[PASSED] Repeal "Protecting Personal Data"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Repeal "Protecting Personal Data"
Category: Repeal

---

This august World Assembly,

Believing that data ought to be protected, but that the target resolution has serious flaws which impose significant harms on society,

Resolving that:

1. firms which collect personal data now have perverse incentives to not collect any data that identifies age or proxies thereof, so to fall into the exemption provided by section 2(a), and
2. minors can have legitimate reasons to have personal data stored without the explicit approval of their guardians, especially in relation to evidence of child abuse and, less seriously, in personal data associated with accounts on social networks,

Further resolving that courts not being able to require the production of information in civil cases:

1. makes it possible for people to hide information from the court, making the court rule on an unclear or biased view of the facts, and
2. harms the ability of private actors to get data that could be needed for securing injunctive relief or damages from the respondent, and

Conceding that repeal is the only option, as it is impossible to amend legislation and patch these issues, hereby:

Repeals "Protecting Personal Data".

[Imperium Anglorum]

The resolution at vote has some major problems that act against a number of compelling practical purposes. My repeal highlights two classes of problems.

First, in relation to minors. The easy way to evade the regulation is simply to remove from your database any column having to do with age. Then, when anyone asks, you say we don't collect any such data. Assuming, arguendo, firms collect that data, lots of firms deal with minors and adults, like RuneScape, NationStates, etc. Game companies, social networks, and other firms all have reasons to have that data, if solely to comply with age restrictions.¹ I think it's unjust to make them contingent on guardian approval, insofar as a person is not spending their guardian's money. If you believe that children are the property of their parents and in really strong parental authority, then we have a fundamental disagreement here. I think it violates a person's right to privacy and property, even if that person is not considered to be fully a person under the law. Basically, adolescents have rights. Also, minors can have personal information stored on their behalf. By, say, a business contracted by the government to maintain some database, which also happens to contain records having to do with child abuse. That's probably important, and we should not prohibit that.

More generally, the specific thing that we don't like should be regulated. It is not business possessing a minor's information which is the bad. It is business doing bad things with a minor's information. That is separate from the act of possessing it, and the soon-to-be resolution should have written its requirements with that separation in mind.

Second, in relation to civil actions. The soon-to-be resolution provides for government actors looking at personal data only if they issue search warrants or in relation to criminal investigations and trials. For background, courts are government actors. Criminal investigations and trials are not civil ones.² And civil actions do not include search warrants, which are documents indemnifying the police from privacy regulations. Instead, under penalty (id est, sub poena), private actors have to produce documents to the court. Why is this good? First, it's probably better for courts to have more information than less, so they can reach more just conclusions on all the evidence rather than just some of it. And second, private actors are not the state, and to maximise damages of and to secure injunctive relief from the respondent requires specific evidence that the respondent did some thing. To get that information requires an order to produce it under penalty, not a search warrant. And tort (or civil wrong) actions are not criminal ones.

—
¹ I'm also not of the opinion that in the real world, that collected data is of much use. I'm pretty sure that most everyone, when they signed up for Facebook or RuneScape, lied about their age.
² Also, as an aside, if you interpret the word "criminal" to not apply to the word "trial" (which you shouldn't, but anyway, if you do), before a trial is discovery. And discovery is not the trial.

[Marxist Germany]

"I will be voting for as many flaws have been brought to me after the target went to vote and will be hoping to draft a replacement."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Believing that data ought to be protected, but that the target resolution has significant flaws which impose significant harms on society,

"I might alter one instance of the word 'significant' to some synonym such as 'substantial' or 'serious.' The substance, however, is solid."

[Araraukar]

IC: "Support. Minors should not be excempt from data collection simply due to their age."

OOC: I know, I know...

[Imperium Anglorum]

Accepted suggestion from SL

[Uan aa Boa]

I fully support repealing this. I believe you should also make reference to the incredible vagueness that comes from not defining what is meant by a business, and the fact that on the most charitable reading this seems to allow governments and individuals to process data however they like while leaving scope for "businesses" to avoid regulation by acting through agents or subsidiaries.

[Kenmoria]

“In your ‘further resolving’ clause, consider ‘release’ rather than ‘production’, since no new data is being created.”

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:This has been submitted, good luck.

[Typica]

It's been said many times why we can't amend active legislation, and none of which I have found convincing. I find it untenable to support these repeals until active legislation has already made them redundant.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It's been said many times why we can't amend active legislation, and none of which I have found convincing. I find it untenable to support these repeals until active legislation has already made them redundant.

Amendments are illegal. You cannot duplicate or contradict extant legislation. Also illegal. Attempting to pass illegal legislation is impossible, so your desire is impossible.

[Wallenburg]

The arguments made in this repeal are entirely unconvincing, and have little relevance to the actual effects of this resolution.

[Kenmoria]

“I support this proposal, especially since the authoring delegation themselves have admitted to several flaws in the target resolution.”

It's been said many times why we can't amend active legislation, and none of which I have found convincing. I find it untenable to support these repeals until active legislation has already made them redundant.

(OOC: In addition to amendments begin illegal, the main reason that we can’t pass them is that they are impossible to code by the admins.)

[Typica]

(OOC: In addition to amendments begin illegal, the main reason that we can’t pass them is that they are impossible to code by the admins.)

Yeah, I've read that and as someone who works back end web development, I find it entirely unconvincing. Every legislation passed, even repeals are amending existing law. If the powers that be just like the system the way it is, that's a different problem.

[Marxist Germany]

(OOC: In addition to amendments begin illegal, the main reason that we can’t pass them is that they are impossible to code by the admins.)

Yeah, I've read that and as someone who works back end web development, I find it entirely unconvincing. Every legislation passed, even repeals are amending existing law. If the powers that be just like the system the way it is, that's a different problem.

OOC:Stat changes.

[Bananoonza]

I vote agains the repeal as it preying on fear. We have criminal investigation and evidence collection for the reason of discovering the truth. We have laws for a reason. Protecting the privacy has nothing to do with it.

If that is the case, how we can be sure that our personal data cannot be manipulated, taken out of contest and used against us by the data holders.

I say “Nay”

[Austronta]

(Image)
Repeal "Protecting Personal Data"
Category: Repeal

---

This august World Assembly,

Believing that data ought to be protected, but that the target resolution has serious flaws which impose significant harms on society,

Resolving that:

1. firms which collect personal data now have perverse incentives to not collect any data that identifies age or proxies thereof, so to fall into the exemption provided by section 2(a), and
2. minors can have legitimate reasons to have personal data stored without the explicit approval of their guardians, especially in relation to evidence of child abuse and, less seriously, in personal data associated with accounts on social networks,

Further resolving that courts not being able to require the production of information in civil cases:

1. makes it possible for people to hide information from the court, making the court rule on an unclear or biased view of the facts, and
2. harms the ability of private actors to get data that could be needed for securing injunctive relief or damages from the respondent, and

Conceding that repeal is the only option, as it is impossible to amend legislation and patch these issues, hereby:

Repeals "Protecting Personal Data".

At least this is being voted on because parts of the law that is being repealed were unclear. How could the World Assembly enforce laws where the definition of the person it applies to is different? Different nations have different ages of majority.

[Kenmoria]

(Image)
Repeal "Protecting Personal Data"
Category: Repeal

---

This august World Assembly,

Believing that data ought to be protected, but that the target resolution has serious flaws which impose significant harms on society,

Resolving that:

1. firms which collect personal data now have perverse incentives to not collect any data that identifies age or proxies thereof, so to fall into the exemption provided by section 2(a), and
2. minors can have legitimate reasons to have personal data stored without the explicit approval of their guardians, especially in relation to evidence of child abuse and, less seriously, in personal data associated with accounts on social networks,

Further resolving that courts not being able to require the production of information in civil cases:

1. makes it possible for people to hide information from the court, making the court rule on an unclear or biased view of the facts, and
2. harms the ability of private actors to get data that could be needed for securing injunctive relief or damages from the respondent, and

Conceding that repeal is the only option, as it is impossible to amend legislation and patch these issues, hereby:

Repeals "Protecting Personal Data".

At least this is being voted on because parts of the law that is being repealed were unclear. How could the World Assembly enforce laws where the definition of the person it applies to is different? Different nations have different ages of majority.

(OOC: The target resolution was worded in that way deliberately since it is actually illegal to set fixed age limits. This is because, in the General Assembly, there are numerous species, some of which may die in their early teens, so having an age of 18 wouldn’t work.)

[Chairman Cities]

Good Lunch Hour From The US-EU Governments As The President Is Out For The Weekend The Weekend Delegation Will Head The Nations Government. The Lead Delegate Posted The Following " As We Can Not Force The Government To Do We Can Only Make Suggestions This Current Repeal Is Needed As The Current Justice System Is Dealing With A Criminal Case Where All The Evidence Needed Is Held In The Criminals Phone But Certain Legislation ViA G.A. Makes It "Kinda" Hard To Force The Company To Crack The Phones Lock Code.
As The Nations WA Committee Wishes Not To Vote On This Issue The Administration Will Be Watching Very Closely.

[Marxist Germany]

Good Lunch Hour From The US-EU Governments As The President Is Out For The Weekend The Weekend Delegation Will Head The Nations Government. The Lead Delegate Posted The Following " As We Can Not Force The Government To Do We Can Only Make Suggestions This Current Repeal Is Needed As The Current Justice System Is Dealing With A Criminal Case Where All The Evidence Needed Is Held In The Criminals Phone But Certain Legislation ViA G.A. Makes It "Kinda" Hard To Force The Company To Crack The Phones Lock Code.
As The Nations WA Committee Wishes Not To Vote On This Issue The Administration Will Be Watching Very Closely.

OOC:
1. This is incoherent, stop speaking newspeak.
2. Don't capitalise every word

[United States of Americanas]

My vote is a no, unless you have plans to write a replacement piece of legislation immediately following the passage of this repeal

[Marxist Germany]

My vote is a no, unless you have plans to write a replacement piece of legislation immediately following the passage of this repeal

OOC:That's happening

[Paul Pasch]

I think that this new repeal resolution is indicative of many resolutions I have seen in the past: a resolution is approved, and then a few weeks later a new resolution comes up to repeal the previous resolution on some minor technicality, concluding that, until the initial resolution can be fixed, it must be repealed. However, I have yet to see a new version of the resolution appear with the changes included. So I am voting NO on this resolution because, while it contains many flaws, it is better than we keep what we have and fix that than to just scrap everything claiming that something better will come along, when history proves that it never does.

[Marxist Germany]

I think that this new repeal resolution is indicative of many resolutions I have seen in the past: a resolution is approved, and then a few weeks later a new resolution comes up to repeal the previous resolution on some minor technicality, concluding that, until the initial resolution can be fixed, it must be repealed. However, I have yet to see a new version of the resolution appear with the changes included. So I am voting NO on this resolution because, while it contains many flaws, it is better than we keep what we have and fix that than to just scrap everything claiming that something better will come along, when history proves that it never does.

OOC: Replacement Draft thread

[JoKemTer]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL