[PASSED] Right To Secure Digital Communication

[CoraSpia]

"This receives my full support, ambassador."

OOC: Now if only we can get NationStates to stop blocking people from logging into their nations whilst using TOR.

((OOC: Tor was used some time ago in order to fuck with NS' systems, I believe. Other privacy-enhancing services are available and are known to work.))

[Greater Cesnica]

"This receives my full support, ambassador."

OOC: Now if only we can get NationStates to stop blocking people from logging into their nations whilst using TOR.

OOC: Tor's just annoying to use for clearnet browsing. If one's concerned about privacy, do Brave+a paid VPN

IC: "Thank you, Ambassador!"

[Greater Cesnica]

This has been submitted: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1612933360

[Jedinsto]

I will be voting for.

[Greater Cesnica]

I will be voting for.

Also, this has now reached queue.

[Greater Cesnica]

At vote.

[Yuu-nyan]

The General Assembly,

The Republic of Yuu-nyan mostly stands behind this resolution. However, we are worried about 2b, which states that member nations may not act to reduce the strength of any encryption method. Does this mean that member nations may not attempt to crack any encryption algorithm, even if it's for the sole purpose of making sure that the encryption method used within a member nation's governmental entities is safe?

[Greater Cesnica]

The General Assembly,

The Republic of Yuu-nyan mostly stands behind this resolution. However, we are worried about 2b, which states that member nations may not act to reduce the strength of any encryption method. Does this mean that member nations may not attempt to crack any encryption algorithm, even if it's for the sole purpose of making sure that the encryption method used within a member nation's governmental entities is safe?

Strength testing would not fall under that provision. That provision specifically prevents member states from compromising the core integrity of an encryption method; it does not prevent member states from developing their own tools to strength test an encryption method.

[Yuu-nyan]

The General Assembly,

The Republic of Yuu-nyan mostly stands behind this resolution. However, we are worried about 2b, which states that member nations may not act to reduce the strength of any encryption method. Does this mean that member nations may not attempt to crack any encryption algorithm, even if it's for the sole purpose of making sure that the encryption method used within a member nation's governmental entities is safe?

Strength testing would not fall under that provision. That provision specifically prevents member states from compromising the core integrity of an encryption method; it does not prevent member states from developing their own tools to strength test an encryption method.

Then the Republic of Yuu-nyan fully stands behind this resvolution, and will be voting for it.

[Greater Cesnica]

Strength testing would not fall under that provision. That provision specifically prevents member states from compromising the core integrity of an encryption method; it does not prevent member states from developing their own tools to strength test an encryption method.

Then the Republic of Yuu-nyan fully stands behind this resvolution, and will be voting for it.

Thank you : D

[Alpha Carinae]

While we appreciate the goal of this proposal, there is a major flaw, unless we are missing something: clause 2a restricts the government from

Banning or restricting user access to any encryption method or other secure communication method, and from enacting any prohibitions upon the implementation of encryption methods or secure communication methods, subject to Article 3

This leaves open a wide hole for nefarious individuals or groups. By tying the government's hands in this way, someone could create an "encryption method" that on the surface might seem fine, but underneath may have backdoors or other security flaws. This clause prevents the government from taking quick and decisive action to protect their people in these instances and allows the individuals in question to potentially bog down the whole process in lengthy court battles.

Again, the overall idea is good, but this clause makes it unsuitable. If it were changed to include the situation mentioned above or if we were convinced that we're somehow misreading the resolution, fine. As it is, however, the Kingdom of Alpha Carinae cannot support this resolution.

Pax,
James Walker
Ambassador to the World Assembly from Alpha Carinae

[Greater Cesnica]

While we appreciate the goal of this proposal, there is a major flaw, unless we are missing something: clause 2a restricts the government from

Banning or restricting user access to any encryption method or other secure communication method, and from enacting any prohibitions upon the implementation of encryption methods or secure communication methods, subject to Article 3

This leaves open a wide hole for nefarious individuals or groups. By tying the government's hands in this way, someone could create an "encryption method" that on the surface might seem fine, but underneath may have backdoors or other security flaws. This clause prevents the government from taking quick and decisive action to protect their people in these instances and allows the individuals in question to potentially bog down the whole process in lengthy court battles.

Again, the overall idea is good, but this clause makes it unsuitable. If it were changed to include the situation mentioned above or if we were convinced that we're somehow misreading the resolution, fine. As it is, however, the Kingdom of Alpha Carinae cannot support this resolution.

Pax,
James Walker
Ambassador to the World Assembly from Alpha Carinae

"Such nefariously designed methods would not be covered under the provisions of this resolution, Ambassador. The deliberately backdoored, and flawed methods you are describing would not fall within the definitions contained within Articles 1(a) and 1(b), since such methods would be intended to allow unauthorized parties access to private communications, as opposed to barring such access."

[Ikheria]

"We actually having nearly same proposal, so, we officialy fully support this proposal, even we having concern about possible abuse for bad purpose."
~ Jan Paul Diwenensky

[Greater Cesnica]

So now that this is at-vote, I can focus on the next draft in line regarding this subject matter: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=497390

[Western Theram]

"Western Theram fully supports this resolution"
-Jack Patino
president of Western Theram

[Kenmoria]

“I will be voting in favour of this piece of legislation.”

[Scalizagasti]

The United Regions Alliance recommends that member states vote for this resolution. During internal voting, 14 regions voted in favour of this resolution, none voted against, and 2 regions abstained.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1506264

[Texkentuck]

As an ambassador to the Texkentuck Federation our Parliament isn't surprised to see more legislation disguised as civil rights. How would this keep governments from shutting down websites that are fake misinformation from other governments?

It's a concern.

The Texkentuck people have vast access to the internet but our government shuts down propaganda websites that go against the sovereignty of a nation. If this is passed for some regimes you'll see protests in the streets over fake information from foreign governments. The worst play onto civil rights is to use civil rights to insight a protest over false information that is half true. Our government shuts down such information but we allow access of the topic. This is World Assembly overreach. This is a reason Texkentuck has left the legality of living under the rules of the WA. Everything is a civil rights law. Our government challenges this WA to propose non-civil rights legislation in the future that is constructive. Any nation that in any way a sovereign nation in being in the WA can not claim real sovereignty.

Our vote is we stay involved but we have left. President Bram W. Schirkophf will someday make a list of laws we follow that are passed by this grand assembly.

"Seeking to prevent governments from restricting, compromising or hindering the access and usage of encrypted communication protocols and other means of achieving secure data exchanges." How is this constructive in such cases? It's a real question and we want an answer!!! The people of Texkentuck Federation and the world deserve an answer. Who knows we may see it that it's good for the world.

[Greater Cesnica]

As an ambassador to the Texkentuck Federation our Parliament isn't surprised to see more legislation disguised as civil rights. How would this keep governments from shutting down websites that are fake misinformation from other governments?

It's a concern.

No it's not.

[Tinhampton]

Right To Secure Digital Communication was passed 12,533 votes to 2,282.

[Texkentuck]

As an ambassador to the Texkentuck Federation our Parliament isn't surprised to see more legislation disguised as civil rights. How would this keep governments from shutting down websites that are fake misinformation from other governments?

It's a concern.

No it's not.

That's why the WA is overwhelmingly liberal. This is not a world Assembly......This is a coalition....

The parliament of Texkentuck deserves an explanation. Surprised this coalition wouldn't want Texkentuck under it's Iron fist of law. Instead they seam thankful that the nation is not under it's liberal protection and favors more the vote of wide spread mass liberal vote.

It's a concern because the Nation of Texkentuck just made it a concern. This proposal needs to be fairly tweeked.

[Texkentuck]

The Ambassador to Texekentuck holds up a letter that's blue and written by his excellency. I hold officially this letter from the royal family and his excellency Pres. Bram W. Schirkophf. This letter states
that when an issue that is core principal to the Texkentuck Federation and Texkentucks. The nation will join the WA. Officially will follow all passed proposals of the WA during the time of the the last hours of the voting process. Once the vote is passed- "the nation will use it's free will to leave the WA"! All in the name of order to protect the sovereignty and laws passed by the parliament which the majority of each Texkentuck citizens supports.

Long Live Sovereignty, freedom and the great nation of Texkentuck Federation. The parliament of Texkentuck must never completely align with nations that overwhelmingly pass laws over domestic policy.

[Greater Cesnica]

No it's not.

That's why the WA is overwhelmingly liberal. This is not a world Assembly......This is a coalition....

The parliament of Texkentuck deserves an explanation. Surprised this coalition wouldn't want Texkentuck under it's Iron fist of law. Instead they seam thankful that the nation is not under it's liberal protection and favors more the vote of wide spread mass liberal vote.

It's a concern because the Nation of Texkentuck just made it a concern. This proposal needs to be fairly tweeked.

Go write a repeal then: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_re ... pealid=880

[Texkentuck]

That's why the WA is overwhelmingly liberal. This is not a world Assembly......This is a coalition....

The parliament of Texkentuck deserves an explanation. Surprised this coalition wouldn't want Texkentuck under it's Iron fist of law. Instead they seam thankful that the nation is not under it's liberal protection and favors more the vote of wide spread mass liberal vote.

It's a concern because the Nation of Texkentuck just made it a concern. This proposal needs to be fairly tweeked.

Go write a repeal then: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_re ... pealid=880

As an ambassador we do not see the need to write a repeal that will be overwhelmingly voted against. The Nation of Texkentuck would much rather see those who wrote the proposal make the proposal better..... It's not in our nations interest because we are not in the World Assembly at the moment. We will state issues and leave it to the nations to fix their own proposals. When we write a proposal sometime it will be something that will benefit all nations. At the moment we see bad proposals that need to be more moderately acceptable. My nation is against the death penalty. Some nations who serve on this assembly are for it. That is one proposal that was overwhelmingly passed in our favor. But there wasn't an alternative for nations who have overwhelmingly able to hold prisoners do to that proposal. Most hard criminals were not able to be held in the normal full sentence of time and have been compensated because of the Fair Treatment of Prisoners Act which compensated released prisoners who are not necessarily reformed. Texkentuck Will not let this Assembly decide and be in charge of our state of the Art Reform prison program. We compensate prisoners by giving them a job and services. We also have a program for those who are homeless and not abusing hard substance. This WA has quite a bit to fix. Many proposals that have been passed need to be tweeked. Too many laws imposed on our great nation that with regret we left being in accord with the WA until their is real change. As the ambassador I will state my case and may write a proposal and allow for another nation to use our ideas and put the reformed proposal in affect. If this happends and it's passed Texkentuck will gladly rejoin and President Schirkophf will personally be back to address issues and be apart of this WA Coalition. It's our nations sovereign right to speak and not be in accord.... The purpose of the me being here on behalf of the Texkentuck Federation is to lend a voice to in hopes of greater change taking root in this WA Coalition of nations. The Parliment does not see this assembly as passing much that will protect the interests of a nations true identity and state of the art programs that work. Most proposals must have a huge win for one side and a moderate win for the other ..... The Fair Treatment of Prisoners Act is a perfect example. The death penalty isn't allowed but you can't send war combatant prisoners back to their country if the nation may execute the individual. This is over reach. Also the part about prisoners being compensated........This is all two proposals closely in alignment giving free rain to those in solitary confinement. How does this do a nation justice in keep a nation safe.... Or this proposal which doesn't allow governments to shut down blatant harmful websites that has the soul purpose to destroy a democratic nation...... These are loopholes that must be closed......................Texkentuck Federation proudly looks forward to better WA proposals. They are written well but that is as far as it goes at times.

In reason why not encourage nations who wrote the proposal fix their proposal or listen to nations who show distaste in a proposal before putting the proposal up for vote. My nations thinking of the minority non-liberal nations.

We understand no proposal is perfect but really compensate prisoners and treat them like their on vacation and don't have the death penalty. We don't want the death penalty but really COMPENSATE along with all the perks of being in prison passed by this WA!

General William Walt VonVorkinKophfburg- General of The Texkentuck Committee for State Security.
World Assembly Ambassador for the Texkentuck Federation