[DEFEATED] Cyberweapons Control Act

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: Submitted for approval

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Submitted for approval

(OOC: Good luck, I’m currently undecided IC but the proposal looks non-offensive and sensible enough that I can’t see any major objections occurring.)

[Greater Cesnica]

(OOC: Alright, thank you!)

[Imperial Polk County]

"As written, I must oppose this. Your definition of Cyberwarfare is far too broad, particularly the part about causing 'significant negative political... damage'. If the president of XYZ Nation were to come to our nation and stagger around the park naked and drunk -- assuming such acts were frowned upon in XYZ Nation -- and we were to publish those pictures online, that would certainly cause a considerable amount of political damage, and would fit your definition of Cyberwarfare."

[The Confederate Territory]

Does not have my support. Cyberweapons should be completely deregulated anyways.

[Greater Cesnica]

(OOC: Cyberweapons are clearly defined above that passage)

[Araraukar]

OOC: Slipping espionage in as something that's restricted, rather than, you know, just causing damages, will likely work against you quite badly.

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: Slipping espionage in as something that's restricted, rather than, you know, just causing damages, will likely work against you quite badly.

OOC: Espionage is defined as confined to the information-sphere and intelligence environment of the target state. The term 'restricted is used in lieu of the term 'confined'.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
Personally, I'd consider this closer to 'Mild' rather than to 'Significant', but that's arguable enough that I won't [be the first GenSec member to] declare it illegal on this basis.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Espionage is defined as confined to the information-sphere and intelligence environment of the target state.

OOC: ...I fail to see how using the Internet makes it NOT a huge restriction on espionage.

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: Espionage is defined as confined to the information-sphere and intelligence environment of the target state.

OOC: ...I fail to see how using the Internet makes it NOT a huge restriction on espionage.

OOC:

"II. Cyberwarfare is a technique carried out exclusively via electronic warfare devices, or cyberweapons as designated in Clause I and Clause II, in contrast to Espionage, which may be carried out via existing electronic surveillance programs or physical placements of spies and diplomatic infiltrations."

Espionage is clearly not restricted to only cyber.

[Araraukar]

OOC: ...I fail to see how using the Internet makes it NOT a huge restriction on espionage.

OOC:

"II. Cyberwarfare is a technique carried out exclusively via electronic warfare devices, or cyberweapons as designated in Clause I and Clause II, in contrast to Espionage, which may be carried out via existing electronic surveillance programs or physical placements of spies and diplomatic infiltrations."

Espionage is clearly not restricted to only cyber.

OOC: Well of course it's not only restricted to the datasphere, but a lot of it is. Also, your weird philosophy clauses aren't actual definitions as given at the start of the proposal, which by the way still classify actual regular computers and mobile phones and digital cameras and so forth as cyberweapons because of the inclusion of political damage in the cyberwarfare definition. The cyberweapon definition, with "to be designated and treated" does not actually eliminate them from the list, since you can "designate and treat" a newborn baby as a nuclear weapon - that they actually aren't, doesn't matter, when you're required to designate and treat them as one.

And because all of that, your attempt to separate espionage from actual cyberwarfare falls flat, because many of the things used in "normal" espionage are still included in the cyberweapon definition. Especially as you mention "existing electronic surveillance programs".

Do you understand the problem here?

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC:
Espionage is clearly not restricted to only cyber.

OOC: Well of course it's not only restricted to the datasphere, but a lot of it is. Also, your weird philosophy clauses aren't actual definitions as given at the start of the proposal, which by the way still classify actual regular computers and mobile phones and digital cameras and so forth as cyberweapons because of the inclusion of political damage in the cyberwarfare definition. The cyberweapon definition, with "to be designated and treated" does not actually eliminate them from the list, since you can "designate and treat" a newborn baby as a nuclear weapon - that they actually aren't, doesn't matter, when you're required to designate and treat them as one.

And because all of that, your attempt to separate espionage from actual cyberwarfare falls flat, because many of the things used in "normal" espionage are still included in the cyberweapon definition. Especially as you mention "existing electronic surveillance programs".

Do you understand the problem here?

It is a case of iffy wording, I realize.

[Araraukar]

It is a case of iffy wording, I realize.

OOC: You could withdraw it to fix it. If you really care about the topic, like you said you did, you'd do just that. If you're just after a badge, you're going to not withdraw and instead try to see it passed even if it means it has to be repealed to fix the issues, then.

And as long as it's a resolution, it's going to give authoritarian nations the right to walk over people's rights to do anything, in the name of restricting "cyber warfare".

...actually fairly sure that means it has to contradict something, but too tired to research enough for a proper challenge.

[Greater Cesnica]

i'm pulling it.

EDIT: I've decided against it. I know, spontaneous. But, here are my reasons.

I want to make this clear right now, since there seems to be a bit of (understandable) confusion at the moment. When I refer to 'political' damage, I am referring to a detrimental, quantifiable effect against the electoral system, legislature or national assembly, or a certain political party. As we are aware, this implies the real life comparison of the back of the DNC by Russian hackers, most likely state-sponsored. The magnitude of the attack and seizure and leak of information yielded by the DNC constitutes a quantifiable effect against a political party, and due to the timing of the hacks, the electoral system and process.

Secondly, if I were to define 'political' damage within the proposal, it would be prudent to define 'economic' damage, and the such. If I were to take that course of action, I would find myself over 5000 characters- a character limit that I feel should be raised to 7500 characters, but it is what it is.

Thirdly, the insinuation that I'm badgehunting is rather hurtful, and quite rude. I have already addressed this via TG in a clear and transparent manner. I understand that you may have your concerns, however I feel that the minor phrasing issue within the proposal is not of a magnitude and degree sufficient to cause me to pull the proposal. Now, if anyone can find a category contradiction, a contradiction of existing legislation, or a grievous clause error that sinks all active clauses, I will pull it right there.

[Furry Things]

I feel like this proposal is a mix things that are vague and exploitable and a lot of verbiage that just seems to weigh it down and make it clunky. I'm also a bit disappointed that you didn't pull it to make more changes. I think this proposal definitely needs more drafting time. So, at least for now, I vote against.

[Demiurges]

Wholeheartedly voting AGAINST

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

Cyberweapons or probably more known as hacking and endangerment of security is a consistent problem. This will be highly be ineffective as hacker boyz will continue to try to manipulate their own ends for their own gains against many soveirn nations. I am not sure why they diddn't just recognize it as so and saying electronic devices that cause significant damage to populaitons you might as well ban the iphone.

[Araraukar]

When I refer to 'political' damage, I am referring to a detrimental, quantifiable effect against the electoral system, legislature or national assembly, or a certain political party.

OOC: Which you should have actually written into the proposal. When you leave wording vague, you can't blame people for reading it as such. I told you way before you submitted it, that the inclusion of "political" was going to be a problem. Your for some reason chose to include it anyway. I don't understand your reasoning, even with ^that explanation, and certainly not without any explanation.

Secondly, if I were to define 'political' damage within the proposal, it would be prudent to define 'economic' damage, and the such.

Which is another thing you probably should've left out, but if you had nixed the bits about espionage (the inclusion of which is a third incomprehensible bit) and trying to explain how it's not applicable (despite your definitions making it totally applicable anyway), you'd have had all the space needed.

Thirdly, the insinuation that I'm badgehunting is rather hurtful, and quite rude. I have already addressed this via TG in a clear and transparent manner.

Yet you didn't pull the proposal from the queue for repairs. Your actions speak louder than your words.

or a grievous clause error that sinks all active clauses, I will pull it right there.

You can't pull it anymore now that it's at vote. As for contradiction, I'm fairly sure there was something about freedom of speech/press, but without checking I can't say sure if there was something extant about not being allowed to censor the Internet or access to it entirely...

However, your definitions are the grievous errors that were pointed out to you several times. You chose to ignore the errors and instead create something that'll let nations strip free speech devices (like, you know, computers or smartphones that let people post "politically damaging" stuff online or arrange protests or whatnot - the Arab Spring comes to mind, and you can't claim the effect there wasn't politically damaging) from people in the name of preventing cyberwarfare. That's why I'm not replying in IC, and why I voted against it for OOC reasons, because in IC Araraukar would be all for such a thing being put into effect. It's a totalitarian nation, you know? A fair bet is that anything that makes those in power practically salivate, is bad for people's rights.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Submitted for approval

(OOC: Good luck, I’m currently undecided IC but the proposal looks non-offensive and sensible enough that I can’t see any major objections occurring.)

(OOC: Based on the above post, this has now change. The idea of regulating cyber weapons is a very good one with a lot of execution, but the execution of this, particularly the definitions, doesn’t sit well with me. My vote is now against the proposal. I recommend redrafting this significantly and reworking the clauses to be less vague and general.)

[Araraukar]

OOC: On the "issues with existing resolutions", these came to mind quickly:

GA #27, Freedom of Assembly:

1.) All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view.

2.) No Government, Federal Authority, Corporation, or any other political or social group may take any action to infringe upon these rights; unless the individuals organizing are trespassing on private property and/or if circumstances beyond the control of the Government threaten the safety of those organizing.

3.) These things having been ordained, states that Freedom of Assembly cannot be extended towards any call for: violence, rioting, and/or actions that would cause harm to innocent people.

GA #155, Freedom of the Press:

Defining a media technology to be any technology used for mass communication of information, including but not limited to the Internet, television, newspapers, and radio;

*snip*

1. Nations will allow national news media organisations to utilise all available media technologies to report news from and to areas inside their own borders, as well as from any other World Assembly nation.

*snip*

4. Citizens will not be banned from accessing any news sources from news media organisations operating both within and outside the nation's borders.

5. Reports from news media organisations operating within the nation's borders can only be censored if they pose a genuine threat to the security of the nation. Otherwise they are free to report news in accordance with any national freedom of expression laws and broadcasting codes of conduct.

GA #436, Protecting Free Expression:

1. Defines, for the sake of this resolution, the following terms:

1. "free expression" as the ability to outwardly demonstrate, articulate, or otherwise express a political, cultural, social, moral, religious, ideological or other belief without fear of state punishment or reprisal,
2. "defamation" as any exercise of expression which seeks to maliciously injure the reputation of another individual, group, or organisation, on the basis of false information, excluding satire and the critique of public servants in matters pertaining to their role,

2.Permits member nations to enact reasonable restrictions on peaceful free expression in those cases where the expression constitutes:

1. defamation, as defined in section 1b,
2. blatant and explicit pornographic material,
3. an incitement to violence or widespread lawlessness,
4. a threat to civilian or military health or safety,
5. perjury or any other threat to the functioning of judicial proceedings,
6. the leaking of classified information, or other information obtained in confidence, except where the information constitutes evidence of serious wrongdoing and disclosure thereof is clearly in the public interest,
7. an infringement on private or intellectual property rights,
8. a violation of prior, unrepealed international legislation,

3. Prohibits member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression, excepting the restrictions established in section 2, and restrictions required to fulfill the mandates of WA legislation, or restrictions permitted in future, unrepealed WA legislation,

I would say bits of GA #407, Convention on Internet Neutrality are also applicable, but 6.c. makes me doubt that enough to not actually include it properly.

You don't need to make any leaps of faith to read "cyber warfare" to include "posting politically damaging factual information about a nation's leader/significant political leader" because of the vagueness of "political damage". I'm sure someone like Trump or Putin would love to have their careless comments be considered a "matter of national security" and thus out of bounds of the resolutions above, but that interpretation would require such big leaps through hoops that it can't be considered to be a serious reason.

EDIT: This post can be used as material for a Legality Challenge by anyone willing to do so.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Off the top of my head, I see the proposal defines cyberweapons as items that can cause "electronic or physical damage," and that the type of "cyberwarfare" which causes prohibited political damage can only be carried out with "cyberweapons." This has the odd effect of making it illegal for hackers and soldiers to cause political damage (since their devices must be classified as cyberweapons, being capable of causing electronic or physical damage), but ordinary/unskilled people may go right ahead and advocate (and succeed in!) overthrowing the government under this proposal, since their devices are simply not dangerous in that manner.

Restricting speech rights based on profession or skill level is still restricting speech rights. On the other hand, they can always post their views from an internet cafe or a clean device - so there's no actual contradiction with free expression. I don't believe there's enough here for a successful challenge (I've been wrong before).

[San Macalin]

The definitions and use of "cyberweapons" and "cyberwarfare" are laughably broad and subjective. Sorry, but I'm voting against.

P.S.: The last line has a typo--should be "its" not "it's." Not like it matters now though :/

[Realm of Abbadon]

(OOC) I would vote for, however the fact that you state Cyber-warfare as causing political damage is too vague, and should be removed.
I think focusing solely on the ethics of damaging hospitals and humanitarian efforts would be better, but until then I have to vote no.

[Lord Dominator]

Dee coughs, "Ugh that formatting and those paragraphs pain me. That and your proposal is poorly written in general. Against."