OOC: And the opposition of a lot of others to this proposal I suspect...
Advertisement
by The New California Republic » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:16 pm
by Cute Puppies » Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:14 pm
Avgrunden wrote:Currently 103/105 approvals.
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:16 pm
by Arotania » Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:03 am
Avgrunden wrote:
- Defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
- "Communications Provider" as any business, such as an internet service provider, that engages in the service of transferring electronic data.
- "Data" as any electronic information derived from a customer's use of a communications provider's services.
Avgrunden wrote:"Data Retention Law" as any government mandate requiring communications providers to retain all customer data for a period of time.
by Wallenburg » Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:33 am
by Araraukar » Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:58 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Avgrunden » Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:19 am
Wallenburg wrote:How is this of international importance?
by Avgrunden » Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:35 am
Arotania wrote:Avgrunden wrote:"Data Retention Law" as any government mandate requiring communications providers to retain all customer data for a period of time.
So any government mandate requiring communications providers to retain only most but not all customer data for a period of time would not be a "Data Retention Law" according to this proposal? 2a. again doubles down on the 'all data' bit. Was this proposal written by the Department of Redundancy Department?
by The New California Republic » Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:47 am
Wallenburg wrote:How is this of international importance?
by Avgrunden » Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:51 am
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Given subclause 4.a. and the specifying "member nations" at each clause, I question the chosen strength.
Also, all this does is saying that member nations can't make national laws requiring data storage for longer than 90 days. It doesn't say the WA can't make such a law.
by Araraukar » Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:48 am
Avgrunden wrote:You are correct. EEDRA would not prevent the WA from, in the future, creating a resolution that itself forced communications providers to retain data for a period longer than 90 days.
However, such a resolution would have to be entirely self-executing
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Arotania » Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:15 am
Avgrunden wrote:Arotania wrote:
So any government mandate requiring communications providers to retain only most but not all customer data for a period of time would not be a "Data Retention Law" according to this proposal? 2a. again doubles down on the 'all data' bit. Was this proposal written by the Department of Redundancy Department?
We've been trying to cut the DRD budget for decades.
OOC:
Jokes aside, the redundancy is a feature, not a bug. The redundancy makes it crystal clear that we're referencing electronic data, as opposed to paper data in a file cabinet somewhere.
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:29 am
by Wallenburg » Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:07 am
Avgrunden wrote:The internet is inherently cross-jurisdictional in nature.
That is why the World Assembly must enact minimum standards to protect data privacy and security.
OOC:
I'll need to draw an example from the real world to illustrate my point.
Internet data is usually not stored in one singular location. Your data could be (and probably is) stored in multiple places around the globe.
Take Google for example. When you interact with a Google service (Google search, Google Drive, Google Maps, you name it), Google collects data on you. This data is then broken up into "shards" and stored in multiple data centers.
Here's some resources on Google data centers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Da ... #Locations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shard_(da ... chitecture)
Now imagine for a second that this data is stored in two data servers. One server is located in a country that has reasonable standards for data privacy. The other server is located in a country where communications providers are forced, by law, to keep that data for long periods of time. It isn't sufficient for nations to individually enact laws protecting data privacy and security when that same data is located on another part of the globe.
by Avgrunden » Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:29 am
Information is power. Those who wield the most information, at the end of the day, win. With more and more of our lives being lived electronically, communications providers have that power of information. And through the use of data retention laws, that power is given to the government, often with no limitations or oversight.
With great power comes great responsibility. The optimists among us may believe that the power of information will always be used responsibly by member states. But the realists among us know better. We know that power always has the potential for abuse.
With the advent of the internet and the constant flow of data worldwide, purely domestic solutions to data retention are impossible. Even if some networks remain entirely local, the world is becoming increasingly globalized.
Communications providers are selling your data. That data is travelling across the world to who-knows-where.
The Free Lands of Avgrunden have laws on our books protecting our citizens private data. But we also want our tech companies to be able to compete in a global marketplace. When our companies engage in commerce overseas, our companies have to follow the laws of those other countries, which can include forced data retention. In this global marketplace, our own national laws are insufficient to ensure that our own tech companies can protect customer data.
But this problem is not specific to Avgrunden. As technology companies move and compete around the globe, they have to comply with a myriad of local laws, many of which are ill-suited for the modern world.
EEDRA is not a fix-all for the issue of data privacy, nor would we claim it to be. Of course, private actors can still create these same problems by voluntarily storing massive amounts of data for excessive periods of time.
But EEDRA removes a significant roadblock on the road to data privacy and security: government coercion. Without EEDRA, consumers have no choice. Communications providers have no choice.
With EEDRA, communications providers are not forced to retain data for lengthy periods of time. This leaves a wide door open for a new generation of tech companies who care about their consumers' data privacy.
by Hessere » Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:37 pm
by Araraukar » Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:41 pm
Avgrunden wrote:*snip*
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by The Holy Cee » Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:09 pm
by Kenmoria » Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:24 pm
(OOC: This. There is no reason for the proposal to have submitted so early nor for it not be withdrawn once several changes that should have been made became apparent.)Hessere wrote:Reiterating points some have made thus far in this thread, but:
The fact that you seem to be completely deflecting any criticisms directed at your proposal and the nonexistent drafting time, plus the nature of said issue (more a minor domestic one), garners me (and many others) an against. I (and, again, as well as many others) strongly suggest you pull it and look it over.
by Nasod » Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:39 pm
Prohibits:
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.
...
Does Not:
Prevent communications providers from voluntarily storing customer data for periods greater than 90 days.
by Arotania » Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:58 pm
Araraukar wrote:Avgrunden wrote:*snip*
OOC: All you're doing is to make it impossible to create a national law that demands data be stored forever. You do nothing to limit the companies like Google or Facebook or whatnot from keeping the data forever, and I think that's the real problem with data retention.
by Imperial Polk County » Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:45 am
by The New California Republic » Fri Apr 20, 2018 5:14 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement