[PASSED] Protecting Personal Data

[Dunmoyle]

In full support. I authored a very similar proposal, called "Right To Privacy", but it failed to receive adequate support. This is a great start, and I hope this plan gets passed. HOWEVER, I have one big concern with the language of clause 3e. "e. Corporations allow users to request the deletion of their data from the storage of the corporation completely." Under the language of the plan, anyone can request the data be deleted, but companies/businesses are not required to comply. You should change the language to require compliance.

In the same line, the resolution says that companies must comply with requests to delete data from their users, so I think that isn't much of a concern.

[Dunmoyle]

I'm in full support of it, and if you put this in the queue for the World Assembly, since I'm a WA Delegate, I will give it my endorsement. It covers and issue that hasn't been sufficiently covered by the WA and does it in a way that is effective but still allows for the use of personal data is open, ethical situations or when it's needed.

My one nitpick would be about criminal investigations. I would say that you should require some kind of warrant for the government to obtain personal data, otherwise this resolution could be creatively interpreted and governments could seize personal data and claim it's part of a criminal investigation without any kind of check on that. Other than that though, great proposal.

[Hatzisland]

In full support. I authored a very similar proposal, called "Right To Privacy", but it failed to receive adequate support. This is a great start, and I hope this plan gets passed. HOWEVER, I have one big concern with the language of clause 3e. "e. Corporations allow users to request the deletion of their data from the storage of the corporation completely." Under the language of the plan, anyone can request the data be deleted, but companies/businesses are not required to comply. You should change the language to require compliance.

In the same line, the resolution says that companies must comply with requests to delete data from their users, so I think that isn't much of a concern.

I know it was resolved. It was an old complaint.

[Marxist Germany]

My one nitpick would be about criminal investigations. I would say that you should require some kind of warrant for the government to obtain personal data, otherwise this resolution could be creatively interpreted and governments could seize personal data and claim it's part of a criminal investigation without any kind of check on that. Other than that though, great proposal.

Fixed that.

[Marxist Germany]

"As it stands clause 2a will be staying"

[Kenmoria]

“3d seems troubling for businesses that are subcontractors of the government, or otherwise do work where complete deletion of data could cause a lot of harm. Private prisons, which are the majority of prisons in Kenmoria, come to mind.”

[Marxist Germany]

"Hopefully we are placing the finishing touches on this proposal"

[Kenmoria]

"Hopefully we are placing the finishing touches on this proposal"

“The new clause 3d doesn’t quite do it for me, sorry. What I meant was that, for example, a prison would need to keep height, weight, appearance, name and age on their database. It would be ludicrous for a prisoner to demand that the private prison in which he or she is living delete all records on him. Likewise, parents shouldn’t have the right to demand that private schools, which are businesses, delete all attendance and behavioural records.”

[Marxist Germany]

"Hopefully we are placing the finishing touches on this proposal"

“The new clause 3d doesn’t quite do it for me, sorry. What I meant was that, for example, a prison would need to keep height, weight, appearance, name and age on their database. It would be ludicrous for a prisoner to demand that the private prison in which he or she is living delete all records on him. Likewise, parents shouldn’t have the right to demand that private schools, which are businesses, delete all attendance and behavioural records.”

"Can you try to make a suggestion as to how it should be worded?"

[Kenmoria]

“The new clause 3d doesn’t quite do it for me, sorry. What I meant was that, for example, a prison would need to keep height, weight, appearance, name and age on their database. It would be ludicrous for a prisoner to demand that the private prison in which he or she is living delete all records on him. Likewise, parents shouldn’t have the right to demand that private schools, which are businesses, delete all attendance and behavioural records.”

"Can you try to make a suggestion as to how it should be worded?"

“I suggest: ‘Businesses allow for requests for the removal of personal data to be made, and act upon these requests unless there is a compelling safety or disciplinary reason to do otherwise’. This also covers employees asking that their data on how many times they were late for work is removed.”

[Marxist Germany]

"Can you try to make a suggestion as to how it should be worded?"

“I suggest: ‘Businesses allow for requests for the removal of personal data to be made, and act upon these requests unless there is a compelling safety or disciplinary reason to do otherwise’. This also covers employees asking that their data on how many times they were late for work is removed.”

"I believe this could create loopholes, but nonetheless I'll add it."

[Hatzisland]

“I suggest: ‘Businesses allow for requests for the removal of personal data to be made, and act upon these requests unless there is a compelling safety or disciplinary reason to do otherwise’. This also covers employees asking that their data on how many times they were late for work is removed.”

"I believe this could create loopholes, but nonetheless I'll add it."

I agree, but the language should be changed. Change "compelling" to "clear and very compelling", just to close any loopholes.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I believe this could create loopholes, but nonetheless I'll add it."

I agree, but the language should be changed. Change "compelling" to "clear and very compelling", just to close any loopholes.

"That closes no loopholes."

[Marxist Germany]

I agree, but the language should be changed. Change "compelling" to "clear and very compelling", just to close any loopholes.

"That closes no loopholes."

"Does defining or giving examples to such reasons help close the loophole Mr Secretary"

[Hatzisland]

I agree, but the language should be changed. Change "compelling" to "clear and very compelling", just to close any loopholes.

"That closes no loopholes."

It makes it much harder for companies to get access to your personal information, and makes sure that there is a clear reason to do so. It would make sure companies can't violate privacy rights for no or little reason.

[Kenmoria]

"That closes no loopholes."

It makes it much harder for companies to get access to your personal information, and makes sure that there is a clear reason to do so. It would make sure companies can't violate privacy rights for no or little reason.

“That is not how any of this works. The loopholes the ambassador from Marxist Germany was most likely talking about were based on what constitutes ‘compelling’, which would not be solved by changing it to ‘clear and very compelling’. Both terms are equally as vague. I do acknowledge the problem of my wording, but I can’t see a way to fix it without excluding legitimate purposes where it makes sense for data to not be deleted.

In my opinion, is better to have loopholes a member nation can fix by tightening up the definition of ‘compelling’ in their legislature, than to ban member nations from allowing legitimate purposes for data deletion to be refused, which cannot be fixed without a repeal of General Assembly law. Though, of course, if you can find a way to close the loopholes, that would be even better.”

[Marxist Germany]

It makes it much harder for companies to get access to your personal information, and makes sure that there is a clear reason to do so. It would make sure companies can't violate privacy rights for no or little reason.

“That is not how any of this works. The loopholes the ambassador from Marxist Germany was most likely talking about were based on what constitutes ‘compelling’, which would not be solved by changing it to ‘clear and very compelling’. Both terms are equally as vague. I do acknowledge the problem of my wording, but I can’t see a way to fix it without excluding legitimate purposes where it makes sense for data to not be deleted.

In my opinion, is better to have loopholes a member nation can fix by tightening up the definition of ‘compelling’ in their legislature, than to ban member nations from allowing legitimate purposes for data deletion to be refused, which cannot be fixed without a repeal of General Assembly law. Though, of course, if you can find a way to close the loopholes, that would be even better.”

"Do you have any other objections to this proposal before we submit it Mr Ambassador?"

[Kenmoria]

“That is not how any of this works. The loopholes the ambassador from Marxist Germany was most likely talking about were based on what constitutes ‘compelling’, which would not be solved by changing it to ‘clear and very compelling’. Both terms are equally as vague. I do acknowledge the problem of my wording, but I can’t see a way to fix it without excluding legitimate purposes where it makes sense for data to not be deleted.

In my opinion, is better to have loopholes a member nation can fix by tightening up the definition of ‘compelling’ in their legislature, than to ban member nations from allowing legitimate purposes for data deletion to be refused, which cannot be fixed without a repeal of General Assembly law. Though, of course, if you can find a way to close the loopholes, that would be even better.”

"Do you have any other objections to this proposal before we submit it Mr Ambassador?"

(OOC: I recommend that this is currently in a submittable state, unless anyone else comes up with a serious issue. IC I’m opposed because Kenmoria allows companies to literally install spy cameras in its employees’ homes, but OOC this has my support.)

[Hatzisland]

It makes it much harder for companies to get access to your personal information, and makes sure that there is a clear reason to do so. It would make sure companies can't violate privacy rights for no or little reason.

“That is not how any of this works. The loopholes the ambassador from Marxist Germany was most likely talking about were based on what constitutes ‘compelling’, which would not be solved by changing it to ‘clear and very compelling’. Both terms are equally as vague. I do acknowledge the problem of my wording, but I can’t see a way to fix it without excluding legitimate purposes where it makes sense for data to not be deleted.

In my opinion, is better to have loopholes a member nation can fix by tightening up the definition of ‘compelling’ in their legislature, than to ban member nations from allowing legitimate purposes for data deletion to be refused, which cannot be fixed without a repeal of General Assembly law. Though, of course, if you can find a way to close the loopholes, that would be even better.”

It will still make it easier to sue companies that spy on you if they are required to have a clear reason, along with that reason being very compelling to a judge. There needs to be a high threshold for spying, and I don't think saying there has to be a "compelling reason" goes far enough.

[Kurmedistan]

We like the draft as is, although we do worry about the potential for loopholes and workarounds. There should be a clear set of guidelines regarding the language used to indicate both data collection and the opt-out process. The opt-out process should also have reasonable rules in place, a certain time line for companies to get into compliance or provide records, for example.

There are a lot of technical aspects that will probably need to be sorted out, both on an individual nation scale and globally.

[Marxist Germany]

We like the draft as is, although we do worry about the potential for loopholes and workarounds. There should be a clear set of guidelines regarding the language used to indicate both data collection and the opt-out process. The opt-out process should also have reasonable rules in place, a certain time line for companies to get into compliance or provide records, for example.

There are a lot of technical aspects that will probably need to be sorted out, both on an individual nation scale and globally.

"We would love to know the exact technical aspects that should be sorted out"

[Hatzisland]

Just approved. Thank you for listening to our concerns, and we hope to see this proposal become international law.

[Marxist Germany]

Just approved. Thank you for listening to our concerns, and we hope to see this proposal become international law.

"The delegation of Marxist Germany thanks your delegation for helping us draft this proposal into a submittable state"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Why have you barred courts from assessing damages against businesses that abuse consumers under this proposal?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"That closes no loopholes."

It makes it much harder for companies to get access to your personal information, and makes sure that there is a clear reason to do so. It would make sure companies can't violate privacy rights for no or little reason.

"Clear and very compelling is just as much a judgment call as compelling. A nation can justify one as easily as the other. It does not actually raise the difficulty of justification. You're just wrong. Which is increasingly common."