constitutes a crime?

The WA in most cases, and, where there exists no GA law, member nations themselves. Due to the ambiguity of the current proposal, a member state has a lot of leeway as to what constitutes a cybercrime.

Poopsancagizal wrote:Oh, great. Now it's an international crime to attack literal concentration camps just because the enemy calls them "hospitals."

Strong Against.

The enemy cannot just call something a hospital, it must actually be a hospital to be protected by this proposal. If you disagree with that idea then unfortunately you have several resolutions which protect the status of medical facilities. I am also unsure as to what benefit a nation could gain from attacking concentration camps.)

Posted: **Sat Oct 27, 2018 3:29 am**

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Off the top of my head, I see the proposal defines cyberweapons as items that can cause "electronic or physical damage," and that the type of "cyberwarfare" which causes prohibited political damage can only be carried out with "cyberweapons." This has the odd effect of making it illegal for hackers and soldiers to cause political damage (since their devices must be classified as cyberweapons, being capable of causing electronic or physical damage), but ordinary/unskilled people may go right ahead and advocate (and succeed in!) overthrowing the government under this proposal, since their devices are simply not dangerous in that manner.

OOC: The proposal doesn't agree with you, though:

Hereby defines the usage of electronic devices that cause significant negative political, economic, industrial, or physical damage to another sovereign state an act of warfare, to be referred to as Cyberwarfare.

It doesn't mention anything about needing to be a professional hacker or soldier. If you as a regular civilian use your smartphone to arrange a successful political smear campaign (think things like using Facebook in a non-professional manner) against a prominent candidate in another nation (which may be your home nation! you just need to be in another nation) and they end up not getting elected in an important election, you've caused "significant negative political damage" nevertheless, and also, "Establishes these electronic devices or tools as Cyberweapons" and "to be designated and treated ... as" make your smartphone count as one. Or using your cellphone for stock trading in a mannner that can easily tank a nation's economy, if it rests on a single product (like Saudi Arabia's rests on oil) that you crash the market price for.

Now, if it was referring to nations officially causing said things to happen, then I'd agree with you. But there's no restriction on "usage".

Like I said before, it doesn't matter that a newborn baby isn't a nuclear weapon; if you're required to designate and treat it as one, then it legally counts as one. Think of RL examples of how new vehicles invented by people in history have been licenced under (and thus "designated and treated as", as far as legislation has been concerned) licence systems meant for existing, often radically different vehicles, simply because there wasn't a suitable existing category.

(EDIT: It seems destined to lose the vote, so no need to make an official challenge.)

Kenmoria wrote:
Freepublican wrote:Hey, does this mean we can treat members of organizations that use hacking as prisoners of war?

(OOC: No, it means you can’t rest people who are part of hacking organisations as criminals, not prisoners of war.

OOC: I presume that was meant to read "arrest".

And you might be right if not for the fact that using cyberweapons has been defined as a method of warfare. In my understanding people who carry out acts of war during a war, count as enemy combatants? So during a war, a hacker from the enemy nation would count as a prisoner of war if caught.

Posted: **Sat Oct 27, 2018 4:50 am**

Wabberjocky wrote:Who determines what constitutes a crime?

did you read it?

Posted: **Sat Oct 27, 2018 4:54 am**

Kenmoria wrote:
Freepublican wrote:Hey, does this mean we can treat members of organizations that use hacking as prisoners of war?

(OOC: No, it means you can treat people who are part of hacking organisations as criminals, not prisoners of war.
Wabberjocky wrote:Who determines what constitutes a crime?
The WA in most cases, and, where there exists no GA law, member nations themselves. Due to the ambiguity of the current proposal, a member state has a lot of leeway as to what constitutes a cybercrime.
Poopsancagizal wrote:Oh, great. Now it's an international crime to attack literal concentration camps just because the enemy calls them "hospitals."

Strong Against.
The enemy cannot just call something a hospital, it must actually be a hospital to be protected by this proposal. If you disagree with that idea then unfortunately you have several resolutions which protect the status of medical facilities. I am also unsure as to what benefit a nation could gain from attacking concentration camps.)

I know right. I think member states have ulterior motives for voting against this.
Also any form of attacks on civilians are haram so it is haram to Muslim nations to vote against this law
sources:
Book 008, Hadith Number 2663.
Book 019, Hadith Number 4319.

Posted: **Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:15 am**

Araraukar wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Off the top of my head, I see the proposal defines cyberweapons as items that can cause "electronic or physical damage," and that the type of "cyberwarfare" which causes prohibited political damage can only be carried out with "cyberweapons." This has the odd effect of making it illegal for hackers and soldiers to cause political damage (since their devices must be classified as cyberweapons, being capable of causing electronic or physical damage), but ordinary/unskilled people may go right ahead and advocate (and succeed in!) overthrowing the government under this proposal, since their devices are simply not dangerous in that manner.

OOC: The proposal doesn't agree with you, though:
Hereby defines the usage of electronic devices that cause significant negative political, economic, industrial, or physical damage to another sovereign state an act of warfare, to be referred to as Cyberwarfare.

It doesn't mention anything about needing to be a professional hacker or soldier. If you as a regular civilian use your smartphone to arrange a successful political smear campaign (think things like using Facebook in a non-professional manner) against a prominent candidate in another nation (which may be your home nation! you just need to be in another nation) and they end up not getting elected in an important election, you've caused "significant negative political damage" nevertheless, and also, "Establishes these electronic devices or tools as Cyberweapons" and "to be designated and treated ... as" make your smartphone count as one. Or using your cellphone for stock trading in a mannner that can easily tank a nation's economy, if it rests on a single product (like Saudi Arabia's rests on oil) that you crash the market price for.

Now, if it was referring to nations officially causing said things to happen, then I'd agree with you. But there's no restriction on "usage".

Like I said before, it doesn't matter that a newborn baby isn't a nuclear weapon; if you're required to designate and treat it as one, then it legally counts as one. Think of RL examples of how new vehicles invented by people in history have been licenced under (and thus "designated and treated as", as far as legislation has been concerned) licence systems meant for existing, often radically different vehicles, simply because there wasn't a suitable existing category.

OOC: TBH the resolution contradicts itself badly. Yes, there's the bit you cite, but there is also this:

Establishes these electronic devices or tools as Cyberweapons, to be designated and treated alongside conventional arms and weaponry as:

I. A means of causing significant electronic or physical damage that would warrant a proportional diplomatic or military response.

Followed by:

Designates further the legally binding definitions of the term Cyberwarfare as:

I. A warfare technique utilizing and relying on the class of weaponry defined under Clause I as cyberweapons.

II. A method of warfare which, using cyberweapons, causes significant economic, industrial, political, or physical damage to the target entity.

These sections wind up meaning that if the device is not capable of causing electronic or physical damage, nations are not required to treat it as a cyberweapon. Thus even a debilitating fake news campaign that gets a fascist demagogue in control of nuclear weapons and trade policy doesn't apply here, unless it was done using means that would also be capable of direct hacking (electronic damage) or worse (physical damage). Hence the comment about hackers and soldiers, which is not in the text but logically follows from it.

That it's poorly written doesn't make it illegal.

OTOH I agree that it seems unlikely to pass.

Posted: **Sat Oct 27, 2018 11:34 am**

Hey Ara, internal contradiction isn't illegal.

Posted: **Sat Oct 27, 2018 11:51 am**

Legal=/=Acceptable

Posted: **Sat Oct 27, 2018 1:37 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Hey Ara, internal contradiction isn't illegal.

OOC: Hey IA, never claimed it was.

Posted: **Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:34 pm**

Welp. The drawing board shall be cleaned and be used again very soon.

Posted: **Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:36 pm**

Will this stop hackers and keep the internet safe? That's up to debate.

Posted: **Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:07 pm**

Greater Cesnica wrote:Welp. The drawing board shall be cleaned and be used again very soon.

OOC: You can actually start a new draft on it right now in its own thread, you don't need to wait for the vote to end.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2018 12:46 am**

Taliostia wrote:Will this stop hackers and keep the internet safe? That's up to debate.

True but it is better than having no law to target civilians.
Now if a nation does that their leaders could be arrested for war crimes as could the hackers themselves and all other points of the chain of command.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:42 am**

Saranidia wrote:Now if a nation does that their leaders could be arrested for war crimes as could the hackers themselves and all other points of the chain of command.

OOC: The leaders could only be legally accused of that if they actually gave the orders to use cyberweapons on civilian targets. Besides, it's not like US President or UK royalty/prime minister got accused of warcrimes just because some of their soldiers committed some during WW2, nor did US president get accused of all the civilian deaths from using nukes in Japan, even knowing there'd be huge civilian casualties and also that they didn't actually need to use them. Chain of command only works up to whoever actually made the actual decision, and even then national leaders tend to get in trouble only if they're on the losing side.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:16 am**

Araraukar wrote:
Saranidia wrote:Now if a nation does that their leaders could be arrested for war crimes as could the hackers themselves and all other points of the chain of command.

OOC: The leaders could only be legally accused of that if they actually gave the orders to use cyberweapons on civilian targets. Besides, it's not like US President or UK royalty/prime minister got accused of warcrimes just because some of their soldiers committed some during WW2, nor did US president get accused of all the civilian deaths from using nukes in Japan, even knowing there'd be huge civilian casualties and also that they didn't actually need to use them. Chain of command only works up to whoever actually made the actual decision, and even then national leaders tend to get in trouble only if they're on the losing side.

OOC: true but the white house torture memo people even if they are not prosecuted are prisoners in America because Spain for example says they will prosecute.

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:20 am**

The Grand Mufti of Saranidia Suleiman Al Gaddafi condemns the idea of voting against this

Posted: **Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:53 pm**

Saranidia wrote:The Grand Mufti of Saranidia Suleiman Al Gaddafi condemns the idea of voting against this

"And I'm sure you would do that for the same reasons why I'll be yelled at for logging Araraukar's vote "against"; because of the government wanting to have the power to strip people of modern communication devices for the flimsiest of reasons. Makes the masses easier to control."

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:42 am**

Araraukar wrote:
Saranidia wrote:The Grand Mufti of Saranidia Suleiman Al Gaddafi condemns the idea of voting against this

"And I'm sure you would do that for the same reasons why I'll be yelled at for logging Araraukar's vote "against"; because of the government wanting to have the power to strip people of modern communication devices for the flimsiest of reasons. Makes the masses easier to control."

"not true!
We are against cyber atrocities!"

Posted: **Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:01 am**

"Cyberweapons Control Act" was defeated 10,741 votes to 5,010.

Posted: **Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:27 pm**

Hey everyone. Due to recent IRL business, I have been unbale to monitor this thread, but I'm back. I'm working on trimming the resolution, and rewording and structuring it to be more suitable. I plan to resubmit this soon.

Posted: **Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:01 pm**

It is customary to allow defeated resolution threads to be archived for historical purposes, rather than writing over them for a second attempt. I strongly recommend that you revert the changes made here and open a new thread for this new proposal effort.

NationStates

[DEFEATED] Cyberweapons Control Act

hacker orgs