NationStates

Note: Yes, I did look into this, and I can't find even a reference to this topic. Second, this will not be submitted on this account. It will be submitted on Golden Ticket when I have approved the WA.

Restrictions on Corporate Surveillance
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the troubles of companies to protect the trade secrets that keep them going,

Saddened by the work of competing companies to take these secrets,

Hoping to make sure that companies may retain their secrets,

Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:

• "Trade Secret" as an intellectual property that may consist of formulas, processes, etc. that has some economic value due to it usually being about a product that a company manufactures and sales, and with a great deal of security to prevent others from having the exact same product.
• "Intellectual Property" as a physical version of an idea to be patented or kept as a trade secret, the definition of which is stated above.
• "Corporate Surveillance" as the practice of spying on or monitoring of employees of a corporation or an entire corporation with the intent of taking trade secrets or reporting illegal practices by the law of the nation the company is committing such acts to other corporations or law enforcement agencies respectively.

2. Bans the use of spies by other corporations in the same market as the one that they are spying on or monitoring to take trade secrets or practices that are not patented, or that are patented and whereas the patent has not yet expired.

3. Allows for the monitoring of a corporation to find illegal practices or harmful activities by the government of the nation the corporation is situated in or an independent group licensed by said government.

4. Encourages nations to create legislation further adding on to the policies stated in this resolution.

So, GA community, what do you think? Should I add, should I subtract? I encourage all of you to participate in the discussion.
Reminder: Please keep the comments within site rules.

I do need a category to put this in.

No.

Wayneactia wrote:No.

Why so?

Untecna wrote:I do need a category to put this in.

Civil Rights, I believe.

I mean, for starters, and certainly someone more experienced than me (once again, see signature) might know if point 3 is truly illegal or not, but my spidey sense is screaming that it is.

As for a category, the closest things to this (and quite possibly what this falls afoul of, if anything) are GA #232 and GA #394 which specifically deal with intellectual property, though no idea if they do so on this level. Those are both Free Trade - Mild. Otherwise, Civil Rights - Mild would probably do.

My overall suggestion though is to focus this on the company level and the tactics that other companies use-not to propose punishments, but rather simply to say "(x) may not...". I'm not a fan of this at present.

I respect your repeated efforts to try to author a Resolution, but I do not like this one one bit.

Hulldom wrote:I mean, for starters, and certainly someone more experienced than me (once again, see signature) might know if point 3 is truly illegal or not, but my spidey sense is screaming that it is.

As for a category, the closest things to this (and quite possibly what this falls afoul of, if anything) are GA #232 and GA #394 which specifically deal with intellectual property, though no idea if they do so on this level. Those are both Free Trade - Mild. Otherwise, Civil Rights - Mild would probably do.

My overall suggestion though is to focus this on the company level and the tactics that other companies use-not to propose punishments, but rather simply to say "(x) may not...".

Thanks for the feedback, I'll get right on it!

Hulldom wrote:I respect your repeated efforts to try to author a Resolution, but I do not like this one one bit.

I respect that opinion. But I must ask, why?

Untecna wrote:

Hulldom wrote:I respect your repeated efforts to try to author a Resolution, but I do not like this one one bit.

I respect that opinion. But I must ask, why?

I don't think this is a necessary piece of legislation. I'm not convinced this is an international issue of importance.

Hulldom wrote:

Untecna wrote:I respect that opinion. But I must ask, why?

I don't think this is a necessary piece of legislation. I'm not convinced this is an international issue of importance.

Hm... you're right. Time to go hunting for ideas once again.

Untecna wrote:

Hulldom wrote:I don't think this is a necessary piece of legislation. I'm not convinced this is an international issue of importance.

Hm... you're right. Time to go hunting for ideas once again.

So the whole point of this is just to pass a resolution huh? Doesn't matter the topic? Just pass a resolution?