[DEFEATED] End Excessive Data Retention Act

[Avgrunden]

End Excessive Data Retention Act
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

---

The General Assembly:

Recognizing that communications providers are being required by some governments to retain electronic data of their customers for an extended period of time.

Acknowledging that legitimate law enforcement often requires the cooperation of communications providers to combat crime and terrorism.

Concerned that forced data retention laws are imposing excessive costs on communications providers specifically, and on the technology sector generally.

Troubled that, absent reasonable restrictions, forced data retention could be abused by law enforcement to invade individual privacy.

Further troubled that, absent reasonable restrictions, forced data retention could compromise data security through leaks, hacks, and data breaches.

Affirming that an appropriate balance must be struck between the interests of privacy and the interests of law enforcement;

The General Assembly Hereby:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. "Communications Provider" as any business, such as an internet service provider, that engages in the service of transferring electronic data.
      
   2. "Data" as any electronic information derived from a customer's use of a communications provider's services.
      
   3. "Data Retention Law" as any government mandate requiring communications providers to retain all customer data for a period of time..
      
   4. "Data Retention Request" as any government action requesting that a communications provider retain a specific customer's data for a period of time.
2. Prohibits:
   
   1. World Assembly Member States from enacting or enforcing data retention laws that require communications providers to retain all customer data for a period greater than 90 days.
      
   2. World Assembly Member States from making a data retention request absent a showing of reasonable need for a specific customer's data in a law enforcement or national security investigation.
3. Requires:
   
   1. World Assembly Member States to establish procedures through which citizens and communications providers can challenge the legality of the state's data retention laws.
      
   2. World Assembly Member States to establish procedures through which communications providers can challenge a data retention request.
4. Does Not:
   
   1. Prevent communications providers from voluntarily storing customer data for periods greater than 90 days.
      
   2. Proscribe the exact procedures by which a World Assembly Member State is to comply with Sections 3a and 3b.
      
   3. Prevent World Assembly Member States from enacting laws that more strictly safeguard electronic data privacy.

The Free Lands of Avgrunden would love your support.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Use lists, don't use tabs.

Okay, I've reformatted your proposal. Feel free to use it.

Code: Select all

[box][b]End Forced Data Retention Act[/b]
Category: CATEGORY | Strength: STRENGTH
[hr][/hr]The General Assembly:

Recognizing that communications providers are being required by some governments to retain electronic data of their customers for an extended period of time;

Acknowledging that legitimate law enforcement often requires the cooperation of communications providers to combat crime and terrorism;

Concerned that forced data retention laws are imposing excessive costs on communications providers specifically, and on the technology sector generally;

Troubled that, absent reasonable restrictions, forced data retention could be abused by law enforcement to invade individual privacy;

Affirming that an appropriate balance must be struck between the interests of privacy and the interests of law enforcement;

The General Assembly Hereby:

[list=1][*]Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
[list=a][*]"Communication Providers" as businesses, such as internet service providers, that engage in the service of transferring electronic data.

[*] "Data" as any electronic information derived from a customer's use of a communications provider's services.

[*]"Data Retention Law" is any government mandate requiring communications providers to retain data for an extended period of time.[/list]

[*]Prohibits member states from enacting or enforcing data retention laws that require communications providers to retain a customer's data for a period greater than 90 days, unless the member state has shown a reasonable need for a specific customer's data in a law enforcement investigation.


[*]Requires member nations to allow communications providers to challenge a government request for the provider to retain data.


[*]Does Not:
[list=a][*]Prevent communications providers from voluntarily storing customer data for periods greater than 90 days.

[*]Proscribe the exact procedure by which a World Assembly Member State is to comply with Section 3(a).

[*]Prevent World Assembly Member States from enacting laws that more strictly safeguard electronic data privacy.[/list][/list][/box]

[Avgrunden]

The End Excessive Data Retention Act has been submitted, and currently needs 94 more votes to reach quorom.

In the event that EEDRA does not reach the floor, we will take it back to the drawing board and, after a reasonable period of time, resubmit it to the General Assembly Forum for further discussions and revisions.

[Cute Puppies]

OOC: One day and one response to your proposal is not enough to craft an effective proposal.

[Avgrunden]

OOC: One day and one response to your proposal is not enough to craft an effective proposal.

OOC: That's certainly true as a general rule.

What about this proposal specifically do you find ineffective?

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Why on earth has this been submitted already? It has had nowhere near enough time in the draft stage...

[Avgrunden]

OOC: Why on earth has this been submitted already? It has had nowhere near enough time in the draft stage...

Again, I recognize that, as a general rule, it is better to let proposals simmer in the draft stage for a lengthier period of time.

That being said, what specific aspects of the proposal do you find premature?

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Why on earth has this been submitted already? It has had nowhere near enough time in the draft stage...

Again, I recognize that, as a general rule, it is better to let proposals simmer in the draft stage for a lengthier period of time.

That being said, what specific aspects of the proposal do you find premature?

OOC: There are a few problems that I can see with it, but unfortunately it is past 1 in the morning here, so I will have to leave the comments for later.

[Cute Puppies]

OOC: One day and one response to your proposal is not enough to craft an effective proposal.

OOC: That's certainly true as a general rule.

What about this proposal specifically do you find ineffective?

OOC: You say that yet there it sits on the GA waiting to be approved... I will not propose any suggestions or edits until you remove it from the GA.

[Avgrunden]

OOC: That's certainly true as a general rule.

What about this proposal specifically do you find ineffective?

OOC: You say that yet there it sits on the GA waiting to be approved... I will not propose any suggestions or edits until you remove it from the GA.

That's fine, you don't have to.

I'm going to keep it up for the time being. If it fails to reach quorom, then I'll bring it back to the drawing board.

[Cute Puppies]

OOC: You say that yet there it sits on the GA waiting to be approved... I will not propose any suggestions or edits until you remove it from the GA.

That's fine, you don't have to.

I'm going to keep it up for the time being. If it fails to reach quorom, then I'll bring it back to the drawing board.

OOC: As a word of advice, I would recommend against keeping a proposal on the GA when you know it will inevitably not reach quorum, or to simply put it out there to attract attention. Not only does it waste the time of the dedicated WA secretariat, but it's a sign of greenness and desperation. Despite how taxing and irritating it is to wait days, weeks, or even months to draft a fully fleshed-out proposal, it'll dramatically increase your chances of getting it to pass.
It takes passion, time, and effort to craft a proposal worth adding to the GA. That's why there are nearly thirty thousand WA member nations, but only a couple hundred resolutions.

[Avgrunden]

That's fine, you don't have to.

I'm going to keep it up for the time being. If it fails to reach quorom, then I'll bring it back to the drawing board.

OOC: As a word of advice, I would recommend against keeping a proposal on the GA when you know it will inevitably not reach quorum, or to simply put it out there to attract attention. Not only does it waste the time of the dedicated WA secretariat, but it's a sign of greenness and desperation. Despite how taxing and irritating it is to wait days, weeks, or even months to draft a fully fleshed-out proposal, it'll dramatically increase your chances of getting it to pass.
It takes passion, time, and effort to craft a proposal worth adding to the GA. That's why there are nearly thirty thousand WA member nations, but only a couple hundred resolutions.

You've eloquently made your point that it is better to wait and draft rather than to quickly propose a resolution. Duly noted.

However, I fail to see how keeping it up for the time being would jeopardize its future viability. I'm not just looking to pass this specific resolution. I'm attempting to start a dialogue about digital civil liberties generally, and thought this resolution would be a great way to get the conversation started. Having this proposal up will, at the very least, increase the visibility of digital civil liberties issues generally.

And for the record, no, I don't "know" that it won't reach quorom.

[Cute Puppies]

OOC: As a word of advice, I would recommend against keeping a proposal on the GA when you know it will inevitably not reach quorum, or to simply put it out there to attract attention. Not only does it waste the time of the dedicated WA secretariat, but it's a sign of greenness and desperation. Despite how taxing and irritating it is to wait days, weeks, or even months to draft a fully fleshed-out proposal, it'll dramatically increase your chances of getting it to pass.
It takes passion, time, and effort to craft a proposal worth adding to the GA. That's why there are nearly thirty thousand WA member nations, but only a couple hundred resolutions.

You've eloquently made your point that it is better to wait and draft rather than to quickly propose a resolution. Duly noted.

However, I fail to see how keeping it up for the time being would jeopardize its future viability. I'm not just looking to pass this specific resolution. I'm attempting to start a dialogue about digital civil liberties generally, and thought this resolution would be a great way to get the conversation started. Having this proposal up will, at the very least, increase the visibility of digital civil liberties issues generally.

And for the record, no, I don't "know" that it won't reach quorom.

OOC: My apologies then.
It's very hard to start a dialogue with other nations over your proposals on digital civil liberties when you've already acted hypocritically (publishing your draft despite acknowledging that posting a draft one day after making it is objectively ridiculous) and selfishly (publishing a draft solely to attract attention, especially when it means wasting the time of the secretariat and WA members). These actions alone set a bad image for yourself and any future proposals you have planned, and I believe that many are dissuaded from helping you craft a proposal on digital civil liberties after how terribly you put yourself out there.
This is my advice. Take it or leave it by how you see fit. I believe you already have your mind made so unless you care to unsubmit you draft, I'm done engaging in an unproductive conversation. Good luck.

[Avgrunden]

You've eloquently made your point that it is better to wait and draft rather than to quickly propose a resolution. Duly noted.

However, I fail to see how keeping it up for the time being would jeopardize its future viability. I'm not just looking to pass this specific resolution. I'm attempting to start a dialogue about digital civil liberties generally, and thought this resolution would be a great way to get the conversation started. Having this proposal up will, at the very least, increase the visibility of digital civil liberties issues generally.

And for the record, no, I don't "know" that it won't reach quorom.

OOC: My apologies then.
It's very hard to start a dialogue with other nations over your proposals on digital civil liberties when you've already acted hypocritically (publishing your draft despite acknowledging that posting a draft one day after making it is objectively ridiculous) and selfishly (publishing a draft solely to attract attention, especially when it means wasting the time of the secretariat and WA members). These actions alone set a bad image for yourself and any future proposals you have planned, and I believe that many are dissuaded from helping you craft a proposal on digital civil liberties after how terribly you put yourself out there.
This is my advice. Take it or leave it by how you see fit. I believe you already have your mind made so unless you care to unsubmit you draft, I'm done engaging in an unproductive conversation. Good luck.

First, I haven't remotely suggested that posting a draft a day after making it is "objectively ridiculous". I agreed that, as a general rule, it is usually better to spend more time rather than less time in the drafting stage. However, a proposal is not automatically ineffective, premature, or unworthy of discussion for the sole reason of it having less drafting time.

Second, I haven't remotely suggested that I posted the proposal solely for the purposes of attracting attention to an issue. Attracting attention to an issue is certainly one reason why I submitted the proposal. Of course, I submitted the proposal with the intention of it reaching quorom and ultimately passing, with the realistic understanding that many proposals become nothing more than proposals.

[New Mushroom Kingdom]

Ambassador Holly enters the room, having previously forwarded the proposal to the Ministry of Intelligence for review and ready to tell the representative from Avgrunden their comments on it. She says calmly "After review, while I and the government do not feel this topic is one deserving of WA legislation, we find no reason to object to his draft. However, we do have some comments to make on specific parts of your proposal, which I will elaborate for you."

Troubled that, absent reasonable restrictions, forced data retention could be abused by law enforcement to invade individual privacy.

"The WA does not recognize legitimate surveillance as an infringement on privacy, and neither do I. Not to mention, the internet in general is not a private place for those on it - anyone merely expecting high levels of privacy is a fool that will be surprised when shown otherwise"

Further troubled that, absent reasonable restrictions, forced data retention could compromise data security through leaks, hacks, and data breaches.

"Only for the large number of organizations that are incompetent at ensuring information security of their important data. Much less likely to occur if you actually care about securing your privately retained data."

Requires:

World Assembly Member States to establish procedures through which citizens and communications providers can challenge the legality of the state's data retention laws.

"Legality according to what, exactly? In my country is there is no mechanism for laws to be illegal, because they are the definition of legal and illegal."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm opposed to the proposal.

[Kenmoria]

"People, including me, generally oppose any proposal that has been drafted less than it should have been. However, we would oppose this anyway even if it were to have been drafted for longer."

[Grays Harbor]

Prevent communications providers from voluntarily storing customer data for periods greater than 90 days.

So, no more pic/image storage on servers or websites, blogs, news media, pretty much everything; all disappears after 90 days. And for what? To keep police from "abusing" internet/communications privacy while gathering evidence for criminal cases. This is not very well thought out, and the amount of "unintended" (perhaps) consequences of this will be far greater than what you seem to think you are accomplishing. Which is making the internet and all other communications safer for criminal activity.

Not a good plan.

[Auralia]

Prevent communications providers from voluntarily storing customer data for periods greater than 90 days.

So, no more pic/image storage on servers or websites, blogs, news media, pretty much everything; all disappears after 90 days...

((OOC: I suggest you read that section again. It does not do what you think it does.))

[Masurbia]

Recognizing that communications providers are being required by some governments to retain electronic data of their customers for an extended period of time.

Could you provide examples of these governments?

[Avgrunden]

So, no more pic/image storage on servers or websites, blogs, news media, pretty much everything; all disappears after 90 days...

((OOC: I suggest you read that section again. It does not do what you think it does.))

OOC: Was going to comment this, but you got there first. Thanks!

That clause was written with that issue in mind. EEDRA does not impose any requirements on communications providers themselves. It only imposes requirements on Member States.

[Masurbia]

The General Assembly:

I would change this to World Assembly.

The General Assembly Hereby:

And then shorten this to just "Hereby."

Prohibits:
World Assembly Member States

And condense all of these to just "Member-States."

[Avgrunden]

Troubled that, absent reasonable restrictions, forced data retention could be abused by law enforcement to invade individual privacy.

"The WA does not recognize legitimate surveillance as an infringement on privacy, and neither do I. Not to mention, the internet in general is not a private place for those on it - anyone merely expecting high levels of privacy is a fool that will be surprised when shown otherwise"

EEDRA does not itself deal with surveillance. EEDRA would not prevent a Member State from installing a bug on someone's computer to track their digital activities.

EEDRA only deals with Member States forcing communications providers to keep data after that digital activity has taken place. And even then, Member States are not completely barred from doing so - they can force providers to keep it up to 90 days, or they can make a data retention request for a specific customer's data.

Further troubled that, absent reasonable restrictions, forced data retention could compromise data security through leaks, hacks, and data breaches.

"Only for the large number of organizations that are incompetent at ensuring information security of their important data. Much less likely to occur if you actually care about securing your privately retained data."

Very true. But as you recognized yourself, a large number of communications providers are incompetent in this regard. Incompetent providers are being forced, by law, to retain data for excessive periods of time, creating gold mines for would-be hackers.

But even if every single communications provider in the world(s) was 100% competent, no security system is infallible. Hackers are sophisticated, and are capable of exploiting weaknesses in any system.

Requires:

World Assembly Member States to establish procedures through which citizens and communications providers can challenge the legality of the state's data retention laws.

"Legality according to what, exactly? In my country is there is no mechanism for laws to be illegal, because they are the definition of legal and illegal."

Legality according to World Assembly law. All Member States must abide by General Assembly resolutions. If a Member State's law violates World Assembly law, that Member State law is illegal, regardless of that Member State's legal system.

Additionally, the language of the clause would also cover the legality of such laws within the framework of each Member State's legal system. If, for example, a Member State (through their own laws) only allowed data to be kept for 60 days instead of the full 90, this clause would require a Member State to have some sort of procedure for challenging the law. However, this situation would not apply to you - as you have stated, there are no internal mechanisms in your country for one of your laws to be illegal.

If this clause truly concerns you, keep in mind that EEDRA explicitly allows member states to craft their own procedures for these challenges. Your procedure could, presumably, be extremely deferential to your government and still comply with the language of EEDRA.

[Avgrunden]

Looks as though this could actually hit quorum. For all of you who have approved the proposal, we offer our thanks and gratitude.

[Masurbia]

Looks as though this could actually hit quorum. For all of you who have approved the proposal, we offer our thanks and gratitude.

Your inability to answer our concerns has earned our opposition to this proposal.