PASSED: Right to Privacy

[Greenlandic People]

This is a new resolution I'm working which I'm pretty sure hasn't been covered here in the GA (I checked but I could have missed it). Anyway, I still need a lot of help hammering it out, and I'm still trying to decide what strength I should classify it as. It's a little ambitious for my first resolution, but it's something I feel strongly about and really want to work on so...here we are:

Right to Privacy


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong?
Proposed By: Greenlandic People

Description:

The World Assembly,

BELIEVING that privacy and the right to withhold secrets and information is an inelliable right endowed to all human beings

ASSERTING that privacy is a right that must be defended from those who would violate it

CONCERNED that there are countries and organizations which refuse to respect the peoples basic right to privacy

CONVINCED that such violations of this basic right endanger both democracy and freedom in equal measure

Hereby:

1. DEFINES 'privacy' as the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby reveal themselves selectively

2. ESTABLISHES that there are several different types of privacy, including:
(A) Physical Privacy: the right to prevent intrusions into ones property and personal articles
(B) Informational Privacy: the right to withhold information about oneself, including a persons race, sex, religious and sexual orientation, etc.
(C) Organizational Privacy: the right of governments or other organizations to withhold information regarding their activities and dealings in relation to other organizations and individuals

3. FORBIDS trespassing within the property of another person without the consent of that person unless authorized by the clauses contained in Section 5

4. OUTLAWS the use of espionage or covert surveillance programs performed without the knowledge of the citizens with the intent of monitoring citizens or acquiring their personal information unless authorized by law; also outlaws invasive searching of citizens without reasonable cause for suspicion.

5. CONDONES limited infringements of personal privacy in the interest of serving the law under the following circumstances:
(A)The detective(s) researching the case has filed to the appropriate authorities for a warrant permitting him the right to violate the liberties in question
(B)The official appointed to acquire the information is limited to investigate only within areas and topics which are likely to contain the necessary evidence
(C)The persons(s) related to the acts are given the right to object, with the legality of the objection to be subject to the decision of a qualified judge

6. URGES that member states implement programs to protect the right to privacy of persons who have been involved in high-profile crimes

7. SUGGESTS that member states include lessons on the important of privacy in the curriculum of their schools

8. ALLOWS member states to pass laws demanding that corporations or other business organizations reveal information related to financial performance and formal transactions in the interest of transparency and free competition

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Sounds like a good idea. The Mind of Charlotte Ryberg has extensive privacy protection laws and a WA resolution would serve to support the principle of protecting privacy of the civilians.

4. OUTLAWS the use of espionage or other surveillance programs, either covert or blatant, with the intent of monitoring citizens or acquiring their personal information

Not sure about this though: it may ban CCTV cameras in establishments.

[Sionis Prioratus]

How does this impact the access a woman may or may not have to an abortion?

[Greenlandic People]

It...does not? It doesn't have any effect on the right to an abortion

EDIT: I'm going to post some revisions later tonight

[Rutianas]

5. CONDONES limited infringements of personal privacy in the interest of performing a fair and equitable trial of law under the following circumstances:
(A)The judge has ruled that there is reasonable cause to believe that the acts can help to solve the case in question
(B)The person(s) to whom the acts are related is warned at least twenty-four hours in advance in advance that the acts are to be performed
(C)The persons(s) related to the acts are given the right to object to their performance with the legality of the objection to be subject to the decision of the presiding judge

So, basically, police cannot go on drug raids without giving the party twenty four hours to clean up their act and hide their stash elsewhere? Sorry, not going to fly with us. We will not be giving any suspected criminal twenty four hours to hide any evidence we hope to gain by infringing their personal privacy.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Sanctaria]

Ditto. Perhaps you should include a clause permitting detective to infringe on the privacy of the suspect with the court order obtained from a judge provided they have enough evidence. The whole "hey we're gonna be raiding you tomorrow" thing is a bit pointless.

[Meekinos]

Privacy is a wonderful right. It is also a profitable right. People would pay handsome for all the privacy in the world. This proposal would have Meekinos' support.

[Greenlandic People]

So, basically, police cannot go on drug raids without giving the party twenty four hours to clean up their act and hide their stash elsewhere? Sorry, not going to fly with us. We will not be giving any suspected criminal twenty four hours to hide any evidence we hope to gain by infringing their personal privacy.

I know, trust me I cringed when I re-read that sentence. I'll post me edits in a minute

[Greenlandic People]

Updated draft. I removed the 24 hour warning for suspects and tried to tighten a few clauses. Changes are in bold.

Also, I'll be away for a week and have limited internet access in the interim, so I may not be able to respons to inputs right away.

Right to Privacy


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong?
Proposed By: Greenlandic People

Description:

The World Assembly,

BELIEVING that privacy and the right to withhold secrets and information is an inelliable right endowed to all human beings

ASSERTING that privacy is a right that must be defended from those who would violate it

CONCERNED that there are countries and organizations which refuse to respect the peoples basic right to privacy

CONVINCED that such violations of this basic right endanger both democracy and freedom in equal measure

Hereby:

1. DEFINES 'privacy' as the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby reveal themselves selectively

2. ESTABLISHES that there are several different types of privacy, including:
(A) Physical Privacy: the right to prevent intrusions into ones personal space, including property and personal articles
(B) Informational Privacy: the right to withhold information and data about oneself, including a persons race, sex, religious and sexual orientation, finances, medical records, and political views
(C) Organizational Privacy: the right of governments or other organizations to withhold information regarding their activities and dealings in relation to other organizations and individuals

3. FORBIDS trespassing within the personal space or property of another person without the explicit consent of that person unless authorized by the clauses contained in Section 5

4. OUTLAWS the use of espionage or covert surveillance programs performed without the knowledge of the citizens with the intent of monitoring citizens or acquiring their personal information

5. CONDONES limited infringements of personal privacy in the interest of performing a fair and equitable trial of law under the following circumstances:
(A)The judge has ruled that there is reasonable cause to believe that the acts can help to solve the case in question
(B)The official appointed to acquire the information is limited to investigate only within areas and topics which are likely to contain the necessary evidence
(C)The persons(s) related to the acts are given the right to object to their performance with the legality of the objection to be subject to the decision of the presiding judge

6. URGES that member states implement programs to protect the right to privacy of persons who have been involved in high-profile crimes

7. SUGGESTS that member states include lessons on the important of privacy in the curriculum of their schools

8. BESEECHES member states to punish violators of privacy to the fullest extent of the law

9. MANDATES that citizens have the right to view their personal information about them collected by the government upon request

10. ALLOWS member states to demand that corporations or other business organizations reveal information related to financial performance and transactions in the interest of transparency and free competition

[Berzerkirs]

Oh, I´m sorry, I thought this was Right to Piracy, my bad.

[Doctor Cyclops]

3. FORBIDS trespassing within the personal space or property of another person without the explicit consent of that person unless authorized by the clauses contained in Section 5

Define "personal space."

[Greenlandic People]

3. FORBIDS trespassing within the personal space or property of another person without the explicit consent of that person unless authorized by the clauses contained in Section 5

Define "personal space."

Good point. Since 'personal space' is already a well understood social concept, do you think it would be best to drop personal space altogether and leave it as only personal property.

[Sanctaria]

Well because he wrote "or property", I took that to mean "personal space" and "property" were the same. Mainly because if you accidently bumped into someone, under this proposal, that would be an illegal act. And that's just plain stupid. And the author seems somewhat intelligent so..."property" = "personal space".

But that's just my opinion.

EDIT: Yeah, just dump personal space.

[Rutianas]

There needs to be something that allows a nation to waive a person's right to privacy if national security is being threatened. The Imperial Republic is pretty iffy about this one. We don't believe there's any problem with monitoring a person in public. In the privacy of one's own home is where the government has no business. Perhaps the WA should focus more on that aspect rather than trying to secure a right to privacy at any point.

4. OUTLAWS the use of espionage or covert surveillance programs performed without the knowledge of the citizens with the intent of monitoring citizens or acquiring their personal information

This would cause all police surveillance to be illegal. No more following suspects to catch them in a crime without their knowledge. No more undercover police work. It's been outlawed by this clause. Undercover police work and surveillance is done with the intent of monitoring suspected criminal citizens for the purpose of safeguarding law abiding citizens.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Omega Uliza]

I'm curious as to how this will affect government's spying on other country's citizens and governments.

I'm also curious to know how this affect government's attempting to hide information that they deem 'classified', which under that context alone...I see a terrible occurence coming in my mind's eye.

If government's have the right to keep things 'classified' and have the right to keep such things private, I can see a few extremists using this to hide the fact they're really spying on their citizens. This in and of itself would be against the law according to this proposal yes...but if it was classified, who would ever know? And if the government has the right to keep it private...how do you find out about it?

[Quelesh]

I like the basic idea, though I share some of the reservations expressed here. Perhaps the resolution should focus more on the right of individuals to be free from surveillance or invasion of privacy in their own homes or anywhere else they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy," as the legal phrase goes.

[Firstaria]

We recognize this as a good resolution, but we're aganist it. Political views.

[Tiesabre]

Though we in Tiesabre respect our people's right to privacy. We do recognize some more 'aggressive' countries invade this right as a means of security and may feel we are stomping on a nation's right to protect themselves against internal threats.

[Absolvability]

Rather than going through and adding little sentence fragments I believe this proposal is in severe need of some exceptions to the rules. The matter of police investigations is not a light one, nor one that can be explained so shortly. Or security cameras. Or a number of other things that, while being invasive, serve a perfectly practical purpose.

5. CONDONES limited infringements of personal privacy in the interest of performing a fair and equitable trial of law under the following circumstances:
(A)The judge has ruled that there is reasonable cause to believe that the acts can help to solve the case in question
(B)The official appointed to acquire the information is limited to investigate only within areas and topics which are likely to contain the necessary evidence
(C)The persons(s) related to the acts are given the right to object to their performance with the legality of the objection to be subject to the decision of the presiding judge

Frankly, this just doesn't cut the mustard for me. For starters... why should a judge rule on what is or isn't reasonable cause to invade a suspected criminal's privacy? I'd think that a certain amoun of condemning evidence would need to be gathered before the case was ever presented to a judge.

I think it would be better to outline some due process for obtaining a 'search warrant,' and leave it in the hands of the police.

4. OUTLAWS the use of espionage or covert surveillance programs performed without the knowledge of the citizens with the intent of monitoring citizens or acquiring their personal information

This is where it seems we run into the problem of banks, for example, no longer being able to adequately provide for their own security. And again, we're severely limiting police forces.

I agree with the intent behind the resolution and I also understand that the author is limited by the number of characters he can use. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, I believe this proposal would benefit from a brief description of what are private areas and what are public areas. And, space allowing, perhaps even a list of allowed uses. Security, certainly, is worth mentioning.

Speaking bluntly, I believe that if a person is concerned with their privacy in a public area they are probably doing something that they shouldn't.

(C) Organizational Privacy: the right of governments or other organizations to withhold information regarding their activities and dealings in relation to other organizations and individuals

This needs serious work, I think. We're going to let governments hide anything they want from its citizens? We're going to let banks withold information from inquiries? We're going to let businesses withhold information from stockholders? The implications of this could be catastrophic.

Of course, with all that said, I love the idea behind this. I'm definately opposed until some serious changes are made though.

[Bahgum]

Whilst Bahgum agrees with general principle we have to make it clear that this proposal will not be workable in all nations. For example have you met a Bahgumian Mother in Law? Personal privacy is simply an interesting mornings challenge to them.

[Greenlandic People]

Rather than going through and adding little sentence fragments I believe this proposal is in severe need of some exceptions to the rules. The matter of police investigations is not a light one, nor one that can be explained so shortly. Or security cameras. Or a number of other things that, while being invasive, serve a perfectly practical purpose.

5. CONDONES limited infringements of personal privacy in the interest of performing a fair and equitable trial of law under the following circumstances:
(A)The judge has ruled that there is reasonable cause to believe that the acts can help to solve the case in question
(B)The official appointed to acquire the information is limited to investigate only within areas and topics which are likely to contain the necessary evidence
(C)The persons(s) related to the acts are given the right to object to their performance with the legality of the objection to be subject to the decision of the presiding judge

Frankly, this just doesn't cut the mustard for me. For starters... why should a judge rule on what is or isn't reasonable cause to invade a suspected criminal's privacy? I'd think that a certain amoun of condemning evidence would need to be gathered before the case was ever presented to a judge.

I think it would be better to outline some due process for obtaining a 'search warrant,' and leave it in the hands of the police.

4. OUTLAWS the use of espionage or covert surveillance programs performed without the knowledge of the citizens with the intent of monitoring citizens or acquiring their personal information

This is where it seems we run into the problem of banks, for example, no longer being able to adequately provide for their own security. And again, we're severely limiting police forces.

I agree with the intent behind the resolution and I also understand that the author is limited by the number of characters he can use. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, I believe this proposal would benefit from a brief description of what are private areas and what are public areas. And, space allowing, perhaps even a list of allowed uses. Security, certainly, is worth mentioning.

Speaking bluntly, I believe that if a person is concerned with their privacy in a public area they are probably doing something that they shouldn't.

(C) Organizational Privacy: the right of governments or other organizations to withhold information regarding their activities and dealings in relation to other organizations and individuals

This needs serious work, I think. We're going to let governments hide anything they want from its citizens? We're going to let banks withold information from inquiries? We're going to let businesses withhold information from stockholders? The implications of this could be catastrophic.

Of course, with all that said, I love the idea behind this. I'm definately opposed until some serious changes are made though.

I'm going to edit the first two cited points, but as for the third one: governments have always had the right to hide things. Clause 10 will help reassure you, but I'm not going to infringe on the soverign right to hide important national information. Freedom of information is not what this is about.

[Absolvability]

Governments have always had the right to hide things.

Well, that depends on how your nation is run. In many the government is considered to be accountable to its people. Personally, I feel that there is a distinct difference between what rights a government has and what liberties it might take because it is, in perception, above the law. Of course the concerns I expressed were not only about the government. I can also see businesses abusing the newfound 'right.'

However, if you make the other changes that I requested, I suppose it won't be a big deal. It is indeed a nation's sovereign right to decide its own disclosure policies. I hope that when you make your changes you might include something specific about investigating illegal business practices as well as the whole 'search warrant' thing for suspected individuals.

[Gottesland (Ancient)]

I support this resolution on grounds that Privacy is an unalienable right. However, I have a question about covert surveillance practices. What is your take on law enforcement observing a suspect covertly? What if the suspect background raises red flags like crazy? where do you draw the line?

[Sanctaria]

Freedom of information is not what this is about.

I'm a bit confused here. How can you write a Proposal on the Right of Privacy and not have the Freedom of Information in mind?

[Greenlandic People]

Freedom of information is not what this is about.

I'm a bit confused here. How can you write a Proposal on the Right of Privacy and not have the Freedom of Information in mind?

That would be an example of rhetoric fallen flat. I misspoke; of course the right to information is an important part of this resolution