Advertisement
by Auralia » Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:03 am
by Cute Puppies » Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:46 am
Auralia wrote:((OOC: I don't understand all the people claiming that cross-border data privacy and retention aren't international issues. They certainly are in real life.))
by Auralia » Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:31 am
Cute Puppies wrote:OOC: It could be, but remember that the WA hosts a very diverse membership of nations with unique cultures, economic systems, social structures, and perspectives on WA legislation, so it's best not to entirely rely on real world examples...
Cute Puppies wrote:It would have been best to have extended the drafting period and recurve constructive criticism and suggestions for changes beforehand to make a more agreeable proposal.
by Stoskavanya » Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:31 am
Cute Puppies wrote:OOC: It could be, but remember that the WA hosts a very diverse membership of nations with unique cultures, economic systems, social structures, and perspectives on WA legislation, so it's best not to entirely rely on real world examples. It would have been best to have extended the drafting period and recurve constructive criticism and suggestions for changes beforehand to make a more agreeable proposal.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:45 am
Auralia wrote:((OOC: I have no problem with GA authors assuming a strict MT baseline, and I generally do so in my own work. Accordingly, contemporary real world examples take primacy in terms of determining what constitutes an international issue and how best to go about dealing with it.))
by Dirty Americans » Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:00 am
by Kenmoria » Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:26 am
by Shaktirajya » Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:44 am
by Tacela Islands » Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:25 am
by The New California Republic » Sat Apr 21, 2018 6:34 am
by Frisbeeteria » Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:20 am
The New California Republic wrote:OOC: It is now inevitable that this proposal is going to lose the vote. Most of the major regional delegates have voted against, and it is highly unlikely that enough will change their minds to make a difference.
by Wallenburg » Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:30 pm
Frisbeeteria wrote:The New California Republic wrote:OOC: It is now inevitable that this proposal is going to lose the vote. Most of the major regional delegates have voted against, and it is highly unlikely that enough will change their minds to make a difference.
As they say in the Old Country, "Don't count your chickens until they rip your lips off". It could still change not that I think it will and speculative posts like this are really just spam. Let's not do that anymore.
by Triangle And Square » Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:40 am
Before us is a well-intentioned proposal that would ensure that states cannot force companies to keep excessive amounts of data on consumers. However, good intentions do not make a good proposal. The proposal often uses vague terms and language that makes it difficult to read. Additionally, we believe that this is not an issue worthy of being brought before this esteemed Assembly.
For these reasons the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the proposal.
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Absolutely not, this is a patently absurd and frankly disgusting change that I am absolutely appalled you would even suggest. Absolutely unacceptable.
by Scherzinger » Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:40 pm
by Kenmoria » Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:41 pm
Scherzinger wrote:And just why would we care about people's privacy? We as government officials can and will store what we deem necessary to be monitored.
by Hessere » Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:28 am
Scherzinger wrote:And just why would we care about people's privacy? We as government officials can and will store what we deem necessary to be monitored.
by Kenmoria » Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:48 am
New Keam wrote:There is merit to some of the idea, but the presentation is poor. I think this one would do better if it went back to the drawing board.
by Imperial Polk County » Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:00 am
by Libre-Terre » Mon Apr 23, 2018 11:18 am
by New-Brussels » Mon Apr 23, 2018 12:15 pm
Libre-Terre wrote:LIBRE-TERRE DEPARTMENT OF THE EXTERIOROFFICE OF THE AMBASSADOR AT LARGE FOR THE WORLD ASSEMBLY
MEMO:
Following a through review by this office, with the advice of the Department of Telecommunications and National Security Advisory Committee, Ambassador Piroux has officially placed the Government of Libre-Terre In Opposition to the End Excessive Data Retention Act. The following concerns have been noted:
1.) Legislative language is vague and weak
2.) Legislative language shows favor to private enterprise
3.) Compliance with this legislation contradicts current national security practices and legislation in Libre-Terre
by Wrapper » Tue Apr 24, 2018 1:32 am
”End Excessive Data Retention Act" was defeated 15,212 votes to 3,661.
by The New California Republic » Tue Apr 24, 2018 3:04 am
Wrapper wrote:”End Excessive Data Retention Act" was defeated 15,212 votes to 3,661.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement