[PASSED] Cyber Security Convention

[John Turner]

"Cyber Security Convention"
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: John Turner

The World Assembly,

Realizing that cyber terrorism presents a legitimate threat to the international community;

Recognizing the serious damage that can be brought upon national and international organizations by rogue groups dedicated to causing mayhem on the cyber level;

Firmly believing that all member nations need to protect themselves from the perils of the of cyber terrorism, and those that don't risk damage not only to themselves, but to their international trading partners and allies as well;

Thus resolving to enact a sensible policy that allows for the safe usage of cyber technology, whist also ensuring the security of the information contained within that technology;

The General Assembly hereby:

1. For the purposes of this convention defines:
   
   
   1. Cyber technology as computers, software systems, applications or services, electronic communications systems, networks, or services, and the information contained therein,
      
      
   2. Cyber security as measures taken to protect a computer or computer system or a network against unauthorized access or attack,
      
      
   3. Cyber warfare as actions by a nation to penetrate the computers or networks of another nation for the purposes of causing damage or disruption to combatant targets and their supporting infrastructure,
      
      
   4. Cyber terrorism as a premeditated, politically motivated attack against information, computer systems, or devices of non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents for the purposes of spreading fear and terror;
2. Requires member nations to outlaw the practice of cyber terrorism, and to actively pursue and prosecute individuals or groups actively engaging in or promoting cyber terrorism by any means necessary;
   
   
3. Prohibits member nations from engaging in cyber warfare against non-combatant targets or organizations not directly linked to the military or national security of fellow member nations;
   
   
4. Further requires member nations to enact cyber security policies and programs designed to combat the spread of cyber terrorism and other illegal cyber related activities;
   
   
5. Mandates member nations require organizations and individuals to harden and secure cyber devices and networks against unauthorized intrusion or attack;
   
   
6. Creates the Bureau for International Cyber Security (BICS) and hereby tasks it with the following mandate:
   
   
   1. To develop and maintain a library of individuals and organizations actively engaged in or promoting cyber terrorism, and to share this information with member nations,
      
      
   2. To provide assistance in the location of known and wanted individuals and organizations actively engaged or promoting cyber terrorism,
      
      
   3. To assist member nations in establishing effective programs meant to defend against damaging and potentially crippling cyber attacks which threaten the national security and economic base of member nations.

[Tinfect]

"Ambassador, the Imperium utilizes a number of methods deemed 'cyber terrorism' in our own Intelligence Operations. Of specific concern are the following clauses;"

Cyber warfare as actions by a nation to penetrate the computers or networks of another nation for the purposes of causing damage or disruption to combatant targets and their supporting infrastructure,
----
Prohibits member nations from engaging in cyber warfare against non-combatant targets or organizations not directly linked to the military or national security of fellow member nations;

"Imperial Intelligence has, for both Military, and Non-Military purposes engaged in such actions countless times in the past. Take, for example, the invasion of the system now known to the Imperium as Luthien; prior to Imperial control of the system, the system, or specifically, Luthien V, was host to a Post-Nuclear native species.

During the Invasion, civilian networks were accessed by the Imperium in order to disseminate information regarding the terms of non-combatants to Civilians. It allowed the Imperium to operate largely unaffected by Civilian interference, and ensured the survival of most Civilians, who would later be relocated outside of the Imperial Territories. Had Intelligence been unable to do so, it is doubtful that the Civilians would have been aware of the mercy of the Imperium, and may have attempted to interfere with our operations.

For, shall we say, humanitarian reasons, we would like to continue doing this."

[John Turner]

"Ambassador, the Imperium utilizes a number of methods deemed 'cyber terrorism' in our own Intelligence Operations. Of specific concern are the following clauses;"

Cyber warfare as actions by a nation to penetrate the computers or networks of another nation for the purposes of causing damage or disruption to combatant targets and their supporting infrastructure,
----
Prohibits member nations from engaging in cyber warfare against non-combatant targets or organizations not directly linked to the military or national security of fellow member nations;

"Imperial Intelligence has, for both Military, and Non-Military purposes engaged in such actions countless times in the past. Take, for example, the invasion of the system now known to the Imperium as Luthien; prior to Imperial control of the system, the system, or specifically, Luthien V, was host to a Post-Nuclear native species.

During the Invasion, civilian networks were accessed by the Imperium in order to disseminate information regarding the terms of non-combatants to Civilians. It allowed the Imperium to operate largely unaffected by Civilian interference, and ensured the survival of most Civilians, who would later be relocated outside of the Imperial Territories. Had Intelligence been unable to do so, it is doubtful that the Civilians would have been aware of the mercy of the Imperium, and may have attempted to interfere with our operations.

For, shall we say, humanitarian reasons, we would like to continue doing this."

What you are describing is not "cyber warfare" it is pyscologial operations which are two totally separate things.

[Flawdom]

Oh god no. As the previous Ambassador noted, your definition of cyber terrorism includes normal practices of cyber warfare that is typically done between nations. The WA has no need to legislate everything. As such, we fundamentally oppose this.

[John Turner]

Oh god no. As the previous Ambassador noted, your definition of cyber terrorism includes normal practices of cyber warfare that is typically done between nations. The WA has no need to legislate everything. As such, we fundamentally oppose this.

Really? So subversive terrorist elements subverting and compromising corporate and private networks is a normal practice condoned by nations now?

[Tinfect]

Really? So subversive terrorist elements subverting and compromising corporate and private networks is a normal practice condoned by nations now?

"If said elements are attacking enemies of the Imperium, then yes, if only because Intelligence is likely involved in the attacks. If not, it is likely we have connections inside the organization anyway, and can remove any threat to the Imperium and its allies."

[Flawdom]

Oh god no. As the previous Ambassador noted, your definition of cyber terrorism includes normal practices of cyber warfare that is typically done between nations. The WA has no need to legislate everything. As such, we fundamentally oppose this.

Really? So subversive terrorist elements subverting and compromising corporate and private networks is a normal practice condoned by nations now?

Some nations do condone such actions (OOC: China). And I was referring to your current definition of cyber terrorism. Yes, that definition can easily be applied to existing standard practices of many nations and as such we do not support this proposal. If you were to redefine the term to make clear the difference between nations committing cyber warfare/defense and true cyber terrorism then perhaps we would re-evaluate our position.

Basically what the Ambassador from Tinfect said.

[Palaiologos II]

Really? So subversive terrorist elements subverting and compromising corporate and private networks is a normal practice condoned by nations now?

Well, you also include:

C. Cyber warfare as actions by a nation to penetrate the computers or networks of another nation for the purposes of causing damage or disruption to combatant targets and their supporting infrastructure,

...

3. Prohibits member nations from engaging in cyber warfare against non-combatant targets or organizations not directly linked to the military or national security of fellow member nations;

First of all, many nations (us included) would reel at the idea of banning, say, the disruption of enemy communications during wartime. Which, unless I'm making a mistake, would constitute as "disrupting combat targets."
Second of all, you define Cyber Warfare as "causing damage or disruption to combat targets and their supporting infrastructure," but prohibit Cyber Warfare against "non-combatant targets or organizations not directly linked to the military or national security of fellow member nations."

That problem goes second on the list because it is merely an issue with wording. Our main issue is with how the ban could absolutely cripple our offensive espionage tactics during wartime. Should the bill be limited to preventing acts against non-combatants and private citizens without impeding attacks against a hostile state, we would be more open to the legislation.

[Flawdom]

Really? So subversive terrorist elements subverting and compromising corporate and private networks is a normal practice condoned by nations now?

Well, you also include:

C. Cyber warfare as actions by a nation to penetrate the computers or networks of another nation for the purposes of causing damage or disruption to combatant targets and their supporting infrastructure,

...

3. Prohibits member nations from engaging in cyber warfare against non-combatant targets or organizations not directly linked to the military or national security of fellow member nations;

First of all, many nations (us included) would reel at the idea of banning, say, the disruption of enemy communications during wartime. Which, unless I'm making a mistake, would constitute as "disrupting combat targets."
Second of all, you define Cyber Warfare as "causing damage or disruption to combat targets and their supporting infrastructure," but prohibit Cyber Warfare against "non-combatant targets or organizations not directly linked to the military or national security of fellow member nations."

That problem goes second on the list because it is merely an issue with wording. Our main issue is with how the ban could absolutely cripple our offensive espionage tactics during wartime. Should the bill be limited to preventing acts against non-combatants and private citizens without impeding attacks against a hostile state, we would be more open to the legislation.

We agree with the Chancellor's position. Limiting action against non-combatants only makes sense.

[Tinfect]

We agree with the Chancellor's position. Limiting action against non-combatants only makes sense.

"There are differing definitions of Non-Combatant in Member States. The Imperium, for example, considers any, citizen, organization, or other such entity supporting our Enemies during wartime, in any fashion, such as Economically, through trade, or Militarily, through action, supply, or dissemination of information regarding Imperial Forces, as taking hostile action against the Imperium, and thus, a Combatant."

[John Turner]

Really? So subversive terrorist elements subverting and compromising corporate and private networks is a normal practice condoned by nations now?

Some nations do condone such actions (OOC: China). And I was referring to your current definition of cyber terrorism. Yes, that definition can easily be applied to existing standard practices of many nations and as such we do not support this proposal. If you were to redefine the term to make clear the difference between nations committing cyber warfare/defense and true cyber terrorism then perhaps we would re-evaluate our position.

Okay, since you seem to be incapable of reading the draft, I guess I need to pull out the crayons?

Cyber warfare as actions by a nation to penetrate the computers or networks of another nation for the purposes of causing damage or disruption to combatant targets and their supporting infrastructure,

Cyber terrorism as a premeditated, politically motivated attack against information, computer systems, or devices of non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents for the purposes of spreading fear and terror;

Do you see it now? two different definitions for two different things.

If you were to redefine the term to make clear the difference between nations committing cyber warfare/defense and true cyber terrorism

Cyber warfare as actions by a nation to penetrate the computers or networks of another nation for the purposes of causing damage or disruption to combatant targets and their supporting infrastructure

Cyber terrorism as a premeditated, politically motivated attack against information, computer systems, or devices of non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents for the purposes of spreading fear and terror;

I trust the confusion is cleared up now, and we won't have to repeat the lesson?

Basically what the Ambassador from Tinfect said.

Tinfect is using his same old bullshit to attempt to discredit the draft as usual. I can say my nation does the exact opposite to any draft as well just because I have a grudge against the author.

And before you decide to make a smartass remark IA, I already have you and Tinfect on ignore, so you may as well save yourself the trouble as I couldn't be bothered with the single mouse click to show the ignored post, and could be even less bothered to take the time to read it and respond to it.

[Tinfect]

Tinfect is using his same old bullshit to attempt to discredit the draft as usual. I can say my nation does the exact opposite to any draft as well just because I have a grudge against the author.
And before you decide to make a smartass remark IA, I already have you and Tinfect on ignore, so you may as well save yourself the trouble as I couldn't be bothered with the single mouse click to show the ignored post, and could be even less bothered to take the time to read it and respond to it.

OOC:
What, in all the nine hells are you on about? I am ICly, attempting to present an argument against your draft, pointing out a weakness, or providing a point of view, and you are just making smartass comments against me without so much as reading my posts? This has absolutely nothing to do with my general disdain for you. I am here to debate a Draft, that's what I am doing. If you are petty enough to have the arguments of IA, and myself removed from the conversation simply because of a grudge, you should seriously reconsider drafting Legislation. You can't just tune out legitimate arguments because you don't like who they are coming from.

[Flawdom]

Tinfect is using his same old bullshit to attempt to discredit the draft as usual. I can say my nation does the exact opposite to any draft as well just because I have a grudge against the author.
And before you decide to make a smartass remark IA, I already have you and Tinfect on ignore, so you may as well save yourself the trouble as I couldn't be bothered with the single mouse click to show the ignored post, and could be even less bothered to take the time to read it and respond to it.

OOC:
What, in all the nine hells are you on about? I am ICly, attempting to present an argument against your draft, pointing out a weakness, or providing a point of view, and you are just making smartass comments against me without so much as reading my posts? This has absolutely nothing to do with my general disdain for you. I am here to debate a Draft, that's what I am doing. If you are petty enough to have the arguments of IA, and myself removed from the conversation simply because of a grudge, you should seriously reconsider drafting Legislation. You can't just tune out legitimate arguments because you don't like who they are coming from.

OOC: I agree. Now, John, you're just being really rude and not recognizing these as legit complaints. If you wish to draft legislation you need to be respectful to others. You have not been, even in other threads.

[John Turner]

Well, you also include:



...


First of all, many nations (us included) would reel at the idea of banning, say, the disruption of enemy communications during wartime. Which, unless I'm making a mistake, would constitute as "disrupting combat targets."
Second of all, you define Cyber Warfare as "causing damage or disruption to combat targets and their supporting infrastructure," but prohibit Cyber Warfare against "non-combatant targets or organizations not directly linked to the military or national security of fellow member nations."

That problem goes second on the list because it is merely an issue with wording. Our main issue is with how the ban could absolutely cripple our offensive espionage tactics during wartime. Should the bill be limited to preventing acts against non-combatants and private citizens without impeding attacks against a hostile state, we would be more open to the legislation.

We agree with the Chancellor's position. Limiting action against non-combatants only makes sense.

But since it is such a bone of contention, I will alter the definition of cyber terrorism slightly so it still permits espionage.

OOC: I agree. Now, John, you're just being really rude and not recognizing these as legit complaints. If you wish to draft legislation you need to be respectful to others. You have not been, even in other threads.

My friend, I have been drafting legislation since before you were ever thought of. (Unless you are a puppet, which I am not beginning to seriously consider) My methods of debating have been criticized by many before you, including the Secretariat and it has not impeded my ability to draft legislation.

OCC: Those nations are on my ignore list for a reason. I put them there, before being instructed to by a mod in the hopes of avoiding nasty confrontation and a flame war developing. By simply ignoring them, and not responding to their comments, no problems develop.

[Tinfect]

OOC: Those nations are on my ignore list for a reason. I put them there, before being instructed to by a mod in the hopes of avoiding nasty confrontation and a flame war developing. By simply ignoring them, and not responding to their comments, no problems develop.

OOC:
From what I have seen, that reason is because you have some damned grudge against us. If you actually read this one, I defer you to my previous post.

[Flawdom]

We agree with the Chancellor's position. Limiting action against non-combatants only makes sense.

"There are differing definitions of Non-Combatant in Member States. The Imperium, for example, considers any, citizen, organization, or other such entity supporting our Enemies during wartime, in any fashion, such as Economically, through trade, or Militarily, through action, supply, or dissemination of information regarding Imperial Forces, as taking hostile action against the Imperium, and thus, a Combatant."

Since you refuse to acknowledge the Ambassador, I shall post his response here and I must say that I agree with his point and as such "non-combatants" should be defined as such to provide a clear definition so member nations cannot use that as a loophole.

My friend, I have been drafting legislation since before you were ever thought of. (Unless you are a puppet, which I am not beginning to seriously consider) My methods of debating have been criticized by many before you, including the Secretariat and it has not impeded my ability to draft legislation.

OCC: Those nations are on my ignore list for a reason. I put them there, before being instructed to by a mod in the hopes of avoiding nasty confrontation and a flame war developing. By simply ignoring them, and not responding to their comments, no problems develop.

You were founded only very closely before our nation so that is not true, so do not presume to be so arrogant.

OOC: You joined 4 days before I did so don't be arrogant. I don't take kindly to it.

[Tinfect Diplomatic Puppet]

OOC: You joined 4 days before I did so don't be arrogant. I don't take kindly to it.

OOC:
In his defense, that is his third nation here in the WA. The others no longer exist.

[Flawdom]

OOC: You joined 4 days before I did so don't be arrogant. I don't take kindly to it.

OOC:
In his defense, that is his third nation here in the WA. The others no longer exist.

In my defense, I only existed 9 days ago, but point taken. But seriously, his arrogance is still not taken well.

[Tinfect Diplomatic Puppet]

In my defense, I only existed 9 days ago, but point taken. But seriously, his arrogance is still not taken well.

OOC:
Oh, don't take my statements for hostility, sorry if it came across that way. But, yeah, no, he has always been like that, to newcomers especially.

[Flawdom]

In my defense, I only existed 9 days ago, but point taken. But seriously, his arrogance is still not taken well.

OOC:
Oh, don't take my statements for hostility, sorry if it came across that way. But, yeah, no, he has always been like that, to newcomers especially.

OOC: I think I misrepresented myself I didn't mean to come across as hostile or to say that you were, I was just borrowing wording. My apologies.

[John Turner]

OOC: You joined 4 days before I did so don't be arrogant. I don't take kindly to it.

OOC:
In his defense, that is his third nation here in the WA. The others no longer exist.

Actually it is my fifth, or twentieth or so if you count the many puppets I have used. By the way, clearly using a puppet after you were given public warning that you are being ignored to intentionally circumvent it is against the rules, just so you know.

[Tinfect]

By the way, clearly using a puppet after you were given public warning that you are being ignored to intentionally circumvent it is against the rules, just so you know.

OOC:
Well now that's just ridiculous.
Well, actually, I suppose I can see the point of it.
Damned inconvenient though.

[Flawdom]

Regardless, let us get back on topic. "Non-combatant" should really be defined so that assholeish member nations don't use the vagueness as a loophole.

[Tinfect]

Regardless, let us get back on topic. "Non-combatant" should really be defined so that assholeish member nations don't use the vagueness as a loophole.

OOC:
Which would be much simpler if he would read my IC post on the matter.

[Flawdom]

Regardless, let us get back on topic. "Non-combatant" should really be defined so that assholeish member nations don't use the vagueness as a loophole.

OOC:
Which would be much simpler if he would read my IC post on the matter.

OOC: Yes it would but seeing as he won't...