[LEGALITY CHALLENGE] Repeal "Digital Network Defense"

[Cretox State]

I believe that the General Assembly proposal currently at vote, Repeal "Digital Network Defense", ought to be considered illegal due to an honest mistake. The proposal's forum thread can be found here.

The World Assembly,

Noting that protecting digital devices from hacking and cyberterrorism is important and should be covered by World Assembly legislation; but

Observing that “Digital Network Defense” is a flawed and poorly written resolution with overreaching mandates that do more harm than good;

Dismayed at the overly broad and problematic definition of cyberattack, which includes stealing online banking information, which while criminal should not be considered as harmful as hacking into military databases with sensitive information;

Annoyed that "Digital Network Defence" mandates that all cyberattacks are criminalised, ignoring governments that may wish to impose civil penalties instead of criminal penalties for certain crimes (especially since the aforementioned broad definition of cyberattack includes much pettier crimes not requiring criminal justice), an utter disregard for nations' judicial systems,

Distressed that governments are forbidden from monitoring networks belonging to foreign non-governmental entities that may pose a serious threat to the security of that nation, or monitoring digital devices not connected to any digital network but could be used in cyberterrorism, jeopardising national security;

Concerned by the total lack of respect for personal privacy by “Digital Network Defense”, codifying the right of member nations to monitor their citizens’ digital footprint and allowing them to easily justify such an invasion of privacy by saying it was to monitor digital security threats, and by blocking future legislation from restricting their ability to do so; and

Concluding that “Digital Network Defense” should not continue to be enforced by this Assembly and should be replaced with a resolution of superior quality; hereby

Repeals “Digital Network Defense”.

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the importance of digital devices in many nations, and the potential threats they pose in day to day life, especially in terrorist operations,

Seeking to prevent the occurrence of crimes committed on digital devices, and secure such devices for safe use by both military and civilian users,

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,

• "digital device" as any artificial equipment that utilizes information in numerical form.
• "network" as any group of digital devices which are connected to allow the transmission and receiving of numerical information between devices in the group.
• "cyberattack" as any act of unlawful access to or alteration of numerical information stored on digital devices. For the purposes of cooperation with other WA legislation, such acts are to be considered acts of violence.

Encourages nations which possess digital devices to assist in securing such devices against cyberattacks;

Requires nations to make a reasonable effort to secure networks against the threat of cyberattacks;

Prohibits member nations from engaging in cyberattacks themselves, with the exception that member nations may utilize cyberattacks against networks belonging to foreign combatants with which they are in conflict, or against government networks of nations they reasonably suspect pose a real threat to their nation;

Mandates that nations establish cyberattacks as criminal offenses, and ensure individuals caught committing acts of cyberattack are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law;

Reserves the right of member nations to monitor networks for digital security threats, should national law allow them to do so.

Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution.

The specific section of the proposal that I wish to address is as follows:

Distressed that governments are forbidden from monitoring networks belonging to foreign non-governmental entities that may pose a serious threat to the security of that nation, or monitoring digital devices not connected to any digital network but could be used in cyberterrorism, jeopardising national security;

The above portion of the proposal in question constitutes a factual inaccuracy, or at the very least misrepresentation of the target, given that the target resolution doesn't actually forbid governments from monitoring these networks or digital devices. The target only "[prohibits] member nations from engaging in [any acts of unlawful access to or alteration of numerical information stored on digital devices] themselves," with exceptions for "networks belonging to foreign combatants with which they are in conflict" and "government networks of nations they reasonably suspect pose a real threat to their nation." The target only prohibits members from engaging in monitoring which constitutes an already unlawful intrusion into digital devices, due to the target's definition of a "cyberattack." Monitoring need not be unlawful, and the target in no way forbids members from engaging in monitoring otherwise considered lawful. In short: the repeal proposal claims that the target forbids governments from monitoring certain networks or devices when the target doesn't actually forbid them from engaging in this sort of monitoring.

[Bananaistan]

We've voted to hear this challenge. Discussion is welcome.

On the face of it, the challenge appears open and shut. Lawful monitoring does not fall within the definition of cyberattack in the target.

[Honeydewistania]

We've voted to hear this challenge. Discussion is welcome.

On the face of it, the challenge appears open and shut. Lawful monitoring does not fall within the definition of cyberattack in the target.

As much as it pains me to say it, I have to agree with this challenge.

[Separatist Peoples]

We've voted to hear this challenge. Discussion is welcome.

On the face of it, the challenge appears open and shut. Lawful monitoring does not fall within the definition of cyberattack in the target.

Likewise on all counts.

[Bananaistan]

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: Repeal "Digital Network Defense"
Date of Decision: 24 March 2021
Decision: Proposal is illegal
Rules Applied: Honest mistake

Opinion pending

[Imperium Anglorum]

Any update on this decision?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I also took a look at the sheet. Is there any update on this Op?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

*** Secretariat Opinion ***

The Secretariat found this proposal illegal by a vote of 4-0 (Bears Armed and Grays Harbor were unavailable at the time). Sierra Lyricalia wrote the opinion, which is joined by Separatist Peoples and Bananaistan.



We are asked to determine if the proposal "Repeal 'Digital Network Defense'" (resolution #378) is illegal for an Honest Mistake. We indeed find it so by a vote of 4-0, and the proposal was discarded at vote by Moderation.

The repeal proposal asserts, in part, "...that governments are forbidden from monitoring networks belonging to foreign non-governmental entities that may pose a serious threat to the security of that nation, or monitoring digital devices not connected to any digital network but could be used in cyberterrorism..."

Yet the target specifically "Reserves the right of member nations to monitor networks for digital security threats, should national law allow them to do so."

In the target, no distinction is drawn between different sorts of networks, or networks owned or operated or regulated by different countries, or private networks. Nor is any distinction made between networked and non-networked devices. Thus the repeal's statement above is overtly and inescapably false, in a way that can't be salvaged by an appeal to exaggeration, weasel words, or any sort of merely dissembling nuance allowable under the Honest Mistake rule.

We therefore asked Moderation to discard the at-vote resolution.

[Imperium Anglorum]

4-0 ... Sierra Lyricalia wrote the opinion, which is joined by Separatist Peoples and Bananaistan.

Now I know we joke (at least on the WA Discord) that lawyers can't do maths, but who's the odd one out?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Sciongrad CTE'd between when we decided this and when we formally wrote the opinion. Should he wish to write a concurrence upon his return, he may do so, or else join this.